Addressing What Matters: Yes, No and Sometimes Maybe

I could write many blog posts about Addressing in the United Kingdom, and I probably will – it being my motherland and so very challenging.? But one of the things that stands out the most to people who notice addresses is the house number and naming standards.

?

With historical context this bonkers standard is understandable, but being understandable doesn’t really make it sensible.

?

You see for centuries houses were named (and by house, I don’t mean the wattle and daub hovel of my ancestry).? Names were inspired by geographical locations like "Riverside".? Or there were houses named after historical events like “Waterloo House”.? Or prominent distinctive architectural and landscaping features such as “Oak Cottage”.? Then there were owners who named houses after themselves or their occupation like "Smith Cottage".

?

Then in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, house numbering became popular as urbanization and property density made naming impractical.? One of the earliest known examples is on Queen Square in Bloomsbury London where in 1765, during the Age of Enlightenment, social reformer Jonas Hanway decided it would be useful to the postal service and simply neater to number rather than name houses.

?

So, this is not too bad you might think.? Houses either have “a Name” OR “a Number”.

?

Sadly not! Because in Britain we also like to have “vanity names” on our houses.? This makes sense if you understand the social class structure where a modicum of imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.? The most popular vanity names being “The Cottage”, “Rose Cottage”, “The Bungalow”, “The Coach House” and “School House”.

?

The problem really comes when your house has a number and a name because then there are no rules.? You can use the name, or you can use the number, or you can use both together.? And that is just a hard thing to handle in a computer system.? But that’s what we are here for, I guess!