For more than a thousand years, Middlesex was a name on the map of England.

Then, in 1965, it effectively disappeared from local government.

Now, more than 60 years later, the name could be making an extraordinary comeback, including for people living many miles from historic Middlesex.

Under Surrey's local government reorganisation, Farnham, Woking and much of the west of the county will become part of a new authority currently known as West Surrey Council.

But councillors have voted to ask for it to be renamed West Surrey and South Middlesex Council, reflecting Spelthorne's historic Middlesex roots.

If approved, residents from Farnham to Woking could therefore find themselves receiving council tax bills, voting in elections and accessing services from a local authority carrying the Middlesex name.

It would be a remarkable return for a name removed from local government more than six decades ago.

But to understand why some councillors – and one of Britain's best-known astrologers – are so determined to bring Middlesex back, you have to go much further back than 1965.

Its origins stretch back to Anglo-Saxon times and the Middle Saxons who gave the county its name.

The earliest known written reference dates from 704, when a charter referred to the province of the Middle Saxons, while by the time of the Domesday Book in 1086 Middlesex was divided into six hundreds – Edmonton, Elthorne, Gore, Hounslow, Ossulstone and Spelthorne.

For centuries, Middlesex occupied the land immediately north and west of London, with the capital an ever-growing presence on its doorstep.

But if April 1, 1965, is remembered as the day Middlesex disappeared from the local government map, its administrative decline had begun more than 75 years earlier.

The Local Government Act 1888 created elected county councils across England and Wales and established a new County of London.

When the changes took effect in 1889, a large part of historic Middlesex was included in the new London authority, leaving the newly created Middlesex County Council administering a considerably smaller territory than the traditional county whose name it carried.

There was even a geographical curiosity at the heart of the arrangement.

Middlesex County Council's eventual headquarters were at the imposing Middlesex Guildhall in Parliament Square – today the home of the UK Supreme Court – despite the building standing within the new administrative County of London.

Nevertheless, Middlesex remained a powerful identity.

Its name appeared on letters and road signs, gave generations of residents a sense of where they belonged and lent itself to everything from schools and hospitals to one of England's most famous cricket clubs.

Then came 1965.

By the middle of the 20th century, London had spread far beyond its old boundaries. Places including Harrow, Wembley, Ealing, Hounslow, Enfield and Uxbridge had become part of the vast suburban landscape surrounding the capital.

The question of how this sprawling metropolis should be governed was examined by the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London, chaired by Sir Edwin Herbert.

The Conservative government responded with the London Government Bill, with Housing and Local Government Minister Sir Keith Joseph playing a leading role in steering the reforms through Parliament.

Joseph would later become one of the leading thinkers behind the free-market ideas associated with Margaret Thatcher. Considered a potential challenger to Edward Heath after the Conservatives' October 1974 election defeat, he decided not to stand and Thatcher entered the leadership contest instead.

But more than a decade earlier, Joseph had been at the centre of another political battle – over the future of London and Middlesex.

The Government's solution was to create Greater London and sweep away the existing London and Middlesex county councils.

The proposals provoked fierce opposition.

In January 1963, Middlesex County Council passed a resolution warning that the legislation would cause “severe disruption” to services including education, children's services and welfare.

Labour MPs also lined up against the plans.

Michael Stewart argued there was no public mandate for such far-reaching changes affecting millions of people and called for the issue to be put before voters at a general election.

Richard Marsh, another Labour MP and a future cabinet minister, accused the Government of pushing through controversial reforms against the wishes of those affected.

The row continued when the legislation reached the House of Lords.

Lord Lindgren attacked the Bill as “a piece of political gerrymandering” and questioned why Middlesex County Council needed to disappear at all.

Opponents pointed out that Middlesex was not being reorganised because its county council had failed. During the Lords debates, both Middlesex and London county councils were held up as examples of established local government whose work was studied by visitors from overseas.

Lord Shepherd also pushed for a delay, arguing that local authorities had not agreed to the proposals and questioning how democratic the process had been.

But the Conservative government prevailed and the London Government Act 1963 received Royal Assent.

There was, however, one final political twist.

Labour had bitterly opposed the reforms, but Harold Wilson defeated the Conservatives at the general election in October 1964, less than six months before Middlesex County Council was due to disappear.

The new Labour government did not reverse the changes it had opposed in Parliament.

So when Middlesex County Council finally ceased to exist on April 1, 1965, it did so under a Labour government implementing legislation passed by its Conservative predecessor.

Most of the administrative county became part of the new Greater London. But not all of it.

Potters Bar was transferred to Hertfordshire for local government purposes, while Staines and Sunbury-on-Thames were transferred to Surrey.

Another reorganisation followed in 1974, when Staines and Sunbury were brought together in the new borough of Spelthorne.

Even its name was a reminder of the area's much older Middlesex history.

Spelthorne took its name from the ancient Spelthorne Hundred, one of the six historic subdivisions of Middlesex recorded in the Domesday Book.

And while Middlesex County Council had gone, the argument over whether Middlesex itself had really disappeared never did.

Among those who have spent decades insisting it did not is TV personality and astrologer Russell Grant, president of Middlesex Heritage and a longstanding campaigner for recognition of the historic county.

He argues that what disappeared in 1965 was Middlesex County Council, not Middlesex itself.

He traces the erosion of the county's administrative identity back to the reforms of 1888, describing 1965 as the “dark days” when English local government was hit by a “wrecking ball”.

For Grant and fellow campaigners, administrative boundaries could not erase more than a thousand years of history or the loyalties of people who continued to regard Middlesex as their county.

Now Surrey's latest local government shake-up has presented an unexpected opportunity to put the name back into local government.

Grant has been among the proponents of adding South Middlesex to the name of the new West Surrey authority and has found allies among councillors themselves.

In March, Surrey county councillor Robert Evans, who was born in Ashford, Middlesex, successfully moved a motion calling for the new authority to be named West Surrey and South Middlesex.

Evans argued that the history of Middlesex could not simply be erased and that including it in the new council's name would recognise Spelthorne's distinctive past.

The campaign gathered further momentum in July when Spelthorne councillor Harry Boparai brought the issue before the newly elected shadow West Surrey Council.

Councillors voted by 58 to 15 to ask for the authority to be renamed West Surrey and South Middlesex Council.

It means that more than six decades after Middlesex County Council disappeared, its name could once again find a place in local government – this time on an authority stretching deep into Surrey.

For Grant, it would be about considerably more than the wording on a council letterhead.

His campaign is rooted in the belief that the changes which began in the Victorian era weakened identities stretching back to the beginnings of England itself.

And with the latest reorganisation providing what he sees as a rare opportunity to restore Middlesex to an official council name, he has directed his appeal to Housing Secretary Angela Rayner.

Writing in the Telegraph this week, Grant said the 1888 Act had “disrupted more than a thousand years of local identity – an identity rooted in kingdoms and provinces, many older than England itself”.

He argued that 2027 marks 1,100 years since the foundation of England and 1,322 years since Middlesex was first documented as an active province.

Urging her to bring back Middlesex, he said: “Please, Angela: become a history maker. Make it happen now.”