Yas'm, Ah finely foun'him. In a bahroom, lak you told me. He?

By the way, when i looked up mockney, the article wrote of "Estuary English." Are they suggesting that people in northern Kent and southern Essex speak in the same manner as those who have been called Cockneys? If they are, is that correct?

Depends on how developed your ear is. There is a difference, but it's really only noticeable to those from London and the home counties.

Well, i find that odd. When troops were assembling for King Henry's army to invade France in the early 15th century, those from north of the river found the speech of the Kentish to be almost incomprehensible. An example is the word for egg. Most speakers of English used eye (singular) and eyern (plural), while the people of Kent said egge and egges. There were other differences, too. The word ship meant absolutely nothing to the Kentish, who didn't have that word. This was recorded in correspondence because they were buying their rations from the Kentish, and asking for directions to Rochester ( Hrofescester or Rovescester) and other places where they could "take ship." There was correspondence with the Exchequer because the King was obliged to reimburse the captains for rations for their troops.

It would not surprise me to learn that the people Essex spoke like the Londoners, but it would very much surprise me to learn that the people of Kent did.

Accents have changed a lot since WW1, let alone the 15th Century.

I know the story about egges and eyren and how the stallholder said she could speak no French.

I would suspect it's a mass media effect. After all, one can easily walk from Houndsditch to Chelmsford. Rochester, not so much.

You mentioned estuary English before, which is very much a post war phenomenon, and you're right. Improved communications, not just media, but railways and roads has smoothed out a lot of differences.

I was born in Gillingham. I have a Kent accent, whenever I go to London they think I'm a local.

That's some good reading fellas. Thanks