|
Post by bjornhattan on Apr 16, 2020 17:31:59 GMT
City status in the UK is not tied to population, and never has been, though most cities are sizeable places. Nor is it tied to the possession of an Anglican cathedral, though again many cities have one. If you have a charter saying you are a city (or have been so recognised since Time Immemorial), then you are a city. This applies as much to Birmingham as to Wells, to Belfast as much as Armagh, to Cardiff as much as St Davids. What you're suggesting is more akin to the American way of defining a city. It's too rigid, I'm afraid*. What we have ain't broke, so it doesn't need fixing. * And also runs the risk that cities would lose their status though population decline for random reasons, which I'm sure is not what you want. Pah, those charters are not worth the parchment (or what ever medium) they're written on! Disagree on that criteria being too rigid, and even if it was it's at least something consistent. What we have ain't right! It's one thing when larger towns are given city status, especially if they're major regional economic hubs or something of the sort, but when it's given to places that are essentially sleepy hamlets, that is just taking the piss. If something like that happens, too bad. The problem is that in recent years there has been a focus on giving the various nations fairly equal numbers of new cities. This is plainly absurd - England has far more large towns deserving of city status than Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland (mainly because it has a higher population). Reading, Bournemouth, Swindon, Guildford, and many other English towns are major regional centres, but if we continue awarding city status as we do now, they'll be waiting for a long time while far smaller towns . I can appreciate Scotland having smaller towns become cities - their lower population density means that even quite small places can serve as major centres for a wide area (the city of Oban might sound absurd, but how many people look to Oban as their main town?). But other than Wrexham or maybe Aberystwyth, whereabouts in Wales would merit such an honour?
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Apr 16, 2020 17:32:20 GMT
I’ve been here before, and as far as I am concerned a city is simply a continuous urban area with a population of more than 250,000. Anything between 100,000 and 250,000 is a large town. It’s irritating and stupid to refer to small towns as cities. Who cares whether they have a cathedral or a charter.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,355
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 16, 2020 21:24:31 GMT
I’ve been here before, and as far as I am concerned a city is simply a continuous urban area with a population of more than 250,000. Anything between 100,000 and 250,000 is a large town. It’s irritating and stupid to refer to small towns as cities. Who cares whether they have a cathedral or a charter. Who says you get to define the word city? Why on earth should it be based solely on numbers? Why are numbers of any importance at all?
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 16, 2020 23:22:47 GMT
The only city in the UK with 100% Conservative local councillors is St Asaph. If St. Asaph's a city then I'm the king of Belgium... I didn't realise that Beethoven was King of Belgium. Every day's a schoolday!
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 16, 2020 23:24:50 GMT
The correct title for the head of state of Belgium is the King of the Belgians. And St Asaph is of course a city. The fact that the King of the Belgians is called the King of the Belgians is not relevant, because Lord Twaddleford is not claiming to be the King of the Belgians; he is claiming (inaccurately, as far as I can tell) to be the King of Belgium.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 16, 2020 23:37:15 GMT
The correct title for the head of state of Belgium is the King of the Belgians. And St Asaph is of course a city. And of course I am neither, nor is St. Asaph a city (1); it certainly shouldn't be considered one (2), far too small (3). For the sake of consistency the term "city" really should be a purely technical one (4), i.e. a settlement with a population above a certain threshold (say, 75,000-100,000) (5), and not because it happens have a certain ecclesiastical structure within its boundaries (6) and/or because some other nebulous criteria (bloody Royal Prerogative...) (7); so of course that would mean that places such as Bournemouth, Luton, and Milton Keynes would count as cities, but the likes of Wells, Lichfield and Ely would not. By the way, yes, I do indeed plan to die on this hill. (8) (1) Oh yes it is (2) Yes it should, because it is one, because it's got a charter (3) size (either in terms of population or area) is irrelevant (4) it already is a purely technical term: if it's got a charter, it's a city; if not, not (5) irrelevant (6) irrelevant (7) "whether it has or has not got a charter" is not "nebulous"* (8) are you going to starve yourself to death slowly and painfully, or do you want us normal people to come and kill you quickly? *
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,355
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 17, 2020 8:46:50 GMT
The correct title for the head of state of Belgium is the King of the Belgians. And St Asaph is of course a city. The fact that the King of the Belgians is called the King of the Belgians is not relevant, because Lord Twaddleford is not claiming to be the King of the Belgians; he is claiming (inaccurately, as far as I can tell) to be the King of Belgium. I am very sensitive to words; their weight, body, euphony and general baggage. I have a long list of words and names that I like and another for those I dislike. On yet a third list are words that appear to be 'wrong' for some reason. Belgium is on that latter list. It looks, sounds and feels 'wrong'. It always looks incorrectly spelled (note I prefer the regular formation because spelt has a meaning as a noun) and it sounds odd. Belgian is a perfectly good word however.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Apr 17, 2020 9:04:51 GMT
The fact that the King of the Belgians is called the King of the Belgians is not relevant, because Lord Twaddleford is not claiming to be the King of the Belgians; he is claiming (inaccurately, as far as I can tell) to be the King of Belgium. I am very sensitive to words; their weight, body, euphony and general baggage. I have a long list of words and names that I like and another for those I dislike. On yet a third list are words that appear to be 'wrong' for some reason. Belgium is on that latter list. It looks, sounds and feels 'wrong'. It always looks incorrectly spelled (note I prefer the regular formation because spelt has a meaning as a noun) and it sounds odd. Belgian is a perfectly good word however. Maybe King of the Belgae would have more historical resonance...
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,163
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Apr 17, 2020 9:10:40 GMT
If St. Asaph's a city then I'm the king of Belgium... I didn't realise that Beethoven was King of Belgium. Every day's a schoolday! Beethoven did in fact have Flemish ancestry ("van Beethoven" is something of a clue), though he certainly regarded himself as German.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 9:36:56 GMT
I am very sensitive to words; their weight, body, euphony and general baggage. I have a long list of words and names that I like and another for those I dislike. On yet a third list are words that appear to be 'wrong' for some reason. Belgium is on that latter list. It looks, sounds and feels 'wrong'. It always looks incorrectly spelled (note I prefer the regular formation because spelt has a meaning as a noun) and it sounds odd. Belgian is a perfectly good word however. Maybe King of the Belgae would have more historical resonance... The French name of the country - "Belgique" - came from the Latin "(Gallia) Belgica". This is logical, and sounds OK in French, but is difficult to render into an English form that doesn't sound odd. "Belgium" is probably as good as anything. In 1830 the new country had to be called something, and "Kingdom of the Netherlands" was already taken. Unfortunately, the territories which made it up had no independent history or collective identity separate from their neighbours or former overlords, and "Kingdom of Flanders" or "Kingdom of Brabant" would have rankled with other parts of the country. Although Gallia Belgica didn't bear much relationship to the present state, there is at least some connection. When French West Africa was created, one chunk of it was given the name "Mauritania" after the Roman province of "Mauretania" which was nowhere near it.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Apr 17, 2020 9:37:45 GMT
The idea that there will ever be agreement on what constitutes a city is clearly absurd. Whether you adopt a definition based on population, on function, or on legal status, you will come up with almost completely different lists, and one list is as correct as any other. Most UK cities were much smaller than 250,000 when they gained city status, and if you put it at 100,000 or even lower you would include some places with only a low-level urban function. My own preference would be to define cities by function, and a true city would have to possess all of certain gateway facilities appropriate to a major urban centre not found or only sometimes found in second string settlements better thought of as large towns. That old classification based on posession of a cathedral is therefore highly relevant, but a cathedral would be the ecclesiastical function, among a dozen or more similar defining functions of all kinds. At least one major district general hospital, say, would be another, A shopping centre with a footfall above a certain defined size would be another. There would be other defined requirements in terms of cultural and sporting facilities. A city in these terms would have to have ticks in all the boxes, not just some.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,525
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 17, 2020 10:33:55 GMT
Although Gallia Belgica didn't bear much relationship to the present state, there is at least some connection. When French West Africa was created, one chunk of it was given the name "Mauritania" after the Roman province of "Mauretania" which was nowhere near it. Equally, the current Mali isn't exactly conterminous with the historic kingdom of that name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 10:49:16 GMT
Like most African polities, the Mali Empire was a bit of a moveable feast, and in any case was gone by the mid-C17. The south of present-day Mali covers much of its core, but at its height it extended further south, and Mande-speaking peoples extend over a wider area still.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,525
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 17, 2020 10:51:59 GMT
Ghana is of course *the* most obvious one, but given the Gold Coast chose that name as a deliberate act of symbolism maybe it doesn't really count?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 11:11:15 GMT
Ghana is of course *the* most obvious one, but given the Gold Coast chose that name as a deliberate act of symbolism maybe it doesn't really count? Ghana would have been a better name for Mauritania! The core of present-day Ghana was the Ashanti Kingdom, which still exists, but calling the state "Asante" wouldn't have been acceptable to the non-Asante/Akan peoples. Ghana was OK because it was long-gone, and had no connection with the area at all!
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 17, 2020 14:40:30 GMT
Zimbabwe Iberia Galicia Georgia Byzantium
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Apr 17, 2020 15:45:32 GMT
Zimbabwe Iberia Galicia Georgia Byzantium Not quite sure what this is a list of, exactly, but I note two names there which can often get confused with another place of the same name- the Caucasian Georgia and the American one, the Spanish Galicia and the eastern European one.
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Apr 17, 2020 16:05:14 GMT
Zimbabwe Iberia Galicia Georgia Byzantium Not quite sure what this is a list of, exactly, but I note two names there which can often get confused with another place of the same name- the Caucasian Georgia and the American one, the Spanish Galicia and the eastern European one. Iberia in ancient times was the name of the region covering European Georgia and surrounds.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Apr 17, 2020 17:15:30 GMT
And of course I am neither, nor is St. Asaph a city (1); it certainly shouldn't be considered one (2), far too small (3). For the sake of consistency the term "city" really should be a purely technical one (4), i.e. a settlement with a population above a certain threshold (say, 75,000-100,000) (5), and not because it happens have a certain ecclesiastical structure within its boundaries (6) and/or because some other nebulous criteria (bloody Royal Prerogative...) (7); so of course that would mean that places such as Bournemouth, Luton, and Milton Keynes would count as cities, but the likes of Wells, Lichfield and Ely would not. By the way, yes, I do indeed plan to die on this hill. (8) (8) are you going to starve yourself to death slowly and painfully, or do you want us normal people to come and kill you quickly? I was thinking more along the lines of an overly romanticised last stand: clutching a flagpole (with flag) in one hand, holding a sword in the other, and surrounded by the remains of slain foes & smashed fortifications.
|
|
|
Post by froome on Apr 17, 2020 17:41:56 GMT
(8) are you going to starve yourself to death slowly and painfully, or do you want us normal people to come and kill you quickly? I was thinking more along the lines of an overly romanticised last stand: clutching a flagpole (with flag) in one hand, holding a sword in the other, and surrounded by the remains of slain foes & smashed fortifications. Not that far from you, in the north-east of Anglesey, you will find the huge metropolis of City Dulas, lying on the main road midway between Amlwch and Benllech. It lies about a mile away from Dulas, a tiny hamlet close to the coast. City Dulas rivals it in size, both comprising of one or two farms and not much else.
|
|