| Author |
Message |
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:05 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Molly Mockford wrote:
| Quote: | At 22:27:50 on Thu, 15 Jul 2004, John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com
wrote in <GxDJc.615$HZ5.176@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>:
Molly Mockford wrote:
The definition always used to be that if it had a decent old cathedral,
it was a city, and if it hadn't, it wasn't.
As far as I know, the first part of that still holds true - no matter
how small (e.g. Ely), if it's always had a cathedral, it's always been a
city.
You've overlooked what happened to Rochester.
I know nothing about Rochester. The one in Kent, or the other one?
Presumably it is an exception to my "As far as I know".
|
Kent, not Northumberland.
The Department for Constitution Affairs have wrested control of city status
from the Privy Council:
http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/city/citygj.htm
The website contains an outright lie:
"City status is not, and never has been, a right which can be claimed by a
town fulfilling certain conditions."
But I don't expect anyone will be resigning over it. (It has a direct
bearing on how Westminster became a city.)
--
John Briggs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:27 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:QVCJc.201$cb3.86@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net
| Quote: | Why is Westminster a City, and how long has this been the case?
|
In 1540 Henry VIII declared Westminster Abbey to be a Cathedral, and so
Westminster became a City. But in 1550 the Abbey became a Collegiate Church
instead, but Westminster rtaetained a sort of "honorary City" status. It
was given its first Royal Charter by Elizabeth I in 1586, and I remember the
1986 celebrations what was then called regared as the 400th anniversary of
the founding of the City of Westminster. For many years the chief citizn of
Westmonster didn't have the title "Mayor" but "High Steward of Westminster
Abbey", an office frequently held by senior Officers of State. It was given
its first Mayor in 1900, and the post was up-graded to Lord Mayor in 1966.
| Quote: |
[*] Why is Rochester no longer a City?
|
That's ben a bit on-and-off for the last 30 years. The 1974 Local
Government Reorganisation turned it into part of Medway District Council,
but later that year it was given back its city status by Royal Letters
Patent. In 1982 a new Royal Charter renamed it as the "City of
Rochester-upon-Medway". A further boat of reorganisation in 1998 merged it
with Gillingham as Medway Council. What next?
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Old teachers never die - they simply lose their class. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:08 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Mike Stevens wrote:
| Quote: | "john" <john@soloriens.co.uk> wrote in message
news:16vWwADO+t9AFwGb@soloriens.co.uk
Whilst all of the above is accurate as far as I know there is an
important difference between British and American usage of the term
"City".
There are some places in UK that have, for historical reasons,
designations that do not seem to correspond to the size of the
community but in the main Cities are bigger than towns, Towns are
bigger than Villages and Villages bigger then Hamlets.
The smaller Cities are usually so designated because they have Cathedrals.
|
Careful :-)
| Quote: | London has its constituent London Boroughs ...
Two of which (The City of Westminster and the City of London) are also
cities, just to confuse you even more. And at two of them (Kensington &
Chelsea and Kingston on Thames) are officially designated "Royal Borough".
|
And Kingston upon Thames is the County Town of Surrey.
--
John Briggs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:09 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:aIFJc.233$cb3.72@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net
| Quote: | Meaning that Rochester is now the only ancient cathedral city that
isn't a city.
|
That's only true if you mean places that have ancient cathedrals *that are
still cathedrals*. There are also places that used to have cathedrals some
centuries ago but don't now. Ramsbury, a middle-sized village in Wiltshire,
is one example I happen to know, but I'm sure there are others.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Old teachers never die - they simply lose their class. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:55 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Mike Stevens wrote:
| Quote: | "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:QVCJc.201$cb3.86@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net
Why is Westminster a City, and how long has this been the case?
In 1540 Henry VIII declared Westminster Abbey to be a Cathedral, and so
Westminster became a City. But in 1550 the Abbey became a Collegiate
Church instead, but Westminster rtaetained a sort of "honorary City"
status. It was given its first Royal Charter by Elizabeth I in 1586, and
I remember the 1986 celebrations what was then called regared as the
400th anniversary of the founding of the City of Westminster. For many
years the chief citizn of Westmonster didn't have the title "Mayor" but
"High Steward of Westminster Abbey", an office frequently held by senior
Officers of State. It was given its first Mayor in 1900, and the post
was up-graded to Lord Mayor in 1966.
[*] Why is Rochester no longer a City?
That's ben a bit on-and-off for the last 30 years. The 1974 Local
Government Reorganisation turned it into part of Medway District Council,
but later that year it was given back its city status by Royal Letters
Patent. In 1982 a new Royal Charter renamed it as the "City of
Rochester-upon-Medway". A further boat of reorganisation in 1998 merged
it with Gillingham as Medway Council. What next?
|
Stalemate. There is no local government entity up which city status could
be conferred. Medway wants to be a city in its own right, not as Rochester.
Meaning that Rochester is now the only ancient cathedral city that isn't a
city.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:26 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Mike Stevens wrote:
| Quote: | "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:aIFJc.233$cb3.72@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net
Meaning that Rochester is now the only ancient cathedral city that
isn't a city.
That's only true if you mean places that have ancient cathedrals *that are
still cathedrals*. There are also places that used to have cathedrals
some centuries ago but don't now. Ramsbury, a middle-sized village in
Wiltshire, is one example I happen to know, but I'm sure there are others.
|
Yes, of course. I was contrasting them with modern cathedrals - although
the point at which having a cathedral ceased to confer city status is hard
to determine. Some point during the nineteenth century, I would imagine.
Ripon (1836) and Wakefield (1888) are cities, but Southwell (1884) isn't.
Wakefield's status was conferred simultaneously to, but separately from, its
acquiring a cathedral.
Ancient non-cities would include Sherborne, Old Sarum and Dorchester on
Thames.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:16 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Confused? I am almost sorry I started this but I will post it because I
hope it makes the point that nothing is simple or straightforward in the
naming of territories in UK.
See what I mean?
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:16 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
On Thursday, in article <ICTqISb4Fv9AFwDI@molly.mockford>
nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk "Molly Mockford" wrote:
| Quote: | All the above is in reference to England. Scotland doesn't have Mayors,
it has Provosts and Lord Provosts. And I don't know how the definitions
of cities work in Scotland, despite having spent my first two decades
there. And I've no idea at all what goes on in Wales. Does anyone?
|
Sheep-shagging?
No, seriously though, Britain's smallest city is St Davids in Wales.
England's, of course, being the aforementioned Wells. Which makes me
wonder about another poster's mention of _diocesan_ cathedrals: both Bath
and Wells are cities (the former having an Abbey as its cathedral), but
only one bishop ("The Bishop of Bath and Wells") between them. Hmm, does
ex cathedra mean "falling between two stools"? :-)
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
| Quote: |
And Kingston upon Thames is the County Town of Surrey.
|
Not since it became a London Borough in the early 1960s, whereupon that
status was transferred to Guildford. The administrative HQ remains at
K-U-T, though.
Matti |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Molly Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | However, more recently there has been what amounts to a lottery held on
irregular occasions, whereby one or two large towns or conurbations can
win the right to be designated a city, despite not having the necessary
cathedral. Not long ago Brighton-and-Hove applied, and got it, but it
doesn't seem to have made much difference.
|
It makes no difference whatsoever. A local authority in England has no
separate or different powers because it is entitled "City". It is simply an
honorary title.
The meaning of the word "city" as opposed to its legal definition is "a
large town". However, the title has stuck to some towns which were
relatively large in the middle ages but have stayed the same size while
other places have increased in size beyond them. A large town in the middle
ages would inevitably have had a cathedral in it, hence the notion that it's
the presence of the cathedral that gives the right to the title "City".
In some cases this means that the title "City" is attached to a local
authority which is actually just legally a parish council i.e. one which has
very limited powers with most local government function being performed by
other authorities of which it forms part. In other cases, the title "City"
is attached to local authorities where there is no intermediate structure
between them and the national state.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
john <john@soloriens.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | As far as local Government outside London goes things are far from
simple. The lowest level of Local Government is The Civil Parish,
Sometimes called a town council (which is nothing at all to do with a
church parish). These operate under the District Councils and they take
their place under the County Councils. In some places County and
District Councils are combined into Unitary Authorities. (In others the
powers of both are limited by the existence of National Parks). In
Scotland and Wales there are devolved national Governments. There may
soon be Regional Governments in England.
|
The problem is that local government in England has evolved over a period of
centuries. Historically, England was divided into counties. However, when
county councils were formally set up in 1888, many larger towns were given
"county borough" status, that is the county councils provided services only
to those parts of the historical county that were not covered by a county
borough. The parts of the counties which were not county boroughs were
divided into smaller authorities, "districts", which provided some services
while the counties provided others. In the county boroughs, all local
government services were provided by the county borough council.
The local government reforms of 1974 were intended to rationalise this,
introducing a system whereby the whole country was divided into counties,
and counties into districts with the counties probiding some sorts of
services and the districts others. Some parts of the country (the larger
urban conurbations) were given "metropolitan counties" in which the
subdivisions were called "boroughs". In the metropolitan counties the
division of services between the county and its subdivision was different
than the others, with more services being provided by the borooughs rather
than the counties.
The 1974 reorganisation was widely resented. This was because in many cases
it abolished local government uits that had existed for a long time and to
which people had an emotional attachment. Also, districts which formerly had
county borough status resented losing local control of services to the county
council. Thus since this time there have been various piecemeal
reorganisations whcih have effectively restored county boroughs.
A parish or town council covers part of a district council's area. They
exist only where there is a local desire to have them and have very little
power.
| Quote: | Towns have Mayors. Cities have Lord Mayors. A Lady Mayoress is not the
female equivalent of a Lord Mayor but the consort of a Mayor if the
mayor is a man. The Lord Mayor of London has no remit outside the
'square mile' of the City of London. The Mayor of London is in fact the
First Minister of the (Greater) London Regional Government.
|
Up till recently, local government had evolved to the point where the
position of Mayor was largely an honorary one. The Mayor was the chairman of
council meetings, and represented the council on ceremonial occasions, but
had no special powers and was not (unlike the situation in many other
countries) "in charge" of the council. The mayor was elected to this
position annually by the councillors and council policy wass decided by a
majority of the whole council. Recent reforms have allowed councils
to opt to have an "executive mayor". When a council chooses this option (it
must hold a referendum to do so) the mayor *does* have control of the
council and is elected in a borough-wide popular election. Having an
executive mayor means the only control councillors have is the right to
overturn the mayor's decision on a two-thirds majority.
Only a few local authorities have decided to have an executive mayor, but
the new London government was set up with one. The Mayor of London is thus
more like a president than a "first minister".
Those who favour executve mayors often sell the idea by saying it's
"American style" which seems to mean we are supposed to think its
automatically a good thing.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | john <john@soloriens.co.uk> wrote:
As far as local Government outside London goes things are far from
simple. The lowest level of Local Government is The Civil Parish,
Sometimes called a town council (which is nothing at all to do with a
church parish). These operate under the District Councils and they take
their place under the County Councils. In some places County and
District Councils are combined into Unitary Authorities. (In others the
powers of both are limited by the existence of National Parks). In
Scotland and Wales there are devolved national Governments. There may
soon be Regional Governments in England.
The problem is that local government in England has evolved over a period
of centuries. Historically, England was divided into counties. However,
when county councils were formally set up in 1888, many larger towns were
given "county borough" status, that is the county councils provided
services only to those parts of the historical county that were not
covered by a county borough. The parts of the counties which were not
county boroughs were divided into smaller authorities, "districts", which
provided some services while the counties provided others. In the county
boroughs, all local government services were provided by the county
borough council.
|
In other words, 'county boroughs' were given the status of counties, which
many cities had already acquired by then.
| Quote: | The local government reforms of 1974 were intended to rationalise this,
introducing a system whereby the whole country was divided into counties,
and counties into districts with the counties probiding some sorts of
services and the districts others. Some parts of the country (the larger
urban conurbations) were given "metropolitan counties" in which the
subdivisions were called "boroughs". In the metropolitan counties the
division of services between the county and its subdivision was different
than the others, with more services being provided by the borooughs rather
than the counties.
The 1974 reorganisation was widely resented. This was because in many
cases it abolished local government uits that had existed for a long time
and to which people had an emotional attachment. Also, districts which
formerly had county borough status resented losing local control of
services to the county council. Thus since this time there have been
various piecemeal reorganisations whcih have effectively restored county
boroughs.
|
The system that was abolished had only existed since 1888, of course. It is
misleading to say that 'county boroughs' have been restored. What has
happened is that the new unitary authorities (except in Berkshire, of
course) have been given the status of post-1974 counties.
| Quote: | A parish or town council covers part of a district council's area. They
exist only where there is a local desire to have them and have very little
power.
Towns have Mayors. Cities have Lord Mayors. A Lady Mayoress is not the
female equivalent of a Lord Mayor but the consort of a Mayor if the
mayor is a man. The Lord Mayor of London has no remit outside the
'square mile' of the City of London. The Mayor of London is in fact the
First Minister of the (Greater) London Regional Government.
Up till recently, local government had evolved to the point where the
position of Mayor was largely an honorary one. The Mayor was the chairman
of council meetings, and represented the council on ceremonial occasions,
but had no special powers and was not (unlike the situation in many other
countries) "in charge" of the council. The mayor was elected to this
position annually by the councillors and council policy wass decided by a
majority of the whole council. Recent reforms have allowed councils
to opt to have an "executive mayor". When a council chooses this option
(it must hold a referendum to do so) the mayor *does* have control of the
council and is elected in a borough-wide popular election. Having an
executive mayor means the only control councillors have is the right to
overturn the mayor's decision on a two-thirds majority.
Only a few local authorities have decided to have an executive mayor, but
the new London government was set up with one. The Mayor of London is thus
more like a president than a "first minister".
Those who favour executve mayors often sell the idea by saying it's
"American style" which seems to mean we are supposed to think its
automatically a good thing.
|
There are vested interests pushing such thoughts, of course.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey wrote:
| Quote: | "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
And Kingston upon Thames is the County Town of Surrey.
Not since it became a London Borough in the early 1960s, whereupon that
status was transferred to Guildford. The administrative HQ remains at
K-U-T, though.
|
'County town' was always intended to be an administrative designation, not
one of 'status'.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | Molly Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
However, more recently there has been what amounts to a lottery held on
irregular occasions, whereby one or two large towns or conurbations can
win the right to be designated a city, despite not having the necessary
cathedral. Not long ago Brighton-and-Hove applied, and got it, but it
doesn't seem to have made much difference.
It makes no difference whatsoever. A local authority in England has no
separate or different powers because it is entitled "City". It is simply
an honorary title.
The meaning of the word "city" as opposed to its legal definition is "a
large town". However, the title has stuck to some towns which were
relatively large in the middle ages but have stayed the same size while
other places have increased in size beyond them. A large town in the
middle ages would inevitably have had a cathedral in it, hence the notion
that it's the presence of the cathedral that gives the right to the title
"City".
|
It wasn't just a notion - I hope I have demonstrated that it was an
automatic equation until at least 1836, and probably 1888.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
| Quote: | Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
And Kingston upon Thames is the County Town of Surrey.
Not since it became a London Borough in the early 1960s, whereupon
that status was transferred to Guildford. The administrative HQ
remains at K-u-T, though.
'County town' was always intended to be an administrative designation,
not one of 'status'.
|
I'm sure it was both, and they weren't considered separable until the
anomaly caused when Kingston was stolen from Surrey. But I'm not sure
whether you're disputing my correction or simply making a comment.
Matti |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in