Talk:City status in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

message: :I am not entirely convinced of this "awarded at the behest of the monarch status" stuff. As far as I was aware Plymouth was a city when I was a child (and was described as such during the Blitz i.e. about 50 years prior to this putative granting of status). Want to cite some sources to elucidate? My understanding was that it was conditional upon either size or as the site of an Anglican bishopric. user:sjc
thats what i thought - fonzy
:According to the official website of the UK Lord Chancellor:
::City status is a rare mark of distinction granted by the Sovereign and conferred by Letters Patent. It is granted by personal Command of the Queen, on the advice of Her Ministers.
:According to The Royal Government official page:
::City status and Lord Mayoralty are granted by personal command of The Queen, on advice from Ministers. Only local authorities may apply for these honours, which are sparingly bestowed as a mark of special distinction.
 - Zoe
That's just English law of course, although there may well be analogous Scots law.  And it only covers the award of city status to communities which don't possess it.  However it is not meant to apply to communities which have been cities since "time immemorial".  Some communities have been cities since before there was a Lord Chancellor or a monarchy and there is no law defining the conditions under which a community stops being a city... -- Derek Ross
In Scotland apparently anywhere that wishes to become a city can become so if the majority of its inhabitants agree. Hence why Perth and Dunfermline now style themselves cities. Moreover Dunfermline has a Royal Charter while Glasgow and Edinburgh can't find theirs.
:Only one small problem with this. This is part of a piece of legislation which was brought in retroactively and has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Plymouth has been a city and was a city since the amalgamation of the 3 towns in 1914. It was an anglican bishopric and had a qualifying city size before this particular piece of legislation ergo it was a city prior to 1994: all that happened in 1994 was that the city status was regularised; most of the others in the list were cities anterior to the regal stuff. 
:Truro, btw, was a city at the point that it became the diocesan centre of west Cornwall in 1887; as far as I know it has not been granted city status by Royal Appointment: it would fail regularisation on a number of criteria in this day and age, notably population size. 
::Apparently Queen Victoria granted it city status in 1877 and laid the foundation stone of the cathedral. See http://truro.cornwall.net/history.html Mintguy
:::Nope. The foundation stones were laid by the Prince of Wales, not by Queen Victoria.  The Bishopric of Truro bill 1876 gave the city de facto city status. user:sjc
::Like I said, once a city, always a city.  -- Derek Ross
:The fact that someone forgot to do the official stuff until about 1994 is kind of neither here nor there: Plymouth was a city at the time of the amalgamation of the three towns since it was known jointly and severally at that time and thenceforth as the City of Plymouth.  user:sjc
::: I've just read that Plymouth was granted city status in 1928, but have nothing to verify this. It also states that Plymouth has(or only had at the time) a catholic cathedral.
::::Again, it focuses on the merger of the 3 towns. That was why they merged in 1914, in order to acquire urban status as the City of Plymouth. I will dig out the records at DRO tomorrow. user:sjc
:::::Later. Plymouth styled itself a City in 1914, and had a mayor at this date. user:sjc
::::::If Milton Keynes or Plymouth or Perth for that matter 'styles' itself a city does that make it a city?Mintguy
::: Wouldn't it be better to say 'officially has 66 cites' rather than 'at least 66'? It currently reads as a bit dumb that we can't put an exact figure on it.
I really do hate this 'Town,Country' format. As has been pointed out numerous times, this is distinctly US only style. Mintguy
:Yeah, but crucial from the point of disambiguation. More significant yet in many cases it has to be town, county, country as in e.g. Newport, Shropshire, England; Newport, Cambridgeshire, England, etc. user:sjc
Note that the disambiguation format for cities is currently (again) debated, and chances are that a different system will be used. Stay tuned... Jeronimo
Bristol became a county in 1373, but not a city. For that it had to wait until 1542, when it gained its cathedral (rival monastic centres had prevented this from happening before the Dissolution, IIRC) --rbrwr
Some one listed Salford as an university city, which is obviously incorrect, as the University of Salford was founded in 1896. But this begs the question, what are the qualifications for an "ancient university"? Do any other than Oxford and Cambridge make the cut? - Efghij
::Salford University did not get a charter until 1967 so was not founded as a university until that year. --Statsfan 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dublin are are all ancient universities. An ancient university is one founded in the 16th century or earlier accoridng to our Ancient university article. All of the above qualify as cities on other grounds of course. -- Derek Ross | Talk
Where does this 1 million inhabitabts figure come from?  I thought London was the only city with over 1 million inhabitants (with Birmingham just under)?  The cities newly granted the status certainly don't have 1 million inhabitants?  Could it be 100,000 inhabitants, or a catchment area of 1 million? --Steinsky
----
Doesn't Portsmouth's  royal charter implicitly recognize it as a city long before the twentieth century ?
----
That is a terrible picture, I vote for its removal. Mintguy (T) 18:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Seconded Edward 16:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Early discussion

message: What's the significance of the cathedrals given for the Scottish cities?  The note in the table mentions cathedrals of the "established church", which in Scotland is the Church of Scotland.   But the only "Aberdeen Cathedral" I know of is Anglican.  St Machar's is the C of S cathedral in Aberdeen. Markalexander100 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It will mean the established church at the time of the granting of the charters, I suppose.   Do you know which of these is the one that inherited the Roman Catholic cathedral building?  07:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish Cathedrals 

message: === (Uncontested -- Jul 2) City status in the United Kingdom  ===
Self nomination.  This isn't just a list of cities, it contains background info about the peculiar definition of cities in the UK, the various statuses the cities have, etc.  Morwen - Talk 21:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article candidacy (successful)

message: Self nomination.  This isn't just a list of cities, it contains background info about the peculiar definition of cities in the UK, the various statuses the cities have, etc.  Morwen - Talk 21:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Uncontested -- Jul 2) [[City status in the United Kingdom]]  

message: The whole point of including cathedrals in the table is to allow readers to asses the degree to which city status is linked with the posession of a cathedral. Therefore it's silly not to include the cathedrals in ancient Welsh, Irish, Scottish cities since the church was certainly established there in the middle ages!
Why not include two tables — one an alphabetical list of all cities with dates; another a chronological list of cities which mentions the presence or absense of a cathedral in each one AS OF the time it became a city? (Thus, for instance, Westminster Abbey's brief 16th-century spell as a cathedral is relevant.) Doops 05:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article at the moment is singularly lacking in any information as to the criteria used in Wales, Ireland and Scotland, presumably because none of us knows them.   If one of us were to find them out, it would be simpler to just tell them rather than to leave clues for the reader to decipher. Markalexander100 05:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cathedrals Revisited 

message: Why no link to Coventry Cathedral in the table?  Am I missing something?  Is Coventry not a cathedral city? -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 00:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting point.   Coventry has had more than one cathedral: one from 1043-1539, and one since 1918.   Since its city status dates from the 14th century, I suspect that the first cathedral was the reason for its status.  On the other hand, any mention of "Coventry cathedral" in the table would give the impression that it was the second cathedral which was relevant, and that's not ideal either. Mark1 00:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Coventry Cathedral]] 

message: There are several "cities" which either WERE cities at one time or whose inhabitants still claim that status.
Elgin - had a cathedral - website claims city status - football team is Elgin City
Brechin - had a cathedral - website claims city status - football team is Brechin City
Perth - had a cathedral - council website calls it a city - when I lived there, we all called it a city!
Fortrose, Dunkeld, Dunblane and St Andrews all had cathedrals but were never known as cities.
Rochester was officially a city up to 1998 and is trying to restore its former status.
I'll bet Americans find this issue strange. In the US city status seems to be given to three houses and a gas station.
81.156.102.220 21:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former/Unofficial Cities 

message: :cy:Rhestr dinasoedd y Deyrnas Unedig
:lv:Apvienotās Karalistes pilsētu uzskaitījums
:pt:Lista de cidades no Reino Unido
:uk:Список міст Великобританії
Were all expurgated out, I'm guessing as redundant remnants from past editions --Onoredwolf 21:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki 

message: The Government do not use the term "Time Immemorial" as this suggests some cities can not legally stop being cities. All cities can lose their city status and the phrase used by the government is "Ancient Prescriptive Usage". I suggest the introduction should therefore be altered. What do other contributors feel?
--Statsfan 13:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Immemorial or Ancient Prescriptive Usage 

message: Why is St Andrews on the list?  It is not a city...
:you're right. I took it out Lozleader 10:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Andrews 

message: If any editors of this page are interested, City council is currently a very poor quality article which perhaps interested contributors might like to help improve. I've made a basic start at cleanup, but my knowledge of other countries' systems is limited. DWaterson 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for assistance

message: Their is currently a discussion ongoing about the Cities in Ireland article. The current version is disputed as it contains point-of-view and original research. Comments welcome and requested at Talk:Cities in Ireland. Djegan 12:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities in Ireland

message: "In 1911 an application for city status by Portsmouth was refused. Explaining his reason for not recommending the King to approve the petition, the Lord Advocate stated... "
Why would the Lord Advocate ("the chief legal adviser to the Scottish Executive and the Crown in Scotland for both civil and criminal matters that fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament") have any roll in conferring city status upon Portsmouth? --Mais oui! 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question, the question about the city status was addressed by the member for Portsmouth to the Home Secretary, but was answered by the Lord Advocate, who prefaced his remarks with "my right honourable friend has asked me to reply to this question" He also replied to a question from another member (about Westminster Bridge station's opening hours) addressed to the Home Secretary. I assume the HS was absent and the LA was filling in for him. I will amend the text... Lozleader 21:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Not sure about the date 1590 for Bath's status. This was the date of its charter of incorporation, but it seems to have been regarded as a city before that... The Charter Trustees believe it has been a city by prescription since 1088 .Lozleader 12:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bath 

message: I see a bot came and did a job on the footnotes, so they no longer have any numbers = useless. Might be time to incorporate this stuff in the table anyway. Lozleader 12:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted this change and left a note on the bot's operator's page....  Morwen - Talk 15:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: V good. But it does go to show how foot note heavy that table has become. I think it would be a good idea to integrate the letters patent into the (probably renamed) "Since" column. Fiddly job other things to do, but some day...Lozleader 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: I thought that city status was not only 'traditionally awarded to places with a cathedral', but to PLACES WITH A UNIVERSITY? (eg Cambridge, Southampton, and quite a few more)
(this unsigned comment was left at the top of the page by User:86.7.17.108 I put it here.) Lozleader 11:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Cambridge only became a city in 1951, despite having a university since 1209. Oxford is a city by virtue of a diocese being established there in 1541, nearly four centuries after the university's foundation. Other examples will illustrate that there is no particular correspendence: lots of cities have universities: but the date of creation of university and city do not tally; meanwhile lots of universities are in towns without city status. (A case in point: Reading has had a university for 80 odd years, but has not been able to claim the title.) Lozleader 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: University?

message: I don't understand your point about the Scottish Episcopal Church. So what if it is part of the Anglican Communion? It's not the national church in Scotland and so is irrelevant to the question of whether any particular place in Scotland is a city or not.GSTQ 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scottish cathedrals

message: I have removed the section on cities in the Republic of Ireland, it should not have been here.  It is not in the United Kingdom and its city charters were granted by Norman Kings long before the United Kingdom came to exist.  I have separately started (under See Also) a list of other city status articles outside the UK, starting with Ireland and the Netherlands as they were easy to find. However, most countries don't seem to get so excited about this issue. --Red King 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I agree with this - I was a bit alarmed at such a large deletion without consensus beforehand, but I think you are in fact correct. Cheers, DWaterson 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh dear no, don't make matters much worse and introduce "British Isles" too. (See Talk:British Isles before you leap out of the frying pan into that fire!)  You really are displaying a rather arrogant world view.  The determination of city status in the Republic of Ireland is quite different to that in England.  (And Scotland, as above).  There is already an article about the history of Irish cities. There is no basis to repeat the same material here, and more than there is to repeat the Netherlands article. --Red King 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No cities were created in the counties that are now the Republic of Ireland between 1801 and 1922, while Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So there are no anachronism problems. --Red King 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree here. The article is (and should be) about the situation in the present-day United Kingdom, and the historical developments that created the situation in the present-day UK. The Republic of Ireland is no longer in the UK, and there is therefore no reason to include the information here just because the RoI used to be a part of the UK - especially when it can be conveniently split off from what is already an extremely long article. There is no need to rename the article "...in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" because the term "UK" is not "unspecified", it is very clearly specified in the definition on the United Kingdom article, of which this article should use the same. DWaterson 09:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a nice and simple compromise?  A little stub section with a sentence or two for cities currently in the Republic of Ireland, with a link to the relevant Irish page? Fingerpuppet 11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me, though a link under 'See also' is probably sufficient in reality. DWaterson 12:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To follow that logic, the article should equally be called "City status in the European Union". That arbitrary line has has much validity as yours - indeed rather more, more since at least both states are members of the EU, whereas the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist over 75 years ago. The hustorical designation of chartered cities in Ireland was on an entirely different basis to any concurrent designation in England, and any future designation (see Sligo) would be even more different. --Red King 15:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My point was that cities in Ireland came about through an entirely different process than those in England and Wales.  Another editor says that the position in Scotland is also different.  You are trying to shoe-horn everything into an English model.  It would be more realistic to MOVE this article to "City status in England and Wales", because in reality that is what it is mostly about.  --Red King 20:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ick, even if that were done, it would give someone a hell of a lot of work repairing double redirects - this is a *very* heavily wikilinked article. It would also be controversial, so a Requested Move would be quite necessary to gain more consensus than there is on this talk page. Personally, I still think that "in the UK" is correct, because the UK is the current legal entity - the question of historical derivation is a bit of a red herring here. I support the moving of the Eireann cities to the Ireland article with a "main article" link back, and I see no problem doing the same on the Cities in Ireland article (which already has a "main article" link back to this page). After all, there is no harm as such in the same information being slightly overlapping and duplicated if that's more convenient - articles on the UK and Eire don't necessarily need to follow precisely the same organisational conventions. I note that User:Frelke on Talk:Cities in Ireland also seems to favour limited duplication between the articles. Cheers, DWaterson 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I've been doing here is reversing the tables, exposing to UK editors how it feels when your perspective is reduced to a bit part in someone else's world view.  I'm not really serious about any of these MOVE ideas, just pointing out that the world doesn't revolve around England. --Red King 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm, I kind of dislike the idea of a stub section on cities in the Republic in this article if there's not going to be any discussion in the article of those cities. Otherwise it would look like a gratuitous inclusion of the kind Red King is opposed to (Netherlands &c.).GSTQ 23:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City status outside the United Kingdom 

message: This article says city status is granted by letters patent, not royal charter. Now that may be true (I haven't gone through looking at every single one myself), but given that royal charters are a type of letters patent then the sentence should be phrased a little differently shouldn't it? Such as: "granted by letters patent, but not by royal charter" or something like that? Has anyone got any suggestions?GSTQ 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal charters ''are'' a type of letters patent