Is St Andrews a city?
Michael Fryer
city, I was wondering if St Andrews is also classed as a city. In some
places I see it described as a city, but in others it is described as
a town. I say this because according to the list of cities in the UK
on the Lord Chancellor's Department website at
http://www.lcd.gov.uk/constitution/city/citygj.htm, there are only six
cities in Scotland: Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Inverness,
and Stirling. The omission of St Andrews appears to me to be rather
odd for such an historic place, considering it is the home of
Scotland's oldest university, saw a cathedral established there in
1160 and has been a Royal Burgh since 1620. So what exactly is it:
city or town?
Thanks,
Michael Fryer
Ian O.
Fryer) wrote:
St Andrews is a town, legally. Historically it is a city, because it
had a cathedral. The same applies to Elgin, Brechin and several other
places whose football teams include "city" in their name.
There is a fairly restrictive definition of a city, in legal terms.
Inverness and Stirling are relatively recent additions to that list,
as decreed by our monarch. There is much competition for the status -
Livingston was one contender for it this year.
However, it does not make a blind bit of difference to anyone except
pedants.
Speug
Speug, 12 Sep 02
Robert Henderson
<iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>St Andrews is a town, legally. Historically it is a city, because it
>had a cathedral.
A Cathedral does not mean it is a city. RH
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Craig Cockburn
<iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On 11 Sep 2002 11:17:31 -0700, michael...@hotmail.com (Michael
>Fryer) wrote:
>
>>Having read a few months ago that Stirling is Scotland's most recent
>>city, I was wondering if St Andrews is also classed as a city. In some
>>places I see it described as a city, but in others it is described as
>>a town. I say this because according to the list of cities in the UK
>>on the Lord Chancellor's Department website at
>>http://www.lcd.gov.uk/constitution/city/citygj.htm, there are only six
>>cities in Scotland: Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Inverness,
>>and Stirling. The omission of St Andrews appears to me to be rather
>>odd for such an historic place, considering it is the home of
>>Scotland's oldest university, saw a cathedral established there in
>>1160 and has been a Royal Burgh since 1620. So what exactly is it:
>>city or town?
>
>St Andrews is a town, legally. Historically it is a city, because it
>had a cathedral. The same applies to Elgin, Brechin and several other
>places whose football teams include "city" in their name.
>
http://siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_24.html
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish FAQ, wedding info, travel, search tools, stop spam and more!
Ian Johnston
wrote:
: >St Andrews is a town, legally. Historically it is a city, because it
: >had a cathedral. The same applies to Elgin, Brechin and several other
: >places whose football teams include "city" in their name.
: >
: Cathedral is nothing to do with it.
: http://siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_24.html
I presumed that was exactly the point Ian M was making when he so
clearly distinguished between "legally" and "historically".
Ian
David E. Eaton, Sr.
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GWBbplC5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3d7fbb55...@news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Ian O.
> <iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >St Andrews is a town, legally. Historically it is a city, because it
> >had a cathedral.
>
> A Cathedral does not mean it is a city. RH
That's what Ian said; to wit, "St Andrews is a town, legally." Back in
'those days' if a town had a cathedral it was considered a city...but the
historical definition is not the legal definition...which is what Ian
pointed out. You really should learn to read and then comprehend what you
read before you hit the 'reply' button.
Craig Cockburn
<ian.u...@talk21.com> writes
a cathedral. I thought that historically somewhere was a city because it
had a Royal Charter making it a city.
Lesley Robertson
"Craig Cockburn" <cr...@SiliconGlen.com> wrote in message
news:n6KG0GFs...@SiliconGlen.com...
> No, he was saying that historically somewhere was a city because it had
> a cathedral. I thought that historically somewhere was a city because it
> had a Royal Charter making it a city.
> --
St Andrews has a Royal Charter making it a Royal Burgh. There's a lot of
them about>
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
"Craig Cockburn" <cr...@SiliconGlen.com> wrote in message
news:n6KG0GFs...@SiliconGlen.com...
> No, he was saying that historically somewhere was a city because it had
> a cathedral. I thought that historically somewhere was a city because it
> had a Royal Charter making it a city.
The following definition is an extract from
http://65.107.211.206/cpace/politics/wodtke/OED.html
"In Scotland, the style of civitas appears to have been introduced from
England, after the association of the word with the episcopal seats. Here,
it appears to have had no relation to the size, civil importance, or
municipal standing of the place, but was freely applied in charters from the
time of David I (12th c.) to every bishop's seat, even when a mere hamlet;
it was only at much later dates that some of these civitates attained
sufficient importance to be raised to the rank of burghs, while others
remained villages. In later times, perh. not before the Reformation, civitas
is found applied to Perth and Edinburgh, which were not episcopal seats, but
ancient royal burghs, and seats of royalty. The vernacular form 'city' is
found in the 15th c. applied to some of the burghs which were civitates, and
it gradually came to be commonly used of certain of the larger of these,
notably Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth, and Aberdeen. In this sense, the royal
burgh of Dundee was also created a 'city' by Royal Charter in 1889. Some of
the other burghs which were formerly bishop's seats, or can show civitas in
their early charters, have in recent times claimed or assumed the style of
'city', though not generally so regarded".
Lesley Robertson
Ian O.
The above is exactly what I was thinking of - the word "civitas",
which St Andrews certainly applied to itself, historically. In more
recent times, places such as Elgin have adopted the style "City and
Royal Burgh of.....". This sort of thing is of great improtance to
community councils in such places - they talk about little else, in my
experience. I did not reply to RH, because I have no intention of
debating anything with a popmpous nutcase.
Lesley Robertson
"Ian O." <iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d81d8d...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> The above is exactly what I was thinking of - the word "civitas",
> which St Andrews certainly applied to itself, historically. In more
> recent times, places such as Elgin have adopted the style "City and
> Royal Burgh of.....". This sort of thing is of great improtance to
> community councils in such places - they talk about little else, in my
> experience. I did not reply to RH, because I have no intention of
> debating anything with a popmpous nutcase.
>
I don't know what he said, don't get his articles.
The status as a Royal Burgh originally had fairly important legal
implications regarding a range of things from guild membership to taxation
and the right to hold markets, etc. as well as the status of the local
Laird.
Lesley Robertson
Séimí mac Liam
news:alsrj1$fag$1...@news.tudelft.nl:
To be a city required a cathedral, yes?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Robert Henderson
<dee...@starpower.net> writes
Many Cathedrals in the Middle Ages were not built in Towns. RH
Lesley Robertson
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92885E...@216.148.53.84...
> "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in
> news:alsrj1$fag$1...@news.tudelft.nl:
>
> >
> > "Ian O." <iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3d81d8d...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> >> The above is exactly what I was thinking of - the word "civitas",
> >> which St Andrews certainly applied to itself, historically. In more
> >> recent times, places such as Elgin have adopted the style "City and
> >> Royal Burgh of.....". This sort of thing is of great improtance to
> >> community councils in such places - they talk about little else, in
> >> my experience. I did not reply to RH, because I have no intention of
> >> debating anything with a popmpous nutcase.
> >>
> > I don't know what he said, don't get his articles.
> > The status as a Royal Burgh originally had fairly important legal
> > implications regarding a range of things from guild membership to
> > taxation and the right to hold markets, etc. as well as the status of
> > the local Laird.
> > Lesley Robertson
> >
> To be a city required a cathedral, yes?
>
Lesley Robertson
Simon Brooke
What's a city? The good people of Dunblane will tell you Dunblane is a
city, because it has a cathedral. Having a cathedral is certainly one of
the traditional qualifications for being a city, and on that basis St
Andrews and Dunblane are, and Inverness and Dundee are not. However, The
Guvmint (i.e. the colonial rulers in Westminster) have declared that
Inverness and Dundee *are*, so that's that, isn't it?
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin
S Viemeister
> What's a city? The good people of Dunblane will tell you Dunblane is a
> city, because it has a cathedral. Having a cathedral is certainly one of
> the traditional qualifications for being a city, and on that basis St
> Andrews and Dunblane are, and Inverness and Dundee are not. However, The
> Guvmint (i.e. the colonial rulers in Westminster) have declared that
> Inverness and Dundee *are*, so that's that, isn't it?
>
But Simon - Inverness DOES have a cathedral, opened on 1 September 1869,
consecrated 29 September 1874.
Craig Cockburn
<sheila.v...@which.net> writes
>Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> What's a city? The good people of Dunblane will tell you Dunblane is a
>> city, because it has a cathedral.
I don't think so.
"Although Dunblane is a thriving and prosperous community, it actually
reached the peak of its prestige and prosperity in 1500 when King James
IV, who ruled Scotland from the nearby Royal burgh of Stirling, elected
it a city"
http://www.dunblaneweb.co.uk/history.htm
The present cathedral dates from 1240. Therefore it was a place with a
cathedral but not a city for 260 years. So much for the old rule that
having a cathedral made a place a city!
Resistance
St. Andrew's Catholic Cathedral, Dundee
150 Nethergate Dundee
Telephone: 01382 225228
--
Scottish Resistance
"S Viemeister" <sheila.v...@which.net> wrote in message
news:3D832E57...@which.net...
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
"Craig Cockburn" <cr...@SiliconGlen.com> wrote in message
The only thing that makes a place a city or a royal burgh in the UK is being
granted a royal charter. You will see various cities describing themselves
as, *The City and Royal Burgh of*. You will also find these all have
official coats of arms and city mottos.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),
Auld Bob Peffers,
b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
Web Site, *The Eck's Files*
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
Sharon L. Krossa
> In message <3d7fbb55...@news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Ian O.
> <iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >On 11 Sep 2002 11:17:31 -0700, michael...@hotmail.com (Michael
> >Fryer) wrote:
> >
> >>Having read a few months ago that Stirling is Scotland's most recent
> >>city, I was wondering if St Andrews is also classed as a city. In some
> >>places I see it described as a city, but in others it is described as
> >>a town. I say this because according to the list of cities in the UK
> >>on the Lord Chancellor's Department website at
> >>http://www.lcd.gov.uk/constitution/city/citygj.htm, there are only six
> >>cities in Scotland: Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Inverness,
> >>and Stirling. The omission of St Andrews appears to me to be rather
> >>odd for such an historic place, considering it is the home of
> >>Scotland's oldest university, saw a cathedral established there in
> >>1160 and has been a Royal Burgh since 1620. So what exactly is it:
> >>city or town?
> >
> >St Andrews is a town, legally. Historically it is a city, because it
> >had a cathedral. The same applies to Elgin, Brechin and several other
> >places whose football teams include "city" in their name.
> >
> Cathedral is nothing to do with it.
> http://siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_24.html
But this doesn't cite any reliable sources or evidence to support it's
claim. If it was correct this may not be a problem, but it is mainly
misunderstanding, misleading statements, and unsupportable claims and
speculation. Further, it starts from the fundamentally flawed assumption
that "city" must have one and only one legitimate sense/meaning in any
nation/culture, which is nonsense.
See below for specific comments on the FAQ entry referenced above:
-----
>A city in Scotland is a city because it has a Royal Charter.
No, it's not, with only a very few modern exceptions (such as Dundee).
In Scotland, until modern times, royal charters are what made a town a
"royal burgh", not what made a city a city. (With regard to burghs and
their being erected by charter, see any decent book on Scottish burghs,
such as those listed at
http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/towns.shtml)
If I am in error, and Scottish towns have been and are only considered
cities if they had a royal charter declaring them cities, I will
acknowledge myself corrected when the specific royal charters are cited
for each of the Scottish towns called "city" demonstrating that this is
how Scottish towns became cities -- especially for Aberdeen, Glasgow,
and Edinburgh.
>Having
>a cathedral or university does not make a town a city (although many
>cities have one or the other)
On what basis do you claim this?
Looking at the examples of various towns being called "city" in late
medieval and 17th century Scotland, it becomes clear that the primary
criteria was being a catherdal town. Unless you can find the royal
charters that "made" Saint Andrews (cathedral), Brechin (cathedral),
Glasgow (cathedral), Old Aberdeen (cathedral), and Edinburgh (only
non-Cathedral town in the quotes below) "cities". Note, I'm *not* asking
for the charters that made them Royal burghs, but royal charters whose
purpose was to say "you weren't a _city_ before, but now you are a
_city_ by right of this royal charter".
Quotes from DOST, s.v. Cite, Citte, Cit(t)ie:
"Ane lande..liand in the citee of Sanctandre[es]; 1491 <Acta Conc.>
188/1"
"The inhabitants of the citte of Brechine; 1450 <Reg. Episc. Brechin> I.
127"
"Thys indentur maide at the citte of Sanctandrois; 1489 <Wemyss Chart.>
112"
"Thair wes ane earth quaik in the cittie of Glasgow; <Diurn. Occurr.>
179"
"Pas thow with diligence To Sanctandrois that fair citie; PITSC. I. 6/2"
"The hundreth merkis..left in legacie..for the vse of the said cittie;
1657 <Rec. Old Aberd.> I. 94" [Presumably referring to Old Aberdeen]
Quotes from DOST, s.v. Ciete, Cietie:
"Certane landis and boundis belangyne our said chanceler his kirk,
ciette, and citteneris of Brechine; 1457 <Reg. Eisc. Brechin> I. 183"
"Land liand within the said ciete [of Glasgow]; 1508 <Reg. Privy S.> I.
253/2"
"Thair wes ane graye fryer in the cietye of Glasgwo brint; LESLIE 157"
Quotes from DOST, s.v. Cete, Ceite:
"The cete of Glasgu; 1422 <Stirlings of Keir> 209"
"Ane foyr place lyand within the cete of Glasgw; 1531 <Glasgow Prot.>
IV. 40"
"Deykin of the wrichtis of the Cete of Sanctandrois; 1595 <Conv. Burghs>
I. 460"
"The said cetie of Glasgow; 1575 <Mun. Univ. Glasg.> I. 94"
"The haill ceite of Sanct Androis; 1564 <Scot. Ant.> Oct. (1901) 80."
"The ceittie of Edinburgh; 1687 <Misc. Bann. C. II. 295"
BTW, the definitions given by dost are:
s.v. Cite, Citte, Cit(t)ie = A city, town.
s.v. Ciete, Cietie = [Variant (app. only Sc.) of Cete and Cite] A city.
s.v. Cete, Ceite = var. of the usual cite, etc.: see Cite.] A city.
>In England a cathedral may be
>sufficient, I'm not sure. In the US, I believe it's simply by
>population.
No. For one thing, in the US we don't obsess so much about whether
something if "officially" a city as if there is only one definition of
the word.
In a legal government sense, in most of the US states, "city" means an
incorporated city -- a populated area within a county incorporated for
self-government rather than direct government by the county. Such cities
can be very small -- only a few hundred people in some cases (I wouldn't
be surprised if there are some with a population less than 100). US
cities in this sense are actually very like the historical burgh in
Scotland, though with a significant difference in how they are/were
created (to over-simplify, the people in any unincorporated US town can
vote to incorporate themselves as a city according to the laws of that
state, while burghs were created by the external will a king or baron)
and, of course, there is a difference in the levels of government that
are/were above them.
But in the US we also use "city" with other, more every day senses,
usually but not exclusively having to do with size. When going by size,
depending on the specific context in which it is used, the general size
to be called a "city" can vary by millions. Sometimes we might make a
distinction between "big cities" and "small towns". Sometimes it is more
the nature of the city than actual population -- a distinction between
living in a city like San Francisco (lots of people in a small space)
and living in San Jose (even more people but in a larger space, so
suburban rather than city-like in nature despite its higher population).
So we in the US has thousands of places that are cities in the US legal
sense (and have "city" in their official name), but which we wouldn't
call a city if we were talking about, say, urban vs. suburban issues, or
big cities vs. small towns, etc. This is even though in the legal sense
most of these small towns, some with only a few hundred in population,
are legally incorporated cities. (So in other everyday contexts we might
talk about the city council, etc., for such a small town.)
So in the US, what is meant by "city" is entirely dependent on specific
context. (Gee, sounds like the Scottish situation, doesn't it?
Everything depends on the sense of "city" meant...)
>The OED gives a definition of city which they claim is
>UK wide but I feel is wrong regarding Scotland.
But you haven't provided any evidence they are wrong -- or, at least,
that you are right. Where is your evidence that a city was only a city
if it had a royal charter saying "you are a city"?
What they say about Scotland appears to fairly sound to me, (with the
exception of the last 5 words and perhaps also an unstated implication
that modernly only some cities called cities aren't "really" cities):
----- begin quote, OED s.v. "city"-----
....
In Scotland, the style of civitas appears to have been introduced from
England, after the association of the word with the episcopal seats.
Here, it appears to have had no relation to the size, civil importance,
or municipal standing of the place, but was freely applied in charters
from the time of David I (12th c.) to every bishop's seat, even when a
mere hamlet; it was only at much later dates that some of these
civitates attained sufficient importance to be raised to the rank of
burghs, while others remained villages. In later times, perh. not
before the Reformation, civitas is found applied to Perth and Edinburgh,
which were not episcopal seats, but ancient royal burghs, and seats of
royalty. The vernacular form 'city' is found in the 15th c. applied to
some of the burghs which were civitates, and it gradually came to be
commonly used of certain of the larger of these, notably Edinburgh,
Glasgow, Perth, and Aberdeen. In this sense, the royal burgh of Dundee
was also created a 'city' by Royal Charter in 1889. Some of the other
burghs which were formerly bishop's seats, or can show civitas in their
early charters, have in recent times claimed or assumed the style of
'city', though not generally so regarded.
....
----- end quote ----
So, adding to this one modern sense missing above, there are at least
four senses in which a Scottish town can be considered a city:
[Note: Originally, in Latin, in Scotland a <civitas> was any village,
town, or burgh that was a Roman Catholic episcopal seat, that is, the
seat of a Roman Catholic bishop, and thus had a cathedral.]
1. In the vernacular, from at least the 15th century, places that had
been called <civitas> in Latin are found called <city> (or rather,
<cite>, etc.) in Scots. Thus, places that were (or used to be) an RC
episcopal seat.
Note, before determining whether only burghs were called "city" in the
vernacular, it would be necessary to determine whether there were any
catherdal towns that were not burghs and determine whether said towns
were ever called "city" in the vernacular. In fact, there is at least
one such town. According to Pryde _Burghs of Scotland_ "From the
fifteenth century onwards Dunblane was a city but not a burgh ..."
(Although it had apparently been a burgh earlier in the 13th or 14th
century.)
Note that this sense is still in use -- as evidenced by actual usage by
Scots. In some cases, it may even have spread beyond those places that
had pre-Reformation episcopal seats to some places with post-Reformation
RC or Episcopalian cathedrals, although I do not know of any examples.
2. At some point, the largest/most significant royal burghs, even if
they never had a RC cathedral and never were an RC episcopal seat, were
also called "city" in the vernacular. Note this sense was from popular
usage, not by any governmental action or decree. E.g., as per the OED
entry, Edinburgh (no cathedral), Aberdeen (no cathedral -- the cathedral
was in Old Aberdeen), Perth (no cathedral), Glasgow (cathedral).
Note that this sense is also still in use -- as evidenced by actual
usage by Scots.
3. From the late 19th century, by having been declared a city by royal
charter, e.g., Dundee in 1889.
4. In local government terms, the 1929 Local Government Act divided
burghs up into 3 categories, one of which was "city". In 1929, the local
government category cities were: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee.
By 1972 Perth and Elgin were also being listed as cities in the
"Municipal Year Book", but apparently they did not have the same local
government powers as the original four 1929 LGA cities. (See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=E1Cq3.2231%24kx.45341%40stones for
this information)
Of course, this particular local government distinction no longer
applies as a legal local government meaning, because Scottish local
government has been reorganized since then and new divisions and
terminology applied. However, this sense may continue on as a popular
meaning. (It can be hard to tell due to most such burghs also being
cities in one or more of the other senses of the word.)
(It is entirely possible that the OED entry discussion was written
before 1929 and not updated since, which may be why the OED didn't
include this sense of the word in it's discussion.)
Anyway, notice that even the government at no time seems to have limited
its Little List Of Places We Officially Acknowledge As Cities to only
those cities that have royal charters saying "Presto, you're a city
now!", as it included Aberdeen, Glasgow, and Edinburgh among it's
official local government distinction list of cities.
I expect that there may be a 5th sense of "city" used in Scotland -- one
based on population size, just as in the US. Although, thinking on it,
this really isn't any different than sense #2 above.
>After an extensive
>debate on this in August 1999 under the topic "Dunfermerline - city
>status?" on soc.culture.scottish (find it on
>http://groups.google.com/), I wrote to the OED regarding this and
>the term "High School" which I also felt to be wrong.
>
>Oxford University Press wrote back to me and said:
>
>"I agree with you that the definitions of 'High School' and 'city'
>may be misleading in respect to Scotland, and we will consider
>revising them at the earliest opportunity."
>
>Inverness was awarded city status for the millenium, Stirling was
>awarded city status for the Queen's Golden Jubilee.
>
>The "modern" cities are Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee,
>Inverness, Stirling (based largely on population and recent Royal
>charters).
So, is it royal charters or is it population? Above the claim was made
it was only by royal charter that a place could be considered a city,
now it's population and royal charters.
Also, note that the determining factor here is not really "modern" vs
"ancient", but "on the government's Little List Of Places We Officially
Acknowledge As Cities" vs. "places people call "city" in various other
contexts besides the government's Little List Of Places We Officially
Acknowledge As Cities". In other words, the distinction is
definition/sense used for "city" -- time period may or may not be a
factor within each definition.
>Ancient cities include Dunblane and Dunfermline.
And any place that had a pre-Reformation Roman Catholic episcopal seat,
and so on.
I recommend rewriting to the FAQ on this to acknowledge that there are
several different senses of "city" current in Scotland, and whether any
town is a city depends on context and the sense of city meant. For this
to make sense, a historical look at the evolution of the various senses
will probably be needed. Also, explaining the concept of "burgh" seems
to me to be important to understanding the use of "city" in Scotland --
at the very least to head off confusion.
Certainly you should explain what is meant by the government's Little
List Of Places We Officially Acknowledge As Cities, and what cities are
on it, but but the fact is that even if it wanted to, the government
could not change the meaning of words in either Scottish English or
Scots by any mere Act or Decree. Language doesn't work that way. The
most government can do is say "For this governmental and/or legal
purpose, we are defining city to mean this specific thing." What Scots
mean by the word outside of such a governmental context is something the
government can not control.
BTW, you might wnat to note that the Concise Scots Dictionary says, s.v.
city: "1. name for some of the (esp larger) BURGHS which were or had
been episcopal seats (see OED) 15-. 2. = city." No mention of royal
charters at all.
Sharon
PS Yes, by one of the Scottish senses of "city" (having been a
[pre-Reformation] RC episcopal seat) Saint Andrews is a city. However,
it is not on the government's Little List Of Places We Officially
Acknowledge As Cities.
--
Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
Craig Cockburn
L. Krossa <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> writes
>
>If I am in error, and Scottish towns have been and are only considered
>cities if they had a royal charter declaring them cities, I will
>acknowledge myself corrected when the specific royal charters are cited
>for each of the Scottish towns called "city" demonstrating that this is
>how Scottish towns became cities -- especially for Aberdeen, Glasgow,
>and Edinburgh.
>
on when King James IV turned Dunblane from a town with a cathedral into
a city with a cathedral.
William Meikle
Willie
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lake monsters, kelpies, blasted heaths and men in skirts. What more do you want?
http://www.willie.meikle.btinternet.co.uk/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lesley Robertson
"William Meikle" <Willie...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:01c25ca2$febaaf60$81b57ad5@default...
> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>
Lesley Robertson
Bryn Fraser
<Willie...@btinternet.com> writes
>How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>
1 Then Vigagdha Sakalya questioned him, saying "How many gods are there,
Yajnavalkya"
He answered by [reciting] this invocatory formula:
"As many as are mentioned in the invocatory formula in the hymn to the
All-gods,-three hundred and three and three thousand and three (=3306)."
"Yes" he said "but how many gods are there really, Yajnavalkya?"
[...]
"Thirty-three."
[...]
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
>
--
Bryn Fraser
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder;
And that craves wary walking.
(Julius Caesar. Act 2. Scene 1. Brutus speaking.)
--
http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk
http://www.thefrasers.com
MacRobert
<br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>In article <01c25ca2$febaaf60$81b57ad5@default>, William Meikle
><Willie...@btinternet.com> writes
>>How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>>
>III, ix
>
>1 Then Vigagdha Sakalya questioned him, saying "How many gods are there,
>Yajnavalkya"
>
>He answered by [reciting] this invocatory formula:
>
>"As many as are mentioned in the invocatory formula in the hymn to the
>All-gods,-three hundred and three and three thousand and three (=3306)."
>
>"Yes" he said "but how many gods are there really, Yajnavalkya?"
>[...]
>"Thirty-three."
>[...]
>
>Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
>>
>
>--
>Bryn Fraser
But gods are so much chubbier than angels, what with lack of real
excercise and all. Then there's the 'pinion factor' (a measure of
vanity whereby the angel fluffs up the wings when dancing well) which
can knock the peripheral angels right off the pin, so the best
estimate would be around 3950.
HTH
MacRobert
Alastair Dickson
It has been sad to see the idea of civics over the past couple of years
degenerate into the pursuit of city status. Millennium and Jubilee
became something like a wedding scramble as councillors jostle to grab a
royal penny.
And what for? In many cases (i.e. here in Stirling), burgh is a better
description of the relationship of the town with its environs than city.
A city denotes something else: a place which has become metropolis,
which has cast off the intricate balance of relationship with its
surrounding farms, trades, etc.
Ian O. Morrison
> The assumption that a Cathedral = city in the past is simply untrue.
> Many Cathedrals in the Middle Ages were not built in Towns. RH
The one in St Andrews was, hence "civitas", and that's where were
discussing. Pay attention!
------
Ian O.
Alan Smaill
> It has been sad to see the idea of civics over the past couple of years
> degenerate into the pursuit of city status. Millennium and Jubilee
> became something like a wedding scramble as councillors jostle to grab a
> royal penny.
>
> And what for? In many cases (i.e. here in Stirling), burgh is a better
> description of the relationship of the town with its environs than city.
> A city denotes something else: a place which has become metropolis,
> which has cast off the intricate balance of relationship with its
> surrounding farms, trades, etc.
Sounds right.
What is it that counts as the new city of Stirling?
Is it the council area, which is something much bigger,
or something smaller, and if so what?
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Division of Informatics tel: 44-131-650-2710
University of Edinburgh
Sharon L. Krossa
> In message <1fii1gq.50n1l5129o1urN%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu>, Sharon
> L. Krossa <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> writes
> >
> >If I am in error, and Scottish towns have been and are only considered
> >cities if they had a royal charter declaring them cities, I will
> >acknowledge myself corrected when the specific royal charters are cited
> >for each of the Scottish towns called "city" demonstrating that this is
> >how Scottish towns became cities -- especially for Aberdeen, Glasgow,
> >and Edinburgh.
> >
> See Message-ID: <HnBeDMDD...@SiliconGlen.com>
> on when King James IV turned Dunblane from a town with a cathedral into
> a city with a cathedral.
But that is merely an unsubstantiated claim, not a citation of any
charters, let alone charters demonstrating that _each_ of the towns
called "city" were *only* so called because they had a charter from the
king declaring them a city. Where are these supposed charters for
Aberdeen (Old or New), Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth, Brechin, Saint
Andrews?
If (and it is a big if, considering the source for the claim that
Dunblane was not considered a city perior to King James IV supposedly
granting it a charter making it one -- see below) Dunblane was "made" a
city by a charter from King James IV in 1500, it is only one example.
Where are the others? If you have 6 out of 7 towns called cities without
such a declaration charter, and 1 (supposedly) out of 7 with a
declaration charter, it is unreasonable to conclude that cities were
_only_ considered cities if they had a declaration charter. However if 5
or 6** out of 7 towns called cities were episcopal seats, that's an
indication that the episcopal seat theory (cathedral theory) is on to
something -- that is, that being an episcopal seat (having a cathedral)
is very probably at least one way for a town to be considered a city in
Scotland.
**I've noticed that so far the earliest reference anyone has quoted for
Edinburgh being called a city (in my post from the DOST) dates to 1687
-- given that Charles I founded the Bishopric of Edinburgh in 1633,
Edinburgh's being considered a city may originally have been because it
was an episcopal seat (albeit a post-Reformation non-RC one).
BTW, have you noticed that Dunblane is not on the government's List Of
Places We Officially Acknowledge As Cities? Thus, if you accept
Dunblane's claim to being a city, you must also acknowledge that the
government's List Of Places We Officially Acknowledge As Cities is not
the only Scottish sense/meaning of city.
In fact, lets examine the government's list. We've been told the current
list for Scotland is: Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Inverness,
and Stirling, per the Lord Chancellor's web site at
http://www.lcd.gov.uk/constitution/city/citygj.htm). But back in 1999 in
soc.culture.scottish, David Thorpe reported (in message ID
E1Cq3.2231$kx.45341@stones) that the 1972 "Municipal Year Book" gave the
list of Scottish cities as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth,
and Elgin. What happened? Were Perth's and Elgin's royal city declaring
charter's revoked? Or are/were different parts of the government using
different definitions of city in different contexts?
With regard to Dunblane, what we have is a web page:
http://www.dunblaneweb.co.uk/history.htm
We don't know who wrote it. We don't know what sources they used, let
alone how reliable those sources may have been or whether they were
interpreted reasonably by the web page author. The web site claims
"Although Dunblane is a thriving and prosperous community, it actually
reached the peak of its prestige and prosperity in 1500 when King James
IV, who ruled Scotland from the nearby Royal burgh of Stirling, elected
it a city." No sources cited, let alone quoted, let alone any charter
from James IV dated 1500.
As a Scottish historian with a speciality in late medieval towns/burghs,
I have to say this just doesn't make any sense. I've been studying
Scottish medieval urban history for about 13 years, and I've never heard
of a medieval town being "elected a city". I have, however, seen various
towns called cities for just the reasons I explained in my previous
post: 1) they were an [RC] episcopal seat or 2) they were one of the
larger and more important burghs [and this may be only a 17th century or
later development].
Also, recall that I quoted Pryde's _Burghs of Scotland_ entry for
Dunblane: "From the fifteenth century onwards Dunblane was a city but
not a burgh ..." Now, if Dunblane wasn't a city until (supposedly) James
IV declared it one in 1500, why would a respected historian such as
Pryde have said it was prior to 1500? Also note that Pryde was not even
saying that Dunblane was not a city prior to the 15th century -- his
point was that although it had been a burgh in the 13th/14th centuries,
in the 15th century it was no longer a burgh, only a city. The text
doesn't explicitly indicate either way whether it was called/considered
a city prior to the 15th century or not. This is clearer with the full
context of the entire entry in Pryde:
-----begin quote of Pryde-----
thirteenth-
fourteenth
centuries.
96. DUNBLANE: The only early evidence that this was
a burgh is the matrix of a seal in the British Museum, legend
s' COMVNE BVRGI DVNBLANENSIS. This has been ascribed to the
thirteenth or fourteenth century (Birch, <Catalogue of Seals in
the British Museum>, iv, No.15506-7; Stevenson and Wood,
<Scottish Heraldic Seals>, i. 59; Barty, <History of Dunblane>, 30;
Pryde in <College Courant>, ii. 29-30). From the fifteenth century
onwards Dunblane was a city but not a burgh and the seal
must therefore belong to this earlier period.
------end quote------
Now, I wouldn't be the least surprised if a royal charter or document
from King James IV circa 1500 referred to Dunblane as a city -- it was,
after all, a city by virtue of being an episcopal seat, so it would be
unsurprising for the king to refer to it as a city. But I question that
there was a charter specifically making it a city in 1500 with the
implication it had not been one previous to 1500. (But, again, I welcome
evidence to the contrary if any should be found.)
In any case, given the choice between believing Pryde, whose _Burghs of
Scotland_ is a standard reference for Scottish urban history, and a web
page without references on a website otherwise not concerned with
history, the prudent knowledge-seeker should side with Pryde until some
more persuasive evidence or information to the contrary is presented.
Looking through the various books I have on medieval and early modern
Scottish urban history (including some that cover the beginning to
modern times), as well as more general histories, I am struck by how few
entries for "city" or "cities" there were in the indexes -- only a few
books even had it in the index. And these few that did either refer to
sections discussing very modern times or else sections dealing with
ecclesiastical history.
In fact, in one of them, Cowan's "The Emergence of the Urban Parish" in
Lynch et al. eds. _The Scottish Medieval Town_, Cowan indicates that all
13 of the medieval Scottish cathedral sites were at least sometimes
referred to by the Latin word for city, "civitas". [Note that until
circa 1375, there were no documents in Scots, only snippets of text, and
even after 1375, most Scottish records were written in Latin until
probably sometime in the 16th century, and church related records were
even more likely to be written in Latin than other kinds.]
Cowan's tone does imply that it is a little odd to call a cathedral site
that didn't develop _any_ urban settlement a city, but this seems to be
because [even earlier in history and also more generally in Europe] "the
designation 'civitas' ... denotes a centre of civilized living" and that
a cathedral site with no other settlement was a strange sort of "centre
of civilized living". He also makes clear that 11 of the 13 medieval
cathedral sites in Scotland *did* develop urban settlments, and that
even the two that did not were nonetheless sometimes called "civitas".
But Cowan seems to be considering a "normal" city/civitas in medieval
Scotland as a place that had both a cathedral and an urban settlement.
The two cathedral sites without urban settlement were Iona, seat of the
Bishopric of the Isles ("which possessed no recognised diocesan centre
for much of its existence") and Lismore. The 11 that did, and so were
"civitas" in the combined sense of being an ecclessiastical see and
"centre of civilized living", were Old Aberdeen, Brechin, Dornach,
Dunblane, Dunkeld, Elgin, Fortrose, Glasgow, Kirkwall, Saint Andrews,
and Whithorn. (If we include all pre-1707 urban settlements with
cathedrals, also Edinburgh.)
If you want to disprove the theories of historians, the editors of the
OED, DOST, and the Concise Scots Dictionary reading the meanings of
"city" in Scotland, you need to provide an argument based on a full
consideration of the actual evidence and sound secondary works (e.g.
quotes from primary sources from the Middle Ages to the present day, the
research and publications of reputable Scottish urban historians, etc.)
not on unsubstantiated claims and assertions (even if those claims and
assertions on on a government website ;-).
In any case, the point is that clearly there is evidence of several
different senses/meanings of "city" in use in Scotland, even to this
present day. Do some places qualify as a city under one
definition/sense but not another? Yes, clearly. Does not qualifying as a
city under one definition mean they aren't a city under any definition?
No, equally clearly.
Sharon
Craig Cockburn
http://www.theherald.co.uk/letters/archive/21-12-19100-23-19-11.html
Edward Tweedly
> <sheila.v...@which.net> writes
> >Simon Brooke wrote:
> >
> >> What's a city? The good people of Dunblane will tell you Dunblane is a
> >> city, because it has a cathedral.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> "Although Dunblane is a thriving and prosperous community, it actually
> reached the peak of its prestige and prosperity in 1500 when King James
> IV, who ruled Scotland from the nearby Royal burgh of Stirling, elected
> it a city"
>
> http://www.dunblaneweb.co.uk/history.htm
>
> The present cathedral dates from 1240. Therefore it was a place with a
> cathedral but not a city for 260 years. So much for the old rule that
> having a cathedral made a place a city!
A Royal Burgh isn't necessarily a city, e.g. Lanark which was made a
Royal Burgh in 1140, but no-one would describe it as a city.
Edward Tweedly
Lesley Robertson
"Edward Tweedly" <e...@tweedly.com> wrote in message
news:52247d9d.02091...@posting.google.com...
>
> A Royal Burgh isn't necessarily a city, e.g. Lanark which was made a
> Royal Burgh in 1140, but no-one would describe it as a city.
>
THINK are mostly paralled in Scotland by the rights of the Royal Burghs
(e.g. guilds), despite the inconguity of their size. For this reason, I
suspect that city status was, in the past, more importnt in England than in
Scotland. The current rush to get formal city status is just a part of the
Sassenachification (that should upset the spell checker) of Scotland.
Lesley Robertson
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
Did anyone say that it was? The actual cities such as Edinburgh most always
describe themselves as, *The City and Royal Burgh of Edinburgh*, thus making
a clear distinction between a Royal Burgh and a City.
From the COD:-
city // n. (pl. -ies)
1 a a large town. b Brit. (strictly) a town created a city by charter and
containing a cathedral. c US a municipal state-chartered corporation
occupying a definite area.
2 (the City) Brit. a the part of London governed by the Lord Mayor and the
Corporation. b the business part of this. c commercial circles; high
finance.
3 (attrib.) of a city or the City.
cityward adj. & adv.
citywards adv.
[Middle English via Old French cité from Latin civitas -tatis, from civis
'citizen']
royal burgh n. hist.
(in Scotland) a burgh holding a charter from the Crown.
burgh // n. hist.
a Scottish borough or chartered town.
burghal / adj.
[Scots form of borough]
borough // n.
1 Brit. a a town (as distinct from a city) with a corporation and privileges
granted by a royal charter. b hist. a town sending representatives to
Parliament.
2 an administrative division of London.
3 a municipal corporation in certain US states.
4 each of five divisions of New York City.
5 (in Alaska) a county.
[Old English burg, burh from Germanic: cf. burgh]
Robert Henderson
Morrison <iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<s1rhBLARth
>g9E...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>
>> The assumption that a Cathedral = city in the past is simply untrue.
>> Many Cathedrals in the Middle Ages were not built in Towns. RH
>
>The one in St Andrews was, hence "civitas", and that's where were
>discussing. Pay attention!
>
>------
>Ian O.
Sharon L. Krossa
> Just turned this up:
>
> http://www.theherald.co.uk/letters/archive/21-12-19100-23-19-11.html
Which is apparently letters to the editor of The Herald (unknown year --
the date appears to be 21 December of the mystery year, possibly 2000).
The letter of interest says merely:
-----
City status
"PROPER" cities, such as Dunblane or Glasgow, were almost certainly
granted that title by papal authority - see the letter from Pope
Benedict XIII of Avignon, September 10, 1403, which refers to "the
people of the city and diocese" (of Dunblane). Only later, James IV
granted Dunblane royal burgh status. Cities simply issued with letters
patent by the sovereign are certainly of junior rank.
Ian H C Stein, Inchmahome, St Margarets's Drive, Dunblane.
-----
This contains both useful information (the specific reference of a town
being called a city) and misleading conclusions.
Anyway, if the designation "city" is by papal authority, then....
(dramatic pause ;-) ....
every pre-Reformation cathedral site in Scotland is a city. Cowan "The
Emergency of the Urban Parish" in _The Scottish Medieval Town_, footnote
16 reads: "Vatican Archives, Registra Suplicationum [Reg. Supp.] 994,
fo. 74v; the designation 'civitas' which denotes a centre of civilised
living was equally applied to all the cathedral 'cities' within the
kingdom (ibid., 885, fo. 40)" (The Vatican, of course, wrote all its
correspondance in Latin.)
Of course, if we accept papal authority for making cities, then we also
must accept that there is more than one way to become a city and/or more
than one sense/meaning to city -- otherwise the modern cities declared
cities by the UK Government/Queen are not cities. Throughout this
discussion, my position has been that there isn't only one way to become
a city and only one definition/meaning/sense of "city" used in Scotland,
and that the FAQ on city status should acknowledge this and discussion
the various senses, etc.
But lets actually look at what we have from the letter to The Herald
from Stein -- he just notes that there is a letter (no doubt concerning
some unrelated matter) which "*refers to* 'the people of the city and
diocesse'". [emphasis mine] In other words, all it shows is that
Dunblane was considered a city by the Pope -- this particular example
does *not* indicate that it was by papal authority it was given the
designation of city.
An illustrative example might be useful here. I can write a letter today
and refer to "the city of Glasgow". Doesn't mean that Glasgow has city
status by my authority.
But in fact, I expect that the Vatican tended to refer to every place
where there was a cathedral in Europe as a city as a matter of course,
on the assumption that all cathedrals had around them a, to quote Cowan,
"centre of civilised living" (After all, in the places Popes were found,
such as Italy and France, they did -- and even in Scotland 11/13 had
urban settlements.)
As for the "junior rank" comment in the letter -- this strikes me as
indicating a lack of understanding of Scottish urban history, as well
as, of course, a failure to take into account the different
meanings/sense of city.
In the Middle Ages, the towns of most importance and prestige were Royal
Burghs. This was because they were self-governing municipalities with
special trading privileges with no superior over them but the king
rather than, as with a burgh of barony and the like, a mere baron,
bishop, or abbot. (If you compare it to rural land holding, the
difference between a royal burgh and a burgh of barony, etc., is like
the difference between someone who held their lands directly from the
king and someone who held their lands from a lesser lord.)
Note also that it was burgh status, not city status, that gave an urban
settlement privileges with regard to representation at parliament, etc.
Was it prestigious to have a cathedral and so be a city? Undoubtedly.
But medieval Scottish cathedral cities coveted burgh status and
privileges. (And burghs of barony coveted royal burgh status...) What
really matterd to a town was the status granted from the monarch,
regardless of what the Pope called you.
Further, since "city" meaing having a cathedral and "city" meaning being
recognized by the (modern) government as being a city are two distinct
senses, I don't see how one can be junior to the other -- they're not on
the same scale.
But see my other posts with regard to other senses/meanings of "city"
and their significance with regard to practical matters and status.
Sharon L. Krossa
So it would seem. So far I haven't found any evidence that any Scots
cared that much whether their town was a "city" prior to the Union of
Parliaments (indeed, prior to the 19th century) -- cities that were
were, towns that weren't weren't.
But burgh status! Man, did places want that! Especially royal burgh
status! Burghs had self-government. Burghs had special trading
privileges, which were very important to the prosperty of the town and
its inhabitants. Burghs were represented in parliament.
Royal burgh status was even better. Royal burghs had a monopoly on
foreign trade. They also had more representation in parliament than
non-royal burghs. As well as the prestige of having no superior above
them except the king. (Although other kinds of burghs were created after
1707, apparently no more royal burghs were created after the Union of
Parliaments.)
Being a city was more of a big deal for settlements that weren't burghs
-- it (having a cathedral and so being a city) distinguished them from
being nothing, really. But Scottish cities wanted to be burghs. Most of
them achieved burgh status, although some not until quite late in the
Middle Ages.
So, the medieval Scottish urban settlement hierarchy went something like
this (from highest to lowest):
Royal burgh (legal distinction)
Burgh of barony/regality (legal distinction)
City only (had cathedral)
Nothing (village)
Later, maybe in the 16th or 17th centuries, or even 18th century (I
can't find anything in the sources I have available to really pin it
down), Scots did come to call the largest and most important royal
burghs "cities". As far as I can tell, it appears this wasn't by any
official proclamation, it was just a common usage -- much as in the USA
we have a sense of "city" meaning the important places with large
populations (New York, Boston, Los Angeles) and not the smaller places,
despite in the legal sense those smaller places being cities. (Think of
this as the "big city" sense of "city".) Depending on the timing, this
development could have been influenced by English practice (that is, a
post-union import). What would be really helpful to sorting out the
timing is to find the earliest Scottish references to Perth as a
"city".
So, the early modern Scottish urban settlement hierarchy went somthing
like this (from highest to lowest):
City (by popular recognition rather than government declaration)
Other royal burgh (legal distinction)
Burgh of barony/regality (legal distinction)
Nothing (village)
In the nineteenth century I'm not sure what the local government
situation was. However, there was at least one town that got an official
proclamation from the Queen declaring them a "city" (Dundee).
Then, in 1929, the UK government reorganized local government, and used
"city" as the highest category of burgh in Scotland (rather than the
historical Scottish royal burgh vs. non-royal, it became cities, large
burghs, and small burghs). I expect this influenced 20th century Scots
attitudes about the importance of being a city in this sense. Being
this kind of city actually made a difference to the practical life of a
town, and does reflect the early modern Scottish sense of city as being
one of the largest and most important burghs, although by government
categorization rather than by popular usage.
So from 1929-1975, the Scottish urban settlement hierarchy went somthing
like this (from highest to lowest):
City (by government categorization, but a kind of burgh)
Large burgh (by government categorization)
Small burgh (by government categorization)
Nothing (village)
But in 1975 the UK reorganized government again, and did away with the
legal/governmental significance of being a burgh altogether, city or
not. Opening the door for many Scots today to be unaware of the
historical significance of being a burgh beyond an empty term.
So, since 1975, being a city has meant nothing in practical terms. Being
a burgh has meant nothing in practical terms. These terms only
significance and prestige is that which people ascribe to them.
But even so, both the medieval (settlement having a cathedral) and early
modern (largest and most important burghs by popular recognition rather
than governmental declaration) Scottish senses of city seem to be still
in use today in Scotland (based on the various towns calling themselves
cities), despite claims that the only definition/sense is the one the
current UK government claims (being on their Big** List Of Places We
Officially Acknowledge As Cities).
Thus there are at least three different senses of "city" current in
Scotland today, four if you count being on the government's Big List Of
Places We Officially Acknowledge As Cities and having a (modern)
city-hood declaration charter as two different senses.
Personally, and I admit to the bias of a 16th century historian ;-), I
see the current mad desire of modern Scottish towns to be "officially"
recognized by the UK Queen/Government as cities (when it brings them
nothing but a place on the government's Big List Of Places We Officially
Acknowledge As Cities) as a sad commentary on how unfamiliar most Scots
are with their own history, as well as yet another sign of how dominant
the English tradition is within the UK.
(Although apparently Perth wisely decided they didn't need no stinkin'
government stamp of approval, and so chose not to even apply for the
"honour" ;-)
Sharon
**After going to the Lord Chancellor's web site, I see that the list is
actually big, even though it only has 6 Scottish entries.
Simon Brooke
A city is a city if it is declared so by the leader of a foreign religion
to which few of us adhere (i.e. either the Pope, head of the Roman Catholic
church, or the Queen, head of the Church of England) and is in any case a
foreign concept imposed on Scotland by more or less ignorant colonial
rulers.
The native concepts are of burghs and royal burghs.
Have I got that right?
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; not so much a regugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker
Simon Brooke
Don't feed the trolls.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.
Ian O. Morrison
<much snipping>
> So, the early modern Scottish urban settlement hierarchy went somthing
> like this (from highest to lowest):
>
> City (by popular recognition rather than government declaration)
> Other royal burgh (legal distinction)
> Burgh of barony/regality (legal distinction)
> Nothing (village)
>
> In the nineteenth century I'm not sure what the local government
> situation was. However, there was at least one town that got an official
> proclamation from the Queen declaring them a "city" (Dundee).
>
> Then, in 1929, the UK government reorganized local government, and used
> "city" as the highest category of burgh in Scotland (rather than the
> historical Scottish royal burgh vs. non-royal, it became cities, large
> burghs, and small burghs). I expect this influenced 20th century Scots
> attitudes about the importance of being a city in this sense. Being
> this kind of city actually made a difference to the practical life of a
> town, and does reflect the early modern Scottish sense of city as being
> one of the largest and most important burghs, although by government
> categorization rather than by popular usage.
>
> So from 1929-1975, the Scottish urban settlement hierarchy went somthing
> like this (from highest to lowest):
>
> City (by government categorization, but a kind of burgh)
> Large burgh (by government categorization)
> Small burgh (by government categorization)
> Nothing (village)
Just last week I saw a document listing over 80 different kinds of
administrative unit, often overlapping, which exist or existed in
Scotland, so the above is a bit of a simplification, but a very
necessary one!
A prime example of a major town which was not a Royal Burgh is
Kilmarnock. As a hotbed of the industrial revolution, due largely to a
happy conjunction of coal and iron ore, Kilmarnock found it a major
inconvenience to have its manufactures traded through Ayr, which did
have that status. In fact, most of the town's manufacturers smuggled
their export goods out via Leith. At the height of the printed
textiles boom, in the mid-late 19th century, though, this restriction
had been lifted.
I happened to be working for Kilmarnock Burgh Council at the time of
the May 1975 reorganisation. One of the main reasons for all parties
undertaking this long and tortuous process was to rationalise local
and regional administration, because so many anomalies had arisen over
the centuries. After ten or fifteen years settling down, we actually
had a reasonably sane and rational hierarchy, thus:
Regional Council (strategic planning, education, social services etc.)
District or City Council (the only difference between these being
nominal)
Community Council (no powers at all)
The reorganisation of twenty years later was done in a hasty and
half-baked manner and has caused lasting damage to council services
and staff, not to mention increasing local taxes. As usual with the
Tories, the main purpose was to wreak vengeance on authorities whose
citizens had voted them out in overwhelming numbers. An earlier
example of the same was in England, when Thatcher exterminated the
Metropolitan County Councils.
The hierarchy now is:
Council (all powers)
Community Council (no powers)
Logically, IMHO, there should now be another reorganisation to take
account of the existence of the Scottish Parliament, but I don't think
anyone has the stomach for that.
>
> But in 1975 the UK reorganized government again, and did away with the
> legal/governmental significance of being a burgh altogether, city or
> not. Opening the door for many Scots today to be unaware of the
> historical significance of being a burgh beyond an empty term.
The community council of the Royal Burgh of Forres certainly did not
consider it an insignificant matter and fought long and hard for the
right to be styled "The Community Council of the Royal Burgh of
Forres", post-1975. Eventually they were successful. At least this
struggle helped to keep their attention off more important
matters.....
<more snipping>
------
Ian O.
Lesley Robertson
"Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8jt6ma...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> So, to summarise:
>
> A city is a city if it is declared so by the leader of a foreign religion
> to which few of us adhere (i.e. either the Pope, head of the Roman
Catholic
> church, or the Queen, head of the Church of England) and is in any case a
> foreign concept imposed on Scotland by more or less ignorant colonial
> rulers.
>
don't think the religious aspects are relevant. I also don't think it's
being imposed - the local Councils seem to be grabbing for the chance.
> The native concepts are of burghs and royal burghs.
>
Historically, the Burghs and Royal Burghs are older.
> Have I got that right?
>
You have an interesting view of the matter.
Lesley Robertson
Simon Brooke
> I happened to be working for Kilmarnock Burgh Council at the time of
> the May 1975 reorganisation. One of the main reasons for all parties
> undertaking this long and tortuous process was to rationalise local
> and regional administration, because so many anomalies had arisen over
> the centuries. After ten or fifteen years settling down, we actually
> had a reasonably sane and rational hierarchy, thus:
> Regional Council (strategic planning, education, social services etc.)
> District or City Council (the only difference between these being
> nominal)
> Community Council (no powers at all)
But the problem is that places *are* anomalous.
It makes no sense to have a 'local' councillor representing Langholm making
decisions about planning and education in Drummore. Langholm is nearer to
*Nottingham* then it is to Drummore (and Drummore is nearer to Sligo on the
*west* coast of the Republic of Ireland than it is to Langholm), and
Dumfries and Galloway wasn't even the largest Regional Council. The rural
'regions' of Scottish local government were insanely vast, and in no sense
'local'.
Prior to Regionalisation we had the Stewartry Council (representing about
40,000 people) dealing with strategic services, with Kirkcudbright, Castle
Douglas and Dalbeattie each having Burgh councils (each representing about
3,000 people) dealing with issues local to those burghs.
Even the Stewartry council was near the extreme top end for size of rural
local government division elsewhere in the world. Now the population of the
least populous local government division in Scotland exceeds that of many
independent nations, and it's ludicrous. It's no use having 'local'
planning decisions made by people who have never been near the sites
considered in their lives.
So why doe we have these enormous local government divisions?
Well, clearly, if you have an urban area like greater Glasgow, or what used
to be Midlothian and is now pretty much greater Edinburgh, there has to be
some strategic planning for the whole unit. That's fine. That's sensible.
Then some urban-based idiot says 'OK, so this is the number of people in a
local government division'... and applies the same number to rural areas.
But when we got deregionalised into unitary authorities the situation got
worse, because mainly urban regions got split up to the previous 'district'
level whereas the nation-sized rural regions were retained. Consider the
following:
Region People Hectares
Dundee (City of) 153,710 5,500
Dumfries and Galloway 147,900 644,567
Perthshire and Kinross 130,470 539,479
Highland 206,900 2,611,906
Nation People Hectares
Andorra 67,627 46,800
Iceland 277,906 10,300,000
Liechtenstein 32,528 16,000
Luxembourg 442,972 258,600
Consider: D&G and P&K each have one hundred times the land area of Dundee,
while Highland has *five hundred times* the land area. D&G is twice the
area of an independent country in the European Union, and four times the
population of an independent country in Europe. You cannot impose a 'one
size fits all' local government system on Scotland, because it just isn't
like that.
Admittedly there are (some) financial costs to having more, smaller, local
government divisions, but there are huge democratic costs to our present
system. Who among you would recognise your 'local' councillor? Who among
you has spoken to your 'local' councillor in the past week?
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.
Thomson McFarlane
<992a4c7b.02091...@posting.google.com>,
iomor...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[snipped]
> A prime example of a major town which was not a Royal Burgh is
> Kilmarnock. As a hotbed of the industrial revolution, due largely to a
> happy conjunction of coal and iron ore, Kilmarnock found it a major
> inconvenience to have its manufactures traded through Ayr, which did
> have that status. In fact, most of the town's manufacturers smuggled
> their export goods out via Leith. At the height of the printed
> textiles boom, in the mid-late 19th century, though, this restriction
> had been lifted.
>
[snipped]
Ian,
As an aside, what role did Irvine play wrt Killie, as it
too, IIRC, was a Royal Burgh?
Thomson
Ian O.
wrote:
>As an aside, what role did Irvine play wrt Killie, as it
>too, IIRC, was a Royal Burgh?
I have beside me the very excellent "Ayrshire: The Story of a County"
by John Strawhorn, published by Ayrshire Archaeological and Natural
History Society in 1975 (no ISBN), to mark the passing of Ayrshire. I
played a tiny part in the production of this definitive volume, which
is why I have a copy today!
Ayr was erected a Royal Burgh by William the Lion, and awarded
exclusive privileges over the whole sheriffdom/shire/county, even
though there was already a burgh of barony at Prestwick, and another
one at Newton-of-Ayr was created, possibly in the 14th century. As
Strawhorn says:
"Shortly after Ayr's creation a burgh was established at
Irvine......After a dispute between Irvine and Ayr regarding trading
rights in Cuninghame, Irvine was in 1371 recognized by Robert II as a
king's burgh, thereafter of equal status with Ayr."
Ayr's geographical situation, however, was much better than that of
Irvine, and by the 16th century it was the most important port on the
West coast. Irvine, however, had languished.
The town of Kilmarnock certainly had connections with both places, but
its principal rivalry was with Ayr, the county town, whose burghers
took great delight in exacting revenue from Kilmarnock's products.
Much of Kilmarnock's coal, though, was exported through Troon, and the
Duke of Portland built a railway line to connect these places,
probably the first such in Scotland to carry paying passengers hauled
by a steam locomotive (the weight of the locomotive, however, broke
the rails and they went back to the more reliable horsepower). The
Kilmarnock & Troon Railway bridge over the River Irvine, possibly the
first in the world, can still be seen.
Thomson McFarlane
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:25:30 +0300, Thomson McFarlane <tm...@sci.fi>
> wrote:
>
> >As an aside, what role did Irvine play wrt Killie, as it
> >too, IIRC, was a Royal Burgh?
>
> I have beside me the very excellent "Ayrshire: The Story of a County"
> by John Strawhorn, published by Ayrshire Archaeological and Natural
> History Society in 1975 (no ISBN), to mark the passing of Ayrshire. I
> played a tiny part in the production of this definitive volume, which
> is why I have a copy today!
>
find a copy one of these days.
[good stuff snipped]
>
> The town of Kilmarnock certainly had connections with both places, but
> its principal rivalry was with Ayr, the county town, whose burghers
> took great delight in exacting revenue from Kilmarnock's products.
>
There is still great rivalry.
> Much of Kilmarnock's coal, though, was exported through Troon, and the
> Duke of Portland built a railway line to connect these places,
> probably the first such in Scotland to carry paying passengers hauled
> by a steam locomotive (the weight of the locomotive, however, broke
> the rails and they went back to the more reliable horsepower). The
> Kilmarnock & Troon Railway bridge over the River Irvine, possibly the
> first in the world, can still be seen.
>
It is not far from my mum's house in Barassie.
Thomson, from Kilmaurs
Sharon L. Krossa
> So, to summarise:
>
> A city is a city if it is declared so by the leader of a foreign religion
> to which few of us adhere (i.e. either the Pope, head of the Roman Catholic
> church, or the Queen, head of the Church of England) and is in any case a
> foreign concept imposed on Scotland by more or less ignorant colonial
> rulers.
>
> The native concepts are of burghs and royal burghs.
>
> Have I got that right?
Er, no.
The Scots clearly had their own ideas of "city" from the Middle Ages
onwards.
Further, there isn't one and only one definition of "city" in current
Scottish usage.
Finally, only one of those definitions requries anyone to declare
anything before a town can be called a city. (But yes, this declaring
idea does seem to be English in origin based on current info.)
Sharon
PS In some earlier post or posts I may have used the term
"ecclesiastical seat" rather than "episcopal seat" -- I meant episcopal,
honest! ;-)
Stephen Copinger
Thomson McFarlane <tm...@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:MPG.17f3f191d7ba39839896c4@localhost...
<snip>
> > Much of Kilmarnock's coal, though, was exported through Troon, and the
> > Duke of Portland built a railway line to connect these places,
> > probably the first such in Scotland to carry paying passengers hauled
> > by a steam locomotive (the weight of the locomotive, however, broke
> > the rails and they went back to the more reliable horsepower). The
> > Kilmarnock & Troon Railway bridge over the River Irvine, possibly the
> > first in the world, can still be seen.
> >
> It is not far from my mum's house in Barassie.
>
> Thomson, from Kilmaurs
The Kilmarnock end of the railway, AIUI was by what is now Portland Road,
next to the Holy Trinity Church (SW of the crossroads at the bottom of John
Finnie Street).
Beannachd leibh
Stephen