Difference between a city and a town. Is London divided in two cities?
Harvey V
> When I was receiving English tuition and lodging in England,
> certainly in a house with more than one entrance, I was told that
> cities are usually bigger than towns, but the difference is that
> cities have a cathedral or have received a official letter from
> the king or the queen giving it the title of city. That allow it,
> for instance, to raise bigger taxes.
That is my understanding of it.
> But I was told in my country
> by a native English person it was also necessary to have a
> university.
There are a lot of folk myths about the qualifications for city status.
I think this is one of them.
> I was also told London is divided, but by no means
> officially, in two cities one regarding the protestant cathedral
> and another one regarding the catholic one.
Your informant may have been a bit confused.The "protestant" (or Church
of England) cathedral in London is St Paul's, which is sited within the
City of London. The Roman Catholic cathedral is "Westminster
Cathedral", and is sited in the adjacent City of Westminster. (It
should not be confused with Westminster Abbey, which is an *entirely*
separate building.) The siting of the cathedrals in these two separate
local authorities is, I think, due to simpmle historical rather than
religious reasons.
> What do "the city of London" or "in the City (referring as a part
> of London)" expressions refer to?
I will try and give a simple outline.
The "City of London", or "Corporation of the City of London" is an
adminsitrative area which covers approximately one square mile. The
approximate boundaries are the Thames to the south; the Tower of
London to the north; Temple Bar and Holborn Bars to the west; and an
irregular boundary to the north.
The "City of Westminster" is an entirely separate administrative area
which lies immediately west of the City of London and covers such areas
as the Strand; Charing Cross; the Houses of Parliament and
Westminster Abbey; Buckingham Palace; and the whole of the "West End"
areas such as the squares of Mayfair and Oxford Street.
There are in addition to these two Cities a number of "boroughs" which
cover the remainder of the central and outer areas grouped together
under the general name of "London". (Someone can correct me here, but
I think that if one includes the Cities of London and Westminster,
there are 33 or 34 local authorities.)
Hope this helps.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Harvey V
-snip-
> What do "the city of London" or "in the City (referring as a part
> of London)" expressions refer to?
Ooops. I answered the wrong question, didn't I? ;)
"The City of London", as I mentioned, is a local authority which covers
approximately a square mile. For some centuries, its most important
industry has been banking, finance and commerce, carried out by
commercial companies and through institutions such as the Bank of
England and the Royal Exchange.
When someone refers colloquially to "the City", it means the collective
community of people and institutions involved in finance -- that is,
the community of interest has become identified by the name of the
administrative area in which the industry has traditionally
been located.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Don Aitken
>When I was receiving English tuition and lodging in England, certainly in a
>house with more than one entrance, I was told that cities are usually bigger
>than towns, but the difference is that cities have a cathedral or have
>received a official letter from the king or the queen giving it the title of
>city. That allow it, for instance, to raise bigger taxes. But I was told in
>my country by a native English person it was also necessary to have a
>university. I was also told London is divided, but by no means officially,
>in two cities one regarding the protestant cathedral and another one
>regarding the catholic one. Is it that true? Which are the protestant and
>catholic cathedrals of London? What do "the city of London" or "in the City
>(referring as a part of London)" expressions refer to?
>
You are pretty confused about this. The general rule is that a city
has received a royal charter granting it that title. Once it was
confined to places with cathedrals, but this has not been true for
several centuries. Universities are irrelevant. Cities, as such, never
had any different rights in relation to taxation beyond those
belonging to other towns with the status of "borough".
London, is, in many ways a special case. The City of London has that
status by prescription; that is, it goes back beyond the beginning of
legal memory, and was never formally granted. Its boundaries have not
been changed since the early Middle Ages, and include only the
financial district and the area around St. Paul's Cathedral. The term
"the City" is used as a synonym for "the financial business" - it is
London's equivalent of "Wall Street". The West End, Westminster, and
the rest of what is now called "central London" have never been part
of the City. London outside the City is now referred to as "Greater
London", and is divided into 32 boroughs. One of these is Westminster,
which also has the status of a City. The administrative head of the
City of London is the Lord Mayor of London. The administrative head of
Greater London is the Mayor of London (Ken Livingstone), who is also
chairman of the Greater London Authority.
London containes two Church of England Cathedrals; St. Paul's, in the
City of London, is the cathedral of the diocese of London, which
covers Greater London north of the river, and Southwark Cathedral that
of the diocese of Southwark, south of the river. The Archbishop of
Canterbury resides in London (at Lambeth Palace), but his cathedral is
in Canterbury. Westminster Cathedral is the seat of the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Westminster. There is no link between these religious
institutions and the status of the areas concerned; Westminster is not
a City *because* in contains a RC Cathedral, that is just a
coincidence.
--
Don Aitken
Mekon
"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:3cc1a089...@news.freeuk.net...(Snipped lots of interesting stuff)
>Cities, as such, never
> had any different rights in relation to taxation beyond those
> belonging to other towns with the status of "borough".
>
I live in a city (Brisbane) which, coincidentally is of the "greater"
administrative model, that is, all of the small councils amalgamated to form
one large unit - the second largest ( in area ) in the world.
The political head of Brisbane is Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley. It was my
understanding that because we are a city, Lord Jim, gets to have the "Lord"
in front of the "Mayor" in his title. Was I wrong?
Mekon
Don Aitken
minority of the cities in the British Isles (Birmingham, Bradford,
Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester,
Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth, Portsmouth,
Sheffield, Stoke-on-Trent, York, Cardiff, Belfast and Dublin). The
corresponding Scottish title is Lord Provost (Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Aberdeen, Dundee). The Lord Mayors of London and York and the Lord
Provost of Edinburgh have the additional dignity of a privy
Councillorship, with the prefix Rt. Hon.
The title of Lord Mayor was extended to the capitals of the Australian
states about a century ago. Are there really no other cities in
Australia?
--
Don Aitken
Mekon
We generally (at least as far as I know) apply the term "city" to any local
authority with more than a million inhabitants.
So there are many cities in Australia, indeed there are three cities within
a 3/4 hour drive of this desk.
When I was at school I was told often that Australia is the most urbanised
country in the world. I recently read that we are now second. I don't know
who beat us, but I suppose Singapore must be in the race.
It is one of the great mysteries of Australian culture (yes I have heard the
one about yoghurt! ) that we love and identify strongly with the bush and
yet so few of us live there.
Mekon
Roger4336
>in two cities one regarding the protestant cathedral and another one
>regarding the catholic one. Is it that true? Which are the protestant and
>catholic cathedrals of London? What do "the city of London" or "in the City
>(referring as a part of London)" expressions refer to?
>
exactly certain when), the government decided that Catholics could not have
cathedrals in cities which had Anglican cathedrals. The Catholics had to site
their cathedrals in different cities. Hence Westminster Cathedral in
Westminster, because St. Paul's was already in London.
Perhaps someone can help me out, but I believe that there are Catholic
cathedrals in relatively insignificant places in England, because the Anglicans
already had a claim on the chief city of the region.
-- Roger
a.spencer3
GREt <er...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0Afw8.215$ir5....@news.ono.com...
> When I was receiving English tuition and lodging in England, certainly in
a
> house with more than one entrance, I was told that cities are usually
bigger
> than towns, but the difference is that cities have a cathedral or have
> received a official letter from the king or the queen giving it the title
of
> city. That allow it, for instance, to raise bigger taxes. But I was told
in
> my country by a native English person it was also necessary to have a
> in two cities one regarding the protestant cathedral and another one
> regarding the catholic one. Is it that true? Which are the protestant and
> catholic cathedrals of London? What do "the city of London" or "in the
City
> (referring as a part of London)" expressions refer to?
>
>
Others are already replying to the definition of 'city'.
But there is now no definition, apart from being awarded the classification.
For instance, our local town, Woking Surrey, tried to become a city this
last year. No university. No cathedral. No pre-railway history (unless you
include some of the saurrounding villages). Not a lot of anything else
including people - population is only 100,000 (if you include all those same
surrounding villages).
We're getting as bad as the USA.
As a matter of interest, which is the USA 'city' with the smallest
population? I guess it could be less than 1,000?
Surreyman
Phil C.
"Mekon" <blankotank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s%mw8.30147$o66....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> It is one of the great mysteries of Australian culture (yes I have
heard the
> one about yoghurt! ) that we love and identify strongly with the bush
and
> yet so few of us live there.
I assume it's economic, especially with the decline in profitability of
agriculture. People need to earn a living. England is relatively unusual
in that almost all of it is easily commutable to a significant town or
city and in easy reach of mains services. Hence huge pressure for
development in the countryside.
--
Phil C.
_______________________________
philandwoody"at"meem"dot"freeserve"dot"co"dot"uk
Phil C.
> London, is, in many ways a special case. The City of London has that
> status by prescription; that is, it goes back beyond the beginning of
> legal memory, and was never formally granted. Its boundaries have not
> been changed since the early Middle Ages, and include only the
> financial district and the area around St. Paul's Cathedral. The term
> "the City" is used as a synonym for "the financial business" - it is
> London's equivalent of "Wall Street". The West End, Westminster, and
> the rest of what is now called "central London" have never been part
> of the City. London outside the City is now referred to as "Greater
> London", and is divided into 32 boroughs. One of these is Westminster,
> which also has the status of a City. The administrative head of the
> City of London is the Lord Mayor of London. The administrative head of
> Greater London is the Mayor of London (Ken Livingstone), who is also
> chairman of the Greater London Authority.
Does Inner London still exist in any sense beyond the gathering of
statistics? Before the late C19th what we know as London was divided
between several county authorities. Hence, I assume, the special status
of the Cities of London and Westminster so that they had control over
their affairs. The metropolitan areas of the counties were hived off to
form London County Council which lasted till 1965(?) when Greater London
was formed. Many cities have grown to swallow towns but I assume London
is unique in having grown to swallow two "cities" - hence the confusion
about the term "city".
Nightjar
"GREt" <er...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0Afw8.215$ir5....@news.ono.com...
> When I was receiving English tuition and lodging in England, certainly in
a
> house with more than one entrance, I was told that cities are usually
bigger
> than towns, but the difference is that cities have a cathedral or have
> received a official letter from the king or the queen giving it the title
of
> city.
Correct.
> ...But I was told in
> my country by a native English person it was also necessary to have a
> university.
If that were true, there would have only been about a dozen British cities
at the start of the 20th century. Universities tend to get built in cities
because they have a larger population, but it is the Royal Charter that
gives a City its right to the title. St David's, Britain's smallest city,
has no university and I don't recall there being one at Winchester, although
with the modern trend to turn every minor college into a university, it
might have one today.
> I was also told London is divided, but by no means officially,
> in two cities one regarding the protestant cathedral and another one
> regarding the catholic one. Is it that true?
There are two cities in within modern Greater London, but the division long
pre-dates the Protestant / Catholic divide. Edward the Confessor built an
abbey, which was to become known as the West Minster, and a Royal Palace
next to it, some distance upstream of the City of London. This formed the
basis for the City of Westminster, which became the base for Royal and
Clerical power in the area, while the City of London (or simply 'the City',
an area of about one square mile, so also known as 'the square mile'), the
area within the old Roman walls of Londinium, became the trading centre and
port. In Norman times, Westminster grew to meet London at the River Fleet.
Westminster was still a distinct, separate entity into the 18th century, but
it started to lose its identity as London expanded during that and the
subsequent centuries.
Colin Bignell
Rabid Bee
"Roger4336" <roge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020420231959...@mb-mr.aol.com...
Well, up here, there is a Catholic cathedral in Salford, which is the twin
city of Manchester. Further down the Mersey, Liverpool has the infamous
Paddy's Wigwam. Of course, "insignificant" is a qualitative term...
Cheers, Alex
Don Aitken
<nigh...@insertmysurname.uk.com> wrote:
>There are two cities in within modern Greater London, but the division long
>pre-dates the Protestant / Catholic divide. Edward the Confessor built an
>abbey, which was to become known as the West Minster, and a Royal Palace
>next to it, some distance upstream of the City of London. This formed the
>basis for the City of Westminster, which became the base for Royal and
>Clerical power in the area, while the City of London (or simply 'the City',
>an area of about one square mile, so also known as 'the square mile'), the
>area within the old Roman walls of Londinium, became the trading centre and
>port. In Norman times, Westminster grew to meet London at the River Fleet.
>Westminster was still a distinct, separate entity into the 18th century, but
>it started to lose its identity as London expanded during that and the
>subsequent centuries.
>
Westminster did not originally have any local government institutions
of its own, being kept under the direct control of the Crown. Its
administrative head was the High Bailiff, an office which survives,
although now attached to Westminster Abbey, not the local authority.
Westminster was made a parliamentary borough by Edward VI, and was
raised to the status of a City only in 1900, receiving a Lord Mayor at
the same time (I missed it when listing the cities with Lord Mayors
upthread). In 1963 it absorbed the former Municipal Boroughs of
St. Marylebone and Paddington.
--
Don Aitken
Phil C.
"Rabid Bee" <rabi...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a9um9h$vk$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> Well, up here, there is a Catholic cathedral in Salford, which is the
twin
> city of Manchester.
What? Are there signs saying "Manchester - twinned with Salford"? Do
they arrange cultural exchanges? Couldn't they have found somewhere a
bit further away?
William Black
Phil C. <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a9v3pi$p96$2...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> What? Are there signs saying "Manchester - twinned with Salford"? Do
> they arrange cultural exchanges?
Now there's an interesting idea.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Mekon
>
> "Mekon" <blankotank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:s%mw8.30147$o66....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > It is one of the great mysteries of Australian culture (yes I have
> heard the
> > one about yoghurt! ) that we love and identify strongly with the bush
> and
> > yet so few of us live there.
>
> I assume it's economic, especially with the decline in profitability of
> agriculture. People need to earn a living. England is relatively unusual
> in that almost all of it is easily commutable to a significant town or
> city and in easy reach of mains services. Hence huge pressure for
> development in the countryside.
> --
Economics must be a huge factor. But when look at my brother in law, he has
a small farm (only 300 acres) a couple of hours out of town and he can do
everything right, grow a beautiful crop and all it has to do is rain on the
wrong day or not rain in the right month and all his investment in time,
effort and money gets ploughed back into the ground or sold for a quarter of
its former value.
I would go spare.
Mekon
Nightjar
The City of Westminster has been a city since 1540, when Westminster Abbey
became a Cathedral. It retained the title of City, even after Westminster
Abbey became a Royal Collegiate Church, a decade later. At that time it was
administered by the Dean of Westminster Abbey and his Manor Court. In 1586,
it was allowed a Court of Burgesses to administer it. However, the monarch
did not want to allow them to elect their own mayor, so the Chairman was the
High Steward of Westminster Abbey, a post often held by the Prime Minister.
In 1900, this system was changed to one of Councillors and Mayor, but it was
not until 11 March 1966 that Letters Patent raised the Mayor to the status
of Lord Mayor.
Colin Bignell
David Debono
Erm correct me if I am wrong but many of the Anglican Cathedrals
*were* originally Roman Catholic...
Take care
David D.
The Mediaeval Combat Society
The Historical Reenactment Web Site
http://www.montacute.net/histrenact/welcome.htm
Rabid Bee
> twin
> > city of Manchester.
>
> What? Are there signs saying "Manchester - twinned with Salford"? Do
> they arrange cultural exchanges? Couldn't they have found somewhere a
> bit further away?
You knew what I meant!
Besides, driving home sometimes, crossing Regent Bridge feels like I have
entered another culture. One where track-suits are still trendy, especially
if the leg ends half way up the shin, to reveal Winnie the Pooh socks....
I was actually thinking twin city in the sense of Buda and Pest; ie, they
are one and the same city, but Salford's chauvenism insists on maintaining
it's separate identity, to it's own loss IMO. What good ever came out of
Salford (apart from me, leaving it every morning!)? I can only think of the
Happy Mondays, and that really is pushing things a little, me thinks.
Cheers, Alex
Ee-i-ee-i-ee-i-oh!
Up the football league we go,
And when we win promotion,
This is what we'll sing!
We are Reading,
We are Reading,
Alan Pardew's King!
Peter Prictoe
"David Debono" <david....@montacute.net> wrote in message
news:jjn7cuop898235hrp...@4ax.com...
Some places like Portsmouth and Liverpool have both a Cof E and a Catholic
cathedral whilst say Sheffield has a Cof E cathedral and the Catholic one
called Hallam-an old name for the area. Similarly Bristol and Clifton. there
does not seem to be a clear distinction. My native county of Cornwall has a
city at Truro whilst the administrative centre is Bodmin. It is not a matter
of which to be concerned in my opinion as England is odd in these things-as
in others.
peter P
Phil C.
"LizR" <li...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:278ecu0irefiqffl8...@4ax.com...
> Plenty of other places are odd too, you know:-)
>
> As for the City and County of Bristol.... for most of it's history
it's been a "City
> and County", except for a period after 1974 when it became part of
Avon. These days
> it's a "City and County" again. The "City" part is because of the
Anglican cathedral
> (Bristol), as RC cathedrals (Clifton) don't count for these purposes.
The "County"
> part is from a charter dating from the 14th century. The strange thing
is that Avon
> covered the whole conurbation and the C&CofB doesn't. This causes huge
amounts of
> pain in all sorts of ways(1), yet the locals would rather stick pins
in their eyes
> than go back to being Avon. This interests me because of how people
perceive where
> they live..
Peterborough is a bit like that. It was a "soke" in Anglo-Saxon times,
which vaguely indicates a semi-independent territory, presumably because
of the wealth and power of the the Abbey. Indeed, the name comes from
the Abbey Church of St Peter - it was previously Medehamstede. The
Norman cathedral (and it is a hell of a cathedral) is actually just the
abbey church, promoted after the dissolution. So it became a city. The
city used to be in Northants but is now in Cambs. Nobody seems to care
much - probably because there's nobody left to care. The population are
nearly all London immigrants.
Rutland remained independent because it was an old private estate of the
Mercian Royal family that became a queen's dowry (Edith?) The existence
of the Peterborough and Rutland anomalies seems to have buggered up the
nice, tidy division into shires after the English reconquest of the
Danelaw. So Stamfordshire was never created, unlike the other ex-Danelaw
boroughs (Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Lincoln) Hence Lincs, the second
biggest county, lies alongside tiny Rutland.