repost - City of Croydon? No Thanks!
Richard Telfer
Croydon then it would be either unworkable or a meaningless gesture
depending on whether it had any real functions. The whole Borough is
not a suitable area to become a city. It has no existence as a unit
except as an administrative convenience. Croydon is not even the
nearest large town for some of the Borough.
I have lived in the Borough since it was created. The Council, both
Members and employees, was mostly the old Council of Croydon and
regarded itself as the same Council, the Borough having suffered a
boundary adjustment. For example, the Borough celebrated its centenary
when less than 20 years old. The Council did gradually improve but
control was lost to a party whose power base is in Old Croydon and
again shows limited awareness that the Borough exists outside Old
Croydon.
The Council, trying to create an image of Croydon, has propagated this
same perception that the Borough is Old Croydon. Granting City status
will reinforce this erroneous perception to the disadvantage of
residents in the less populated part of the Borough.
--
Richard Telfer (C.R.Telfer)
usual disclaimers
tel...@dial.pipex.moc
Matthew M. Huntbach
> If Old Croydon were to become a city within the present Borough of
> Croydon then it would be either unworkable or a meaningless gesture
> depending on whether it had any real functions. The whole Borough is
> not a suitable area to become a city.
I assume that the proposal is for the whole borough to become a city, just
as the whole borough of Westminster is the "City of Westminster".
The only thing that can be a city is some local authority - it is not
possible for just an area wwhich has no other definition to be a city on
its own.
Matthew Huntbach
Zobo Kolonie
ZK
infoburo
So one area of London that could become a city is Southwark.
How about that then?
infoburo
tiny
wrote in message news:938197279.8495.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Common misconception, that must of had a basis in fact.
Cities are now made by application for a charter, which
happens every year.
Aakash Mehendale
>
> I believe that for a locality to become a City it has to have a Cathedral.
Not these days, doesn't need a university either - all it needs is a
City Charter.
> So one area of London that could become a city is Southwark.
> How about that then?
I think they're one of the places applying, on the basis of: you've got
Cities of London and Westminster, well Southwark was traditionally the
third <thing> of London, might as well complete the set.
--
Aakash Mehendale email:aak...@popaccount.com
Gnus don't kill people
Any views and opinions expressed herein are mine alone
Telegraph
wrote:
>infoburo <info...@cavite.demon.co.uk>
>wrote in message news:938197279.8495.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>> I believe that for a locality to become a City it has to have a Cathedral.
>> So one area of London that could become a city is Southwark.
>
>> How about that then?
>>
>> infoburo
>
>Common misconception, that must of had a basis in fact.
>Cities are now made by application for a charter, which
>happens every year.
I believe Guildford is coming up for city status soon?
Tel
tiny
wrote in message news:37ecd070...@news.ukgateway.net...
Competing with 20 others
David Cantrell
> I believe that for a locality to become a City it has to have a Cathedral.
Try telling that to Cardiff (a city with no cathedral) or Chelmsford
or St Davids (non-cities with cathedrals).
--
David Cantrell, part-time Unix/perl/SQL/java techie
full-time chef/musician/homebrewer
http://www.ThePentagon.com/NukeEmUp
Austin Docking
David Cantrell <Nuke...@ThePentagon.com> wrote in message
news:Rnb4N8nmpAXl2i...@4ax.com...
| infoburo <info...@cavite.demon.co.uk> said:
|
| > I believe that for a locality to become a City it has to have a
Cathedral.
|
| Try telling that to Cardiff (a city with no cathedral) or Chelmsford
| or St Davids (non-cities with cathedrals).
Cardif has TWO cathedrals, St Davids, in Charles Street and Llandaff, in
Llandaff, the latter being, IIRC a city within a city and the smallest city
in the world.
-----
Austin
David Cantrell
<aus...@docking.org.uk> said:
>
>David Cantrell <Nuke...@ThePentagon.com> wrote in message
>news:Rnb4N8nmpAXl2i...@4ax.com...
>| infoburo <info...@cavite.demon.co.uk> said:
>|
>| > I believe that for a locality to become a City it has to have a
>Cathedral.
>|
>| Try telling that to Cardiff (a city with no cathedral) or Chelmsford
>| or St Davids (non-cities with cathedrals).
>
>Cardif has TWO cathedrals, St Davids, in Charles Street
I certainly don't remember there being an Anglican cathedral on
Charles St when I lived there. And of course, in England and Wales,
it is only Anglican cathedrals which would count.
> and Llandaff, in
>Llandaff, the latter being, IIRC a city within a city and the smallest city
>in the world.
Llandaff is not a city as it has no charter. The residents describe
it as a village. And a very nice village it is too.
Austin Docking
David Cantrell <Nuke...@ThePentagon.com> wrote in message |
| Charles St when I lived there. And of course, in England and Wales,
| it is only Anglican cathedrals which would count.
|
| > and Llandaff, in
| >Llandaff, the latter being, IIRC a city within a city and the smallest
city
| >in the world.
|
| Llandaff is not a city as it has no charter. The residents describe
| it as a village. And a very nice village it is too.
|
Yes, sorry David, I ploughed in without checking it out or having read the
full thread, didn't know about the charter bit!
But still, here are two cathederals in Cardiff, St Davids in Charles Street
(next to Marks & Sparks), is roman catholic, and Llandaff is refered to as
Cardiffs city cathederal
Or is Cardiff not a city?
----
Austin
icklesheep
Austin Docking wrote in message <7tb43t$34f$1...@gxsn.com>...
>
>David Cantrell <Nuke...@ThePentagon.com> wrote in message |
>| I certainly don't remember there being an Anglican cathedral on
>| Charles St when I lived there. And of course, in England and Wales,
>| it is only Anglican cathedrals which would count.
>|
>| > and Llandaff, in
>| >Llandaff, the latter being, IIRC a city within a city and the smallest
>city
>| >in the world.
>|
>| Llandaff is not a city as it has no charter. The residents describe
>| it as a village. And a very nice village it is too.
>|
>
>Yes, sorry David, I ploughed in without checking it out or having read the
>full thread, didn't know about the charter bit!
>But still, here are two cathederals in Cardiff, St Davids in Charles
Street
>(next to Marks & Sparks), is roman catholic, and Llandaff is refered to as
>Cardiffs city cathederal
>
>Or is Cardiff not a city?
>
I thought that the only city in the uk with 2 cathedrals was Liverpool.
Anglican(tastefull) and RC(Paddys Wigwam) but at either end of Hope Street,
I could be left corrected.
IS
--
We are at BRYcon3 (tm)
brymor
onMon, 4 Oct 1999 at 22:09:32, I noticed that icklesheep
<ickle...@youknowwhat.com> electronically wrote the following
>I thought that the only city in the uk with 2 cathedrals was Liverpool.
>Anglican(tastefull) and RC(Paddys Wigwam) but at either end of Hope Street,
>I could be left corrected.
>
>
St. Pauls in the City of London and Westminster Cathedral in the City of
Westminster. (Plus one RC one - Westminster Abbey)
>IS
>--
>We are at BRYcon3 (tm)
>
>
>
>
--
Homepage http://www.morris4.demon.co.uk/
Highgate Cemetery http://www.morris4.demon.co.uk/highgate/
Bryan = "He's not The Messiah, he's a very naughty boy"
PGP key available from Key Servers. Key ID: 0x9E1F8097
Matthew M. Huntbach
> London has 2 Anglican Catherdrals
> St. Pauls in the City of London and Westminster Cathedral in the City of
> Westminster. (Plus one RC one - Westminster Abbey)
Is this a troll, Bryan? Westminster Cathedral is the RC place, Westminster
Abbey the Anglican one. It's another opportunity, like London Bridge and
Tower Bridge for misleading tourists, but Londoners should know better.
The two Anglican cathedrals in London are St.Paul's and Southwark (assuming
by "London" is meant "Greater London" and not "City of London"). Southwark
also has an RC cathedral.
Matthew Huntbach
brymor
Oct 1999 at 08:31:43, I noticed that Matthew M. Huntbach
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> electronically wrote the following
>brymor (Br...@morris4.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>> London has 2 Anglican Catherdrals
>> St. Pauls in the City of London and Westminster Cathedral in the City of
>> Westminster. (Plus one RC one - Westminster Abbey)
>
>Is this a troll, Bryan? Westminster Cathedral is the RC place, Westminster
>Abbey the Anglican one. It's another opportunity, like London Bridge and
>Tower Bridge for misleading tourists, but Londoners should know better.
>
religion and can never remember which one is which :)
>by "London" is meant "Greater London" and not "City of London"). Southwark
>also has an RC cathedral.
So are you saying Matthew that the "City of Westminster" is so named
because of the RC Cathedral there? If so why isn't Southwark also a
City? (Or is it to do with the absence of a charter as mentioned in
definition 1b in 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.
>
>Matthew Huntbach
Katrina
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes
>brymor (Br...@morris4.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>> London has 2 Anglican Catherdrals
>> St. Pauls in the City of London and Westminster Cathedral in the City of
>> Westminster. (Plus one RC one - Westminster Abbey)
>
>Is this a troll, Bryan? Westminster Cathedral is the RC place, Westminster
>Abbey the Anglican one. It's another opportunity, like London Bridge and
>Tower Bridge for misleading tourists, but Londoners should know better.
>
>by "London" is meant "Greater London" and not "City of London"). Southwark
>also has an RC cathedral.
No, it will be a deliberate mistake to see if you are awake ;)
--
Katrina
:*``*:::*``*:
brymor
1999 at 10:04:53, I noticed that Katrina <katri...@cwcom.net>
electronically wrote the following
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Reading uk.local.london article<7tcd1f$8nt$1...@beta.qmw.ac.uk> onTue, 5
> Oct 1999 at 08:31:43, I noticed that Matthew M. Huntbach
> <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> electronically wrote the following
>>> London has 2 Anglican Catherdrals
>>> St. Pauls in the City of London and Westminster Cathedral in the City of
>>> Westminster. (Plus one RC one - Westminster Abbey)
>>Is this a troll, Bryan? Westminster Cathedral is the RC place, Westminster
>>Abbey the Anglican one. It's another opportunity, like London Bridge and
>>Tower Bridge for misleading tourists, but Londoners should know better.
> Hmm but maybe *not* Londoners who do not subscribe to the Christian
> religion and can never remember which one is which :)
It's just one of these things any Londoner should know. Your average tourist,
however, is only going to be aware of Westminster Abbey, but is quite likely
to call it "Westminster Cathedral" by mistake.
> >The two Anglican cathedrals in London are St.Paul's and Southwark (assuming
> >by "London" is meant "Greater London" and not "City of London"). Southwark
> >also has an RC cathedral.
> So are you saying Matthew that the "City of Westminster" is so named
> because of the RC Cathedral there? If so why isn't Southwark also a
> City? (Or is it to do with the absence of a charter as mentioned in
> definition 1b in 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.
I think we've been through this. A city is something which is created as
such by charter. The presence of a cathedral is something which gives a
town "citiness", but it is neither the case that all cities have cathedrals
nor that all places with cathedrals are cities. In this context, the only
cathedral that counts is an Anglican one, of course. British state
etiquette doesn't recognise us Papists.
Matthew Huntbach
brymor
Oct 1999 at 09:38:58, I noticed that Matthew M. Huntbach
has been covered before I must have missed it) Westminster is a "City".
As you correctly pointed out Westminster Cathedral is Roman Catholic.
How then did Westminster achieve City Status?
Having said that the Cathedral was built at the beginning of this
Century, the Abbey was largely rebuilt by Henry III in 1245 (with later
additions).
On reflection I assume it maybe to do with the fact that every single
crowned Monarch since William the Conqueror were crowned in the Abbey.
OK I think I'll remember which is which now :)
>Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Reading uk.local.london article<7tcgvi$a9m$1...@beta.qmw.ac.uk> onTue, 5
> Oct 1999 at 09:38:58, I noticed that Matthew M. Huntbach
> <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> electronically wrote the following
> >I think we've been through this. A city is something which is created as
> >such by charter. The presence of a cathedral is something which gives a
> >town "citiness", but it is neither the case that all cities have cathedrals
> >nor that all places with cathedrals are cities. In this context, the only
> >cathedral that counts is an Anglican one, of course. British state
> >etiquette doesn't recognise us Papists.
> I'm sorry Matthew but we appear to be back to square 1 (if that aspect
> has been covered before I must have missed it) Westminster is a "City".
> As you correctly pointed out Westminster Cathedral is Roman Catholic.
> How then did Westminster achieve City Status?
Presumably it was granted City status by a charter. The charter must
predate 1964, when the present borough was constructed out of the
previous Westminter, Marylebone and Paddington, because the old smaller
borough of Westminster also had City status.
> Having said that the Cathedral was built at the beginning of this
> Century, the Abbey was largely rebuilt by Henry III in 1245 (with later
> additions).
> On reflection I assume it maybe to do with the fact that every single
> crowned Monarch since William the Conqueror were crowned in the Abbey.
Possibly this would have been used as justification. But, as I've already
said, the idea that the definition of "City" is "place with a cathedral"
is wrong. It just means "large important place that has been officially
recognised as such by a royal charter". In the middle ages, any large and
important place would have had a cathedral. This broke down in the industrial
revolution when several large towns grew up from small villages due to
industrial developments. Some of these were given cathedrals as the
Anglican Church tried to fit itself to the new geography. RC cathedrals
never came into it. In fact there were riots in the 19th century at the very
idea of RC Bishops with titles coming from English placenames, and they
were legally banned from using those titles (the "Ecclesiastical Titles Act",
I believe). I believe this ban is still legally in existence.
Matthew Huntbach
brymor
Oct 1999 at 12:03:39, I noticed that Matthew M. Huntbach>brymor (Br...@morris4.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>Possibly this would have been used as justification. But, as I've already
>said, the idea that the definition of "City" is "place with a cathedral"
>is wrong. It just means "large important place that has been officially
>recognised as such by a royal charter". In the middle ages, any large and
>important place would have had a cathedral. This broke down in the industrial
>revolution when several large towns grew up from small villages due to
>industrial developments. Some of these were given cathedrals as the
>Anglican Church tried to fit itself to the new geography. RC cathedrals
>never came into it. In fact there were riots in the 19th century at the very
>idea of RC Bishops with titles coming from English placenames, and they
>were legally banned from using those titles (the "Ecclesiastical Titles Act",
>I believe). I believe this ban is still legally in existence.
>
>Matthew Huntbach
AAPOI I reproduce the contents of an email I received on this subject
from someone who doesn't subscribe to ull but thought that the following
facts might be of interest in this thread
=======================
Hi, Bryan,
I came across your NG posting while doing a Deja Vu search. I don't
subscribe to the NG, but please feel free to pass on this message if you
think it will be of interest.
The myth of Liverpudlian uniqueness about having both Anglican and RC
cathedrals is widespread. A variant I heard (from a Guide Friday guide
in Norwich who should have known better) was that the only such cities
are L'pool, Norwich and Westminster. Westminster Abbey isn't a
cathedral, in any event, although it was briefly one in the 16th
century.
In fact, cities with both Anglican and RC cathedrals are commonplace.
Among others, Birmingham, Bristol, Portsmouth and Sheffield boast one of
each. Birmingham, at least, also has a Greek Orthodox cathedral. Glasgow
and Edinburgh have Anglican (Episcopalian) and RC cathedrals, and also a
church commonly called the Cathedral which once housed the throne of the
bishop before the reformation but now belongs to the Church of Scotland,
which doesn't have bishops.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Reading uk.local.london article<7tcper$dit$1...@beta.qmw.ac.uk> onTue, 5
> Oct 1999 at 12:03:39, I noticed that Matthew M. Huntbach
> >In the middle ages, any large and
> >important place would have had a cathedral. This broke down in the industrial
> >revolution when several large towns grew up from small villages due to
> >industrial developments. Some of these were given cathedrals as the
> >Anglican Church tried to fit itself to the new geography. RC cathedrals
> >never came into it. In fact there were riots in the 19th century at the very
> >idea of RC Bishops with titles coming from English placenames, and they
> >were legally banned from using those titles (the "Ecclesiastical Titles Act",
> >I believe). I believe this ban is still legally in existence.
> AAPOI I reproduce the contents of an email I received on this subject
> from someone who doesn't subscribe to ull but thought that the following
> facts might be of interest in this thread
> =======================
> The myth of Liverpudlian uniqueness about having both Anglican and RC
> cathedrals is widespread. A variant I heard (from a Guide Friday guide
> in Norwich who should have known better) was that the only such cities
> are L'pool, Norwich and Westminster. Westminster Abbey isn't a
> cathedral, in any event, although it was briefly one in the 16th
> century.
> In fact, cities with both Anglican and RC cathedrals are commonplace.
> Among others, Birmingham, Bristol, Portsmouth and Sheffield boast one of
> each.
I believe it was the case that when RC dioceses were re-established in the
19th century, a careful attempt was made to avoid a duplication of name
with Anglican dioceses. So, although it is quite correct that there is
an RC Cathedral in Norwich as well as an Anglican one, the bishop at the
RC one is the "Bishop of East Anglia", not the Bishop of Norwich (which is
the Anglican title). In the case of Southwark and Liverpool, the RC
bishop is an Archbishop while the Anglican one is a bishop, again avoiding
duplication. I think the Anglicans didn't do the same when they established
later new dioceses, so any exact duplication is the Anglicans' fault.
Matthew Huntbach
gary withey
considered, what more can I say!!
icklesheep wrote in message <7tb50v$5m$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
>
>Austin Docking wrote in message <7tb43t$34f$1...@gxsn.com>...
>>
>>David Cantrell <Nuke...@ThePentagon.com> wrote in message |
>>| I certainly don't remember there being an Anglican cathedral on
>>| Charles St when I lived there. And of course, in England and Wales,
>>| it is only Anglican cathedrals which would count.
>>|
>>| > and Llandaff,
in
>>| >Llandaff, the latter being, IIRC a city within a city and the smallest
>>city
>>| >in the world.
>>|
>>| Llandaff is not a city as it has no charter. The residents describe
>>| it as a village. And a very nice village it is too.
>>|
>>
>>Yes, sorry David, I ploughed in without checking it out or having read the
>>full thread, didn't know about the charter bit!
>>But still, here are two cathederals in Cardiff, St Davids in Charles
>Street
>>(next to Marks & Sparks), is roman catholic, and Llandaff is refered to
as
>>Cardiffs city cathederal
>>
>>Or is Cardiff not a city?
>>
>
>
>Anglican(tastefull) and RC(Paddys Wigwam) but at either end of Hope Street,
>I could be left corrected.
>
>
Neil
<ga...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>Guildford, also has a cathedral and is not a city. Swindon is being
>considered, what more can I say!!
Would all this "City" nonsense be another excuse for local officials to
jolly it up at the taxpayers expense?
--
Neil