![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Just came across this in
Google Books:
City Status in the British Isles, 1830-2002 By J. V. Beckett
Published 2005
Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
202 pages
ISBN
0754650677
It's possible to read a lot of the book in previews and it seems very solid (and interesting). I don't see it referenced in the article. I suppose someone ought to buy a copy :-) Lozleader ( talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
At the moment there is a column in the list of officially designated cities for ceremonial counties. Since ceremonial counties are peculiar to England, shouldn't this be changed to something applicable to the whole United Kingdom, e.g. traditional counties? GSTQ ( talk) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I imagine the column could be headed Current lieutenancy or Current lieutenancy area (lieutenancy being perhaps more generic than ceremonial county) with all relevant lieutenancies given, for Scotland as well as for elsewhere, under the new heading. Laurel Bush ( talk) 13:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
I say remove it. If we needed an extra column at all, something like size and/or population within the city boundary at the 2001 census would be more interesting. MRSC • Talk 14:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
A size or population column would be problematic re cities (eg Inverness in Scotland) which lack statutory boundaries and for which different statisticians use very different notions of boundary. If city status is related to letters patent, however, then lieutenancy seems important. Some cities seem to be also lieutenancies, and both conditions seem to derive from very similar notions of crown privelege or obligation. Laurel Bush ( talk) 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
"Bearer of city status" seems best of those titles to me; given the variety of bodies a less clumsy term seems unachievable. As to just leaving out Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland or using different units for different home countries, that makes the table irregular by providing information for English cities which it doesn't provide for other cities. The table should be able to show the same sort of information for all the cities on it as far as possible, and I can't think of any geographical indicators that are common to all the countries other than: (1) traditional counties, (2) administrative units, (3) degrees of longitude & latitude! (3) is not likely to be helpful to the reader, which leaves (1) & (2), and of those the most uniform amongst all the home countries is (1). If we can't reach a general consensus on a column title which covers all cities in the list, I think it would be better just to get rid of the column. But Lozleader so far is the only person who's objected to using traditional counties, and she hasn't cited a reason. Has anybody got a good reason (1) wouldn't be appropriate? GSTQ ( talk) 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and I quote part of my last comment: "If we can't reach a general consensus on a column title which covers all cities in the list, I think it would be better just to get rid of the column." I'm not sure where Ddstretch got the impression that I had said or implied that absence of oppostition equalled tacit support. I was merely summarizing what had been said thus far regarding traditional counties (effectively, nothing) before presenting my argument for their inclusion, and inviting other users to present a good reason against. At this point it seems to me general consensus is for removing the column. GSTQ ( talk) 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Laurel Bush's wisecrack about museums "bearing" city status is a bit wide of the mark; city status isn't a physical entity that can be put in a museum, it is a conceptual attribute that is granted to a conceptual entity, e.g. a city council, a board of trustees &c. "Bearer of city status" seems the least clumsy column title possible in the circumstances. I don't see how the fact that there are havoc-wreaking supporters or havoc-wreaking opponents of traditional/historic counties affects the merit of their being used for the column. But using administrative areas (including in England, for consistency's sake) would be better than the situation we have at present, where no pinpointers can be given for cities outside England. GSTQ ( talk) 00:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Well for the same reason perhaps we should use registration counties in Scotland instead of administrative regions. It would save saying that "Glasgow is in the City of Glasgow". I think we can safely use counties of Northern Ireland, they've got pretty uncontroversial boundaries even though they're no longer used by the government. What about Wales? Local government units will involve saying "Swansea is in Swansea". Preserved counties? GSTQ ( talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Registration counties? I believe Glasgow is a registration county, but boundaries are likely to be rather different from the current boundaries of the city (which date, except for one minor change, from 1996). I believe the boundaries of the city are, however, also those of the lieutenancy. And I believe Welsh preserved counties are, in fact, lieutenancies (and, unlike lieutenancies anywhere else in Britain, are used by the commission responsible for reviewing constituency boundaries). Laurel Bush ( talk) 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
"Status Bearer" (or "City Status Bearer") may be a slightly less long possibility for the name of the column currently written as "Type of local government". I believe this is accurate and descriptive of what is being shown in that column. DDStretch (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for "Status bearer" being the heading title. It's way more accurate than "type of local government" anyhow. As for counties, it seems agreement has not been reached on what to do with this column, and so I'm going to suggest removing it. If the reader is uncertain about the location of a city, he can simply click on the link to the city and find out. GSTQ ( talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have pointed out earlier that some cities seem not have any "status bearer". As regards location, map refs should work. Laurel Bush ( talk) 13:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC).
Map refs are uncontroversial, but are they actually helpful? I'm not fussed either way about their inclusion, but a map ref column would seem to be clogging the table up with too much information without helping the average reader. The reader can see the cities are in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Isn't that enough? GSTQ ( talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, a petition for matriculation of a coat of arms for the City of Inverness was recently refused by Lord Lyon. [1] The decision was based on the fact that there is no legal persona to grant the arms to, and that Inverness is a city in name only. Lozleader ( talk) 10:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The letters patent refer to the Town of Inverness and do not include any reference to The Highland Council. Highland Council has responsibility for the city of Inverness appears to be erroneous, except perhaps to the extent that the council was involved in campaigning (together with at least one other body) for grant of the letters. The letters themsleves are not addressed to anyone in particular, but seem to have been delivered to Inverness Town House care of the Inverness Lord Lieutenant. Laurel Bush ( talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC).
I was looking at a possible redesign of the big table. See sample below....
City | Mayor | Year granted city status | Details | Occasion | Notes | (Diocesan) Cathedral (pre 1888) | Type of Local Government |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
English Cities | |||||||
Bath | Mayor (1590) [1] | TI | Charter of incorporation dated
September 4th,
1590.
[1] City Status confirmed to non-metropolitan district by
Letters Patent dated
April 1,
1974.
[2] |
Incorporation of city. |
Recognised as city by "ancient prescriptive usage".
[4]
[5] |
Bath Abbey No longer a cathedral |
charter trustees |
Birmingham | Lord Mayor (1896) [6] | 1889 | Letters Patent dated January 14, 1889
[7] City Status confirmed to Metropolitan Borough of Birmingham by Letters Patent dated June 25, 1974. [8] |
Golden jubilee of incorporation of Borough of Birmingham. | In response to petition that from corporation of Birmingham noting that it was the second most populous town in England and the largest borough without the title of city. [9] | not applicable | metropolitan borough |
Bradford | Lord Mayor (1907) [10] | 1897 | Letters patent dated
July 10,
1897
[11] City Status confirmed to Metropolitan Borough of Bradford by Letters Patent dated April 1, 1974. [2] |
Golden jubilee of Queen Victoria | City status was also granted to Kingston-upon-Hull and Nottingham. These were the three largest county boroughs that were not cities at the 1891 census. [12] | not applicable | metropolitan borough |
Brighton & Hove | Mayor (1854) [13] | 2000 | Letters Patent dated January 31, 2001 ordained that "the Towns of Brighton and Hove shall have the status of a City". [14] | Millenium Competition | City status also awarded to Inverness and Wolverhampton. | not applicable |
non-metropolitan district, unitary authority |
Bristol | Lord Mayor (1899) [15] [16] | 1542 | Letters patent constituting "Bishoprick of Bristol" dated
June 4,
1542
[17] City Status confirmed to non-metropolitan district by Letters Patent dated April 1, 1974. [2] |
Creation of Diocese of Bristol | Bristol Cathedral |
non-metropolitan district, unitary authority | |
Cambridge | Mayor (1207) [18] | 1951 | Letters Patent dated
March 21,
1951.
[19] City Status confirmed to non-metropolitan district by Letters Patent dated May 28, 1974. [20] |
750th anniversary of incorporation of Borough of Cambridge. [21] [22] | Petition from the Corporation of Cambridge noted that of six "ancient seats of learning" in Great Britain, only Cambridge was not a city or royal burgh. | not applicable | non-metropolitan district |
Canterbury | Lord Mayor (1988) [23] | TI | City Status confirmed to the non-metropolitan district by Letters Patent dated May 28, 1974. [20] | Recognised as city by "ancient prescriptive usage". [4] | Christchurch Cathedral | Non-metropolitan district |
What I'm trying to do is eliminate some of the footnotes and incorporate them in the table. I also thought the "Occasion" column would be of interest... Lozleader ( talk) 22:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Re "... This meant that the various municipal boroughs that ..." : is the text correct? or should it say "various county boroughs"? or "various county and municipal boroughs"? or "various boroughs"? 25 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.161.200 ( talk) 11:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Some references say 2000, some say 2001. Which is it? (+References please!)-- Observer29 ( talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember 2001 as the date on letters patent, last time I saw them. There may have been earlier intimation of a decision in favour of Inverness. Laurel Bush ( talk) 10:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
Thank you for info. I see that Lozleader has now added Inverness to Scotland with appropriate wording to reflect the fact of the matter in a succinct way. Regards. -- Observer29 ( talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Chesters an old Roman City and has an old Cathedral... Seems unusual that it was only given City status in 16th century. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.90.246 ( talk) 12:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see no justification for this out of focus picture. The mayoral chain is not exactly prominent and in other respects its no more than a picture of some bloke standing in front of a political banner that has no relation to the article. A decent picture of a mayor in his/her full regalia would be brilliant. But no picture is much better than this poorly taken shot. Jooler ( talk) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to open an discussion regarding the notices of the grants of city status to the three English and Welsh towns in 2000 and 2002 as published in the London Gazette. It appears there has been a change in the wording of the announcements which suggested city status was bestowed on the "town" and not the "borough" or council.
In the London Gazette of 5 February 2001 the wording of the Wolverhampton announcement says "...to ordain the Town of Wolverhampton shall have the status of a City" and for Brighton and Hove says "...the Towns of Brighton and Hove shall have the status of a City." On both instances the word Borough is not used as was previously the case for Sunderland in the London Gazette of 26th March 1992 "....the Borough of Sunderland shall have the status of a City" and Derby in the Gazette of 14 June 1977 "....the Borough of Derby shall have the status of a City." and nearly all previous city status grants.
The announcements in the London Gazette of 21 May 2002 for Newport and Preston is also very interesting as it says "to ordain the Town of Newport in the County Borough of Newport and the Town of Preston shall have the status of a City." Here it clearly states for Newport, the town within the County Borough.
I recalled in 2001 both Wolverhampton and Brighton and Hove Councils had special meetings to change their names to "City" Councils. This had me wondering whether perhaps it was the recognised urban town that got the status and not the Council. At this point I contacted both Wolverhampton and Brighton Councils who replied with interesting information.
According to Mark Wall of Brighton Council in an email dated 17 August 2007, "The City Council was granted City Status in 2001 and an Extraordinary meeting of the council was called on the 15th February to receive the Letters Patent and determine whether the council should alter is name from Brighton & Hove to Brighton & Hove City Council. Whilst the council had actively sought consideration from Her Majesty's office to be granted city status, there was a need for the council to formally pass a resolution to accept that position and accept the Letters Patent."
According to Amy Hardiman of Wolverhampton Council in an email dated 17 August 2007" Thank you for your enquiry. The award of City status on 31 January 2001 was to Wolverhampton as a place and not to the council and therefore the title of the Council did not change automatically. The legal status of the Council is as a metropolitan borough council under the Local Government Act 1972, which is technically what we became in 1974 when the 1972 Act came into force and still are, as is Coventry, Manchester, Birmingham etc. Councils can choose what to call themselves. (I know that Wigan in Greater Manchester used the title Wigan Metro, with no reference to Council.) After the grant of City Status, the Council passed a resolution at the next full meeting on 14 February 2001 to change its title from Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council to Wolverhampton City Council. It was open to the Council to decide to call itself the "City Council of Wolverhampton" or not make any change at all."
Amy's reply makes it clear city status was given to the place and NOT the Council. To get clarification I contacted Linda Henshaw at the Ministry of Justice and in her email of 28 August 2007 she says " You have asked whether city status is given to the town in the Council area from which a request for city status is successful and not the council. The last occasion on which a competition was held was in December 2000 when it was announced that to mark The Queen's Golden Jubilee grants of city status would be made to a suitably qualified town in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Application was to be made by an identifiable local authority that served the town. This would suggest that the identifiable council might then seek to change its name to include the word 'city'. I cannot, however, advise on how any future grant of city status will be undertaken. I am unable to comment on your statement "It is then an official requirement for the Council governing the new towns to have a meeting to formally become city councils". The procedural aspects of local authorities would, I suggest, be something on which the Department for Communities and Local Government might assist you."
Do you think there has been a change in the granting of City status to "towns" as an identifiable urban entity and not the administrative local authority which bears the same name and controls the town? Does this mean the section about City councils needs to be updated? I'd be very interested in learning your views on the matter.
-- Statsfan ( talk) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Whitehall, July 1, 1925.
The KING has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 5th ultimo, to ordain that the County Borough of Stoke-on-Trent shall be a City and shall be called and styled " The City of Stoke-on- Trent," and that the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the said Borough shall be one body politic and corporate by the name and style of "The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of
the City of Stoke-on-Trent."
I have dug through the gazettes and newspaper archives to find out exactly who was awraded the city status. These are the grants since 1977 (unfortunately the N.I. grants weren't gazetted):
Announcement | Letters patent | Status granted to |
---|---|---|
June 7, 1977 | June 7, 1977 | Borough of Derby |
N/A | November 4, 1980 | Town of Lichfield |
N/A | January 25, 1982 | Borough of Rochester upon Medway |
February 14, 1992 | March 23, 1992 | Borough of Sunderland |
July 7, 1994 | September 16, 1994 | Town of St David's |
July 7, 1994 | Presented June 1, 1995 | Armagh (??) |
N/A | March 29, 1996 | County of Cardiff (with effect April 1, 1996) |
N/A | March 29, 1996 | County of Swansea (with effect April 1, 1996) |
N/A | April 1, 1996 | "the New Borough of York" |
N/A | October 11 2000 | Town of Hereford |
December 18, 2000 | January 31, 2001 | Towns of Brighton and Hove |
December 18, 2000 | January 31, 2001 | Town of Inverness |
December 18, 2000 | January 31, 2001 | Town of Wolverhampton |
March 14, 2002 | May 15, 2002 | Town of Newport in the County Borough of Newport |
March 14, 2002 | May 15, 2002 | Town of Preston |
March 14, 2002 | Presented in May 2002 | Town of Stirling |
March 14, 2002 | Presented May 14, 2002 | Lisburn (??) |
March 14, 2002 | Presented May 14, 2002 | Newry (??) |
It is interesting to note that inn the case of Cardiff and Swansea the grant is to the entire county, but in the case of Newport only to the town in the county borough. Lozleader ( talk) 10:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an old and respected Featured Article, but it seems to be behind times when it comes to the style of text. The Manual of Style, which should always be followed by FAs, is often ignored when it comes to punctuation and text formatting. Furthermore, there are several sections which are under-linked and numerous links which are over-repeated, and links are generally used inconsistently throughout the article. I have already started attempts to redress these issues, but I cannot complete this task alone. This article requires attention, or it might suffer the unfortunate fate of the many demoted articles. Waltham, The Duke of 22:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks good. I have combined it with the existing intro, and added a third paragraph for the reforms and losses of status (concluding it with a nice reference to its beginning, which I think is called "circular scheme"); with a few tweaks, the result is the following:
What do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose on a variety of occasions was rather redundant. Concerning the third paragraph, I only remembered the later reforms, mostly the 1974 one. I still like the late x century comment, though; it introduces some variation and precision, and it is accurate because the first reform was, it turns out, in 1888. Generally speaking, although I am satisfied with the lead, I should have preferred it if there could be less repetitions of nineteenth century. But there isn't anything we could do about that, is there?
Waltham, The Duke of 23:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I was mostly aiming at variety... I don't think late makes it more cumbersome. In any case, although we could say beginning in 1888, it is neither specific nor general enough, and I should instead suggest beginning with the Local Government Act 1888, which ties is nicely with as part of local-government reforms, as this is indeed the first of these reforms. (Adopting the idea would also leave us with only two nineteenth centurys in the intro.) This might be a lead, but it doesn't mean we should be general at all costs; tidbits like this one help spice the introduction up a little. Waltham, The Duke of 02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't slept yet, and it probably shows. If it weren't for this, I shouldn't have forgiven myself. :-D I have just made a few style corrections to the third paragraph; I had noted them above, but you probably failed to notice them in time. Successive was a nice touch, by the way. I've also noticed the section re-ordering, which certainly constitutes an improvement.
Now that we have got the lead out of the way... Can you do anything about the small number of in-line references? Unfortunately, I can be of no use there. Waltham, The Duke of 03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, the article makes clear the wider districts have the city status in some cases. The articles linked describe districts, not councils. The original change was applied only to those cities where the wider district holds the status and is therefore consistent. MRSC • Talk 05:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The following message was left on my user talk page, which I've moved here as it's the more appropriate forum for discussing this edit and others like it:
In response:
1. I don't have to justify my edits to this article by meeting some threshold of "involvement", but since you mention it I have made a significant number of contributions to it for at least a year, perhaps more, I can't remember. Check the page history.
2. The name of a city is of course relevant to the article, and the two names are mentioned where this is relevant. For instance, the sentence "There are only two pre-ninenteenth century cities in modern-day Northern Ireland, Armagh and Derry, which was renamed 'Londonderry' by its city charter." The comparison with Swansea and Abertawe is spurious. Both "Londonderry" and "Derry" are English-language names. Both are widely understood, whether or not there are some who refuse to use either one or the other themselves. No confusion could possibly occur in this sentence anyway, because both names are mentioned.
3. This is not a neutrality dispute, this article doesn't fail that test as it stands. This is a dispute about relevance. To say the naming controversy is relevant to this article is tantamount to saying every article which mentions the city should have a sentence after the first mention, saying "warning: controversy about name: see here". The whole point of the Wikipedia policy of using Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county was to avoid the necessity of doing this. There are fascinating topics about every city mentioned in this article, but unless they are relevant to city status (and Londonderry's seventeenth-century city charter is relevant) they have no place in this article, but rather in the articles concerning the cities themselves. My unionist sympathies have nothing to do with my reverts of these edits. Rather, I am concerned that the edits would interfere with the article's being considered to be written interestingly and brilliantly. GSTQ ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"on the occasion of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee in 1897." Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Golden Jubilee in 1887? Calle Widmann ( talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There will be some local government reorganisation in 2009 in England and complete reorganisation in Northern Ireland in 2011. Could someone look into what is being done to preserve city statuses in the parts of the country affected?
2009 structural changes to local government in England
In England the cities affected which immediately spring to mind are Exeter, Norwich, Chester and Durham. Maybe some more are affected. I assume charter trustees will be set up in most, if not all, of these cities to carry on the city status. However I did hear that Chester's status may be taken on by the new Cheshire West and Chester unitary?
Some cities in the areas affected won't need to change their city status "grantee" - Truro (civil parish) and New Sarum (Charter Trustees) for example.
Northern Ireland - check the Northern Ireland local government articles regarding the 11 new districts being set up to replace the existing districts there. Affecting the cities of Derry, Lisburn..?
Help researching and updating articles as necessary much appreciated!! David ( talk) 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The article says that “At present, Rochester, Perth and Elgin are the only former cities in the United Kingdom.” This seems to contradict the page “Category: Former cities in Scotland”, which lists five such (Brechin, Dunblane, Elgin, Perth and St Andrews) - making, together with Rochester, a total of six for the whole UK, not three. Is this a real inconsistency, or a problem about definitions of “city”, or what? I hope that someone can find out and sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.154.153 ( talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried reading this page and now my brain wants to die. Is it just me or are most English bureaucratic conventions horrifically abstruse? Is there any cogent reason why, say, Reading is not a city? Who makes up this shit, the Illuminati? And what's in a title that has no definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.19.119 ( talk) 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the Lord Mayor of Bristol has the prefix of Right Honourable, something which has so far been overlooked on Wikipedia.
Various pages on Wikipedia need editing (I have done those which I can find). Research into when the use of the style was granted also needs doing. David ( talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Did some research on the Rt Hon business, material added to List of lord mayoralties and lord provostships in the United Kingdom. Basically it appears that the new lord mayors created in the 1890s thought they were entiltled to be rt hon, and they wwere supported in this by Garter King of Arms in 1893. However by 1903 his successor had decided this was not so, and after that the Home Office had to politely point this out to places like Liverpool and Manchester not to use the title. Bristol seems to have carried on regardles.. Lozleader ( talk) 21:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the following bit:
I can't see how that's right. The primary meaning of 'city' is just 'a large urban area'. There's a definite distinction between cities and towns, but it's an informal one and it's meaningless to ask what the smallest city is. There is an alternate, more general sense, so it's not wrong to talk about the city limits of a small town, but it would be odd to say "I'm going into the city" if one were heading down town in a town of 5000. Mark Foskey ( talk) 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
GATESHEAD TO APPLY FOR CITY STATUS this is not my article so i'm not going to add information about this myself. But can gateshead making it clear they will be applying for city status in 2012 be mentioned? how about the fact there are expectations a new city will be named in 2012? maybe with a list of candidates? i have the following source http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/04/23/gateshead-making-a-bid-to-become-a-city-61634-23451898/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.6.34 ( talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
I redid the section about the metropolitan boroughs after Lozleaders erudite new section on Westminster. However, I still think the point that the entirely 'discretionary' nature of conferring City status is proven by the reluctance to award it to any metropolitan borough no matter how well qualified. As to Croydon's lack of sucess in 1951 - it was not in the County of London in that period but a County Borough within Surrey. Indeed when it was subsumed into the the GLC, the new/presnt LB borough of Croydon still insists on 'Surrey' connections. Tony S 89.168.62.160 ( talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lozleader - yes, very good. Looking at the citations you make it certainly does show a clear prejudice against historic London boroughs - the criteria of being just part of a larger conurbation doesn't hold water when you look at some of the provincial/Scots/ Welsh/Ulster awards which would fail by that same criteria. Also, Margaret Thatcher's abolition of the GLC (1986-2000) and the development of effective unitary status for the London Boroughs meant surely that this argument did not hold true. Tony S 89.168.62.160 ( talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Dear Lozleader: if you could add the phrase "[and other proposed claims as qualifying criteria] " "The Home Office had a policy of resisting any attempt by metropolitan boroughs to become cities even when their populations [and other proposed claims as qualifying criteria] might otherwise have made them eligible." or something it would make the point I was attempting to make?? Tony S 89.168.62.160 ( talk) 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lozleader, thanks, OK done. Actually I am a Southwark 'loyalist' and (see Guildable Manor' and 'Southwark' entries) and although it was a bailiwick of the City it has had a distinct status throughout the centuries. On city status of its most recent application included its antiquity (Alfred burh), three cathedrals, the oldest and newest art galleries (Dulwich and Tate Modern), the Shakespeare connections/ Tudor theatre (Globe), museums of local, national and international importance (Design M, Globe, IWM), higher education and medicine (Guy's) as well as its metropolitan role. So we were pretty cheesed off to be regarded as a mere suburb. Tony S 89.168.62.160 ( talk) 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Just came across this in
Google Books:
City Status in the British Isles, 1830-2002 By J. V. Beckett
Published 2005
Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
202 pages
ISBN
0754650677
It's possible to read a lot of the book in previews and it seems very solid (and interesting). I don't see it referenced in the article. I suppose someone ought to buy a copy :-) Lozleader ( talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
At the moment there is a column in the list of officially designated cities for ceremonial counties. Since ceremonial counties are peculiar to England, shouldn't this be changed to something applicable to the whole United Kingdom, e.g. traditional counties? GSTQ ( talk) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I imagine the column could be headed Current lieutenancy or Current lieutenancy area (lieutenancy being perhaps more generic than ceremonial county) with all relevant lieutenancies given, for Scotland as well as for elsewhere, under the new heading. Laurel Bush ( talk) 13:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
I say remove it. If we needed an extra column at all, something like size and/or population within the city boundary at the 2001 census would be more interesting. MRSC • Talk 14:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
A size or population column would be problematic re cities (eg Inverness in Scotland) which lack statutory boundaries and for which different statisticians use very different notions of boundary. If city status is related to letters patent, however, then lieutenancy seems important. Some cities seem to be also lieutenancies, and both conditions seem to derive from very similar notions of crown privelege or obligation. Laurel Bush ( talk) 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
"Bearer of city status" seems best of those titles to me; given the variety of bodies a less clumsy term seems unachievable. As to just leaving out Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland or using different units for different home countries, that makes the table irregular by providing information for English cities which it doesn't provide for other cities. The table should be able to show the same sort of information for all the cities on it as far as possible, and I can't think of any geographical indicators that are common to all the countries other than: (1) traditional counties, (2) administrative units, (3) degrees of longitude & latitude! (3) is not likely to be helpful to the reader, which leaves (1) & (2), and of those the most uniform amongst all the home countries is (1). If we can't reach a general consensus on a column title which covers all cities in the list, I think it would be better just to get rid of the column. But Lozleader so far is the only person who's objected to using traditional counties, and she hasn't cited a reason. Has anybody got a good reason (1) wouldn't be appropriate? GSTQ ( talk) 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and I quote part of my last comment: "If we can't reach a general consensus on a column title which covers all cities in the list, I think it would be better just to get rid of the column." I'm not sure where Ddstretch got the impression that I had said or implied that absence of oppostition equalled tacit support. I was merely summarizing what had been said thus far regarding traditional counties (effectively, nothing) before presenting my argument for their inclusion, and inviting other users to present a good reason against. At this point it seems to me general consensus is for removing the column. GSTQ ( talk) 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Laurel Bush's wisecrack about museums "bearing" city status is a bit wide of the mark; city status isn't a physical entity that can be put in a museum, it is a conceptual attribute that is granted to a conceptual entity, e.g. a city council, a board of trustees &c. "Bearer of city status" seems the least clumsy column title possible in the circumstances. I don't see how the fact that there are havoc-wreaking supporters or havoc-wreaking opponents of traditional/historic counties affects the merit of their being used for the column. But using administrative areas (including in England, for consistency's sake) would be better than the situation we have at present, where no pinpointers can be given for cities outside England. GSTQ ( talk) 00:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Well for the same reason perhaps we should use registration counties in Scotland instead of administrative regions. It would save saying that "Glasgow is in the City of Glasgow". I think we can safely use counties of Northern Ireland, they've got pretty uncontroversial boundaries even though they're no longer used by the government. What about Wales? Local government units will involve saying "Swansea is in Swansea". Preserved counties? GSTQ ( talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Registration counties? I believe Glasgow is a registration county, but boundaries are likely to be rather different from the current boundaries of the city (which date, except for one minor change, from 1996). I believe the boundaries of the city are, however, also those of the lieutenancy. And I believe Welsh preserved counties are, in fact, lieutenancies (and, unlike lieutenancies anywhere else in Britain, are used by the commission responsible for reviewing constituency boundaries). Laurel Bush ( talk) 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
"Status Bearer" (or "City Status Bearer") may be a slightly less long possibility for the name of the column currently written as "Type of local government". I believe this is accurate and descriptive of what is being shown in that column. DDStretch (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for "Status bearer" being the heading title. It's way more accurate than "type of local government" anyhow. As for counties, it seems agreement has not been reached on what to do with this column, and so I'm going to suggest removing it. If the reader is uncertain about the location of a city, he can simply click on the link to the city and find out. GSTQ ( talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have pointed out earlier that some cities seem not have any "status bearer". As regards location, map refs should work. Laurel Bush ( talk) 13:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC).
Map refs are uncontroversial, but are they actually helpful? I'm not fussed either way about their inclusion, but a map ref column would seem to be clogging the table up with too much information without helping the average reader. The reader can see the cities are in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Isn't that enough? GSTQ ( talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, a petition for matriculation of a coat of arms for the City of Inverness was recently refused by Lord Lyon. [1] The decision was based on the fact that there is no legal persona to grant the arms to, and that Inverness is a city in name only. Lozleader ( talk) 10:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The letters patent refer to the Town of Inverness and do not include any reference to The Highland Council. Highland Council has responsibility for the city of Inverness appears to be erroneous, except perhaps to the extent that the council was involved in campaigning (together with at least one other body) for grant of the letters. The letters themsleves are not addressed to anyone in particular, but seem to have been delivered to Inverness Town House care of the Inverness Lord Lieutenant. Laurel Bush ( talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC).
I was looking at a possible redesign of the big table. See sample below....
City | Mayor | Year granted city status | Details | Occasion | Notes | (Diocesan) Cathedral (pre 1888) | Type of Local Government |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
English Cities | |||||||
Bath | Mayor (1590) [1] | TI | Charter of incorporation dated
September 4th,
1590.
[1] City Status confirmed to non-metropolitan district by
Letters Patent dated
April 1,
1974.
[2] |
Incorporation of city. |
Recognised as city by "ancient prescriptive usage".
[4]
[5] |
Bath Abbey No longer a cathedral |
charter trustees |
Birmingham | Lord Mayor (1896) [6] | 1889 | Letters Patent dated January 14, 1889
[7] City Status confirmed to Metropolitan Borough of Birmingham by Letters Patent dated June 25, 1974. [8] |
Golden jubilee of incorporation of Borough of Birmingham. | In response to petition that from corporation of Birmingham noting that it was the second most populous town in England and the largest borough without the title of city. [9] | not applicable | metropolitan borough |
Bradford | Lord Mayor (1907) [10] | 1897 | Letters patent dated
July 10,
1897
[11] City Status confirmed to Metropolitan Borough of Bradford by Letters Patent dated April 1, 1974. [2] |
Golden jubilee of Queen Victoria | City status was also granted to Kingston-upon-Hull and Nottingham. These were the three largest county boroughs that were not cities at the 1891 census. [12] | not applicable | metropolitan borough |
Brighton & Hove | Mayor (1854) [13] | 2000 | Letters Patent dated January 31, 2001 ordained that "the Towns of Brighton and Hove shall have the status of a City". [14] | Millenium Competition | City status also awarded to Inverness and Wolverhampton. | not applicable |
non-metropolitan district, unitary authority |
Bristol | Lord Mayor (1899) [15] [16] | 1542 | Letters patent constituting "Bishoprick of Bristol" dated
June 4,
1542
[17] City Status confirmed to non-metropolitan district by Letters Patent dated April 1, 1974. [2] |
Creation of Diocese of Bristol | Bristol Cathedral |
non-metropolitan district, unitary authority | |
Cambridge | Mayor (1207) [18] | 1951 | Letters Patent dated
March 21,
1951.
[19] City Status confirmed to non-metropolitan district by Letters Patent dated May 28, 1974. [20] |
750th anniversary of incorporation of Borough of Cambridge. [21] [22] | Petition from the Corporation of Cambridge noted that of six "ancient seats of learning" in Great Britain, only Cambridge was not a city or royal burgh. | not applicable | non-metropolitan district |
Canterbury | Lord Mayor (1988) [23] | TI | City Status confirmed to the non-metropolitan district by Letters Patent dated May 28, 1974. [20] | Recognised as city by "ancient prescriptive usage". [4] | Christchurch Cathedral | Non-metropolitan district |
What I'm trying to do is eliminate some of the footnotes and incorporate them in the table. I also thought the "Occasion" column would be of interest... Lozleader ( talk) 22:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Re "... This meant that the various municipal boroughs that ..." : is the text correct? or should it say "various county boroughs"? or "various county and municipal boroughs"? or "various boroughs"? 25 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.161.200 ( talk) 11:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Some references say 2000, some say 2001. Which is it? (+References please!)-- Observer29 ( talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember 2001 as the date on letters patent, last time I saw them. There may have been earlier intimation of a decision in favour of Inverness. Laurel Bush ( talk) 10:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
Thank you for info. I see that Lozleader has now added Inverness to Scotland with appropriate wording to reflect the fact of the matter in a succinct way. Regards. -- Observer29 ( talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Chesters an old Roman City and has an old Cathedral... Seems unusual that it was only given City status in 16th century. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.90.246 ( talk) 12:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see no justification for this out of focus picture. The mayoral chain is not exactly prominent and in other respects its no more than a picture of some bloke standing in front of a political banner that has no relation to the article. A decent picture of a mayor in his/her full regalia would be brilliant. But no picture is much better than this poorly taken shot. Jooler ( talk) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to open an discussion regarding the notices of the grants of city status to the three English and Welsh towns in 2000 and 2002 as published in the London Gazette. It appears there has been a change in the wording of the announcements which suggested city status was bestowed on the "town" and not the "borough" or council.
In the London Gazette of 5 February 2001 the wording of the Wolverhampton announcement says "...to ordain the Town of Wolverhampton shall have the status of a City" and for Brighton and Hove says "...the Towns of Brighton and Hove shall have the status of a City." On both instances the word Borough is not used as was previously the case for Sunderland in the London Gazette of 26th March 1992 "....the Borough of Sunderland shall have the status of a City" and Derby in the Gazette of 14 June 1977 "....the Borough of Derby shall have the status of a City." and nearly all previous city status grants.
The announcements in the London Gazette of 21 May 2002 for Newport and Preston is also very interesting as it says "to ordain the Town of Newport in the County Borough of Newport and the Town of Preston shall have the status of a City." Here it clearly states for Newport, the town within the County Borough.
I recalled in 2001 both Wolverhampton and Brighton and Hove Councils had special meetings to change their names to "City" Councils. This had me wondering whether perhaps it was the recognised urban town that got the status and not the Council. At this point I contacted both Wolverhampton and Brighton Councils who replied with interesting information.
According to Mark Wall of Brighton Council in an email dated 17 August 2007, "The City Council was granted City Status in 2001 and an Extraordinary meeting of the council was called on the 15th February to receive the Letters Patent and determine whether the council should alter is name from Brighton & Hove to Brighton & Hove City Council. Whilst the council had actively sought consideration from Her Majesty's office to be granted city status, there was a need for the council to formally pass a resolution to accept that position and accept the Letters Patent."
According to Amy Hardiman of Wolverhampton Council in an email dated 17 August 2007" Thank you for your enquiry. The award of City status on 31 January 2001 was to Wolverhampton as a place and not to the council and therefore the title of the Council did not change automatically. The legal status of the Council is as a metropolitan borough council under the Local Government Act 1972, which is technically what we became in 1974 when the 1972 Act came into force and still are, as is Coventry, Manchester, Birmingham etc. Councils can choose what to call themselves. (I know that Wigan in Greater Manchester used the title Wigan Metro, with no reference to Council.) After the grant of City Status, the Council passed a resolution at the next full meeting on 14 February 2001 to change its title from Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council to Wolverhampton City Council. It was open to the Council to decide to call itself the "City Council of Wolverhampton" or not make any change at all."
Amy's reply makes it clear city status was given to the place and NOT the Council. To get clarification I contacted Linda Henshaw at the Ministry of Justice and in her email of 28 August 2007 she says " You have asked whether city status is given to the town in the Council area from which a request for city status is successful and not the council. The last occasion on which a competition was held was in December 2000 when it was announced that to mark The Queen's Golden Jubilee grants of city status would be made to a suitably qualified town in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Application was to be made by an identifiable local authority that served the town. This would suggest that the identifiable council might then seek to change its name to include the word 'city'. I cannot, however, advise on how any future grant of city status will be undertaken. I am unable to comment on your statement "It is then an official requirement for the Council governing the new towns to have a meeting to formally become city councils". The procedural aspects of local authorities would, I suggest, be something on which the Department for Communities and Local Government might assist you."
Do you think there has been a change in the granting of City status to "towns" as an identifiable urban entity and not the administrative local authority which bears the same name and controls the town? Does this mean the section about City councils needs to be updated? I'd be very interested in learning your views on the matter.
-- Statsfan ( talk) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Whitehall, July 1, 1925.
The KING has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 5th ultimo, to ordain that the County Borough of Stoke-on-Trent shall be a City and shall be called and styled " The City of Stoke-on- Trent," and that the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the said Borough shall be one body politic and corporate by the name and style of "The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of
the City of Stoke-on-Trent."
I have dug through the gazettes and newspaper archives to find out exactly who was awraded the city status. These are the grants since 1977 (unfortunately the N.I. grants weren't gazetted):
Announcement | Letters patent | Status granted to |
---|---|---|
June 7, 1977 | June 7, 1977 | Borough of Derby |
N/A | November 4, 1980 | Town of Lichfield |
N/A | January 25, 1982 | Borough of Rochester upon Medway |
February 14, 1992 | March 23, 1992 | Borough of Sunderland |
July 7, 1994 | September 16, 1994 | Town of St David's |
July 7, 1994 | Presented June 1, 1995 | Armagh (??) |
N/A | March 29, 1996 | County of Cardiff (with effect April 1, 1996) |
N/A | March 29, 1996 | County of Swansea (with effect April 1, 1996) |
N/A | April 1, 1996 | "the New Borough of York" |
N/A | October 11 2000 | Town of Hereford |
December 18, 2000 | January 31, 2001 | Towns of Brighton and Hove |
December 18, 2000 | January 31, 2001 | Town of Inverness |
December 18, 2000 | January 31, 2001 | Town of Wolverhampton |
March 14, 2002 | May 15, 2002 | Town of Newport in the County Borough of Newport |
March 14, 2002 | May 15, 2002 | Town of Preston |
March 14, 2002 | Presented in May 2002 | Town of Stirling |
March 14, 2002 | Presented May 14, 2002 | Lisburn (??) |
March 14, 2002 | Presented May 14, 2002 | Newry (??) |
It is interesting to note that inn the case of Cardiff and Swansea the grant is to the entire county, but in the case of Newport only to the town in the county borough. Lozleader ( talk) 10:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an old and respected Featured Article, but it seems to be behind times when it comes to the style of text. The Manual of Style, which should always be followed by FAs, is often ignored when it comes to punctuation and text formatting. Furthermore, there are several sections which are under-linked and numerous links which are over-repeated, and links are generally used inconsistently throughout the article. I have already started attempts to redress these issues, but I cannot complete this task alone. This article requires attention, or it might suffer the unfortunate fate of the many demoted articles. Waltham, The Duke of 22:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks good. I have combined it with the existing intro, and added a third paragraph for the reforms and losses of status (concluding it with a nice reference to its beginning, which I think is called "circular scheme"); with a few tweaks, the result is the following:
What do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose on a variety of occasions was rather redundant. Concerning the third paragraph, I only remembered the later reforms, mostly the 1974 one. I still like the late x century comment, though; it introduces some variation and precision, and it is accurate because the first reform was, it turns out, in 1888. Generally speaking, although I am satisfied with the lead, I should have preferred it if there could be less repetitions of nineteenth century. But there isn't anything we could do about that, is there?
Waltham, The Duke of 23:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I was mostly aiming at variety... I don't think late makes it more cumbersome. In any case, although we could say beginning in 1888, it is neither specific nor general enough, and I should instead suggest beginning with the Local Government Act 1888, which ties is nicely with as part of local-government reforms, as this is indeed the first of these reforms. (Adopting the idea would also leave us with only two nineteenth centurys in the intro.) This might be a lead, but it doesn't mean we should be general at all costs; tidbits like this one help spice the introduction up a little. Waltham, The Duke of 02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't slept yet, and it probably shows. If it weren't for this, I shouldn't have forgiven myself. :-D I have just made a few style corrections to the third paragraph; I had noted them above, but you probably failed to notice them in time. Successive was a nice touch, by the way. I've also noticed the section re-ordering, which certainly constitutes an improvement.
Now that we have got the lead out of the way... Can you do anything about the small number of in-line references? Unfortunately, I can be of no use there. Waltham, The Duke of 03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, the article makes clear the wider districts have the city status in some cases. The articles linked describe districts, not councils. The original change was applied only to those cities where the wider district holds the status and is therefore consistent. MRSC • Talk 05:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The following message was left on my user talk page, which I've moved here as it's the more appropriate forum for discussing this edit and others like it:
In response:
1. I don't have to justify my edits to this article by meeting some threshold of "involvement", but since you mention it I have made a significant number of contributions to it for at least a year, perhaps more, I can't remember. Check the page history.
2. The name of a city is of course relevant to the article, and the two names are mentioned where this is relevant. For instance, the sentence "There are only two pre-ninenteenth century cities in modern-day Northern Ireland, Armagh and Derry, which was renamed 'Londonderry' by its city charter." The comparison with Swansea and Abertawe is spurious. Both "Londonderry" and "Derry" are English-language names. Both are widely understood, whether or not there are some who refuse to use either one or the other themselves. No confusion could possibly occur in this sentence anyway, because both names are mentioned.
3. This is not a neutrality dispute, this article doesn't fail that test as it stands. This is a dispute about relevance. To say the naming controversy is relevant to this article is tantamount to saying every article which mentions the city should have a sentence after the first mention, saying "warning: controversy about name: see here". The whole point of the Wikipedia policy of using Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county was to avoid the necessity of doing this. There are fascinating topics about every city mentioned in this article, but unless they are relevant to city status (and Londonderry's seventeenth-century city charter is relevant) they have no place in this article, but rather in the articles concerning the cities themselves. My unionist sympathies have nothing to do with my reverts of these edits. Rather, I am concerned that the edits would interfere with the article's being considered to be written interestingly and brilliantly. GSTQ ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"on the occasion of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee in 1897." Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Golden Jubilee in 1887? Calle Widmann ( talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There will be some local government reorganisation in 2009 in England and complete reorganisation in Northern Ireland in 2011. Could someone look into what is being done to preserve city statuses in the parts of the country affected?
2009 structural changes to local government in England
In England the cities affected which immediately spring to mind are Exeter, Norwich, Chester and Durham. Maybe some more are affected. I assume charter trustees will be set up in most, if not all, of these cities to carry on the city status. However I did hear that Chester's status may be taken on by the new Cheshire West and Chester unitary?
Some cities in the areas affected won't need to change their city status "grantee" - Truro (civil parish) and New Sarum (Charter Trustees) for example.
Northern Ireland - check the Northern Ireland local government articles regarding the 11 new districts being set up to replace the existing districts there. Affecting the cities of Derry, Lisburn..?
Help researching and updating articles as necessary much appreciated!! David ( talk) 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The article says that “At present, Rochester, Perth and Elgin are the only former cities in the United Kingdom.” This seems to contradict the page “Category: Former cities in Scotland”, which lists five such (Brechin, Dunblane, Elgin, Perth and St Andrews) - making, together with Rochester, a total of six for the whole UK, not three. Is this a real inconsistency, or a problem about definitions of “city”, or what? I hope that someone can find out and sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.154.153 ( talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried reading this page and now my brain wants to die. Is it just me or are most English bureaucratic conventions horrifically abstruse? Is there any cogent reason why, say, Reading is not a city? Who makes up this shit, the Illuminati? And what's in a title that has no definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.19.119 ( talk) 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the Lord Mayor of Bristol has the prefix of Right Honourable, something which has so far been overlooked on Wikipedia.
Various pages on Wikipedia need editing (I have done those which I can find). Research into when the use of the style was granted also needs doing. David ( talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Did some research on the Rt Hon business, material added to List of lord mayoralties and lord provostships in the United Kingdom. Basically it appears that the new lord mayors created in the 1890s thought they were entiltled to be rt hon, and they wwere supported in this by Garter King of Arms in 1893. However by 1903 his successor had decided this was not so, and after that the Home Office had to politely point this out to places like Liverpool and Manchester not to use the title. Bristol seems to have carried on regardles.. Lozleader ( talk) 21:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the following bit:
I can't see how that's right. The primary meaning of 'city' is just 'a large urban area'. There's a definite distinction between cities and towns, but it's an informal one and it's meaningless to ask what the smallest city is. There is an alternate, more general sense, so it's not wrong to talk about the city limits of a small town, but it would be odd to say "I'm going into the city" if one were heading down town in a town of 5000. Mark Foskey ( talk) 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
GATESHEAD TO APPLY FOR CITY STATUS this is not my article so i'm not going to add information about this myself. But can gateshead making it clear they will be applying for city status in 2012 be mentioned? how about the fact there are expectations a new city will be named in 2012? maybe with a list of candidates? i have the following source http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/04/23/gateshead-making-a-bid-to-become-a-city-61634-23451898/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.6.34 ( talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
I redid the section about the metropolitan boroughs after Lozleaders erudite new section on Westminster. However, I still think the point that the entirely 'discretionary' nature of conferring City status is proven by the reluctance to award it to any metropolitan borough no matter how well qualified. As to Croydon's lack of sucess in 1951 - it was not in the County of London in that period but a County Borough within Surrey. Indeed when it was subsumed into the the GLC, the new/presnt LB borough of Croydon still insists on 'Surrey' connections. Tony S 89.168.62.160 ( talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lozleader - yes, very good. Looking at the citations you make it certainly does show a clear prejudice against historic London boroughs - the criteria of being just part of a larger conurbation doesn't hold water when you look at some of the provincial/Scots/ Welsh/Ulster awards which would fail by that same criteria. Also, Margaret Thatcher's abolition of the GLC (1986-2000) and the development of effective unitary status for the London Boroughs meant surely that this argument did not hold true. Tony S 89.168.62.160 ( talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Dear Lozleader: if you could add the phrase "[and other proposed claims as qualifying criteria] " "The Home Office had a policy of resisting any attempt by metropolitan boroughs to become cities even when their populations [and other proposed claims as qualifying criteria] might otherwise have made them eligible." or something it would make the point I was attempting to make?? Tony S 89.168.62.160 ( talk) 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lozleader, thanks, OK done. Actually I am a Southwark 'loyalist' and (see Guildable Manor' and 'Southwark' entries) and although it was a bailiwick of the City it has had a distinct status throughout the centuries. On city status of its most recent application included its antiquity (Alfred burh), three cathedrals, the oldest and newest art galleries (Dulwich and Tate Modern), the Shakespeare connections/ Tudor theatre (Globe), museums of local, national and international importance (Design M, Globe, IWM), higher education and medicine (Guy's) as well as its metropolitan role. So we were pretty cheesed off to be regarded as a mere suburb. Tony S 89.168.62.160 ( talk) 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)