[Fusion]

So Reading will never gain city status because it lacks a cathedral? When crossrail opens Reading will serve direct trains into the city of London, west end etc so very much a town going places. I quite like the place - nice enough town centre, good for shopping, decent pubs and only 25mins into London.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by Fusion)
So Reading will never gain city status because it lacks a cathedral? When crossrail opens Reading will serve direct trains into the city of London, west end etc so very much a town going places. I quite like the place - nice enough town centre, good for shopping, decent pubs and only 25mins into London.

A City doesn't require a Cathedral.

[Angry cucumber]

(Original post by jaja0202)
why not sunderland??

The "etc" was meant to suggest that there were many more. To name all major areas of population would have taken more time than I have!

[catoswyn]

(Original post by Morgsie)
I thought Reading would get it.

Poor Reading... missed it again and they've been trying for so long. Its all very odd... I mean Wells in Somerset with 10,000 people is technically a city. How is it decided?

[_Student_]

St Asaph? The queen is losing it.

[catoswyn]

(Original post by Morgsie)
A City doesn't require a Cathedral.

I thought I heard that it did because years ago in Reading there was a huge newspaper discussion about getting a Cathedral.

What is the criteria? Do you know?

[TGH1]

(Original post by Morgsie)
St Asaph

awarded City Status as part of the Diamond Jubilee

[catoswyn]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
RoflCENTRAL! Aye, Reading should've had it. Token Welsh and Scottish awards to placate the devolutionist trolls.. this country has lost the plot

"The awards were granted by The Queen under the royal prerogative, following advice from ministers .. a process overseen by the deputy prime minister's office." ~ PC > common sense liberals!

Ah, well that explains everything... Nick Clegg!

[TGH1]

(Original post by catoswyn)
I thought I heard that it did because years ago in Reading there was a huge newspaper discussion about getting a Cathedral.

What is the criteria? Do you know?

I read a while back that there aren't any prerequisites to becoming a city, other than a royal charter.

[Infallible]

(Original post by RK)
What are your criteria for inclusion on the list?

Also, isn't Scotland massively over represented when the population of Scotland is about 5 5 million and the England about 50 million? Shouldn't your list be more representative of that?

Also, why exclude places like Nottingham, Bristol and Leicester?

It's their list, they can put whatever they wish. How about you make your own list if it's of that much concern.

[jaja0202]

(Original post by Angry cucumber)
The "etc" was meant to suggest that there were many more. To name all major areas of population would have taken more time than I have!

ok fair enough

[toronto353]

(Original post by Infallible)
*is.

It's their list, they can put whatever they wish. How about you make your own list if it's of that much concern.

No, RK is right. Criterion is the singular, criteria is the plural so 'are' is the correct form there. It comes from a Greek neuter noun originally and so the 'a' (alpha in the Greek) at the end of the word denotes that it is plural and hence RK is right to use the word 'are'.

I think the point is more why put those cities on their list and miss out other big cities?

[Anastasija95]

Quite few people got excited about Chelmsford becoming a city. It's kind of ironic how a large number of stores have closed down here. Also even though the council has spent so much money on applying for this whole thing the prices are likely to go up a bit now due to the fact that Chelmsford is SO close to the capital and is now a city -.- Ugh to be honest apart from that it makes no difference whatsoever , except that now some people can say 'Hey , I'm from a city'

[Infallible]

(Original post by toronto353)
No, RK is right. Criterion is the singular, criteria is the plural so 'are' is the correct form there. It comes from a Greek neuter noun originally and so the 'a' (alpha in the Greek) at the end of the word denotes that it is plural and hence RK is right to use the word 'are'.

I think the point is more why put those cities on their list and miss out other big cities?

Still sounds wrong to me. Ah well.

[Morgsie]

Traditionally Cities have Cathedrals.

This wiki article explains the City Status: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_st...United_Kingdom

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
Oh come the **** on.

Reading has a population about the same size as Leicester! It is a city in all but name now.

And if you want to go down the route of historical links triggering eligiblity for city status like the cathedral in St. Asaph, then restore Rochester's city status first FFS. Frankly there are some places too small to be seriously considered a historical or functional city: anywhere with a population of under 25,000 should be automatically disqualified from application.

Indeed, Leicester's ~330k is essentially the same as Reading's ~230k population.

I don't think people quite realise how big Leicester is, we're the tenth biggest settlement in Britain (going on the 2001 census).

[toronto353]

(Original post by Infallible)
Still sounds wrong to me. Ah well.

I agree that it is quite deceptive. It's the same with datum and data, but English seems to be able to work around tricky singular and plurals.

[x-pixie-lottie-x]

(Original post by Shabalala)
If they keep announcing new cities then there won't be any towns or villages left within 20 years

The only places that should be counted as cities are

London
Glasgow
Edinburgh
Manchester
Liverpool
Newcastle
Birmingham
Leeds
Belfast
Cardiff
Londonderry
Aberdeen
Swansea
Dundee
Sheffield

just out of interest do you propose that any cities not in your list should be a city should be stipped of the title ? even if they have been cities for much longer than some of those?

the place near me isnt on your list im guessing part of that noone knows where it is... and its also the 27th smallest city in the UK.... but... it has been a city since the 16th century since when there became an association between having a cathedral and being a city... infact quite a few of those cities are absent from your list.... however you do include Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Dundee all of which did not become cities until the 19th century... should we reassess our cities every couple of hundred years? write some off get some new ones?


personally i dont really care that more places are becoming cities... its a bit interesting in a oh really... then move on kinda way...... but then being a city means nothing other than a place being able to say "im a city" there are no special rights or anything... all seems a bit pointless... noone ever realises where im from is a city... most people dont have a clue where it is or have ever heard of it *shrugs*
x

[TurboCretin]

I'm still waiting for London to get city status.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by Shabalala)
If they keep announcing new cities then there won't be any towns or villages left within 20 years

The only places that should be counted as cities are

London
Glasgow
Edinburgh
Manchester
Liverpool
Newcastle
Birmingham
Leeds
Belfast
Cardiff
Londonderry
Aberdeen
Swansea
Dundee
Sheffield

Better start campaigning.