Turn on thread page Beta

Which city would be the capital city if London was not the capital watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Probably Manchester or Birmingham.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yodude888)
    3 things:

    1) I'm not from Liverpool

    2) The post was supposed to be sarcastic

    3) Your Gaza rocket stats - know which article in the Economist it came from?
    Ah my bad, it's just usually any Liverpudlian I meet inevitably brings it up like it's something to be proud of and a reflection of how great Liverpool is. Which it really isn't.

    As for the rocket stats, I got it off their website maybe 2/3 weeks ago? It was in an article detailing whether the time has come for Israel to strike Iran.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm amazed anyone is saying Birmingham. Despite being second in population to London, Birmingham is utterly insignificant both in modern times and historically. Nothing goes on there, nothing exists there, nobody interesting lives there, nobody who is anybody cares about it.

    As said before, York probably had the best shot at becoming capital throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. There are also another load of rival capitals, such as Windsor - the de facto Royal capital - and Canterbury, which is something of a global religious capital.

    In more modern times, the Union of the Crowns in 1603 could have resulted in the balance of power swinging very definitely to Edinburgh. Perhaps fortunately, both for London and Edinburgh, James VI/I didn't think this way and sauntered on down to London with his entourage to hold court, and to live there until he died.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Manchester since Birmingham doesn't have enough history or culture to be the capital.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4G_dollars)
    Which one
    I think that if we considered potential to become a great capital then Liverpool would be amongst the top, it's a port city which is advantageous, it also has 800 years of history in which it held a greater economic output than London itself (for a while atleast) and it's already multicultural. It has great potential for being a trading link between the USA and Europe. It has only declined in recent history because it has no purpose to fulfil anymore, you go to Liverpool not through Liverpool and this is why it has been in decline; if Liverpool had a renewed purpose as a trading hub then I could only predict great things for the up and coming city!

    If we were judging from a city's position right at this moment then I would be obliged to say Manchester.
    *Shudders*

    just kidding :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    MANCHESTER
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm amazed anyone is saying Birmingham. Despite being second in population to London, Birmingham is utterly insignificant both in modern times and historically. Nothing goes on there, nothing exists there, nobody interesting lives there, nobody who is anybody cares about it.

    As said before, York probably had the best shot at becoming capital throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. There are also another load of rival capitals, such as Windsor - the de facto Royal capital - and Canterbury, which is something of a global religious capital.

    In more modern times, the Union of the Crowns in 1603 could have resulted in the balance of power swinging very definitely to Edinburgh. Perhaps fortunately, both for London and Edinburgh, James VI/I didn't think this way and sauntered on down to London with his entourage to hold court, and to live there until he died.
    I'd argue that point quite heavily, the political and economic core of Britain has always been England, for James to have stayed in Edinburgh and ruled from there would have been akin to Henry VIII ruling from Truro. It's the same reason why William III didn't stay in the Netherlands.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calvinuk)
    It'd be the next largest financial city after London.

    Leeds, also the fastest growing, and the third largest after Birmingham and London.


    Don't forget The Metropolitan borough of Greater Manchester is in fact two cities.
    That is a lie.
    In fact, Edinburgh is the next city, to be the largest financial city after London.
    In fact Manchester has more bank businesses based in the city than Leeds and Birmingham put together. Manchester is the best placed city to do business in the UK. It is number 15 as a city to watch out for in Europe and internationally. Manchester is a gamma world city.
    In Manchester is far better placed than London to beat the recession. In fact a recent report suggests that Manchester is leading the way out of the recession and will emerge the strongest city in the UK.
    Salford does not have a city centre or anything so it does not really count for owt.
    Leeds and Birmingham should not be in the race.

    In fact Liverpool is better for finance, commerce, and business than Leed and Birmingham.

    It is really between Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast, Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow.

    Birmingham and Leeds are population only, too many people having kids. Ok?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnthebaptist1)
    How is Wales the capital city's neighbouring province?

    Wales is a seperate country, and there are other counties/provinces next to London. :tongue:
    It would help if you actually read what he quoted. It says the capital city of England's neighbouring province, not London's neighbouring province.
    Offline

    14
    Manchester/Leicester - I thought of Birmingham as well, but the place looks horrible, so no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Birmingham - its the second largest and has major industry and business there
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4G_dollars)

    It is really between Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast, Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow.
    but they all have silly accents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4G_dollars)
    Why Birmingham? Lets be honest, it is a dumping ground for ****, and only claim to fame is being in between Manchester and London

    Manchester has to be it. It is only the other city apart from London to be considered a top European city and number 15 in a recent world city report for business, commerce etc...

    I much more prefer Preston.

    What about Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, as they are capital cities.

    Brimingham is only second biggest because of population. It just the ***** otherwise.
    What a thick, uneducated comment. Check Wikipedia, and you'll see that Birmingham has the second largest economy of any city in the UK; not just the second largest pop.
    Offline

    9
    Winchester, if the Normans did not move the capital to London (I think)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    From what I remember of Birmingham it consisted of ringroads, motorways, towerblocks and a shopping centre in the middle, it made Bradford look pretty.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4G_dollars)

    It is really between Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast, Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow.
    Considering that Liverpool and Manchester are two major cities and they are within a close proximity, this combination would pose a threat to southern supremacy.

    If anything ever did compromise London, then I believe the north-west would be best suited to take over the role of the capital, and build infrastructure to unite the two cities

    What a sight that would be, Liverpudlians and Mancunians together haha! that's a recipie for civil war :p:
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Again, either Manchester or Birmingham.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    doncaster
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnthebaptist1)
    How is Wales the capital city's neighbouring province?

    Wales is a seperate country, and there are other counties/provinces next to London. :tongue:
    The problem is it doesn't define what a province is. Even now it's pretty inconsistent what we call the different parts of the UK. I'd guess that by province they do mean what we'd normally call a country (within the context of the internals of the UK) or a nation. But back then I'm not sure Wales would have been considered a separate "province" from England, so it might mean Scotland.

    Edit - I'm interested in this now. But I think boodeny might have just made this up since this thread is the only thing that comes up on google if I search for it. Lib, do you know anything?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakko247)
    Considering that Liverpool and Manchester are two major cities and they are within a close proximity, this combination would pose a threat to southern supremacy.

    If anything ever did compromise London, then I believe the north-west would be best suited to take over the role of the capital, and build infrastructure to unite the two cities

    What a sight that would be, Liverpudlians and Mancunians together haha! that's a recipie for civil war :p:
    Actually, the thing is, Liverpool and Manchester are becoming closer, the river mersey will act as a corridor,as well as the east lancs to merge the cities together. New offices, new retail centres, etc... are being planned. Liverpool-Manchester will be a rival to London.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.