Turn on thread page Beta

In modern times, should a city be defined as having a cathedral? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Now that we know better, should we revise what it means to be a city? Perhaps define a city as having a university?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phebec)
    Now that we know better, should we revise what it means to be a city? Perhaps define a city as having a university?
    Would you consider St. Andrews or other small university towns cities?

    Although St andrews does have a cathedral so that's a bit of an odd one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Would you consider St. Andrews or other small university towns cities?
    A university and a certain population perhaps?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phebec)
    Now that we know better, should we revise what it means to be a city? Perhaps define a city as having a university?
    I don't think it matters too much. Though you could perhaps define a city as having a proportionate percentage of the population based upon the country that the city is in.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    if a cathedral shouldnt define a place as a city why should a university??
    Offline

    14
    If you define a city as one with a university, what about the universities that are a) attributed to a city but miles away or b) in the middle of nowhere and self contained entities?

    Would Warwick be a city despite the fact it's a tiny little town and "Warwick University" is really miles away on the outskirts of Coventry (which is a city, and has a university of its own)?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    St Asaph in north Wales is a pretty small town at best, yet it has a cathedral. It was granted city status a while back but that was taken from it as it was deemed too small to really be called a city. I think defining a city should be down to a number of factors, e.g. population, physical size, amenities.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    While I agree that having a Cathedral isn't the best way to decide whether to make a town into a city, having a University isn't either.

    Plenty of towns have 'universities' and colleges offering university-level qualifications, far more than should be classed as cities.

    The best measure is the population relative to the rest of the country. The fact remains that unless we have a huge shift in the population, which doesn't seem likely any time soon, the places with the biggest populations will be the ones which already have Cathedrals, so it's a bit of a pointless exercise!
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    I think the fact that Oxford is labelled a city due to Christ Church Cathedral (which isn't a proper cathedral) laughable. Then again, I'm from London and the place was far too small
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There's no such restriction these days, it's just that most places large enough to be considered cities by any measure have cathedrals.

    But I wish the government would hurry up and designate some really obvious choices as cities. Reading? Swindon? Populations over 100,000, substantial economic output, but no cigar apparently. Get on it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well the country is still Church of England (nominally, at least) so I don't see why not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sunderland doesn't have a cathedral and that's classed as a city
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    I think the fact that Oxford is labelled a city due to Christ Church Cathedral (which isn't a proper cathedral) laughable. Then again, I'm from London and the place was far too small
    No, no no.

    Oxford was a city by 1191 when it gave land. It wasn't until 1542 that Osney Abbey became the city's first cathedral.

    Cambridge became a city in 1951
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No, no no.

    Oxford was a city by 1191 when it gave land. It wasn't until 1542 that Osney Abbey became the city's first cathedral.

    Cambridge became a city in 1951
    Ah that's alright then. I have been misinformed This redeems Christ Church Cathedral slightly. Though how it can claim to be a cathedral is still beyond me
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You don't need a cathedral to be a city. Unless there is a Bishop of Preston sitting in a cathedral that no-one knows about.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    Ah that's alright then. I have been misinformed This redeems Christ Church Cathedral slightly. Though how it can claim to be a cathedral is still beyond me

    Well it is that cathedral church of the diocese and seat of the Bishop of Oxford, all it requires to be a cathedral church. It is neither the oldest, newest, largest or smallest cathedral in Britain. I'd say it looks very roomy when compared to St Asaph's for example.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phebec)
    Now that we know better, should we revise what it means to be a city? Perhaps define a city as having a university?
    There is no relationship between cathedral and city status.
    In the past, it was deemed a settlement could not be given city status without a cathedral, however this changed some 300 years ago.
    A settlement must be on the royal charter for it to be officially a city.

    There are no set characteristics that define a city in the uk!
    The department for constitutional affairs says:

    City status is a rare mark of distinction granted by the Sovereign and conferred by Letters Patent. It is granted by personal Command of The Queen, on the advice of Her Ministers. It is for Her Majesty The Queen to decide when a competition for city status should be held. Competitions are usually held on occasions such as important Royal anniversaries.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think you have to have a cathedral to be a city any more. And not all towns with cathedrals are cities.

    Also, Salford is a city and has a cathedral - but it's a Roman Catholic one.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Doesn't the Queen have to declare a place as a city for it to become one? It's got nothing to do with having a cathedral or not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    You don't need a cathedral to be a city. Unless there is a Bishop of Preston sitting in a cathedral that no-one knows about.
    I was going to mention Preston as a city sans cathedral.

    As far as I'm aware, the government will only appoint a city if it has its own ruling council which doesn't cover outlying areas. Loughborough applied to be appointed a city in the new city appointation that's happening soon, and it was rejected because our council is a borough council that rules over outlying villages.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
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.