K writes
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:56:02 +0100, Dave
wrote:

K writes
Please be careful with your attributions - none of the words you quoted
were mine.

Well, it looked like they were from you - there were no indictaiopns
that you had quoted them.

No indications?!?!? Can you read?

Sorry for misquoting you but in your message you said

-----------quoted bit cut & pasted--------------------
The same obsession which runs parallel to claiming to be the "capital
city" and naming the county hall "City Hall" when GL isn't a city. It
has also spread to road signs where various places have been
omitted/deleted and replaced by compass-point London where the road
doesn't even lead to London or to a sensible approach route for the
signed part of London.
----------end of quoted bit

As you see, there are no marks preceding the lines to show it was a
quote.

There were no quote marks in the conventional Usenet sense, as it was
quoting from an article quite some way back. But it was clearly
referenced and marked. (In a similar fashion to how you did it above.)

Looking back at the thread I see that it _was_ a quote, so I once
again apologize for misquoting you.

Accepted.

--
Dave

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Charles Ellson wrote:
} On Monday, in article
} "K"
} wrote:
}
} On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:56:33 +0000 (UTC),
} (Charles Ellson) wrote:
}
}
} The same obsession which runs parallel to claiming to be the "capital
} city"
}
} What's wrong with that?
}
} It isn't a city, far less the capital city, a position still occupied by
} the city which has done the job for over 800 years.
}
} Which is?
}
} The City of London.

The City of Wesminster is the seat of parliament, monarch and courts
since Henry IV. In every meanigful sense it's the capital of England.
The City of London is just more famous.

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tuesday, in article

"Matthew Malthouse" wrote:

snip

The City of Wesminster is the seat of parliament, monarch and courts
since Henry IV. In every meanigful sense it's the capital of England.
The City of London is just more famous.


Hosting a parliament does not make somewhere a capital city, as will be
found in a number of countries (including the UK). Westminster is only
one place which has a royal palace. Nil points.

m-w.com, capital [sense 2] 3 b: being the seat of government

Nil points for you, I'm afraid.

"James Farrar" wrote in message
...
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tuesday, in article

"Matthew Malthouse" wrote:

snip

The City of Wesminster is the seat of parliament, monarch and courts
since Henry IV. In every meanigful sense it's the capital of England.
The City of London is just more famous.


Hosting a parliament does not make somewhere a capital city, as will be
found in a number of countries (including the UK). Westminster is only
one place which has a royal palace. Nil points.

m-w.com, capital [sense 2] 3 b: being the seat of government

Nil points for you, I'm afraid.

Precisely. If being the centre for government, law and finance does not make
a city its country's capital, what does? Charles, are you saying that London
is England's financial capital and Westminster its governemnt and legal
capital?

I think when people in common parlance talk about London being the capital
of England (and maybe of GB and the UK), they mean the whole of London (how
ever you define "the whole"!), rather than simply the City of London (just
the financial centre and not the government and legal centre). I tend to
think of the City of Westminster and the City of London as being merely
districts of a nebulous place called "London" which for historical reasons
has been divided into two very small adjacent cities which don't include
most of central "London". As a matter of interest, do postcode boundaries
follow the boundary between the Cities of Westminster and London?

However a capital city doesn't have to be the country's largest city - think
of Scotland (Edinburgh is smaller than Glasgow), Australia (Canberra is
titchy compared with Sydney, Melbourne etc) or the old West Germany (Bonn
was titchy compared with Hamburg, Munich etc).

Martin Underwood writes
As a matter of interest, do postcode boundaries follow the boundary
between the Cities of Westminster and London?

The boundary between the cities of Westminster and London [1] is very
short, probably only 500m or so in length - but even there the
boundaries are not precisely the same.

See http://tinyurl.com/im8l

[1] In their modern administrative boundaries.
--
Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood writes
As a matter of interest, do postcode boundaries follow the boundary
between the Cities of Westminster and London?

The boundary between the cities of Westminster and London [1] is very
short, probably only 500m or so in length - but even there the
boundaries are not precisely the same.

See http://tinyurl.com/im8l

[1] In their modern administrative boundaries.

There's a red boundary line that runs from near Chancery Lane tube station
roughly southwards to the middle of the Thames near HQS Wellington. Is that
the city boundary or the postcode boundary? On the 1:50000 map it's a long
dash and short dot line which means "county, unitary authority, metropolitan
district or London borough" so I presume it's the city rather than postcode
boundary. I can't find my large A-Z which shows postcode boundaries as well
as London borough boundaries.

I've never understood the rules governing postcode boundaries. They often
cross county boundaries. Mind you, county / unitary authority boundaries
seem to be perverse as well: in what used to be called Berkshire (and which
most people, unitary authority notwithstanding, still *do* call Berkshire!)
there's a boundary that runs through the middle of Reading such that
Tilehurst (really a suburb of Reading) is part of the UA of West Berkshire
(administered in Newbury) whereas the most of the rest of the conurbation of
Reading is part of the UA of Reading. You'd think that common sense would
route the boundary in the un-built-up area outside Reading - and would keep
moving that boundary as Reading expands so that the whole of the conurbation
(as it exists at any time) is always administered from the same place.

Martin Underwood writes
The boundary between the cities of Westminster and London [1] is very
short, probably only 500m or so in length - but even there the
boundaries are not precisely the same.

See http://tinyurl.com/im8l

[1] In their modern administrative boundaries.

There's a red boundary line that runs from near Chancery Lane tube
station roughly southwards to the middle of the Thames near HQS
Wellington. Is that the city boundary or the postcode boundary?

I assumed it was the postcode boundary, on the map the postal districts
are written in a font of the same colour & weight.

The thick greyish line would appear to be the borough boundary line.

I've never understood the rules governing postcode boundaries.

Simple. They are drawn purely for the convenience of the Royal Mail, to
enable them to deliver mail effectively.

--
Dave

Martin Underwood wrote:
Mind you, county / unitary authority
boundaries seem to be perverse as well: in what used to be called
Berkshire (and which most people, unitary authority notwithstanding,
still *do* call Berkshire!) there's a boundary that runs through the
middle of Reading such that Tilehurst (really a suburb of Reading) is
part of the UA of West Berkshire (administered in Newbury) whereas
the most of the rest of the conurbation of Reading is part of the UA
of Reading. You'd think that common sense would route the boundary in
the un-built-up area outside Reading - and would keep moving that
boundary as Reading expands so that the whole of the conurbation (as
it exists at any time) is always administered from the same place.

Unfortunately, common sense got defeated by politics. Labour in Reading
were worried that widening their boundaries might cause them to lose control
of the council, and the majority parties outside Reading were worried that
one or more of their boroughs might disappear if Reading was enlarged. The
result is that the 19th century boundaries are still in place!

Berkshire still exists by the way. It has a Fire and Rescue Service for
example.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:
Mind you, county / unitary authority
boundaries seem to be perverse as well: in what used to be called
Berkshire (and which most people, unitary authority notwithstanding,
still *do* call Berkshire!) there's a boundary that runs through the
middle of Reading such that Tilehurst (really a suburb of Reading) is
part of the UA of West Berkshire (administered in Newbury) whereas
the most of the rest of the conurbation of Reading is part of the UA
of Reading. You'd think that common sense would route the boundary in
the un-built-up area outside Reading - and would keep moving that
boundary as Reading expands so that the whole of the conurbation (as
it exists at any time) is always administered from the same place.

Unfortunately, common sense got defeated by politics. Labour in Reading
were worried that widening their boundaries might cause them to lose
control
of the council, and the majority parties outside Reading were worried that
one or more of their boroughs might disappear if Reading was enlarged.
The
result is that the 19th century boundaries are still in place!

Berkshire still exists by the way. It has a Fire and Rescue Service for
example.

I know Berkshire still exists: even the road signs on the A34 going south
from Oxford to Newbury say something like "Welcome to the Royal County of
Berkshire / West Berkshire". In common parlance, "Berkshire" is the name
that refers to the area of land bounded by Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire,
Surrey etc - which is currently sub-divided into artificial Unitary
Authorities called West Berkshire, Reading, Bracknell Forest, Windsor and
Maidenhead, Wokingham. Ask a resident which county they live in and they'll
say "Berkshire" not "Windsor and Maidenhead" or "Bracknell Forest".
According to Simon Gardner who regularly posts in uk.local.thames-valley,
the strictly correct, hair-splitting answer to the question would be "I
don't" - because Bracknell Forest etc aren't even counties - they are
Unitary Authorities.

As a former resident of Berkshire, I can assure you that I didn't vote for
the change of status - for the simple reason that I (like all the other
residents) wasn't consulted about it. Isn't democracy wonderful? The change
led to all sorts of absurd situations. For example, if you borrowed a
library book at Bracknell library, you weren't able to return it to
Wokingham or Reading library as you had been able to do in the past. If I'd
had to call an ambulance, I'd have been taken to Wexham Park Hospital on the
far side of Slough rather than to the much closer and more accessible Royal
Berks Hospital.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:32:48 GMT Martin Underwood wrote:
} "James Farrar" wrote in message
} ...
} Charles Ellson wrote:
} On Tuesday, in article
}
} "Matthew Malthouse" wrote:
}
} snip
}
} The City of Wesminster is the seat of parliament, monarch and courts
} since Henry IV. In every meanigful sense it's the capital of England.
} The City of London is just more famous.
}
}
} Hosting a parliament does not make somewhere a capital city, as will be
} found in a number of countries (including the UK). Westminster is only
} one place which has a royal palace. Nil points.
}
} m-w.com, capital [sense 2] 3 b: being the seat of government
}
} Nil points for you, I'm afraid.
}
} Precisely. If being the centre for government, law and finance does not make
} a city its country's capital, what does? Charles, are you saying that London
} is England's financial capital and Westminster its governemnt and legal
} capital?
}
} I think when people in common parlance talk about London being the capital
} of England (and maybe of GB and the UK), they mean the whole of London (how
} ever you define "the whole"!), rather than simply the City of London (just
} the financial centre and not the government and legal centre). I tend to
} think of the City of Westminster and the City of London as being merely
} districts of a nebulous place called "London" which for historical reasons
} has been divided into two very small adjacent cities which don't include
} most of central "London". As a matter of interest, do postcode boundaries
} follow the boundary between the Cities of Westminster and London?
}
} However a capital city doesn't have to be the country's largest city - think
} of Scotland (Edinburgh is smaller than Glasgow), Australia (Canberra is
} titchy compared with Sydney, Melbourne etc) or the old West Germany (Bonn
} was titchy compared with Hamburg, Munich etc).

Indeed. Some countries define their capital city, Canberra for
Australia as you mention, Brazillia for Brazil and Washington DC for the
US of A. South Africa defined (I don't know if it still does) Pretoria
as administrative, Bloemfontein and judicial and Cape Town as
legislative capitals.

As far as I'm aware there is not statute making such a definition for
England (or subsequently the UK) so we have to fall back on the
eliptical use of "capital" as head for which Westminster quailifies as
all three whereas the City of London does not.

In that sense when all three were functions of the royal court the
capital might at various times have said to have been York, Oxford and
for long periods Winchester where the treasury was kept even when the
court was peripetetic and parliament met more often than anywhere except
Westminster.

A fourth category, that of trade and finance, has had London as
pre-eminent a fact of which administrations have always been aware.
For that reason royal palaces have been maintained in close proximity to
London since before the Norman Conquest yet (allowing that the Tower is
outside the juristiction of the City) never within London itself.

Of course the common perception of London as the wider conurbation and
London as the capital of England / The United Kingdom is quite valid in
exactly the same sense of head or pre-eminent. It's just that the
little - and lets be frank, insignificant - details rather catch my
imagination. :-)

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/