please empty your brain below

Brentwood has a cathedral.
I wonder if this post was inspired by Warren on BBC One on Monday, which I was half-watching, and had some scenes about Preston becoming a city.
When I was taught geography in middle school in the early 1980s, a city was defined by having a cathedral, a river and a university. Although the criteria have changed, I cannot dislodge the idea from my mind that newly designated 'cities' that don't meet them are somehow illegitimate. The failing is, of course, mine.
Jps, yes, it does, a Catholic one, but as far as city designations go, Catholic cathedrals don't count. If they did (or do) , Lancaster, Leeds, Nottingham, Plymouth, Salford and Westminster could be removed from the list of "English cities without cathedrals"
I now work in Croydon and it amuses me that the most Manhattan like of all the failures has failed to become a city the most often
Until Local Government reform in the 1970s separated many cities from their historic counties, Northumberland had a city, and Warwickshire had two.

JPS raises a good point - there are Roman Catholic cathedrals in several places you have listed as not having one: notably the cities of Lancaster, Leeds, Nottingham, Plymouth, Salford, and Westminster, and the non-cities of Aldershot, Arundel, Brentwood, Northampton, Middlesbrough, and Shrewsbury.

And Southwark is not a city, but has two cathedrals.
Tottenham has a cathedral of football.
Warwickshire: Coventry is deemed to be in this county, if only ceremonially.
Sorry but no it’s not too soon for Milton Keynes. After 52 years old and three failed attempts it’s time it got what it deserves.

(ex resident)
As someone bought up in Croydon I know how much the authorities there want to be a City. It really did wind them up in the 70s when they failed and I see from DG's list that the same has happened a further three times!

And Croydon does indeed look just like Manhattan. Until you go to Manhattan and realise that Croydon doesn't look just like Manhattan!
Having grown up in Canterbury I was surprised to see it's population is listed that big - and it's because in the 70s it merged with the nearby (but separate) Herne Bay & Whitstable. Canterbury itself still has less than 50,000 residents. (although yes, i know that the newly merged council is called the City of Canterbury so technically this is correct, it just feels wrong given the actual size of the city itself)
German to Spaniard overheard in Moro restaurant recently discussing places to visit, "There is no good reason for anyone to visit Croydon"
And the advantage? To me, a disadvantage is the extra opportunity for civic poncing around, all at council taxpayer's expense.
Wondering if the residents of Colchester feel aggrieved that Chelmsford was awarded city status before their home town.

Intrigued about that administrative error in Rochester; was the town awarded city status in error, or did the error cause it to be stripped of city status?
The population figure for Canterbury is the entire district council area, including Whitstable and Herne Bay. The city itself is quoted at about 54,000.
Many questions can be answered by referring to the Wikipedia links at the bottom of the post.
I always assumed Colchester was a city - as it has been a major settlement since Roman times, unlike almost all the existing cities listed. Colchester was almost certainly the first town in Britain and the first capital of the Roman province of Britannia.

Surely having a C of E cathedral is irrelevant now, to most of us.
Regardless of cathedrals, rivers etc. I struggle to see places as cities if they are neither of the below
* of some historical or current significance in their own right.
* identifiably distinct geographically and not subsumed by some larger entity.

Croydon definitely falls foul of number 2 and though I don't know the history much, I suspect Westminster is just a bit of a branding exercise for its influential residents. Wakefield surprises me somewhat but I don't know the area too well.

Also there is no way Birkenhead is 300K+. Wirral Borough probably is, but nobody would claim the two are equivalent in any sense.
Can I be today's pedant?...

In English law, "time immemorial" means before the start of the reign of Richard I, 6 July 1189. This is what you learn from QI!

In that case, the cities you have listed as 11th century and probably all of the 12th century, should be "time immemorial".

You're welcome!
In common parlance (rather than English Law) "time immemorial" means "we don't know exactly when but a jolly long time ago".

Milton Keynes should be singled out, for blatantly calling itself a city ever since it was founded, even though it's legally not one. "Quacks like a duck" perhaps.
Given that the majority of people in what you call the "Bournemouth Urban Area" live outside Bournemouth, you may wish to update before locals come to complain.
wikipedia/South_East_Dorset_conurbation
wikipedia/Bournemouth,_Christchurch_and_Poole

Similarly, when it comes to the population figures you appear to have Middlesbrough for Teesside and Birkenhead for Wirral. Are these definitions from the wikipedia article on urban areas in the UK?
Interesting. I didn't expect "east of Ipswich" to be 40 miles from a city.

Some more interesting historical oddities can be found in the subject of county towns .
Lancaster, Leeds, Plymouth, Salford and Westminster are all cities with cathedrals - Catholic ones (like the old cathedrals used to be).
Vic, Coventry hasn't been in Warwickshire, even ceremonially for over 40 years; since 1974 it's been in the ceremonial county of West Midlands. Historically, yes, ceremonially no.
Croydon Parish church was rechristened Croydon Minster a few years ago, and Croydon College offers degree courses in conjunction with Sussex University...town gearing up for another bid?
There's been a spate of towns renaming their parish church as a minster lately. I think it's become the latest way for a city without a cathedral, such as Leeds, or a large town, such as Halifax, Rotherham, Croydon and Doncaster (the last two of which have bid for city status), to big themselves up and bring in visitors. Although I'm sure the church will claim there's a good ecclesiastical reason for it.
You don’t seem to have a category for Welwyn Garden City.
I'm surprised that Greater London (excluding Westminster and the City of London) isn't listed under 'Large urban areas that aren't cities'. Or maybe you could list each borough, most of which must have a greater population than half the cities on the list.
There is a list of the new minsters at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minster_(church) from which it seems that new ones in the last 15 years include Cheltenham, Croydon, Doncaster, Great Yarmouth, Grimsby, Halifax, Hull, King's Lynn, Leeds, Plymouth, Preston, Rotherham, Stoke, and Newport (and in the 1990s Dewsbury and Sunderland).
I'd always assumed Guildford to be a city - after all, its football team is called Guildford City. Wonder why.
timbo, Southwark has three cathedrals, not two. One each for C of E, Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox.
...if somewhere is a city or not is another example of outdated conventions. in the 21st century it should have little if anything to do with religion/cathedrals or royalty.

Milton Keynes considers itself a city, as in the eyes of many who live there it is one. It localism at its best...why wait for "the great & the good" to do it...when one can (rightly) self-proclaim it.
Perhaps you should all read this written in 2014.
Bruce, ceremonial counties *are* historic (whatever Wikipedia says), it's administrative ones that aren't, and Coventry is in Warwickshire. No way is the 'West Midlands' a county whatever they might like to claim.

I believe Sheffield's parish church only became a cathedral in the 1920s.
Sarah - ceremonial counties were, like administrative counties, entirely abolished and recreated in 1965 (London and a couple of other places)/1974 (non-London England) - just as they were in 1888 - and then played about with several times in the last 30 years... I think you mean 'historical', 'geographic' or 'traditional' as an adjective.

There is, of course, no reason why the Lieutenancies Act of 1997 cannot be amended so that the boundaries approximate the historic boundaries.
Lancaster, Salford, etc, do have cathedrals, so this blog is inaccurate.
Milton Keynes may have had city aspirations for all its existence, but I'd argue that it's probably neck-and-neck with Northampton on actual cityness - a decent candidate, but is not quite top on any measure, and is perhaps lacking one or two, and so will have to wait a couple more rounds before winning the prize.

Similar with Reading and Middlesbrough (not helped by tight local government boundaries) though they are slightly ahead of their South Midlands competition and are running out of places that can beat them. The Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole local authority being created next month will, however, be nearly unstoppable next time around, should it overcome the barrier of that cumbersome name!
Bruce Tenmile, Thanks for the correction. I didn't know West Midlands was a ceremonial county - just assumed it to be some modern administrative unit!

DG, As others have mentioned, the Canterbury figure you use from a Wikipedia article is in error due to using the district council area and not the city limits - presumably due to laziness the author never bothered to check.
The closest city to Oxford is St Albans, 40 miles away. Reading, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Luton, Swindon and Cheltenham are all closer to Oxford.
Lundy might make the furthest from a city list. I make the southern end of the island to be 46 miles from the centre of Swansea. Whether or not this is surprisingly far is left to interpretation...

Vic: The Canterbury figure *is* correct, because it is the entire district council – actually called Canterbury City Council – that holds the city status, not just the settlement (which is an unparished area since its borough council was dissolved). Same applies to Carlisle and Winchester.
Vic - the city limits of Canterbury *are* the district council area: the district council is the entity with city status. This is by far the most common situation for city status.
Today a considerable amount of
"Well, I wouldn't have done it like that".
^I blame Brexit
@Isambard Guildford City FC adopted that name in about 1927, which is when the diocese was created, with the cathedral begun in the next decade. There was a lot of expectation that Guildford would soon get city status off the back of this and some institutions jumped the gun (there's also a Guildford City Boxing Club) but repeated bids for city status have failed.

@TheLupineOne Rochester was a city was since the 13th century and in 1982 this status was transferred to the wider Rochester-upon-Medway authority. The details are a bit lengthy, but basically in 1998 RuM merged with Gillingham to form the current Medway unitary authority and Rochester council failed to take the necessary steps to preserve or transfer the city status. Medway only realised this four years later, by which time the old council had long been dissolved, so couldn't get it back.
Similarly, Chelmsford City FC have had that name since they reformed in 1938, even though Chelmsford would remain a town until 2012.
The population of Worcester according to the last ONS estimates has already exceded 100,000.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy