"UK undoubtedly has some beautiful parts but mainly in protected National Park areas. Whereas France is 75% beautiful and 25% rough/nondescript the UK (is probably 25% beautiful and 75% rough/nondescript. As we are so overcrowded the beautiful areas tend to be overrun with people whereas in France you can drive for miles in glorious unspoilt countryside."
++++
I wouldn't demur with any of that. This is why I put France at #1 and the UK at #9. Plus the French climate is superior (for now) and their urbanism less spoiled
But the UK is still beautiful in parts, and splendidly varied, with an often-glorious coastline and some divine cityscapes - Cambridge! - and on a world ranking is right up there. It's just not as impressive as France, but France is number 1
Which brings us to the bigger point. European countries crowd the top spots of "Most Beautiful Countries", which is why Europe, as a whole, gets more tourists than anywhere on earth. The tourists aren't dumb
There are some natural landscapes that, individually, are more breath-taking than anywhere in Europe - the Antarctic Peninsula for sure, perhaps the wilds of the American West, Greenland, Ethiopia, bits of Oz, central Asia, NZ (apparently, haven't been), and so on, but for overall beauty, Europe sweeps the prizes
The Telegraph list is bonkers, and is merely designed to stir up arguments. Which it has done. So well done that editor
I am consistently surprised by this attitude on PB. Most of France that I've been to has not struck me as particularly attractive. I lived in Nice for 3 months, travelled a bit in the South, and the North, been to Paris, the French Alps. There's a lot of it I haven't seen, but my abiding impression is of villages with ugly billboards shittily stuck everywhere, severely over-pollarded trees, genteel suburban decay, and dodging dogshit in the city centres. I am sure the countryside is pleasant in the places I haven't been to. For comparison, I grew up in West Sussex near the Surrey border, which is nice but not spectacular. I now live in Scotland, which is stunningly beautiful, so perhaps I've been spoiled. I think some PBers, even the professed patriots, think there's something more glamorous about French squallor than British squallor.
That last is a good point. I often think that in Italy, mistaking Italian squalor as charm rather than actual squalor. One can only hope that any Italian tourists who land up in Banbury on a Saturday night find its particular squalor somehow unusually charming. Although I rather doubt it.
For beauty, there really is no beating Italy as a country. History, scenery, and less war damage than it deserves. Because almost everywhere is so all-round beautiful they can get away with treating the edges of their cities in a squalid way.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
Beautiful is in the eye, etc, and beauty close up or beauty viewed from a distance?
But if you mean their overall visual impression I wouldn’t put Paris at number two, noting that London doesn’t make the list at all. Prague ought to qualify, as, IMHO, should Bergamo. You could make a case for Naples, given its setting. Edinburgh has its dramatic castle, yes, but the rest of it? Top ten in the world, I don’t think so. New York deserves lots of superlatives, but I wouldn’t put beauty among them.
In defence of Edinburgh, it has the New Town, as well as the Old. It has the hills, not just the central hills of the Castle, Calton and Arthur's Seat, but other hills around the city from which it can be best viewed, such as Blackford Hill. It has the Water of Leith and Dean Village. It's a lot more than just the castle.
Exactly. Anyone who says it's just the castle hasn't really been out of Waverley Station. Stirling is more of less just the Castle (and the Wallace Monument). Edinburgh isn't.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
Devil's Den by Clatford between Marlborough and Lockeridge
Maybe there were stones like this joining Avebury and Amesbury?
Pretty ugly compared to the Scotland region
Don't know. I was just thinking about the view over the Vale of Pewsey from Knap Hill above Alton Priors (where I suspect there was a pub in the CAMRA guide c. 1980, as well).
Oh that's a lovely bit too, as is it is around Wootton Rivers at Clench Common, and the ancient Savernake forest between them. Including the Big Belly Oak, thought to be over a thousand years old
Seriously pal (just to be different…) avoid the shots/spirits. Not only do they mess you up medically more than beer and wine you will just get into the immense high/immense low the next morning cycle that you will only cope with by starting the high again with the booze or find yourself trying to cope with the worst booze blues and alconoia the next day and end up in a v bad place.
As I've aged, so too have my hangovers aged with me. In my late teens I felt just fine, possibly a bit sleepy. In my mid 20s the headaches, dry mouth etc came to dominate. Now an overwhelming sense of dread, a wave so all consuming that it has me begging for the days when an aspirin would sort it out, takes me. In those circumstances there is nothing to do but suffer, endure, and hope you haven't, contrary to what your mind is saying, ruined your life.
Still, 'tis payday and that means a couple of beers (as previously mentioned I'm normally onto whiskey these days for health reasons).
Loathe as I am to bring us back to the topic, it's just occurred to me that the Vardys may well be having their legal fees bankrolled by The Sun/Rupert Murdoch, as it seems it was a Sun reporter that was highly instrumental in creating the situation which provided the tabloids with so much copy.
Anybody else had the same thought? It would certainly help explain why the couple pursued such a hopeless case to such lengths.
I've heard of lawyers offering no win, no fee without the client understanding they can still get wiped out by the other side's costs.
Mebbe, but since it was blindingly obvious Vardy would lose I cannot imagine such an arrangement would have been offered.
Oh, there would have been lawyers lining up to give her a contract on what was always a no-hope case.
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
39 Middlesex
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
Somewhat ironically, the vast majority of the foreign tourists’ first experience of the UK, is in Middlesex.
Middlesex hasn't existed since 1965...
Middlesex hasn't been an administrative area since 1965, you mean. And Cookie wasn't talking about administrative areas...
For Middlesex, you mean Greater London.
No, I mean Middlesex. The area roughly equivalent to Greater London north of the Thames and west of the Lea, plus Staines.
Note in the lead it says "historic county", now making up part of the current Ceremonial County of Greater London.
Yes, if you look back to my original point, I said 'historical counties'.
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_counties_of_England No less valid than ceremonial counties, and more widely understood. We all here know what we're talking about with the historic counties. Who here is 100% sure what the ceremonial counties are?
"UK undoubtedly has some beautiful parts but mainly in protected National Park areas. Whereas France is 75% beautiful and 25% rough/nondescript the UK (is probably 25% beautiful and 75% rough/nondescript. As we are so overcrowded the beautiful areas tend to be overrun with people whereas in France you can drive for miles in glorious unspoilt countryside."
++++
I wouldn't demur with any of that. This is why I put France at #1 and the UK at #9. Plus the French climate is superior (for now) and their urbanism less spoiled
But the UK is still beautiful in parts, and splendidly varied, with an often-glorious coastline and some divine cityscapes - Cambridge! - and on a world ranking is right up there. It's just not as impressive as France, but France is number 1
Which brings us to the bigger point. European countries crowd the top spots of "Most Beautiful Countries", which is why Europe, as a whole, gets more tourists than anywhere on earth. The tourists aren't dumb
There are some natural landscapes that, individually, are more breath-taking than anywhere in Europe - the Antarctic Peninsula for sure, perhaps the wilds of the American West, Greenland, Ethiopia, bits of Oz, central Asia, NZ (apparently, haven't been), and so on, but for overall beauty, Europe sweeps the prizes
The Telegraph list is bonkers, and is merely designed to stir up arguments. Which it has done. So well done that editor
I am consistently surprised by this attitude on PB. Most of France that I've been to has not struck me as particularly attractive. I lived in Nice for 3 months, travelled a bit in the South, and the North, been to Paris, the French Alps. There's a lot of it I haven't seen, but my abiding impression is of villages with ugly billboards shittily stuck everywhere, severely over-pollarded trees, genteel suburban decay, and dodging dogshit in the city centres. I am sure the countryside is pleasant in the places I haven't been to. For comparison, I grew up in West Sussex near the Surrey border, which is nice but not spectacular. I now live in Scotland, which is stunningly beautiful, so perhaps I've been spoiled. I think some PBers, even the professed patriots, think there's something more glamorous about French squallor than British squallor.
That last is a good point. I often think that in Italy, mistaking Italian squalor as charm rather than actual squalor. One can only hope that any Italian tourists who land up in Banbury on a Saturday night find its particular squalor somehow unusually charming. Although I rather doubt it.
For beauty, there really is no beating Italy as a country. History, scenery, and less war damage than it deserves. Because almost everywhere is so all-round beautiful they can get away with treating the edges of their cities in a squalid way.
Maybe it's the light, or the warmth?
Ended up sleeping for a night in a public park in Genoa one summer with some friends when existing accommodation plans went awry. Not something I can imagine anyone being half as happy to do in any British city.
Devil's Den by Clatford between Marlborough and Lockeridge
Maybe there were stones like this joining Avebury and Amesbury?
Pretty ugly compared to the Scotland region
Don't know. I was just thinking about the view over the Vale of Pewsey from Knap Hill above Alton Priors (where I suspect there was a pub in the CAMRA guide c. 1980, as well).
Oh that's a lovely bit too, as is it is around Wootton Rivers at Clench Common, and the ancient Savernake forest between them. Including the Big Belly Oak, thought to be over a thousand years old
Oh yes - that too. My friend (whose parents then lived locally) and I went in the forest once for himn to show me an old Roman pottery pond and the forest floor was covered in wasters just below the leaf litter.
I'm tempted. There must be some devilish punishment for asylum seekers that Starmer can devise which will trump sending them to Rwanda.
Thought you were an SKS fan Roger?
I was before I realised that like you he's a Brexiteer. Having been in France for a while and understood the problems of getting there I've realised quite how barking mad you both must be.
I don't think it's barking mad to consider more than just how easy it is to get to one specific holiday location when you are deciding on membership or otherwise of a large and powerful supra-national organisation whose membership implies a complex mesh of obligations, responsibilities, costs and benefits.
I don't know whether you listened to this but it answers all your questions rather well and points out what a barking mad government roughly half the people on here supported. Again James O'Brien.....
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
Cardiff is only hanging on to its airport due to Welsh government largesse. Does a vanity airport count?
Most of them are. After all, if we don't include vanity airports that's Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham and Sheffield out as well.
I wonder if I am alone on pb.com in having flown from all three of those airports?
With that adjustment, I'm confident in answering 'yes.'
I will even add that I am one of the rare air travellers who likes to arrive at an airport by public transport, and so have arrived at Nottingham and Sheffield (more correctly, I think these days, Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield, or RHADS) by bus. They look at you in blank astonishment if you emerge from Nottingham airport and ask where the bus stops are.
Nottingham City Airport? Not EMA?
Ah, then I may have claimed too much. I've flown from EMA which I understand has now rebranded itself Nottingham. And RHADS which I understand is often called Sheffield. I have been to Nottingham City Airport (which I think is in Rushcliffe) with a friend who was flying from there, but I can't claim to have flown from there.
"UK undoubtedly has some beautiful parts but mainly in protected National Park areas. Whereas France is 75% beautiful and 25% rough/nondescript the UK (is probably 25% beautiful and 75% rough/nondescript. As we are so overcrowded the beautiful areas tend to be overrun with people whereas in France you can drive for miles in glorious unspoilt countryside."
++++
I wouldn't demur with any of that. This is why I put France at #1 and the UK at #9. Plus the French climate is superior (for now) and their urbanism less spoiled
But the UK is still beautiful in parts, and splendidly varied, with an often-glorious coastline and some divine cityscapes - Cambridge! - and on a world ranking is right up there. It's just not as impressive as France, but France is number 1
Which brings us to the bigger point. European countries crowd the top spots of "Most Beautiful Countries", which is why Europe, as a whole, gets more tourists than anywhere on earth. The tourists aren't dumb
There are some natural landscapes that, individually, are more breath-taking than anywhere in Europe - the Antarctic Peninsula for sure, perhaps the wilds of the American West, Greenland, Ethiopia, bits of Oz, central Asia, NZ (apparently, haven't been), and so on, but for overall beauty, Europe sweeps the prizes
The Telegraph list is bonkers, and is merely designed to stir up arguments. Which it has done. So well done that editor
I am consistently surprised by this attitude on PB. Most of France that I've been to has not struck me as particularly attractive. I lived in Nice for 3 months, travelled a bit in the South, and the North, been to Paris, the French Alps. There's a lot of it I haven't seen, but my abiding impression is of villages with ugly billboards shittily stuck everywhere, severely over-pollarded trees, genteel suburban decay, and dodging dogshit in the city centres. I am sure the countryside is pleasant in the places I haven't been to. For comparison, I grew up in West Sussex near the Surrey border, which is nice but not spectacular. I now live in Scotland, which is stunningly beautiful, so perhaps I've been spoiled. I think some PBers, even the professed patriots, think there's something more glamorous about French squallor than British squallor.
That last is a good point. I often think that in Italy, mistaking Italian squalor as charm rather than actual squalor. One can only hope that any Italian tourists who land up in Banbury on a Saturday night find its particular squalor somehow unusually charming. Although I rather doubt it.
For beauty, there really is no beating Italy as a country. History, scenery, and less war damage than it deserves. Because almost everywhere is so all-round beautiful they can get away with treating the edges of their cities in a squalid way.
Maybe it's the light, or the warmth?
Ended up sleeping for a night in a public park in Genoa one summer with some friends when existing accommodation plans went awry. Not something I can imagine anyone being half as happy to do in any British city.
Mind you, my grandparents had to do that on their wedding night during the war, when they turned up in Stratford-upon-Avon and couldn't find anywhere to stay, and they didn't seem to be scarred by the experience.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
Beautiful is in the eye, etc, and beauty close up or beauty viewed from a distance?
But if you mean their overall visual impression I wouldn’t put Paris at number two, noting that London doesn’t make the list at all. Prague ought to qualify, as, IMHO, should Bergamo. You could make a case for Naples, given its setting. Edinburgh has its dramatic castle, yes, but the rest of it? Top ten in the world, I don’t think so. New York deserves lots of superlatives, but I wouldn’t put beauty among them.
In defence of Edinburgh, it has the New Town, as well as the Old. It has the hills, not just the central hills of the Castle, Calton and Arthur's Seat, but other hills around the city from which it can be best viewed, such as Blackford Hill. It has the Water of Leith and Dean Village. It's a lot more than just the castle.
Exactly. Anyone who says it's just the castle hasn't really been out of Waverley Station. Stirling is more of less just the Castle (and the Wallace Monument). Edinburgh isn't.
Bit unfair - a walk around the upper town and especially a visit to Argyll's Lodging is well worth it. And low down a walk around the King's Knot former royal garden to see the castle from below. Though I'd leave Raploch to the Leons of this world for their poverty safaris (unless it has improved since I last passed that way). And I haven't seem the old momastery on the Forth yet (but that probably doesn't count as Stirling proper). (The bonus star is Sheriffmuir battlefield, so high and bleak, and as an extra treat the WW2 training demo site with earthwork dummy landing craft and a chunk of the Atlantic Wall battered by shot, shell, and demolition charges - but one has to know where to look.)
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
A flawed list since the IOW doesn’t even appear.
Historically part of Hampshire.
Fine, but then the beauty scoring here needs to factor in the IOW’s stunning scenic beauty into the assessment for Hampshire. Which, very clearly, Mr Cookie has utterly and totally failed to do. Leaving us with just crumbs, where there should have been a comprehensive yet laser-focussed objective assessment. Poor show.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
Cardiff is only hanging on to its airport due to Welsh government largesse. Does a vanity airport count?
Most of them are. After all, if we don't include vanity airports that's Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham and Sheffield out as well.
I wonder if I am alone on pb.com in having flown from all three of those airports?
With that adjustment, I'm confident in answering 'yes.'
I will even add that I am one of the rare air travellers who likes to arrive at an airport by public transport, and so have arrived at Nottingham and Sheffield (more correctly, I think these days, Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield, or RHADS) by bus. They look at you in blank astonishment if you emerge from Nottingham airport and ask where the bus stops are.
Nottingham City Airport? Not EMA?
Ah, then I may have claimed too much. I've flown from EMA which I understand has now rebranded itself Nottingham. And RHADS which I understand is often called Sheffield. I have been to Nottingham City Airport (which I think is in Rushcliffe) with a friend who was flying from there, but I can't claim to have flown from there.
EMA still calls itself that, so far as I can tell, on checking. Went there on occasion back in the eons when the local museum service still had a branch there with a Vulcan parked outside.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
A flawed list since the IOW doesn’t even appear.
Historically part of Hampshire.
Fine, but then the beauty scoring here needs to factor in the IOW’s stunning scenic beauty into the assessment for Hampshire. Which, very clearly, Mr Cookie has utterly and totally failed to do. Leaving us with just crumbs, where there should been a comprehensive yet laser-focussed assessment. Poor show.
Quite, Needles, Tennyson Down, the walk over to Brighstone (and the pub), the Hanover Point fossils ...
"UK undoubtedly has some beautiful parts but mainly in protected National Park areas. Whereas France is 75% beautiful and 25% rough/nondescript the UK (is probably 25% beautiful and 75% rough/nondescript. As we are so overcrowded the beautiful areas tend to be overrun with people whereas in France you can drive for miles in glorious unspoilt countryside."
++++
I wouldn't demur with any of that. This is why I put France at #1 and the UK at #9. Plus the French climate is superior (for now) and their urbanism less spoiled
But the UK is still beautiful in parts, and splendidly varied, with an often-glorious coastline and some divine cityscapes - Cambridge! - and on a world ranking is right up there. It's just not as impressive as France, but France is number 1
Which brings us to the bigger point. European countries crowd the top spots of "Most Beautiful Countries", which is why Europe, as a whole, gets more tourists than anywhere on earth. The tourists aren't dumb
There are some natural landscapes that, individually, are more breath-taking than anywhere in Europe - the Antarctic Peninsula for sure, perhaps the wilds of the American West, Greenland, Ethiopia, bits of Oz, central Asia, NZ (apparently, haven't been), and so on, but for overall beauty, Europe sweeps the prizes
The Telegraph list is bonkers, and is merely designed to stir up arguments. Which it has done. So well done that editor
I am consistently surprised by this attitude on PB. Most of France that I've been to has not struck me as particularly attractive. I lived in Nice for 3 months, travelled a bit in the South, and the North, been to Paris, the French Alps. There's a lot of it I haven't seen, but my abiding impression is of villages with ugly billboards shittily stuck everywhere, severely over-pollarded trees, genteel suburban decay, and dodging dogshit in the city centres. I am sure the countryside is pleasant in the places I haven't been to. For comparison, I grew up in West Sussex near the Surrey border, which is nice but not spectacular. I now live in Scotland, which is stunningly beautiful, so perhaps I've been spoiled. I think some PBers, even the professed patriots, think there's something more glamorous about French squallor than British squallor.
That last is a good point. I often think that in Italy, mistaking Italian squalor as charm rather than actual squalor. One can only hope that any Italian tourists who land up in Banbury on a Saturday night find its particular squalor somehow unusually charming. Although I rather doubt it.
For beauty, there really is no beating Italy as a country. History, scenery, and less war damage than it deserves. Because almost everywhere is so all-round beautiful they can get away with treating the edges of their cities in a squalid way.
Maybe it's the light, or the warmth?
Ended up sleeping for a night in a public park in Genoa one summer with some friends when existing accommodation plans went awry. Not something I can imagine anyone being half as happy to do in any British city.
A group of us got arrested in Genoa for apparently being in a restricted area of the docks. (No way had we passed any THOU SHALT NOT signs, honest.) Much hilarity as we explained we were English. Which none of the police spoke. And we spoke no Italian.
Upon discovering we were English, the top cop literally slapped his forehead with his palm, the only time I have ever seen anybody do it.
The next part of the mime show was when they asked for out passports. Between a dozen of us we had one. We then had to try to explain that they were all retained by the campsite 7 miles up in the hills.
I think "escorted from the premises" about covers it.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
Still got the ancient cathedral, Coventry does, next to the Basil Spence job.
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
A flawed list since the IOW doesn’t even appear.
I must admit, I've never been quite sure of the status of the IOW historically - in some lists I've seen it's identified as part of Hampshire, in others not. I think thee is at least a little ambiguity (like do we include both Sussexes, both Suffolks, the three Ridings of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the Isle of Ely, the Cities of London and Bristol and the Soke of Peterborough? Even the historical list is shot through with ambiguity.) I've opted for simplicity, if for no other reason than to my slight shame I've never been to the IoW. I'm assured it's lovely though. Feel free to extol its virtues and slot it in as appropriate.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
If the monarchy is abolished then we will need someone to make these decisions, and it may as well be Robert as anyone else.
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
A flawed list since the IOW doesn’t even appear.
I must admit, I've never been quite sure of the status of the IOW historically - in some lists I've seen it's identified as part of Hampshire, in others not. I think thee is at least a little ambiguity (like do we include both Sussexes, both Suffolks, the three Ridings of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the Isle of Ely, the Cities of London and Bristol and the Soke of Peterborough? Even the historical list is shot through with ambiguity.) I've opted for simplicity, if for no other reason than to my slight shame I've never been to the IoW. I'm assured it's lovely though. Feel free to extol its virtues and slot it in as appropriate.
Last part of England to convert to Christianity. 1970 i believe after the filthy hippies fecked off
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
Beautiful is in the eye, etc, and beauty close up or beauty viewed from a distance?
But if you mean their overall visual impression I wouldn’t put Paris at number two, noting that London doesn’t make the list at all. Prague ought to qualify, as, IMHO, should Bergamo. You could make a case for Naples, given its setting. Edinburgh has its dramatic castle, yes, but the rest of it? Top ten in the world, I don’t think so. New York deserves lots of superlatives, but I wouldn’t put beauty among them.
In defence of Edinburgh, it has the New Town, as well as the Old. It has the hills, not just the central hills of the Castle, Calton and Arthur's Seat, but other hills around the city from which it can be best viewed, such as Blackford Hill. It has the Water of Leith and Dean Village. It's a lot more than just the castle.
Exactly. Anyone who says it's just the castle hasn't really been out of Waverley Station. Stirling is more of less just the Castle (and the Wallace Monument). Edinburgh isn't.
Bit unfair - a walk around the upper town and especially a visit to Argyll's Lodging is well worth it. And low down a walk around the King's Knot former royal garden to see the castle from below. Though I'd leave Raploch to the Leons of this world for their poverty safaris (unless it has improved since I last passed that way). And I haven't seem the old momastery on the Forth yet (but that probably doesn't count as Stirling proper). (The bonus star is Sheriffmuir battlefield, so high and bleak, and as an extra treat the WW2 training demo site with earthwork dummy landing craft and a chunk of the Atlantic Wall battered by shot, shell, and demolition charges - but one has to know where to look.)
I love Stirling. I prefer the Castle and Castle area to Edinburgh's Castle and Castle Esplanade. But I'd say both the (good) things you mention are related to the Castle.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
If the monarchy is abolished then we will need someone to make these decisions, and it may as well be Robert as anyone else.
Well, something's got to give. Chaz n KimKams I am semi resigned to but we can't have pegboi dishing out royal charters, can we?
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
39 Middlesex
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
Somewhat ironically, the vast majority of the foreign tourists’ first experience of the UK, is in Middlesex.
Middlesex hasn't existed since 1965...
Middlesex hasn't been an administrative area since 1965, you mean. And Cookie wasn't talking about administrative areas...
For Middlesex, you mean Greater London.
No, I mean Middlesex. The area roughly equivalent to Greater London north of the Thames and west of the Lea, plus Staines.
Note in the lead it says "historic county", now making up part of the current Ceremonial County of Greater London.
Yes, if you look back to my original point, I said 'historical counties'.
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_counties_of_England No less valid than ceremonial counties, and more widely understood. We all here know what we're talking about with the historic counties. Who here is 100% sure what the ceremonial counties are?
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
A flawed list since the IOW doesn’t even appear.
Historically part of Hampshire.
Fine, but then the beauty scoring here needs to factor in the IOW’s stunning scenic beauty into the assessment for Hampshire. Which, very clearly, Mr Cookie has utterly and totally failed to do. Leaving us with just crumbs, where there should been a comprehensive yet laser-focussed assessment. Poor show.
Quite, Needles, Tennyson Down, the walk over to Brighstone (and the pub), the Hanover Point fossils ...
EDIT : I drank to a ridiculous extent at one point. Then I discovered the virtue of quality over quantity. And that the best evenings are where you maintain an exact “altitude” all night.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
Still got the ancient cathedral, Coventry does, next to the Basil Spence job.
St Asaph in N Wales has a cathedral and St Asaph is a fly speck of a place
It's all just a bit of fun, get the pints in! Shots shots shots!
Pace yourself. Sun barely below the yard arm.
I'm currently waiting for fish and chips outside the chippy in Sale. I can confirm that the denizens of the J P Joule (Wetherspoons) are pressing on with all the volume and gusto of CHB. Perhaps he's among them? Though I think he lives in London.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
Still got the ancient cathedral, Coventry does, next to the Basil Spence job.
St Asaph in N Wales has a cathedral and St Asaph is a fly speck of a place
Lots of labour MPs joining pickets tomorrow apparently. Lets see how Strongman Starmer asserts his authority over them. Im predicting he will do nothing and hope it all goes away
Lots of labour MPs joining pickets tomorrow apparently. Lets see how Strongman Starmer asserts his authority over them. Im predicting he will do nothing and hope it all goes away
It's all just a bit of fun, get the pints in! Shots shots shots!
Pace yourself. Sun barely below the yard arm.
I'm currently waiting for fish and chips outside the chippy in Sale. I can confirm that the denizens of the J P Joule (Wetherspoons) are pressing on with all the volume and gusto of CHB. Perhaps he's among them? Though I think he lives in London.
There is a Spoons on the Ring Road in Norwich. I used to go do the banking first thing on a Monday at the bank opposite just to amuse myself at the 9.30 am flotsam already on it sat outside
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
A flawed list since the IOW doesn’t even appear.
A pretty good stab though. I wouldn't have a serious quibble with any of it.
The two counties I know best are Essex and Gloucestershire and I'd put them about where he has.
Lots of labour MPs joining pickets tomorrow apparently. Lets see how Strongman Starmer asserts his authority over them. Im predicting he will do nothing and hope it all goes away
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
Still got the ancient cathedral, Coventry does, next to the Basil Spence job.
St Asaph in N Wales has a cathedral and St Asaph is a fly speck of a place
St Davids is smaller.
Perhaps it is but I have been to St Asaph's. It less than 1 minute to drive through... or drive past might be more accurate
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
A flawed list since the IOW doesn’t even appear.
I must admit, I've never been quite sure of the status of the IOW historically - in some lists I've seen it's identified as part of Hampshire, in others not. I think thee is at least a little ambiguity (like do we include both Sussexes, both Suffolks, the three Ridings of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the Isle of Ely, the Cities of London and Bristol and the Soke of Peterborough? Even the historical list is shot through with ambiguity.) I've opted for simplicity, if for no other reason than to my slight shame I've never been to the IoW. I'm assured it's lovely though. Feel free to extol its virtues and slot it in as appropriate.
Quite obviously, it drops into the list just a smidgin above Westmorland.
It's all just a bit of fun, get the pints in! Shots shots shots!
Pace yourself. Sun barely below the yard arm.
I'm currently waiting for fish and chips outside the chippy in Sale. I can confirm that the denizens of the J P Joule (Wetherspoons) are pressing on with all the volume and gusto of CHB. Perhaps he's among them? Though I think he lives in London.
We went to see J P Joule's grave in Sale Cemetry. It is a shame Wetherspoon's named a dump of a drinking pit after him. The King's Ransom across the road is much nicer
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
In the UK a city is a city if it is on the list of cities produced by the Queen.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
If the monarchy is abolished then we will need someone to make these decisions, and it may as well be Robert as anyone else.
Well, something's got to give. Chaz n KimKams I am semi resigned to but we can't have pegboi dishing out royal charters, can we?
Why not, Charles IInd, George IVth and Edward VIIth all did and had very colourful private lives
I'm upset at the lack of love for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
The New Forest, the ancient capital of England in Winchester, the South Downs with ancient iron age forts, beautiful villages that have barely changed in centuries, broad mysterious oak woods, chalk rivers teeming with trout, the naval, aviation and military history and heritage, the fascinating grittiness of Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight - which is paradise Island, the true garden of England.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
On that definition Manchester and Liverpool and Newcastle and Birmingham aren't cities which is rather absurd.
In reality, nowadays it should be somewhere with a population over 100,000. Though places with an ancient cathedral and smaller population than that can still keep the ceremonial title of city
I'm upset at the lack of love for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
The New Forest, the ancient capital of England in Winchester, the South Downs with ancient iron age forts, beautiful villages that have barely changed in centuries, broad mysterious oak woods, chalk rivers teeming with trout, the naval, aviation and military history and heritage, the fascinating grittiness of Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight - which is paradise Island, the true garden of England.
Upset, I tell you.
My county.
Rural Hampshire is rather lovely in my experience. So have a +1 from me.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
Still got the ancient cathedral, Coventry does, next to the Basil Spence job.
St Asaph in N Wales has a cathedral and St Asaph is a fly speck of a place
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
If the monarchy is abolished then we will need someone to make these decisions, and it may as well be Robert as anyone else.
Well, something's got to give. Chaz n KimKams I am semi resigned to but we can't have pegboi dishing out royal charters, can we?
Why not, Charles IInd, George IVth and Edward VIIth all did and had very colourful private lives
Yes, but the only one whose foible was as comedically humiliating as pegboi was Edward VIII
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
A flawed list since the IOW doesn’t even appear.
I must admit, I've never been quite sure of the status of the IOW historically - in some lists I've seen it's identified as part of Hampshire, in others not. I think thee is at least a little ambiguity (like do we include both Sussexes, both Suffolks, the three Ridings of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the Isle of Ely, the Cities of London and Bristol and the Soke of Peterborough? Even the historical list is shot through with ambiguity.) I've opted for simplicity, if for no other reason than to my slight shame I've never been to the IoW. I'm assured it's lovely though. Feel free to extol its virtues and slot it in as appropriate.
Quite obviously, it drops into the list just a smidgin above Westmorland.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
If the monarchy is abolished then we will need someone to make these decisions, and it may as well be Robert as anyone else.
Well, something's got to give. Chaz n KimKams I am semi resigned to but we can't have pegboi dishing out royal charters, can we?
Why not, Charles IInd, George IVth and Edward VIIth all did and had very colourful private lives
Yes, but the only one whose foible was as comedically humiliating as pegboi was Edward VIII
Whatever William is into, I strongly doubt that info would be shared with Meghan Markle. Obviously the allegations of racism aren't quite getting the traction they once did so we're going Southern hemisphere.
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
I think Kent should be way higher, it really is the garden of England and by far the loveliest place you can get to from London in under an hour. I would put Cornwall higher too, but perhaps that's just because I am there right now and it is absolutely glorious! You clearly love the North West, despite the near-constant rain. For me the trouble with this part of England is that it just seems an inferior version of what is available north of the border. Perhaps this is why I prefer the beautiful bits of England down south, which are quite different from the wild, stark beauty of the Scottish Highlands and Islands (for me the most beautiful part of these Isles - and if I was forced to be more specific I would say Skye).
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at its parochial best.
ISTR you started it, Stewart, by saying how horrible most bits of England were. We just picked that up and dissected it. At enjoyable length. We could I'm sure have also included Scotland, but you seemed so keen to single England out
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
I think Kent should be way higher, it really is the garden of England and by far the loveliest place you can get to from London in under an hour. I would put Cornwall higher too, but perhaps that's just because I am there right now and it is absolutely glorious! You clearly love the North West, despite the near-constant rain. For me the trouble with this part of England is that it just seems an inferior version of what is available north of the border. Perhaps this is why I prefer the beautiful bits of England down south, which are quite different from the wild, stark beauty of the Scottish Highlands and Islands (for me the most beautiful part of these Isles - and if I was forced to be more specific I would say Skye).
Durham is way too low. Both the city and the county.
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at it’s parochial best.
England is largely spoiled now, but at its best it was the most beautiful collaborative creation of God and man since the garden of Eden. Scotland is relatively speaking fucking useless because it doesn't do landscapes; nowhere do you look at a house or castle or cottage or village or town and marvel at how it fits the terrain and how the terrain fits it. It's got big mountains sure but there's bigger with better weather everywhere. I mean yeah the Cuillin but I can think of lots of ranges which are the Cuillin 6 times as high and 20 times as long.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at it’s parochial best.
England is largely spoiled now, but at its best it was the most beautiful collaborative creation of God and man since the garden of Eden. Scotland is relatively speaking fucking useless because it doesn't do landscapes; nowhere do you look at a house or castle or cottage or village or town and marvel at how it fits the terrain and how the terrain fits it. It's got big mountains sure but there's bigger with better weather everywhere. I mean yeah the Cuillin but I can think of lots of ranges which are the Cuillin 6 times as high and 20 times as long.
Scotland has been accused of a lot of things down the years but not having attractive landscapes is, I have to say, a new and rather brave claim.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
When I found out about travel to work areas what really surprised me was that they were a lot smaller than I expected. Cities have a lot less gravity than I supposed, or at least it diminishes more quickly with distance than I thought, and so there are a lot more travel to work areas than I expected.
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at it’s parochial best.
England is largely spoiled now, but at its best it was the most beautiful collaborative creation of God and man since the garden of Eden. Scotland is relatively speaking fucking useless because it doesn't do landscapes; nowhere do you look at a house or castle or cottage or village or town and marvel at how it fits the terrain and how the terrain fits it. It's got big mountains sure but there's bigger with better weather everywhere. I mean yeah the Cuillin but I can think of lots of ranges which are the Cuillin 6 times as high and 20 times as long.
Scotland has been accused of a lot of things down the years but not having attractive landscapes is, I have to say, a new and rather brave claim.
Quite. A lot of fighting stupid with stupid here today.
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at it’s parochial best.
England is largely spoiled now, but at its best it was the most beautiful collaborative creation of God and man since the garden of Eden. Scotland is relatively speaking fucking useless because it doesn't do landscapes; nowhere do you look at a house or castle or cottage or village or town and marvel at how it fits the terrain and how the terrain fits it. It's got big mountains sure but there's bigger with better weather everywhere. I mean yeah the Cuillin but I can think of lots of ranges which are the Cuillin 6 times as high and 20 times as long.
Went to an illustrated talk about landscapes yesterday and the speaker ‘waxed lyrical’ about Glencoe.
It's all just a bit of fun, get the pints in! Shots shots shots!
Pace yourself. Sun barely below the yard arm.
I'm currently waiting for fish and chips outside the chippy in Sale. I can confirm that the denizens of the J P Joule (Wetherspoons) are pressing on with all the volume and gusto of CHB. Perhaps he's among them? Though I think he lives in London.
We went to see J P Joule's grave in Sale Cemetry. It is a shame Wetherspoon's named a dump of a drinking pit after him. The King's Ransom across the road is much nicer
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at it’s parochial best.
We did include two Welsh cities.
Since we've also covered Edinburgh, Glasgow and Stirling that raises the interesting possibility that Stuart considers Scotland's capital, former capital and largest city to not be Scottish.
It's all just a bit of fun, get the pints in! Shots shots shots!
Pace yourself. Sun barely below the yard arm.
I'm currently waiting for fish and chips outside the chippy in Sale. I can confirm that the denizens of the J P Joule (Wetherspoons) are pressing on with all the volume and gusto of CHB. Perhaps he's among them? Though I think he lives in London.
We went to see J P Joule's grave in Sale Cemetry. It is a shame Wetherspoon's named a dump of a drinking pit after him. The King's Ransom across the road is much nicer
I disagree, actually. The J P Joule is not unpleasant inside - feels like a slightly louche library - and the beer is reliably quite good. Whereas the King's Ransom was, I think, quite good for about a year after it opened but then got surprisingly rough, and the beer is pretty ropey. It's a great setting, but falls well short of its potential. Maybe you went during its brief halcyon days? The Steamhouse, which opened about 8 years ago between them, is a better bet than both.
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at it’s parochial best.
England is largely spoiled now, but at its best it was the most beautiful collaborative creation of God and man since the garden of Eden. Scotland is relatively speaking fucking useless because it doesn't do landscapes; nowhere do you look at a house or castle or cottage or village or town and marvel at how it fits the terrain and how the terrain fits it. It's got big mountains sure but there's bigger with better weather everywhere. I mean yeah the Cuillin but I can think of lots of ranges which are the Cuillin 6 times as high and 20 times as long.
Scotland has been accused of a lot of things down the years but not having attractive landscapes is, I have to say, a new and rather brave claim.
" Mr. Ogilvie was unlucky enough to choose for the topick of his conversation the praises of his native country. He began with saying, that there was very rich land around Edinburgh. Goldsmith, who had studied physick there, contradicted this, very untruly, with a sneering laugh. Disconcerted a little by this, Mr. Ogilvie then took a new ground, where, I suppose, he thought himself perfectly safe; for he observed, that Scotland had a great many noble wild prospects. Johnson. “I believe, Sir, you have a great many. Norway, too, has noble wild prospects; and Lapland is remarkable for prodigious noble wild prospects. But, Sir, let me tell you, the noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!” This unexpected and pointed sally produced a roar of applause. After all, however, those who admire the rude grandeur of Nature, cannot deny it to Caledonia."
Boswell, Life of Johnson or might be Tour of the Hebrides
My point was, God and man collaborated over England. Scotland looks just as it would if we had never come down from the trees. And so do a lot of other parts of the world.
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
A flawed list since the IOW doesn’t even appear.
I must admit, I've never been quite sure of the status of the IOW historically - in some lists I've seen it's identified as part of Hampshire, in others not. I think thee is at least a little ambiguity (like do we include both Sussexes, both Suffolks, the three Ridings of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the Isle of Ely, the Cities of London and Bristol and the Soke of Peterborough? Even the historical list is shot through with ambiguity.) I've opted for simplicity, if for no other reason than to my slight shame I've never been to the IoW. I'm assured it's lovely though. Feel free to extol its virtues and slot it in as appropriate.
Quite obviously, it drops into the list just a smidgin above Westmorland.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has Michael Fabricant. What more do you want?
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at it’s parochial best.
We did include two Welsh cities.
Since we've also covered Edinburgh, Glasgow and Stirling that raises the interesting possibility that Stuart considers Scotland's capital, former capital and largest city to not be Scottish.
Not just not to be Scottish but to be English. As English as Morris dancing and Pork Pies.
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at it’s parochial best.
England is largely spoiled now, but at its best it was the most beautiful collaborative creation of God and man since the garden of Eden. Scotland is relatively speaking fucking useless because it doesn't do landscapes; nowhere do you look at a house or castle or cottage or village or town and marvel at how it fits the terrain and how the terrain fits it. It's got big mountains sure but there's bigger with better weather everywhere. I mean yeah the Cuillin but I can think of lots of ranges which are the Cuillin 6 times as high and 20 times as long.
Scotland has been accused of a lot of things down the years but not having attractive landscapes is, I have to say, a new and rather brave claim.
Quite. A lot of fighting stupid with stupid here today.
You have utterly embarrassed yourself by misconstruing a valid and insightful comment. A novel and unexpected occurrence.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
Beautiful is in the eye, etc, and beauty close up or beauty viewed from a distance?
But if you mean their overall visual impression I wouldn’t put Paris at number two, noting that London doesn’t make the list at all. Prague ought to qualify, as, IMHO, should Bergamo. You could make a case for Naples, given its setting. Edinburgh has its dramatic castle, yes, but the rest of it? Top ten in the world, I don’t think so. New York deserves lots of superlatives, but I wouldn’t put beauty among them.
In defence of Edinburgh, it has the New Town, as well as the Old. It has the hills, not just the central hills of the Castle, Calton and Arthur's Seat, but other hills around the city from which it can be best viewed, such as Blackford Hill. It has the Water of Leith and Dean Village. It's a lot more than just the castle.
Exactly. Anyone who says it's just the castle hasn't really been out of Waverley Station. Stirling is more of less just the Castle (and the Wallace Monument). Edinburgh isn't.
Bit unfair - a walk around the upper town and especially a visit to Argyll's Lodging is well worth it. And low down a walk around the King's Knot former royal garden to see the castle from below. Though I'd leave Raploch to the Leons of this world for their poverty safaris (unless it has improved since I last passed that way). And I haven't seem the old momastery on the Forth yet (but that probably doesn't count as Stirling proper). (The bonus star is Sheriffmuir battlefield, so high and bleak, and as an extra treat the WW2 training demo site with earthwork dummy landing craft and a chunk of the Atlantic Wall battered by shot, shell, and demolition charges - but one has to know where to look.)
I love Stirling. I prefer the Castle and Castle area to Edinburgh's Castle and Castle Esplanade. But I'd say both the (good) things you mention are related to the Castle.
Yes, I like Stirling too. Small but satisfying. And a lovely light, and gorgeous, gorgeous views away to the start of the highlands in the west.
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at it’s parochial best.
England is largely spoiled now, but at its best it was the most beautiful collaborative creation of God and man since the garden of Eden. Scotland is relatively speaking fucking useless because it doesn't do landscapes; nowhere do you look at a house or castle or cottage or village or town and marvel at how it fits the terrain and how the terrain fits it. It's got big mountains sure but there's bigger with better weather everywhere. I mean yeah the Cuillin but I can think of lots of ranges which are the Cuillin 6 times as high and 20 times as long.
Scotland has been accused of a lot of things down the years but not having attractive landscapes is, I have to say, a new and rather brave claim.
" Mr. Ogilvie was unlucky enough to choose for the topick of his conversation the praises of his native country. He began with saying, that there was very rich land around Edinburgh. Goldsmith, who had studied physick there, contradicted this, very untruly, with a sneering laugh. Disconcerted a little by this, Mr. Ogilvie then took a new ground, where, I suppose, he thought himself perfectly safe; for he observed, that Scotland had a great many noble wild prospects. Johnson. “I believe, Sir, you have a great many. Norway, too, has noble wild prospects; and Lapland is remarkable for prodigious noble wild prospects. But, Sir, let me tell you, the noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!” This unexpected and pointed sally produced a roar of applause. After all, however, those who admire the rude grandeur of Nature, cannot deny it to Caledonia."
Boswell, Life of Johnson or might be Tour of the Hebrides
My point was, God and man collaborated over England. Scotland looks just as it would if we had never come down from the trees. And so do a lot of other parts of the world.
I actually have no idea what you are talking about! Dr Johnson made a career out of saying offensively stupid things about Scotland so I wouldn't consider him an authority on this topic.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YISflrh9LVA
For beauty, there really is no beating Italy as a country. History, scenery, and less war damage than it deserves. Because almost everywhere is so all-round beautiful they can get away with treating the edges of their cities in a squalid way.
Still, 'tis payday and that means a couple of beers (as previously mentioned I'm normally onto whiskey these days for health reasons).
Ended up sleeping for a night in a public park in Genoa one summer with some friends when existing accommodation plans went awry. Not something I can imagine anyone being half as happy to do in any British city.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Ax3weNyK8
I have been to Nottingham City Airport (which I think is in Rushcliffe) with a friend who was flying from there, but I can't claim to have flown from there.
Upon discovering we were English, the top cop literally slapped his forehead with his palm, the only time I have ever seen anybody do it.
The next part of the mime show was when they asked for out passports. Between a dozen of us we had one. We then had to try to explain that they were all retained by the campsite 7 miles up in the hills.
I think "escorted from the premises" about covers it.
I've opted for simplicity, if for no other reason than to my slight shame I've never been to the IoW. I'm assured it's lovely though. Feel free to extol its virtues and slot it in as appropriate.
It’s quite mad that the people being trained are going to be vastly more experienced in using the weapons than their trainers in a few weeks
1970 i believe after the filthy hippies fecked off
Stop being an awkward sod!
EDIT : I drank to a ridiculous extent at one point. Then I discovered the virtue of quality over quantity. And that the best evenings are where you maintain an exact “altitude” all night.
That would be an ecumenical matter.
Perhaps he's among them? Though I think he lives in London.
Er, for a proper leader.
The two counties I know best are Essex and Gloucestershire and I'd put them about where he has.
Particularly since you post repeatedly on here whilst doing it, which suggests you are doing so alone.
Awesomeness sells itself
Sorted!
The New Forest, the ancient capital of England in Winchester, the South Downs with ancient iron age forts, beautiful villages that have barely changed in centuries, broad mysterious oak woods, chalk rivers teeming with trout, the naval, aviation and military history and heritage, the fascinating grittiness of Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight - which is paradise Island, the true garden of England.
Upset, I tell you.
My county.
In reality, nowadays it should be somewhere with a population over 100,000. Though places with an ancient cathedral and smaller population than that can still keep the ceremonial title of city
Ouch!
I thought these twats were supposed to be pro-Tory?
PB at its parochial best.
Only thing worse for you is happy British people.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
We could I'm sure have also included Scotland, but you seemed so keen to single England out
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_to_work_area
1 in 300 people have severe side effects from the vaccine claims these clowns.
The Steamhouse, which opened about 8 years ago between them, is a better bet than both.
Boswell, Life of Johnson or might be Tour of the Hebrides
My point was, God and man collaborated over England. Scotland looks just as it would if we had never come down from the trees. And so do a lot of other parts of the world.