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.
You may wish to update your view slightly, given that it was taken down when 'physick' was still a career path. There has been a fair bit of building since then.
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.
Scotland has a magnificence and majesty that a lot of England lacks, but for pastoral idyll England wins hands down.
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.
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.
OK
One more time: England is a man made landscape where the artificial and the natural complement each other. Scotland at its best, is just wilderness.
Johnson's output was prodigious, and that was the only thing rude about the Scots I can think of, unless you count the observation that oats is horse feed in England but human feed in Scotland. Actually doing the Tour of the Hebs in those days and for someone as urban and unathletic as him, was a pretty strong vote in favour of the 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?
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.
Yes, but there's a qualifying word 'great' (meaning large) in there.
In the UK its a city if the queen says it is.
If we're comparing places in different countries, we need to have common standards. And, frankly, the Queen declaring something doesn't cut it.
So, I'm going with:
- own airport with regularly scheduled services - transit system with more than just buses - at least 4x the population of Bedford
If you don't like my conditions, then tough. They are reasonable and well reasoned.
Every city needs at least one train station with regular trains.
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.
You may wish to update your view slightly, given that it was taken down when 'physick' was still a career path. There has been a fair bit of building since then.
The whole point of that book was that Johnson had to recant ...
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.
You may wish to update your view slightly, given that it was taken down when 'physick' was still a career path. There has been a fair bit of building since then.
Yes. And it isn't very good. Scotch baronial is mocked for a reason.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives?
There is a Fine cathedral in Norwich. In fact, two of them
Jack Detsch @JackDetsch NEW: Russia is using expansionist rhetoric to try and mask losses and failures on the battlefield in Ukraine, U.S. defense officials believe, including new calls to remove the Zelensky admin.
U.S. revealed that 🇷🇺 has 18 filtration camps in 🇺🇦 where executions have taken place 7:04 PM · Jul 29, 2022
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
They all look much of a muchness to me, but Winchester, Exeter, Christ Church chapel.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives?
There is a Fine cathedral in Norwich. In fact, two of them
I've never actually been to Norwich, which is why I left it off the list. About the only personal connection I have with it is that Ashley Grote, whom I knew slightly when he was deputy choirmaster of Gloucester Cathedral, is DM there.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
(The HART group’s grasp of information security was about as good as their grasp of science as a while. Posting your internal chat logs online and handing out the credentials to those who ask for them is always going to end in embarassment)
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
They all look much of a muchness to me, but Winchester, Exeter, Christ Church chapel.
Winchester is a good shout. Could swap that with Rochester (and that would please @Casino_Royale ).
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.
Your comment was daft, because Stuart was longing for a pompous anti-Scottish riposte, and you gave him one.
I do understand the bones of a point that Scotland has craggier and more dramatic scenery whereas England has villages that look 'organically grown' with thatch etc., but such a generalisation doesn't really stand any more given the amount of beautiful and elegant buildings and settlements all over Scotland, such as pretty towns in the East Neuk of Fife, honey-coloured stone tenements in the suburbs of Edinburgh, grey stone-built Victorian model towns in Perthshire. And the country is veritably coated in castles, not all of them dramatic craggy ones on rocky outcrops, also some stately palaces - take the stunning approach to Glamis Castle in Angus, which rivals any English castle.
Liverpool surely has the two worst, including the papist job described by someone on the Anglican side as looking like a machine gun emplacement manned by daleks.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
Never took to Canterbury, oddly. Possibly because the organ is so rubbish, which put me right off it. Much preferred Rochester.
For a spectacular setting Ripon would have to be up there.
Liverpool surely has the two worst, including the papist job described by someone on the Anglican side as looking like a machine gun emplacement manned by daleks.
Have you been in either of them? They are magnificent buildings and the volume of the Anglican is stunning. It is enormous and very awe inspiring
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives?
There is a Fine cathedral in Norwich. In fact, two of them
I've never actually been to Norwich, which is why I left it off the list. About the only personal connection I have with it is that Ashley Grote, whom I knew slightly when he was deputy choirmaster of Gloucester Cathedral, is DM there.
Fair enough! My parochial bias aside, it is a striking building, high Norman architecture and beautiful French/Norman limestone. Its also visible from my sofa!
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
Never took to Canterbury, oddly. Possibly because the organ is so rubbish, which put me right off it. Much preferred Rochester.
For a spectacular setting Ripon would have to be up there.
The crypts and the setting. You can ignore the history and it's still #2. Salisbury is just on it's own though.
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.
Your comment was daft, because Stuart was longing for a pompous anti-Scottish riposte, and you gave him one.
I do understand the bones of a point that Scotland has craggier and more dramatic scenery whereas England has villages that look 'organically grown' with thatch etc., but such a generalisation doesn't really stand any more given the amount of beautiful and elegant buildings and settlements all over Scotland, such as pretty towns in the East Neuk of Fife, honey-coloured stone tenements in the suburbs of Edinburgh, grey stone-built Victorian model towns in Perthshire. And the country is veritably coated in castles, not all of them dramatic craggy ones on rocky outcrops, also some stately palaces - take the stunning approach to Glamis Castle in Angus, which rivals any English castle.
Liverpool surely has the two worst, including the papist job described by someone on the Anglican side as looking like a machine gun emplacement manned by daleks.
Have you been in either of them? They are magnificent buildings and the volume of the Anglican is stunning. It is enormous and very awe inspiring
You can't beat the pit villages of South Yorkshire. Thurnscoe is my favourite but you can make a case for Rossington or Markham too.
I'm grateful to be just old enough to remember Bolsover and Markham (the Derbyshire one) Collieries. I like unspoilt scenery, but I do like industrial landscapes too.
Two whole threads about which miniscule fragments of Ye Olde Ingerland are slightly less ghastly than the rest.
PB at it’s parochial best.
Seeing English people happy just drives you mad doesn't it?
Only thing worse for you is happy British people.
The English are miserable. And it is entirely self-inflicted.
But aren't you complaining about a lot of cheerful English people comparing how much they like different bits of England? The two would appear to contradict each other.
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.
Scotland has a magnificence and majesty that a lot of England lacks, but for pastoral idyll England wins hands down.
Ireland at least matches it
But that sense of heimat in rural England with its rural villages and gentle rolling hills is certainly a thing.
English romanticism is fundamentally bucolic, rural, and backward looking. I get it too.
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.
You may wish to update your view slightly, given that it was taken down when 'physick' was still a career path. There has been a fair bit of building since then.
Yes. And it isn't very good. Scotch baronial is mocked for a reason.
Well I love Scottish baronial. You can't have too many turrets.
You can't beat the pit villages of South Yorkshire. Thurnscoe is my favourite but you can make a case for Rossington or Markham too.
Your challenge is accepted. To be clear on the rules, what radius from the centre of each am I allowed in order to source something photogenic. A couple of miles, say? 3km if we are going metric.
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.
OK
One more time: England is a man made landscape where the artificial and the natural complement each other. Scotland at its best, is just wilderness.
Johnson's output was prodigious, and that was the only thing rude about the Scots I can think of, unless you count the observation that oats is horse feed in England but human feed in Scotland. Actually doing the Tour of the Hebs in those days and for someone as urban and unathletic as him, was a pretty strong vote in favour of the place.
OK, but that complementarity between nature and the man-made is pretty much the norm for any area with longstanding human habitation. Eg you could say the same about pretty much all of Italy. And indeed many parts of Scotland - I think someone has already mentioned my own birthplace, the East Neuk of Fife, which really offers as charming and beautiful a balance between the human and the natural as can be found anywhere. None of which is to criticise England, which is a very beautiful country with some absolutely stunning corners (I type this looking out over Plymouth Sound).
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).
Yes, I do see your point. My view is that Scotland is bigger, but I prefer the North of England. More lived in, more human. You can be at the top of a mountain, but you're never more than an hour's walk from the pub.
But I think formative experiences guide preferences, and my view is entirely subjective.
Pleased to hear Cornwall is glorious! I shall be arriving next Friday.
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.
OK
One more time: England is a man made landscape where the artificial and the natural complement each other. Scotland at its best, is just wilderness.
Johnson's output was prodigious, and that was the only thing rude about the Scots I can think of, unless you count the observation that oats is horse feed in England but human feed in Scotland. Actually doing the Tour of the Hebs in those days and for someone as urban and unathletic as him, was a pretty strong vote in favour of the place.
OK, but that complementarity between nature and the man-made is pretty much the norm for any area with longstanding human habitation. Eg you could say the same about pretty much all of Italy. And indeed many parts of Scotland - I think someone has already mentioned my own birthplace, the East Neuk of Fife, which really offers as charming and beautiful a balance between the human and the natural as can be found anywhere. None of which is to criticise England, which is a very beautiful country with some absolutely stunning corners (I type this looking out over Plymouth Sound).
I can see it from here too
But the landscape of the Highlands like Scandinavia or the Rockies is fundamentally immune to humanity. Too craggy.
You can't beat the pit villages of South Yorkshire. Thurnscoe is my favourite but you can make a case for Rossington or Markham too.
I used to work out of Kinsley, and I couldn't disagree more. We'd have meetings in the Water Park, which was pleasant enough, but once we had a business lunch in the pub (can't remember the name) at the end of the road from our factory. The pub was like a demilitarised zone, but the restaurant was quite pleasant. Jim, the Sales Manager from Falkirk commented to the waiter that he was surprised the restaurant was as well appointed as it was, the waiter retorted "aye, but it's a shame no one in the village can use a knife and fork"
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far 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
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Important news: the final episode of Neighbours is on Channel 5 tonight at 9pm.
Margot Robbie. Kylie. Harold Bishop. One of these things is not like the others.
No Mrs Mangel or Bouncer the dog? Fuhgeddaboutit.
The ghost of Madge apparently, so anything is possible.
Vivien Gray died 6 years ago so no Mrs Mangel. Bouncer died in a pegging incident in 1997 Apparently a character names their car Bouncer in the final episode though!
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Yes. I wonder if big city cathedrals look smaller than they actually are because they're surrounded by big city? Though in Birmingham they've made a splendid job of the site and the grounds. Relates really well to the city around 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.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Hasn't St Philip's church in Colmore Row been designated a Cathedral?
All the chat about counties in England has reminded me of one of my favourite (and I think largely unknown) TV/films - The Red Riding Trilogy. Very worth a watch. Some remarkable performances and photography.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Yes. I wonder if big city cathedrals look smaller than they actually are because they're surrounded by big city? Though in Birmingham they've made a splendid job of the site and the grounds. Relates really well to the city around it.
I think it's more because they are cathedrals due to being churches in big cities, rather than cities growing up around them because there were cathedrals.
In the case of Birmingham, a conscious decision was made not to build a big new cathedral as the money was needed for social projects in the city instead.
Important news: the final episode of Neighbours is on Channel 5 tonight at 9pm.
Margot Robbie. Kylie. Harold Bishop. One of these things is not like the others.
No Mrs Mangel or Bouncer the dog? Fuhgeddaboutit.
The ghost of Madge apparently, so anything is possible.
Vivien Gray died 6 years ago so no Mrs Mangel. Bouncer died in a pegging incident in 1997 Apparently a character names their car Bouncer in the final episode though!
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
I have no idea what you're on about. I stated that I'd have a cathedral higher up my list. You go off on some random rant. Do try.
It does seem we are little more than a month away from Prime Minister Truss.
It's not a prospect which appeals in any way - her unfunded tax cuts look disastrous and I'm far from convinced she will be anything more than a shouty version of Boris Johnson.
Johnson took bonhomie to new levels - all levitas, no gravitas. There was no situation to which he couldn't find a brighter side, an eternal if unrealistic optimist, he quickly worked out the British people (or a significant portion of them) didn't want the truth or reasoned argument but wanted an upbeat assessment on life. Everything was fine, everything would be all right, Britain was great and there was nothing the British couldn't achieve.
Fine words - they butter no parsnips as someone once said, but clearly all some people want to hear.
Truss can't do Johnson's bonhomie - she grates and irritates and I suspect any political honeymoon (unless topped up with free money) will be short.
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Important news: the final episode of Neighbours is on Channel 5 tonight at 9pm.
Margot Robbie. Kylie. Harold Bishop. One of these things is not like the others.
No Mrs Mangel or Bouncer the dog? Fuhgeddaboutit.
The ghost of Madge apparently, so anything is possible.
Vivien Gray died 6 years ago so no Mrs Mangel. Bouncer died in a pegging incident in 1997 Apparently a character names their car Bouncer in the final episode though!
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
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.
You may wish to update your view slightly, given that it was taken down when 'physick' was still a career path. There has been a fair bit of building since then.
Yes. And it isn't very good. Scotch baronial is mocked for a reason.
Well I love Scottish baronial. You can't have too many turrets.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
They all look much of a muchness to me, but Winchester, Exeter, Christ Church chapel.
Winchester is a good shout. Could swap that with Rochester (and that would please @Casino_Royale ).
Winchester cathedral is magnificent. It’s not as pretty as many but the scale is ridiculous when you visit other European cathedrals. Longest nave in Europe but also the fact that inside it you see in stone the evolution from Romanesque to Perpendicular in such clear terms.
When you compare it to the brick outline of the original Anglo Saxon cathedral next to it you cannot comprehend that one was a cathedral.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
If they take the money from Labour and build it, they will come. I suspect they lack the will or balls to do it though
The stretch of road between Gawthwaite and Grizebeck (the A5092) as it crosses the fells is, to me, one of the most beautiful roads anywhere, no matter what the weather or time of year.
You climb up from Lowick. To the left in the far distance is Ulverston. Ahead there is the ridge of a hill with a nick in it as if some giant had just cut a bit out. As you turn, the road crosses the fells, dotted with sheep, and with views across to the mountains and as you make your descent down across the Duddon estuary and to the sea. It is bleak at times, at others bathed in the colours of the setting sun or autumn reds and purples but always awesome and breathtaking. The combination of lonely fells, mountains and sky just takes my breath away.
Then the long descent to the Duddon with the twinkling sea and the spire of Millom church and the rounded peaks of Black and White Combe above the Whicham valley in front of you. Quite glorious.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Yes. I wonder if big city cathedrals look smaller than they actually are because they're surrounded by big city? Though in Birmingham they've made a splendid job of the site and the grounds. Relates really well to the city around it.
Big city cathedrals don't feel like the centre of the world in those cities as they have a lot of other fine buildings and things going on, and therefore the area nearby often isn't as cared for and there's less investment in maintenance.
Exeter deserves a mention for its stunning vaulted medieval ceiling (longest in the world and a heck of an engineering feat even now let alone at the time).
Bozo passes May in a week. Travesty! Then big Jim is in his sights!
Be funny given the reports he's sought to undermine Sunan, if Sunak pulls out next week so he fails to pass May.
I think its too late now, even if Sunak pulled out on Monday, official announceernt of result Tuesday, Boris would probably stall until 'the Queen is back in London' on Friday or something just to be awkward. I cant see Sunak withdrawing though
Bozo passes May in a week. Travesty! Then big Jim is in his sights!
Be funny given the reports he's sought to undermine Sunan, if Sunak pulls out next week so he fails to pass May.
I think its too late now, even if Sunak pulled out on Monday, official announceernt of result Tuesday, Boris would probably stall until 'the Queen is back in London' on Friday or something just to be awkward. I cant see Sunak withdrawing though
You can still get 1.01 on the clown being gone by Conference
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Yes. I wonder if big city cathedrals look smaller than they actually are because they're surrounded by big city? Though in Birmingham they've made a splendid job of the site and the grounds. Relates really well to the city around it.
Big city cathedrals don't feel like the centre of the world in those cities as they have a lot of other fine buildings and things going on, and therefore the area nearby often isn't as cared for and there's less investment in maintenance.
Exeter deserves a mention for its stunning vaulted medieval ceiling (longest in the world and a heck of an engineering feat even now let alone at the time).
Exeter rather intimidates too. A bastion of cathedrals.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
That imo is the list of a Medievalist. Is there anything much after about 1400?
For limiting to 10, I would eject Salisbury for being samey, Worcester, and perhaps Rochester and Gloucester.
I would add in Coventry, which can stand tall against any medieval cathedral in the country, and Southwell for the chapter house amongst other things. My two more might be Liverpool Anglican and Westminster, but I'd be in about 6 minds. Others would be tempting such as St Paul's and Ripon. And I like Parish Church cathedrals.
I think it's a mistake to say "a cathedral should be X". A cathedral is what it is, and has evolved with its community, and is not an isolated piece of architecture.
Bozo passes May in a week. Travesty! Then big Jim is in his sights!
Be funny given the reports he's sought to undermine Sunan, if Sunak pulls out next week so he fails to pass May.
I think its too late now, even if Sunak pulled out on Monday, official announceernt of result Tuesday, Boris would probably stall until 'the Queen is back in London' on Friday or something just to be awkward. I cant see Sunak withdrawing though
You can still get 1.01 on the clown being gone by Conference
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
That imo is the list of a Medievalist. Is there anything much after about 1400?
For limiting to 10, I would eject Salisbury for being samey, Worcester, and perhaps Rochester and Gloucester.
I would add in Coventry, which can stand tall against any medieval cathedral in the country, and Southwell for the chapter house amongst other things. My two more might be Liverpool Anglican and Westminster, but I'd be in about 6 minds. Others would be tempting such as St Paul's and Ripon. And I like Parish Church cathedrals.
I think it's a mistake to say "a cathedral should be X". A cathedral is what it is, and has evolved with its community, and is not an isolated piece of architecture.
Bozo passes May in a week. Travesty! Then big Jim is in his sights!
Be funny given the reports he's sought to undermine Sunan, if Sunak pulls out next week so he fails to pass May.
I think its too late now, even if Sunak pulled out on Monday, official announceernt of result Tuesday, Boris would probably stall until 'the Queen is back in London' on Friday or something just to be awkward. I cant see Sunak withdrawing though
Why does Johnson care? In his La La Land brain he is just warming up for the return and a second very long term as PM in two or three years time.
His new hero is Gladstone.
I expect the publishing deal of his new biog of the old 19th century liberal to be announced within weeks.
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Yes. I wonder if big city cathedrals look smaller than they actually are because they're surrounded by big city? Though in Birmingham they've made a splendid job of the site and the grounds. Relates really well to the city around it.
Big city cathedrals don't feel like the centre of the world in those cities as they have a lot of other fine buildings and things going on, and therefore the area nearby often isn't as cared for and there's less investment in maintenance.
Exeter deserves a mention for its stunning vaulted medieval ceiling (longest in the world and a heck of an engineering feat even now let alone at the time).
Exeter rather intimidates too. A bastion of cathedrals.
It was absolutely designed to put the fear of God into people, and does so admirably!
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.
OK
One more time: England is a man made landscape where the artificial and the natural complement each other. Scotland at its best, is just wilderness.
Johnson's output was prodigious, and that was the only thing rude about the Scots I can think of, unless you count the observation that oats is horse feed in England but human feed in Scotland. Actually doing the Tour of the Hebs in those days and for someone as urban and unathletic as him, was a pretty strong vote in favour of the place.
OK, but that complementarity between nature and the man-made is pretty much the norm for any area with longstanding human habitation. Eg you could say the same about pretty much all of Italy. And indeed many parts of Scotland - I think someone has already mentioned my own birthplace, the East Neuk of Fife, which really offers as charming and beautiful a balance between the human and the natural as can be found anywhere. None of which is to criticise England, which is a very beautiful country with some absolutely stunning corners (I type this looking out over Plymouth Sound).
I can see it from here too
But the landscape of the Highlands like Scandinavia or the Rockies is fundamentally immune to humanity. Too craggy.
Almost none of Scotland is in any way wild, in the sense that it isn't managed by humans.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
Yes well that can help split the non-Consetvative vote further to ensure even more decades of Conservative Government. You want socialist purity, what you get is Conservative Government after Conservative Government. Fill yer boots!
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 the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
That imo is the list of a Medievalist. Is there anything much after about 1400?
For limiting to 10, I would eject Salisbury for being samey, Worcester, and perhaps Rochester and Gloucester.
I would add in Coventry, which can stand tall against any medieval cathedral in the country, and Southwell for the chapter house amongst other things. My two more might be Liverpool Anglican and Westminster, but I'd be in about 6 minds. Others would be tempting such as St Paul's and Ripon. And I like Parish Church cathedrals.
I think it's a mistake to say "a cathedral should be X". A cathedral is what it is, and has evolved with its community, and is not an isolated piece of architecture.
I'm sorry but my comment that Canterbry shoud be second is not a list, nor am I a medievalist (why would you capitalise it).
Drinks are best after 1400, and I suggest you have one.
Youngest is going to work at Winfrith in October and needs to find somewhere to live nearby. He looked at Dorchester originally but is now thinking of Weymouth.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
If they take the money from Labour and build it, they will come. I suspect they lack the will or balls to do it though
They lack the voting system. With FPTP it will fail.
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
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.
OK
One more time: England is a man made landscape where the artificial and the natural complement each other. Scotland at its best, is just wilderness.
Johnson's output was prodigious, and that was the only thing rude about the Scots I can think of, unless you count the observation that oats is horse feed in England but human feed in Scotland. Actually doing the Tour of the Hebs in those days and for someone as urban and unathletic as him, was a pretty strong vote in favour of the place.
OK, but that complementarity between nature and the man-made is pretty much the norm for any area with longstanding human habitation. Eg you could say the same about pretty much all of Italy. And indeed many parts of Scotland - I think someone has already mentioned my own birthplace, the East Neuk of Fife, which really offers as charming and beautiful a balance between the human and the natural as can be found anywhere. None of which is to criticise England, which is a very beautiful country with some absolutely stunning corners (I type this looking out over Plymouth Sound).
I can see it from here too
But the landscape of the Highlands like Scandinavia or the Rockies is fundamentally immune to humanity. Too craggy.
Almost none of Scotland is in any way wild, in the sense that it isn't managed by humans.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
If they take the money from Labour and build it, they will come. I suspect they lack the will or balls to do it though
They won't do it because most trades unionists aren't total morons, and know that the best way to further their interests is to get Starmer elected, not split the vote and allow Truss in on 35% or something.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
Yes well that can help split the non-Consetvative vote further to ensure even more decades of Conservative Government. You want socialist purity, what you get is Conservative Government after Conservative Government. Fill yer boots!
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.
OK
One more time: England is a man made landscape where the artificial and the natural complement each other. Scotland at its best, is just wilderness.
Johnson's output was prodigious, and that was the only thing rude about the Scots I can think of, unless you count the observation that oats is horse feed in England but human feed in Scotland. Actually doing the Tour of the Hebs in those days and for someone as urban and unathletic as him, was a pretty strong vote in favour of the place.
OK, but that complementarity between nature and the man-made is pretty much the norm for any area with longstanding human habitation. Eg you could say the same about pretty much all of Italy. And indeed many parts of Scotland - I think someone has already mentioned my own birthplace, the East Neuk of Fife, which really offers as charming and beautiful a balance between the human and the natural as can be found anywhere. None of which is to criticise England, which is a very beautiful country with some absolutely stunning corners (I type this looking out over Plymouth Sound).
I can see it from here too
But the landscape of the Highlands like Scandinavia or the Rockies is fundamentally immune to humanity. Too craggy.
Almost none of Scotland is in any way wild, in the sense that it isn't managed by humans.
Also true of the world.
True, but there are grades. Highland Scotland has lost almost all of its vegetation cover.
SHOOT MORE DEER!
(Oh, and the same goes for the sheep in the Lakes)
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
If they take the money from Labour and build it, they will come. I suspect they lack the will or balls to do it though
They lack the voting system. With FPTP it will fail.
True but it would be nice for there to be a genuine labour movement rather than the current utter arse
Comments
Whilst Sussex must naturally be at the top of any list such as this, I am always impressed by Dorset. Glorious.
One more time: England is a man made landscape where the artificial and the natural complement each other. Scotland at its best, is just wilderness.
Johnson's output was prodigious, and that was the only thing rude about the Scots I can think of, unless you count the observation that oats is horse feed in England but human feed in Scotland. Actually doing the Tour of the Hebs in those days and for someone as urban and unathletic as him, was a pretty strong vote in favour of the place.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
@JackDetsch
NEW: Russia is using expansionist rhetoric to try and mask losses and failures on the battlefield in Ukraine, U.S. defense officials believe, including new calls to remove the Zelensky admin.
U.S. revealed that 🇷🇺 has 18 filtration camps in 🇺🇦 where executions have taken place
7:04 PM · Jul 29, 2022
https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1553079113937784843
https://www.logically.ai/articles/hart-files-anti-vaccine-myths-westminster
(The HART group’s grasp of information security was about as good as their grasp of science as a while. Posting your internal chat logs online and handing out the credentials to those who ask for them is always going to end in embarassment)
I do understand the bones of a point that Scotland has craggier and more dramatic scenery whereas England has villages that look 'organically grown' with thatch etc., but such a generalisation doesn't really stand any more given the amount of beautiful and elegant buildings and settlements all over Scotland, such as pretty towns in the East Neuk of Fife, honey-coloured stone tenements in the suburbs of Edinburgh, grey stone-built Victorian model towns in Perthshire. And the country is veritably coated in castles, not all of them dramatic craggy ones on rocky outcrops, also some stately palaces - take the stunning approach to Glamis Castle in Angus, which rivals any English castle.
For a spectacular setting Ripon would have to be up there.
My parochial bias aside, it is a striking building, high Norman architecture and beautiful French/Norman limestone. Its also visible from my sofa!
If he promises Peterborough their Soke back, this race could get tasty.
But that sense of heimat in rural England with its rural villages and gentle rolling hills is certainly a thing.
English romanticism is fundamentally bucolic, rural, and backward looking. I get it too.
My view is that Scotland is bigger, but I prefer the North of England. More lived in, more human. You can be at the top of a mountain, but you're never more than an hour's walk from the pub.
But I think formative experiences guide preferences, and my view is entirely subjective.
Pleased to hear Cornwall is glorious! I shall be arriving next Friday.
Betfair next prime minister
1.11 Liz Truss 90%
9.6 Rishi Sunak 10%
Next Conservative leader
1.11 Liz Truss 90%
10 Rishi Sunak 10%
But the landscape of the Highlands like Scandinavia or the Rockies is fundamentally immune to humanity. Too craggy.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
One of these things is not like the others.
Fuhgeddaboutit.
Apparently a character names their car Bouncer in the final episode though!
I'd have gone for St. Martin's in the Bull Ring.
In the case of Birmingham, a conscious decision was made not to build a big new cathedral as the money was needed for social projects in the city instead.
It does seem we are little more than a month away from Prime Minister Truss.
It's not a prospect which appeals in any way - her unfunded tax cuts look disastrous and I'm far from convinced she will be anything more than a shouty version of Boris Johnson.
Johnson took bonhomie to new levels - all levitas, no gravitas. There was no situation to which he couldn't find a brighter side, an eternal if unrealistic optimist, he quickly worked out the British people (or a significant portion of them) didn't want the truth or reasoned argument but wanted an upbeat assessment on life. Everything was fine, everything would be all right, Britain was great and there was nothing the British couldn't achieve.
Fine words - they butter no parsnips as someone once said, but clearly all some people want to hear.
Truss can't do Johnson's bonhomie - she grates and irritates and I suspect any political honeymoon (unless topped up with free money) will be short.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
When you compare it to the brick outline of the original Anglo Saxon cathedral next to it you cannot comprehend that one was a cathedral.
You climb up from Lowick. To the left in the far distance is Ulverston. Ahead there is the ridge of a hill with a nick in it as if some giant had just cut a bit out. As you turn, the road crosses the fells, dotted with sheep, and with views across to the mountains and as you make your descent down across the Duddon estuary and to the sea. It is bleak at times, at others bathed in the colours of the setting sun or autumn reds and purples but always awesome and breathtaking. The combination of lonely fells, mountains and sky just takes my breath away.
Then the long descent to the Duddon with the twinkling sea and the spire of Millom church and the rounded peaks of Black and White Combe above the Whicham valley in front of you. Quite glorious.
Exeter deserves a mention for its stunning vaulted medieval ceiling (longest in the world and a heck of an engineering feat even now let alone at the time).
I cant see Sunak withdrawing though
For limiting to 10, I would eject Salisbury for being samey, Worcester, and perhaps Rochester and Gloucester.
I would add in Coventry, which can stand tall against any medieval cathedral in the country, and Southwell for the chapter house amongst other things. My two more might be Liverpool Anglican and Westminster, but I'd be in about 6 minds. Others would be tempting such as St Paul's and Ripon. And I like Parish Church cathedrals.
I think it's a mistake to say "a cathedral should be X". A cathedral is what it is, and has evolved with its community, and is not an isolated piece of architecture.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
Norwich
Chichester
His new hero is Gladstone.
I expect the publishing deal of his new biog of the old 19th century liberal to be announced within weeks.
Drinks are best after 1400, and I suggest you have one.
Youngest is going to work at Winfrith in October and needs to find somewhere to live nearby. He looked at Dorchester originally but is now thinking of Weymouth.
Any ideas welcome.
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
Its just beautiful. I love my city.
Bristol and Newcastle are regional centres
Birmingham is the 2nd biggest urban centre around, and Liverpool is one of the biggest and most significant there is
Coventry and Southampton do not compare to any of them
That isn't lacking balls, it's having a brain.
SDP
LDs
People love Centrism
SHOOT MORE DEER!
(Oh, and the same goes for the sheep in the Lakes)