Non-City status

Its meaningless really but I must admit that the following did make me throw up a bit in my mouth when MK was announced

"Applicants had to show their cultural heritage and royal links. "
 
northstandmark said:
All for Colchester, it seems fitting with lots of history there

Milton Keynes can get in the bin.
Click to expand...

Old article, it mentions it has a tree cathedral, for those like myself who don’t know what a tree cathedral is see paras below from the park trust website.

There is a unique cathedral in Milton Keynes, not made of bricks and mortar but of bark and leaves. The Tree Cathedral at Newlands is based on the outline of Norwich Cathedral and was designed in 1986 by landscape architect Neil Higson.

Different species of trees were chosen to represent the different sections of the Cathedral. Hornbeam and tall-growing lime for the nave, evergreens to represent the central tower and spires and flowering cherry and apple as a focus in the chapels. In springtime colourful bulbs represent the sun shining through stained glass windows onto the ground.

The Cathedral has a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, meaning its visually stunning throughout the year.



The feeling amongst many people is that a city can be considered exactly that, a city, if it has landmarks that are reflective of a city such as a cathedral, university, a type of local government or a large population.

Whilst all of these factors may contribute to being able to apply for city status - ultimately, the decision lies with the Queen.

But Milton Keynes does have the University of Bedfordshire, Milton Keynes campus and the largest population in Buckinghamshire.

In terms of Cathedrals, it has the Tree Cathedral - the only municipal tree cathedral in the country.

https://www.buckinghamshirelive.com/news/buckinghamshire-news/is-milton-keynes-a-city-4789797

https://www.theparkstrust.com/parks/tree-cathedral/
 
RobTrent said:
Thought that was Winchester?
Click to expand...

Might be of interest.

Deciding what was the capital of England before London is not as easy a task as it seems. England has a history that stretches back several millennia. Within that time, many cities have been named as the capital based on who was controlling the land at the time.

The first reference that England has to a capital city is Colchester. It is recorded by the Romans as a centre of power and the home of Catus Decianus, the governor of Britannia. As such, Colchester was named the first capital of Roman Britain.

Once the Romans, the lands of Britain were split into different Kingdoms, such as Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex. These kingdoms regularly fought and competed over their borders and who controlled the lands of England. This means that the various residences of the different kings were considered capital cities at different times. For example, Tamworth was considered the Capital of Mercia under King Offa and was promoted to the Capital of England in the 600s. Winchester was named Capital of England under Alfred the Great, and even Northampton was named Capital during the reign of the Danes.

Eventually London became the Capital of the Kingdom of England and then later of the UK, although even this has some caveats to it because of the whole City of London compared with London itself thing and the whole City of Westminster thing. I'm not going to go there, but here's a CGP Gray video about it if you are interested.

https://www.twinkl.co.uk/teaching-wiki/the-capital-of-england-before-london
 
Knew the usual ******************************** was coming as soon as I saw 'City status' was the thread title. It's all based on this boring anti MK Dons stuff. Although it is a perfect time for them to dump the Dons.

Slag it off all you like, but the residents love it. Especially as you can get your takeaways and booze from Co-op delivered by a little robot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;