Talk:Greater London/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What's so "Great" about "Great Britain"?
The Britons sure know how to name things. What is so great about Great Britain, anyway?
- "Greater" as in geographical area outside the "City of London" and outside the Kingdom of England respectively.
- The term "Great Britain" is a historic term to differentiate Britain from the French region now known as Brittany.
Legal Abolition of greater London
Someone should add an explanation of why did Margaret Thatcher abolish the authority, and why did Tony Blair reinstate it? -- SJK
- She abolished all the Metropolitan County Councils as well as the GLC at about the same time, mainly because people wouldn't elect Conservatives to them. While this is true, perhaps it isn't NPOV! :-) Arwel
- The London County Council was abolished for much the same reason. Inner London was Labour dominated and it was hoped that by including the Conservative leaning suburbs of Outer London the balance would change. Again this is not NPOV. MRSC 14:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Question on date formatting
Why do most of the "historical population" estimates in the article cite two days as a date rather than one? (example: 1891, April 5/6 5,572,012)
- Because this refers to the date of the Census of Population, and this normally requires the householder to give details of people present (or usually resident)at the address on Census night. Hence the reference to two days. Nowadays it is conventional to refer simply to Census day (e.g. the night of 29 April 2001).
Two-tiers of local government != Unitary authority
The article says:
It contains 32 London boroughs (including the City of Westminster), which are effectively unitary authorities,
How can they be unitary authorities if there are two-tiers of local government. Surely this is a contradiction in terms?. G-Man 19:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Questionable assertions made by User:TheUnforgiven
based upon the Norman Conquest's capital of England having moved from Winchester in Hampshire.
This seems factually innacurate to me. How is Greater London based on anything from Norman times? MRSC 18:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Normans made London an exclave of Normandy, in jurisdiction of England. This is where the Normans had the heart of their control over a largely different populace found in other Regions of England. This is a train of thought I have had to put meaning on each region, if you look at the headings of each region article. It is perhaps important that the City Walls and Tower of London, are all within this Norman stronghold. TheUnforgiven 18:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with Greater London which occupies an area far larger than the City of London which is what you are talking about. The notion of Greater London with roughly the same scale as today didn't even exist until Victorian times. MRSC
- Perhaps not exactly, but the outer spread of Norman settlements and their cultural influence on the region, is the absolute focus of the issue. If you'd like to have it the way you put this article, then you might as well refute my position on every other region of England. TheUnforgiven 19:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- I know very little about such matters, but it might behoove those of you know do, to check this out, as this is not the only article where TheUnforgiven has been messing around introducing his uh... "truly unique" views of history. Tomer TALK 22:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Inner and Middle Temples
The Inner and Middle Temples are in the City of London, but are not governed by the Corporation of London. However, they are part of that City and Ceremonial county. Therefore please do not fill up this article with nonsense like "..the City of London, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, the City of Westminster and the 31 other London Boroughs...". Please. Thank you. Dpaajones (David).
- If you look up one section, you'd see I already mentioned this. It was TheUnforgiven (talk · contribs) who added that crap, and he added some other interesting "detail" to other articles as well, which I have little doubt still needs cleaning out as well. Tomer TALK 15:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- The temples are not part of the city. They are geographically located in the city, but constitute totally seperate local authorities. Saying that Greater London only consist of the city and the boroughs is simply incorrect. 80.255 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong. The Temples are part of the City, they are just not run by the Corporation. Think of it this way - the City of London, unlike every other district in the United Kingdom, has 3 local authorities - the Corporation (governing most of the City), the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple. However, the City is still a single entity. Dpaajones.
Capital of the UK
In what way is the capital of the UK legally defined to be London? Is the entirety of Greater London the capital, or the extent of the former London County? Is there any difference in the limits of the former Greater London Council and the current Greater London Authority? — Instantnood 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't. There isn't any legislation that says London is the capital of anywhere but that is not unusual as our constitution is mostly unwritten. London is the de facto capital and that’s all that matters.
- As nowhere is 'legally' the capital it’s pointless to try and decide if the City of London, Inner London or Greater London is the capital. The real question is What is London?.
- There have been several Statutory Instruments from 1986 to 2000 which made minor adjustments to the Greater London boundary. Such as The Greater London and Kent (County Boundaries) Order 1992, The Greater London and Hertfordshire (County Boundaries) Order 1992 and The Essex and Greater London (County Boundaries) Order 1993. These, and others, mostly did things like aligning the Greater London boundary to the M25 or other small changes. So the territory of the GLA does differ slightly from that of the GLC. MRSC 20:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt anyone has created a map with all the differences in one place but the SIs contain low detail maps:
You can find more by searching here: [1] but it only goes back to about 1990. The SIs list in detail the areas transferred so you could construct the map yourself from that. Alternatively you could compare a (good quality) map from 1985 with one from 2006.
As far as I am concerned the whole of Greater London is the capital. Others will suggest it is only the City of London but while I can see this was historically true it is false nostalgia to think of it as the capital now. MRSC 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I now have some idea about how slight the changes were. Definitely the capital is not only the City of London, but is the capital the entirety of Greater London? Was London County the capital before the creation of the GLC? — Instantnood 14:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Its difficult to see how the County of London could have been the capital as it totally excluded the City of London. The two places functioned independently of each other until 1965.
- You could look at it this way: Ken Livingstone is Mayor of London (the capital city) and "London" = the London region and the London region = Greater London. MRSC 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- No place is or was officially defined as the capital. When London was only the City of London that was the capital, except for when it was in Winchester. After London grew beyond its walls there is no official definition of what forms the capital. In Victorian times they called the urbanised part of London "the metropolis" but this area varied for postal deliveries, administration and policing. Trying to define what constituted the capital is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. MRSC 21:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)