1603/1707 British capital moves to York

Have in 1603 King James establish his court at York and then have the new british Parliament establish itself there either in 1603 or 1707. Both are so that the new kingdom's capital is geographically neutral and central.
How will that change:
York and the rest of Yorkshire?
London and the South?
British Politics?
The accents of London, York and an ATL Recieved Pronunciation?
The railway network, including High Speed One?
 
Have in 1603 King James establish his court at York and then have the new british Parliament establish itself there either in 1603 or 1707. Both are so that the new kingdom's capital is geographically neutral and central.
How will that change:
York and the rest of Yorkshire?
London and the South?
British Politics?
The accents of London, York and an ATL Recieved Pronunciation?
The railway network, including High Speed One?

ASB. WHY would the King move England's capital to York? Southern England was rich and had a majority of Britain's population. London had been the capital for over 500 years and was sitting on major trade routes. All of the infrastructure for the state was centered there as well. Ridiculous and highly unlikely.
 
Not necessarily ASB. Many countries have moved their capital around; Spain's court moved around a lot, from Toledo to Valladolid and finally to Madrid. In China, before Beijing became capital of China (and let's be honest, it's an odd location for a capital, away from major trade routes, away from the largest parts of the population), there was Nanjing, Luoyang, Xian and more. Japan's capital has moved around a lot to, from Nara to Kyoto to Tokyo (and if you base it on where the Shogunate was based, Kamakura's in there too).

I think the precedent we have from other examples show that a capital doesn't have to be on important trade routes or within the most populous region. York actually makes a lot of sense to be capital of the United Kingdom, geographically it's close to the large industrial cities during the industrial revolution (Leeds, Manchester, Bradford), not too far from the more important trade ports (Liverpool, Newcastle). Also, it was on the Great North Road and compared to other cities that started growing after this period (the industrial cities again), it's not hemmed in by the Pennines and has plenty of space to grow with the population.
 
Not necessarily ASB. Many countries have moved their capital around; Spain's court moved around a lot, from Toledo to Valladolid and finally to Madrid. In China, before Beijing became capital of China (and let's be honest, it's an odd location for a capital, away from major trade routes, away from the largest parts of the population), there was Nanjing, Luoyang, Xian and more. Japan's capital has moved around a lot to, from Nara to Kyoto to Tokyo (and if you base it on where the Shogunate was based, Kamakura's in there too).

I think the precedent we have from other examples show that a capital doesn't have to be on important trade routes or within the most populous region. York actually makes a lot of sense to be capital of the United Kingdom, geographically it's close to the large industrial cities during the industrial revolution (Leeds, Manchester, Bradford), not too far from the more important trade ports (Liverpool, Newcastle). Also, it was on the Great North Road and compared to other cities that started growing after this period (the industrial cities again), it's not hemmed in by the Pennines and has plenty of space to grow with the population.

York makes sense as a capital after the industrial revolution has began though, not before. Second, Asian examples don't work for European situations, as the Europeans would never use something from Asia as a precedent. As to Spain, that's more of an acceptation rather than a rule. Remember that Paris remained the capital of France even when the court moved to Versailles (plus Versailles was very close to Paris anyway). Most times that a capital moved it was for economic reasons, like Rome and Constantinople. Moving it to York just because its closer to Scotland isn't realistic when you consider that the government, Church and economy was centered in London and southern England. Not to mention that there was no palaces for the court in York or the north.
 
York makes sense as a capital after the industrial revolution has began though, not before. Second, Asian examples don't work for European situations, as the Europeans would never use something from Asia as a precedent. As to Spain, that's more of an acceptation rather than a rule. Remember that Paris remained the capital of France even when the court moved to Versailles (plus Versailles was very close to Paris anyway). Most times that a capital moved it was for economic reasons, like Rome and Constantinople. Moving it to York just because its closer to Scotland isn't realistic when you consider that the government, Church and economy was centered in London and southern England. Not to mention that there was no palaces for the court in York or the north.

I disagree.

This is perfectly possible.

During the HYW, Charles VII of France had his capital in Bourges for almost 15 years.
Other french kings almost never went to Paris and had some kind of nomad capital.
Castile and Spain are also good examples.

Consider the US too. Washington was built from scratch and was not close to the economic heart of the US given travel time in the late 18th century.
 
York could be the site of court but as Parliament's powers continue to increase, I'd expect the more powerful members to refuse to move from London.

Would be interesting when the supporters of Bonnie Prince Charlie instead of marching through Lancashire make a beeline for York in 1745.
 
It;s not going to happen.

Even by 1603 the dominance of London in terms of trade and finance was enormous. The examples of roving capitals were more like roving courts - not the same at all.

The King may reside in one place or another - the capital is where the nations institutions are concentrated.

And in England above all countries the institutions vs the King was a very live issue in 1603 and 1707

Adding Scotland into the mix only creates more problems as York would annoy both nations administrators - and James I doesn't have the political clout to impose it, neither does Anne.
 
York has several disadvantages at this period that would rule it out as a viable option.
Its economic and political decline into a county town had already begun - its main artery (the Ouse) was already starting to silt up - making transport from Hull to York harder, it is based on two rivers making expansion difficult (but not impossible), The Tudors had not favoured the north and the dissolution of York's numerous religious institutions hadn't helped its economy either, the council of the north was little more than an administrative tool largely dominated by peers who naturally headed to the royal court and was hardly some version of Parliament.
By the 18th Century York was little more than a pretty county town where Yorkshire's gentry could meet for their own mini-version of the season (dances races and the theatre) its decline would only be reversed in the 19th century with chocolate and rail but even then could hardly compete with the newly rich and growing towns of West Yorkshire.
 
It;s not going to happen.

Even by 1603 the dominance of London in terms of trade and finance was enormous. The examples of roving capitals were more like roving courts - not the same at all.

The King may reside in one place or another - the capital is where the nations institutions are concentrated.

And in England above all countries the institutions vs the King was a very live issue in 1603 and 1707

Adding Scotland into the mix only creates more problems as York would annoy both nations administrators - and James I doesn't have the political clout to impose it, neither does Anne.

Why do you want the political capital to be at all costs in the economic capital ?

Many countries have their political capital in a city that is not their economic capital : USA, Canada, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, China, Brazil, ...etc.

Consider the 50 States in the US : in most of them, the political capital is not its main city.
 
Not more than the Netherlands or the US who don't have Amsterdam or Rotterdam or New-York as capital.
 
Not more than the Netherlands or the US who don't have Amsterdam or Rotterdam or New-York as capital.

Netherlands and US didn't have a strong centralised state at their creation - the capitals were a compromise to a greater extent (although technically Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands now and has been since 1814)
 
Well, I keep on disagreeing.

There is no need for a strong and centralized State to have its biggest city as capital.

For example, Paris had de facto ceased being the capital of France for a century and a half when the revolution broke out.
And if Louis XVI had had the guts to have order prevail around Versailles or had moved his capital further from Paris, he would have kept his head, would have kept the revolution under control, and could have given his country a constitutional regime without 25 years of civil and european war.

All this to say that this is not a matter of physics but of choice. A centralized government can have very sound reasons to move its capital in another city that the biggest one of the country.
 
Well, I keep on disagreeing.

There is no need for a strong and centralized State to have its biggest city as capital.

For example, Paris had de facto ceased being the capital of France for a century and a half when the revolution broke out.
And if Louis XVI had had the guts to have order prevail around Versailles or had moved his capital further from Paris, he would have kept his head, would have kept the revolution under control, and could have given his country a constitutional regime without 25 years of civil and european war.

All this to say that this is not a matter of physics but of choice. A centralized government can have very sound reasons to move its capital in another city that the biggest one of the country.

And you can keep on being wrong.

Look your taking examples of a nation being forced to move the Capital out of context. Bourges was the home of the COURT after Paris was occupied by the Burgundians. There's a big difference between the COURT and CAPITAL. The court can be wherever the Sovereign wants it to be. However, is that location home to the bureaucracy, the various ministries, the treasury or the various other parts of government? If not than its not a capital. Versailles was never the capital, de-facto or otherwise. The various ministries continued to be centered in Paris, as did the archives for the government.

What's the sound reason for moving the capital from London to York? Political, economic, military? None of those work in the 17th and 18th centuries. Why not Bristol or one of the Atlantic trade ports? Face it moving the capital to York makes no sense.
 
Top