A Tale Of Two Cities

I'd like your views on what English history (not British) would have been if York and London were the major cities in England?

My idea is based on Australia where Canberra is the capital but Sydney stands out as the primary city.

Say York is the capital but all the media, entertainment etc is centred in London:)
 

King James IX

I'm not all that well-versed in UK history, but that seems like no change at all to me... Keeping London as a major city doesn't change all that much (I think.) I may be wrong, though.
 
I don't see London developing into the superdominant city it is without holding the seat of government.

You cite Australia as an example of the poles of the state situated in different places, but this was intentionally designed. As Australia grew up, the pressure of people outside Sydney was to separate the government from Sydney. That's not what happened as England grew up, since London's power projection over the rest of the country was lesser in the Middle Ages. In most European countries, the seat of culture then grew up around the seat of government, so if York had been the capital it would have also grown London's metropolitanism.

This leaves aside the fact that London is a bit better as an English capital than York is: it's closer to the Continent (though still protected by the Channel) and farther from Scotland (which doesn't need both a navy and an army to attack York).
 
Top