Manchester As The Capital Of England/Britain.

[SlickWilly]

It always struck me as a little odd that in quite a few British ex Colonies/Dominions the capital city and largest city were very often different - Ottawa V Toronto, Canberra V Sydney, Pretoria V Johannesbourg, Edinburough V Glasgow, possibly Delhi V Calcutta. Belfast may even at one stage have had a higher population than Dublin at one stage.
So could we ever have had, my favourite English city, Manchester, as the capital of England/Britain either by way of population (ie bigger than London) or as the seat of government!

 

[Thande]

No. It was tiny until the nineteenth century and didn't even have parliamentary representation until the Great Reform Act. If for some reason London became unavailable and a new capital was chosen (or perhaps a different site for a devolved English parliament) it would not be Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds because those are too associated with being regional centres and it would cause too much of a punch-up. You're looking at either a purpose-built alternative capital (Milton Keynes = British Washington DC, uurggh) or a small but historically relevant place being turned into one, like Tamworth or Winchester.

 

[mcdnab]

As has been said Manchester was unimportant and tiny until the industrial revolution - as were other British major cities such as Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool.

Up to the 16th century you would be more likely to look at Oxford, Norwich, York, Bristol, Cambridge or Winchester - historic, wealthy regional centres.

 

[Thande]

As has been said Manchester was unimportant and tiny until the industrial revolution - as were other British major cities such as Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool.

Up to the 16th century you would be more likely to look at Oxford, Norwich, York, Bristol, Cambridge or Winchester - historic, wealthy regional centres.

Cambridge and Norwich are too small and isolated. Oxford, York and Winchester are certainly possibilities.

 

[Falastur]

If for some reason London became unavailable and a new capital was chosen (or perhaps a different site for a devolved English parliament) it would not be Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds because those are too associated with being regional centres and it would cause too much of a punch-up.

I agree that those sites would be too readily identifiable as having regional v national conflicts of interest which should disbarr them, but I can't honestly see what could cause London to ever become "unavailable", except for potential civil war, and the very nature of a civil war means that the criteria for choosing a new capital then would be different (short term v long term interests as a very basic example). I mean, take the Great Fire of London. An estimated 100,000 people lost their homes in that fire - roughly 1/3 of the city at the time. And yet within weeks, the city was rebuilding homes at a staggering 10,000 houses a week. If I remember my figures, it took only three months for the population of London to exceed what it was before the fire. It would take a monumental disaster for London to ever be relieved of its position as capital. Even if the entire city had burned down in 1666, I still suspect that the government would've moved away for a bare 6-12 months. In fact I'd go so far as to call ASB on a natural or accidental disaster doing that much damage to London.

You're looking at either a purpose-built alternative capital (Milton Keynes = British Washington DC, uurggh) or a small but historically relevant place being turned into one, like Tamworth or Winchester.

I have no evidence to back me up, but I simply can't see this. It seems so...uncharacteristic. I honestly think that government would just default to a major economic centre instead - probably one in the south. Bristol, perhaps.

 

[Thande]

I agree that those sites would be too readily identifiable as having regional v national conflicts of interest which should disbarr them, but I can't honestly see what could cause London to ever become "unavailable", except for potential civil war, and the very nature of a civil war means that the criteria for choosing a new capital then would be different (short term v long term interests as a very basic example). I mean, take the Great Fire of London. An estimated 100,000 people lost their homes in that fire - roughly 1/3 of the city at the time. And yet within weeks, the city was rebuilding homes at a staggering 10,000 houses a week. If I remember my figures, it took only three months for the population of London to exceed what it was before the fire. It would take a monumental disaster for London to ever be relieved of its position as capital. Even if the entire city had burned down in 1666, I still suspect that the government would've moved away for a bare 6-12 months. In fact I'd go so far as to call ASB on a natural or accidental disaster doing that much damage to London.

You're right about London's ability to recover. I was thinking "Being nuked" or "foreign occupation of the south that leaves the rest of the country as a Vichy-a-like", both of which are rather questionable though.

I have no evidence to back me up, but I simply can't see this. It seems so...uncharacteristic. I honestly think that government would just default to a major economic centre instead - probably one in the south. Bristol, perhaps.

Well I was thinking along the lines of the government making a long-term, clean-break decision. If this was an emergency short-term relocation, you're right that they would go to an existing economic and government centre. Leeds is probably quite plausible in that case as it's the major centre of government departments in the north.

 

[Socrates]

It's always possible that London could be engulfed in some sort of revolutionary activity, forcing the government to decamp to somewhere nice just outside. Oxford and Cambridge are both reasonable candidates for this.

 

[Falastur]

It's always possible that London could be engulfed in some sort of revolutionary activity, forcing the government to decamp to somewhere nice just outside. Oxford and Cambridge are both reasonable candidates for this.

Reasonable, and very close to the disturbance which forced them out...

 

[Beedok]

I take it going to Cardiff (or Edinburgh) wouldn't be options?

 

[brick24alpha]

What about Belfast or Dublin?

 

[Socrates]

Reasonable, and very close to the disturbance which forced them out...

They just wouldn't want a mob turning up in an instant after a drunken night out, rather than be particularly worried about another side in a civil war in a planned attack. Even if the latter did happen, sixty miles would still be plenty of time to have warning. Much further and you wouldn't be able to keep an eye on what was happening in the (proper) capital.

I take it going to Cardiff (or Edinburgh) wouldn't be options?

Cardiff would have been thought of as a backwater for almost all of history. Edinburgh would have been thought of as more civilised, so maybe a possibility, but the English wouldn't like the thought they were being dominated by Scots.

 

[Thande]

Reasonable, and very close to the disturbance which forced them out...

A point. Also Cambridge is small and isolated. Oxford can work, and indeed did in the Civil War in OTL, but then--going with your point--it was surrounded and besieged sooner or later.

I take it going to Cardiff (or Edinburgh) wouldn't be options?

Cardiff was a backwater and not considered Wales' first city until relatively recently, and Wales is isolated in terms of transport links. Edinburgh is possible in the short term at least. I remember it was mentioned in "Spooks" that under contemporary antiterrorist plans, if London was wiped out then government control would switch to Edinburgh. Don't know if that was based on reality.

What about Belfast or Dublin?

That's not even on the same island! And given Ireland's reputation it's somewhat like the US moving its capital to Anchorage or San Juan (Puerto Rico).

 

[Falastur]

They just wouldn't want a mob turning up in an instant after a drunken night out, rather than be particularly worried about another side in a civil war in a planned attack. Even if the latter did happen, sixty miles would still be plenty of time to have warning. Much further and you wouldn't be able to keep an eye on what was happening in the (proper) capital.

Yes, but revolutionary activity is rarely confined to one city, and when it is it generally doesn't have enough support to actually make a difference. It's logical to assume that if London seriously fell to a revolution, much of the Home Counties would be in its own turmoil and the government would be trying to evacuate at least 150 miles away - remember, armies have marched 60 miles in a day before, if rarely, and riders can go much further if they have spare mounts.

That's not even on the same island! And given Ireland's reputation it's somewhat like the US moving its capital to Anchorage or San Juan (Puerto Rico).

I'd say, given Ireland's reputation, and to provide a more historical analogy, it's more like moving the capital to Manila. Irish republican sentiment would likely go into overdrive when suddenly confronted with the very leaders of the government they opposed.

 

[MonsooN]

York is England's official second city and has been for hundreds of years. If anything happened to London, even today, York would be the new capital.

 

[Julius Vogel]

It always struck me as a little odd that in quite a few British ex Colonies/Dominions the capital city and largest city were very often different - Ottawa V Toronto, Canberra V Sydney, Pretoria V Johannesbourg, Edinburough V Glasgow, possibly Delhi V Calcutta. Belfast may even at one stage have had a higher population than Dublin at one stage.
So could we ever have had, my favourite English city, Manchester, as the capital of England/Britain either by way of population (ie bigger than London) or as the seat of government!

Quite often the colonial choices make a fair amount of sense, if you read up on the particular time when the decision was made.

In the case of NZ, Auckland has long been the bigger or more established city, although its current primacy really only kicked in by the 1930s. The other alternative was Dunedin or Christchurch and the former had similar issues to Auckland, being at one end of a very narrow land. Sort of like having the capital of Italy at either Messina or Genoa. Wellington was chosen in part because it was roughly at the middle point of the country and within easy sailing distance (under a day) from the South Island

 

[Thande]

York is England's official second city and has been for hundreds of years. If anything happened to London, even today, York would be the new capital.

No it wouldn't. York used to have that position, but it was bypassed by the Industrial Revolution and has a tiny population. The organs of government don't exist there. If the capital was moved it would be to a city where regional government is concentrated, such as Leeds or Edinburgh.

 

[SlickWilly]

Any More Pointers As To Why Largest City And Capital Were Different Very often?

Yes, one of the things that started me thinking about this topic. So any more thoughts on this specifically, because separating the major population centre and government does seem rather odd, of course outside the old empire you have, Den Haag V Amsterdam, Bonn V West Berlin in the past and New York/LA V Washington DC, there are a few more examples worldwide but not that many. Of course it was always possible that a 'secondary' city could eclipse the capital in population terms!

 

[Janprimus]

Amsterdam and Den Haag (The Hague) and in the past also (West) Berlin and Bonn were examples of split between a formal de jure capital (Amsterdam) and a seat of government (including parliament, supreme court and council of state) (The Hague). Basically the constitutional position of Amsterdam as capital is honorific; in contrast (West) Berlin constitutional position as capital of the (West) Federal Republic of Germany was suspended by the Allies during the cold war. Another difference is that The Hague had been the seat of the Estates General since the Dutch Republic and is one of the major cities of the Netherlands (3rd), whereas the town of Bonn wasn't a major West German town nor had it a history as the German seat of government.

In England/Britain's case it would mean that London remains the De Jure capital, but another (smaller) town is made the seat of government.

 

[Æsir]

Yes, one of the things that started me thinking about this topic. So any more thoughts on this specifically, because separating the major population centre and government does seem rather odd, of course outside the old empire you have, Den Haag V Amsterdam, Bonn V West Berlin in the past and New York/LA V Washington DC, there are a few more examples worldwide but not that many. Of course it was always possible that a 'secondary' city could eclipse the capital in population terms!

There is also Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, China, Cote D'Ivoire, Ecuador, India, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Malta, Micronesia, Morocco, Nauru, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, the Philippines, San Marino, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and depending on your definitions, Italy, Israel and Taiwan. so more than 15% of all sovereign states in the world have capitals that are not their largest city.

Since the thread title says England OR Britain, the easy way to fulfill the challenge would be England gets a devolved parliament and Manchester somehow wins out for where to put it.

 

[Janprimus]

There is also Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, China, Cote D'Ivoire, Ecuador, India, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Malta, Micronesia, Morocco, Nauru, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, the Philippines, San Marino, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and depending on your definitions, Italy, Israel and Taiwan. so more than 15% of all sovereign states in the world have capitals that are not their largest city.

Since the thread title says England OR Britain, the easy way to fulfill the challenge would be England gets a devolved parliament and Manchester somehow wins out for where to put it.

Well is London the capital, because it is the largest city or because London had been the capital since Roman times (which helped the growth of the city). My guess is the latter; and in some of the other cases other towns may just have become larger than the capital.