Manchester As The Capital Of England/Britain.

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.

Well...since Norman times to be accurate. The site of London was largely ignored during Anglo-Saxon time until the 800's. It would increase in commercial importance before the Norman conquest, with Winchester being the virtual capital.
 
Well...since Norman times to be accurate. The site of London was largely ignored during Anglo-Saxon time until the 800's. It would increase in commercial importance before the Norman conquest, with Winchester being the virtual capital.

And the Londinium heritage didn't serve as an extra support for the Normans? Furthermore where were the Anglo-Saxon kings crowned then?
 
And the Londinium heritage didn't serve as an extra support for the Normans? Furthermore where were the Anglo-Saxon kings crowned then?

Up to a certain point, Kingston upon Thames was where the kings of of England from Edward the Elder to Aethelred the Unready. Cnut was certainly, crowned in London (or was that Westminster, initially a separate city, now a borough) while Harthacnut was crowned at Canterbury, and Edward the Confessor was crowned at Winchester Cathedral. Sure, Kingston's part of London NOW, but originally, it was a separate town. London and the Thames Valley in general did become increasingly important since the time of Alfred the Great, but it wasn't the official capital until years after the Norman invasion. Winchester was considered the official capital of England as it had long been the home of the House of Wessex.
 
Winchester has a strong historic claim, as does Kingston. Lincoln is also historically third and more-or-less central.
Other places the Parliament of England met are York, Leicester, Northampton, Salisbury, Coventry, Lincoln, Oxford and Winchester. Interestingly the place Parliaments meet outside London seem to have gone through phases of being in one place, so if just one stuck .....
EDIT: Also the capitals of the next two most powerful Heptarchy states after Wessex, Northumbria and Mercia, Bamburgh and Tamworth are possiblities. Bamburgh was also Henry VI's seat.
 
Last edited:
Winchester has a strong historic claim, as does Kingston. Lincoln is also historically third and more-or-less central.
Other places the Parliament of England met are York, Leicester, Northampton, Salisbury, Coventry, Lincoln, Oxford and Winchester. Interestingly the place Parliaments meet outside London seem to have gone through phases of being in one place, so if just one stuck .....
EDIT: Also the capitals of the next two most powerful Heptarchy states after Wessex, Northumbria and Mercia, Bamburgh and Tamworth are possiblities. Bamburgh was also Henry VI's seat.

Oh man, the thread necromancy!

The problem with historic claims is that they are just that - historic. After the era in which they were relevant, their claims to a future capitalship become null and void. Sentiment has never really been a convincing argument in choosing a capital. Unless your POD is back in the pre-English state times, then those cities aren't notable.

As for the Parliamentary cities - aren't most of those cities which Parliament met in during periods of civil war? That's not really a good way of moving a capital, since they were almost certainly just "the safest city near to the middle of the country where we don't stand a high chance of being captured" when they met.

The Heptarchy comments are the most poignant, as a different evolution of England could easily change where is considered the heartland, providing of course that the proposed alternate capital is well-placed. For the record, Bamburgh was Henry VI's seat for part of one year, during which his supporters had been confined to one small area of England and were badly losing. That's no argument for moving a capital - that is what is called "desperation".
 
Top