SouthBedfordshireFan

Not yet.

I have his books on my reading list. Just need to collate it my reading list in full so I can send off to my librarian friend.

Thank you. It was an excellent read.

I have intentions of reading his works. I have started on his podcast though which has been quite riveting. I did email him regarding social class a few months back.

Here is my issue. Good you use London as an example as London among other cities are my examples. If you define cities using government boundary areas you run into the problem of variances in government definitions of what a city is and there are no way accurate comparisons can be made as you are not really comparing like for like. For example Chongqing in China and many Chinese 'cities' contain huge swathes of rural land whereas the people of the generally consider a city to be primarily an urban area. The problem with using continuously built up urban area is that you end up potentially grouping towns and other settlements that have grown into each other as one singular entity for example there are hardly any rural land separating the settlements of Wolverhampton, Birmingham, West Brom, Walsall, Smethwick, Dudley and others yet in this metric you will end up bundling them all together as Birmingham or broadly group as West Midlands Metropolitan area again does a similar thing it groups together multiple settlements in one go rather than a single one. The thing with London is that the government boundaries for it changed over the centuries and has the potentiality to change without any urbanisation actually taking place. Greater London contains rural land. In the London Borough of Kingston upon Thames you have the village of Maulden Rushett. How can a city contain a village? It also contains a number of towns that were large and distinct in their own right and there was and still are swathes of rural land that separated those towns from the urbanised core of London a notable example being Croydon which was governed as county borough prior to its inclusion to Greater London. That name of itself says so much. It just a name that in my opinion neatly fits in with the metropolitan area of London. Even the County of London which preceded Greater London when created in 1889 to incorporate the urbanised areas that grew as London outgrew the initial cores of Westminster and the City of London failed to account for the urbanised areas of Essex in East Ham and West Ham and Tottenham in Middlesex. So in essence London is a key example of the pitfalls of using each of these metrics.

What makes that the better side? Are there reasons why Kingston-upon-Hull has those divisions besides the river disecting the city?

To add to your rabbit hole. I am a Muslim so I do not think or believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth anyways so it leaves a potentiality that those 'cities' may not even be cities to some people at least

Interesting. Thank you.

So therefore cities can only exist in monarchies like Saudi Arabia or Bhutan among others? Interesting perspective.

Remind me to respond to this please. I need to formulate my thoughts pertaining to this before I get into it.

Oh yes. And Bradford Park Avenue too. Though Bradford City was Manningham though so is that like what M j M said about Leeds but just applicable for Bradford?

There is not a second team using the Wigan name. Only one. The other team refers to Leigh as it represents the town of Leigh not the town of Wigan. Same goes for Wakefield. The other teams represent towns in the administrative area named after its principal settlement.

Same here.

Thank you.

So are Leeds and Bradford yet they do not. Especially named specifically for the city. I understand Hunslet, Holbeck are within 'Leeds' but there are not two team named specifically Leeds whereas there are two named for Hull. If that made sense.