5 ms·
I wonder why they defined the centre as St Paul's rather than Charring Cross? Very unusual. I don't think I've ever seen that anywhere else.
by poooogles 4y ago
I wonder why they defined the centre as St Paul's rather than Charring Cross? Very unusual. I don't think I've ever seen that anywhere else.
- rob74 4y agoNot a Londoner, but the City of London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London) is the traditional center (or centre) of London, and St. Paul's is the main church in the City.
- BerislavLopac 4y agoNot actually. As the GP said, Charing Cross (actually its old position at the present Trafalgar Square) is considered the centre of London, and all the distances are measured from there. Despite its name, the City of London is only one of the towns and villages comprising what we traditionally think of as "London". Fun fact: Officially, there is no such place as "London". ;)
- simonh 4y agoSo they say, but nobody in the City thinks these things. My candidate for the true centre is the London Stone, legendarily set in place by King Lud himself when founding the city and whom it is named after. It's located at 111 Cannon Street, across the road from Cannon Street station.
- OJFord 4y ago> So they say, but nobody in the City thinks these things. No Londoner would write 'the City' to mean anything other than 'the City of London' (i.e. excluding the rest of the 'city') - which makes it unclear to me how to read your comment, especially given other familiarity/information. Are you saying 'nobody' (I'm not being pedantic on that, hence quotes) living/working in the City sees it as anything other than another borough? (But implicitly others do?)
- joncrocks 4y agoPeople in `the City`/Square Mile would say that the center of London is the City of London, the historical center of London. In general Charing Cross (in my view) is more of a 'Geographical Center', as London has slowly expanded over time. It's kind of the middle of Zone 1 -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_fare_zones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_fare_zones I think it's down to how one interprets the question. Some might see the question as: "Where did London start/expand out from" and other "If I were to look at London now, where is the center of where you would consider London".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- BerislavLopac 4y agoYes, except that the London Stone was first mentioned around 1100 AD.
- simonh 4y agoTrue, but then hardly anything in Britain was mentioned much before then.
- BerislavLopac 4y agoI'm sorry? O.o
- simonh 4y agoBritain before that time was extremely poorly documented, and almost all the (few) documents that did exist were lost.
- robga 4y agoThe PDF of the book provides reasoning. https://access.bl.uk/item/pdf/lsidyv3c0c937d https://access.bl.uk/item/pdf/lsidyv3c0c937d "Taking the City of London for the central division, round it we have grouped six similar divisions ; these, in their turn, being encircled by a group of twelve hexagonals. We have chosen St. Paul's Cathedral as the core, because there we have not only the highest ground and the most familiar object, but the acknowledged central postal, telegraphic, and telephonic district of the universal system. Should it be objected that Charing Cross— or even Victoria, the centre of Greater London— would suit as well, it is scarcely necessary to point out that until the conditions of the two localities are reversed, and Commercial London loses its importance, the suggestion must fail." The book itself is worth a read. Each hexagon could be divided in six, it says (of course). Then each 6th into 16 triangles with sides a "48th of a superficial mile ... about twice the length of Waterloo Bridge and contain, say, 200 lamps each". He goes on to say each lamp could be adorned with these mapping notes as an "ocular demonstration" for travellers. An 1885 Google Maps.
- fnord123 4y agoGP is explaining that the City of London is the traditional (aka old) centre of London. In fact, until 1889, "London" referred to the City. > Fun fact: Officially, there is no such place as "London". ;) London, Ontario officially exists.
- BerislavLopac 4y agoFair point! :D
- dghf 4y ago> In fact, until 1889, "London" referred to the City. Here's a Post Office map of London from 1857: https://mapco.net/kelly1857/kelly.htm https://mapco.net/kelly1857/kelly.htm As you can see, it covers a much larger area than just the City. 19th century writers -- e.g. Austen, Trollope, Doyle -- use "London" to mean the metropolis as a whole, not just the City. And Apsley House, built in the 1770s, was for years popularly known as "No. 1, London", because it was the first house you passed after going through the toll-gates at Knightsbridge (at the western edge of Westminster).
- jaza 4y ago> Fun fact: Officially, there is no such place as "London". ;) Errr, yes there is. The City of London officially exists. The London postal district officially exists. The Greater London administrative area officially exists.
- BerislavLopac 4y agoNeither of these things are "London". ;)
- KineticLensman 4y agoNow that the replies have cleared up what we mean by 'London', perhaps we can clarify what mean when we say 'The British Isles'...
- disruptiveink 4y agoThe map did feel a bit skewed to the East based on my perception. Interesting to know it wasn't just my imagination!