The Midlands is nothing!

[anti-pacer]

I have just measured England into three equal parts from the very north, just above Berwick, to the very south at Lizard Point. If we took the three equal parts as the North, Midlands and South, the Midlands would include the area south of Harrogate and north of Luton.

In reality the Midlands stretches from various points in the north from just north of Glossop, Dronfield and Biddulph, none of which are on remotely the same latitude, to its southern extremities just north of Tewkesbury, Banbury and Bedford, which have closer latitudes.

Based on real regional boundaries, the Midlands looks like a small filling in a large sandwich.

Of course it's not that simple. The furthest northerly point of North West England is much further south than its North East equivalent. The southernmost point of South West England is further south than its South East equivalent. Midlands wise, the East Midlands officially stretches further north than the West.

Interestingly I was in Lincoln yesterday. Despite being further north than Chester, it didn't feel northern. I also saw a difference between Worksop and places in South Yorkshire, despite being a few miles apart.

What do you class as the Midlands or do you just follow the norm?

 

[najaB]

I have just measured England into three equal parts from the very north, just above Berwick, to the very south at Lizard Point. If we took the three equal parts as the North, Midlands and South, the Midlands would include the area south of Harrogate and north of Luton.

Now try the same using population distribution rather than physical land mass.

 

[anti-pacer]

Now try the same using population distribution rather than physical land mass.

That's quite interesting and thanks for posting that. However it has little to do with what I've asked.

Still good to read though. It shows the UK in a different, interesting way.

 

[najaB]

That's quite interesting and thanks for posting that. However it has little to do with what I've asked.

I may have misread your post, but the point I was making is that the middle of English population isn't the same as its physical midpoint.

 

[anti-pacer]

I may have misread your post, but the point I was making is that the middle of English population isn't the same as its physical midpoint.

Fair enough, but I was talking about the geography rather than the population of these regions.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Using traditional counties for ease of argument, then for me the West Midlands is Staffordshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire; with East being Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire (and Rutland!). I don't buy into, for example, 'Glossop is in Derbyshire but as its more accessible from Greater Manchester it's therefore in the North West and not the East Midlands...'. If we took it to that level of detail, we'd never get anywhere. Lines have to be drawn somewhere!

 

[anti-pacer]

Using traditional counties for ease of argument, then for me the West Midlands is Staffordshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire; with East being Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire (and Rutland!). I don't buy into, for example, 'Glossop is in Derbyshire but as its more accessible from Greater Manchester it's therefore in the North West and not the East Midlands...'. If we took it to that level of detail, we'd never get anywhere. Lines have to be drawn somewhere!

I agree to a point although our regions, apart from Yorkshire, seem compass point related or geographical sounding. For example, the North West is, well, in the North West of England. The Midlands, whilst not compass pointed suggests that is the middle of the country. We have East and West Midlands which as suggested lay to the east and west of the middle of England.

In the case of Glossop - a great example - it seems odd that they can be classed as being in a "middle of England" region, where as places like Marple, actually further south than Glossop is in a "northern" region. It makes no sense.

County boundaries are one thing, and fine, but our geographical sounding regions don't always fit.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

In the case of Glossop - a great example - it seems odd that they can be classed as being in a "middle of England" region, where as places like Marple, actually further south than Glossop is in a "northern" region. It makes no sense.

In which case the only way we're ever going to get around it is if we disregard our current system of administrative boundaries and draw everything based on a grid system, so we get nine Wyoming or Colorado shaped areas that geographically perfectly define 'East Midlands' or 'North West'; which is never likely to happen! I personally love all the quirks that come with our nation's political geography.

 

[anti-pacer]

In which case the only way we're ever going to get around it is if we disregard our current system of administrative boundaries and draw everything based on a grid system, so we get nine Wyoming or Colorado shaped areas that geographically perfectly define 'East Midlands' or 'North West'; which is never likely to happen! I personally love all the quirks that come with our nation's political geography.

I agree about the quirkiness, but it makes no sense to travel south-west from Glossop in the East Midlands to Marple in the North West.

 

[Calthrop]

Using traditional counties for ease of argument, then for me the West Midlands is Staffordshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire; with East being Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire (and Rutland!). I don't buy into, for example, 'Glossop is in Derbyshire but as its more accessible from Greater Manchester it's therefore in the North West and not the East Midlands...'. If we took it to that level of detail, we'd never get anywhere. Lines have to be drawn somewhere!

With your basing things on counties being -- if I understand rightly -- "for ease of argument", rather than necessarily iron-clad doctrine: I agree with you to some extent. I can't think of Shropshire and Herefordshire as "Midlands": in my mind, their category is the Welsh Marches.

I suspect that we might fall out over exceptions / anomalies / grey areas, as with your citing of Glossop. "Character-type feel" of places, weighs heavily for me -- even at the risk of your implied line-drawing-fail chaos. As per my gut feeling, some counties are, indubitably, part in the Midlands; and part not. I feel the Peak District to be essentially more northern than Midland -- taking, for me, a bit of Staffordshire and a lot of Derbyshire out of the Midlands.

A lot of the western parts of Lincolnshire I would call "Midlands"; its parts further east, though -- the county's coast, and the Fen region in its south -- I feel to be either a continuation of East Anglia, or something just uniquely itself. (Re England, I just cannot regard anywhere on a sea-coast, as having anything "Midland" about it.) And I can see the more northerly parts of (some of) Gloucestershire; Oxfordshire; Buckinghamshire; and Bedfordshire; as belonging in the Midlands "package". All on the vague side, I know, and unscientific -- and for sure, different bods will think differently.

 

[317 forever]

I find the name for the county including Coventry, Birmingham, Wolverhampton etc West Midlands strange. It infers that the likes of Herefordshire and Shropshire are too far west to be West Midlands.

 

[Starmill]

I think, judging by the number of threads the OP has created on this theme, it might be good for them to be a little less existential about the whole thing!

There are some issues with boundaries because of the way local government works, but in general it doesn't particularly matter about this kind of thing - people go about their lives according to the way they feel about it. The borders are not written into the earth. There could be better ways of drawing them than we currently have, I am certain. I for one am in favour of a complete re-write of England's borders in order to achieve a more sensible 'federalisation', as that seems to be the direction of travel. The current system and location of borders is a mess, and we could do better, but changing it is difficult - and even the best possible situation will leave some people who are not happy with the outcome.

 

[satisnek]

I find it all quite straightforward although Derbyshire is a strange one. The fact that Glossop and Swadlincote are in the same county can be a bit difficult to get one's head around!

 

[anti-pacer]

I find it all quite straightforward although Derbyshire is a strange one. The fact that Glossop and Swadlincote are in the same county can be a bit difficult to get one's head around!

Nottinghamshire is the same, and Lincolnshire more so. Look at Gainsborough, then look at Market Deeping.

 

[satisnek]

Nottinghamshire is the same, and Lincolnshire more so. Look at Gainsborough, then look at Market Deeping.

I'm not so sure. Nottinghamshire is mainly to the north of the city of Nottingham and extends up to South Yorkshire while Lincolnshire is just the flat(tish) bit to the east of everything

Derbyshire is unusual in that it covers an entire thinly-populated hilly area so that it joins with the industrial north-west (Greater Manchester) at one extreme and Leicestershire at the other. That's in contrast to further north (Pennines) where you've got the traditional red rose/white rose demarcation either side of the hilly bit.