> The secret City of London which is not part of London
The City is part of London under any normal person's interpretation of that word. Being as charitable as possible, it is true that the ceremonial county of Greater London does not contain the City. But the Greater London administrative area does.
It's also not "secret". Many people aren't aware of it, but that's through ignorance on their part rather than secrecy on the part of the City. The City plasters its logo all over the place: on all street signs in the City, on police uniforms, on statues, etc. Even the bollards in the City bear the colors of the City's flag. It's impossible not to notice that the City is different from the rest of London.
So that's two mistakes in the headline alone.
> The mayor of Greater London has nothing to do with the original City of London, which still has separate governing bodies and a mayor.
This is wrong. The Mayor of London has authority over the City of London, through the Greater London Authority (although some power is delegated to the Corporation, in the same way it is to borough councils).
There is indeed also a mayor of the City (confusingly called the Lord Mayor of London), but that mayorship is largely ceremonial in nature.
> Oddly enough, if the monarch wants to enter the City of London, she first must ask the Lord Mayor for permission.
This is just an urban myth, no such permission is required. In fact, the sovereign has precedence over the Lord Mayor (in the context of formal events and such like).
Greater London is made up of 32 London Boroughs and the City of London that provide the vast majority of municipal services. Each has a mayor or Lord Mayor. The powers and responsibilities of London Boroughs, and the local authority responsibilities of the City of London Corporation are set out in statute law, not delegated by the Mayor of London.
The Mayor of London is responsible for public transport, Fire and Rescue Services, major highways, some major town planning issues across the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London, and policing across the 32 London Boroughs. The Mayor of London has no general authority over any of the 33.
Fun fact: Brussels has the exact same structure, with a “Brussels City” smaller than “Brussels Capital Region”, different mayors for different boroughs etc.
I am pretty sure that the CGP Grey video was the core inspiration for this article. Nearly every image in the article was featured in the YouTube video, which predates the article by ~4 years.
I used to live in the City of London at the top end of Chancery Lane. I could therefore be in a different city (City of Westminster) by crossing the street to the west and leave the city entirely by crossing to the north (London Borough of Camden).
I used to live pretty close to the eastern end of the City in Aldgate/Whitechapel. It was pretty cool to go running and cycling around the City during the pandemic lockdowns, with almost no people or cars around.
Same with central London: I remember cycling though a completely deserted Leicester Square one day and hearing nothing but birds chirping in the trees!
For me, the wildest fact about the City of London (the small, walled part), is that when the Romans left, some buildings were smashed up, but the roads and walls remained, and then the whole area was abandoned... for 470 years.
And it has the fewest residents of any London borough by a couple of orders of magnitude. So it probably makes sense that businesses have a bit more say.
"In fact, the City of London is so independent that it has its own flag, crest, police force, ceremonial armed forces, and a mayor who has a special title, the Right Honorable, the Lord Mayor of London. Oddly enough, if the monarch wants to enter the City of London, she first must ask the Lord Mayor for permission"
Are there some books that comprehensively cover several aspects around the City of London?
The City of London appeared quite often in Lee Kwan Yu's memoirs
Interesting anecdote: the city of Baltimore, MD, USA is administratively distinct from the County of Baltimore, MD. The area is collectively referred to as Baltimore, but the county has no jurisdiction within the city. [1]
Yes, and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, home of the Indianapolis 500, is located in Speedway, Indiana, which has its own local government and police force, in spite of the fact that it is both surrounded by Indianapolis and entirely contained within Marion County, whose government, aside from a few exceptions like Speedway, is entirely consolidated with the government of the city of Indianapolis[1].
Many states have a similar code, all of Maryland might. There are lots of pockets of sovereignty in the US that are misunderstood.
Basically the default behavior is that the state is a bigger government than the county and overrides everything, county bigger than city, city bigger than something smaller.
But non-default behavior is codified to make it the reverse.
Either its directly codified in state law or state constitution, or there is a symbioses for the state to maintain collective support and order.
The FT did a recent - and very good - expose with more on how the city works in “Undemocratic, anachronistic, fantastic. How the City of London survives” [1] Paywalled but accessible via Google.
The City of London is sort of a lobbying organization for the UK financial community. Or at least it thinks it is.[1] Its police force is not ceremonial - there's a sizable Economic Crime Directorate, handling fraud cases. They claim a 75% clearing rate.
City of London is a separate legal entity to England but still under the king. Hence all the banking industry is located there, to add another step in the money train to tax heavens.
I find the City of London (formerly the Corporation for London) to be fascinating for many reasons.
For one, the exact origins are unknown. the earliest record we have is from 1067 CE with the William Charter [1]. William granted the City rights in exchange for not attacking and the City recognizing him as King, which this article sort of mentions. But the interesting part is that William was simply recognizing the rights of something that already existed. For how long? Nobody knows. It's likely somewhere in the 7th or 8th century when Anglo-Saxons resettled the previously abandoned Roman walled city of Londinium after their departure in 410 CE.
It's also fascinating because it's managed to survive for nearly 1000 yaers since then, largely recognizable from its earlier form although there have been various changes and reforms. There have been efforts to disband it too but obviously they failed.
It also survived uncertain times like the Vikings would cojme along every now and again and burn down London Bridge.
London's development as a financial center goes back to 1066 too and a key part was likely due, at least in part, to the arrival of Jews during William's reign [2].
Why was this important? Well, Jews were prohibited from charging interest to other Jews. Muslims and Christians had similar constraints. But an oddity of Judaism was that Jews could charge interest to non-Jews [3]. This later likely contributed to conspiracy theories about Jews (eg blood libel) and antisemitism.
So ancient civil institutions like the Court of Aldermen still exist and certain rights given to the Freemen of the City of London still exist, like the ancient right to bring sheep in to the City over the bridge [4].
Is there a direct relation or something specific you were going to draw in mentioning the history of the Jews in England and the history and particularities of the City of London? That the Jews performed the interest loans on behalf of and/or within the City of London possibly or something like that?
I'd go with something more like "secretive" than explicitly "secret". It's a weird & immensely powerful place in the UK, with some abstruse governing structures, hidden entirely in plain sight.
The secret isn't that the city of london has existed for centuries. Articles like this are designed to elicit your response. The secret is to what extent the social-political order in the West determined by the Finance and the extent to which they exercise power over nominally sovereign entities.
It's not well known in America. Recent conversations on congestion surcharges in NYC regularly confused the charges in City of London (miniscule) with London as a whole (huge), and then tried to draw the comparison to the now-canceled charges in NYC, which would have affected more than half of Manhattan, and a large portion of the most significant commercial areas of NYC.
People are either being completely disingenuous, or they don't understand that City of London is a relatively insignificant portion of greater London. This fact alone illustrates how absurd the comparison actually is:
> As of the 2011 census, the City of London has a population of 8,072 and area of 1.12 square miles.
(For context, Manhattan has a population of 1.65 million people, with about 73,000 people per square mile. Even setting aside that lower Manhattan is more densely populated than upper, and that a lot of people commute in from the outer boroughs, the congestion pricing scheme would have affected at least 800k resident people, or about 10% of NYCs total population.)
[+] [-] HL33tibCe7|1 year ago|reply
The City is part of London under any normal person's interpretation of that word. Being as charitable as possible, it is true that the ceremonial county of Greater London does not contain the City. But the Greater London administrative area does.
It's also not "secret". Many people aren't aware of it, but that's through ignorance on their part rather than secrecy on the part of the City. The City plasters its logo all over the place: on all street signs in the City, on police uniforms, on statues, etc. Even the bollards in the City bear the colors of the City's flag. It's impossible not to notice that the City is different from the rest of London.
So that's two mistakes in the headline alone.
> The mayor of Greater London has nothing to do with the original City of London, which still has separate governing bodies and a mayor.
This is wrong. The Mayor of London has authority over the City of London, through the Greater London Authority (although some power is delegated to the Corporation, in the same way it is to borough councils).
There is indeed also a mayor of the City (confusingly called the Lord Mayor of London), but that mayorship is largely ceremonial in nature.
> Oddly enough, if the monarch wants to enter the City of London, she first must ask the Lord Mayor for permission.
This is just an urban myth, no such permission is required. In fact, the sovereign has precedence over the Lord Mayor (in the context of formal events and such like).
[+] [-] BillEllson|1 year ago|reply
The Mayor of London is responsible for public transport, Fire and Rescue Services, major highways, some major town planning issues across the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London, and policing across the 32 London Boroughs. The Mayor of London has no general authority over any of the 33.
[+] [-] scrollaway|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dwheeler|1 year ago|reply
"The Secret City inside of London Revealed" (2012) https://youtu.be/LrObZ_HZZUc
Highly recommended.
[+] [-] forgotpwagain|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] BillEllson|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dcminter|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Reason077|1 year ago|reply
Same with central London: I remember cycling though a completely deserted Leicester Square one day and hearing nothing but birds chirping in the trees!
[+] [-] dukeyukey|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AndrewOMartin|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Rinzler89|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickdavey|1 year ago|reply
https://www.thecollector.com/what-makes-the-city-of-london-u...
There's a good book called "treasure islands" all about tax havens... The city definitely features.
[+] [-] DrBazza|1 year ago|reply
https://www.statista.com/statistics/381055/london-population...
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stefantalpalaru|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BillEllson|1 year ago|reply
Corporations voting = urban myth
[+] [-] max_|1 year ago|reply
Are there some books that comprehensively cover several aspects around the City of London?
The City of London appeared quite often in Lee Kwan Yu's memoirs
[+] [-] jschveibinz|1 year ago|reply
https://www.greektownbaltimore.org/what-the-difference-betwe...
[+] [-] jasomill|1 year ago|reply
Local government can be complicated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unigov
[+] [-] yieldcrv|1 year ago|reply
Basically the default behavior is that the state is a bigger government than the county and overrides everything, county bigger than city, city bigger than something smaller.
But non-default behavior is codified to make it the reverse.
Either its directly codified in state law or state constitution, or there is a symbioses for the state to maintain collective support and order.
Rules for rulers applies here.
[+] [-] klelatti|1 year ago|reply
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/2b96763f-5cb2-475b-b20c-7c2d02050...
[+] [-] CamelCaseName|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] drfuchs|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] leashless|1 year ago|reply
I suspect I could get him to do an AMA here if people would like to hear more about the City and its fascinating ways.
Seriously, we could actually do this!
[+] [-] Animats|1 year ago|reply
[1] https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/plans-policies/our-...
[+] [-] throttlebody|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dukeyukey|1 year ago|reply
Not true. You're probably thinking of something like the Isle of Mann, or the Channel Islands, or arguably all of Canada or Australia.
The City of London is part of England.
[+] [-] pjc50|1 year ago|reply
The Channel Islands and Man do fit that description and are not subject to English tax law.
[+] [-] throw156754228|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] epanchin|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] th0ma5|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cletus|1 year ago|reply
For one, the exact origins are unknown. the earliest record we have is from 1067 CE with the William Charter [1]. William granted the City rights in exchange for not attacking and the City recognizing him as King, which this article sort of mentions. But the interesting part is that William was simply recognizing the rights of something that already existed. For how long? Nobody knows. It's likely somewhere in the 7th or 8th century when Anglo-Saxons resettled the previously abandoned Roman walled city of Londinium after their departure in 410 CE.
It's also fascinating because it's managed to survive for nearly 1000 yaers since then, largely recognizable from its earlier form although there have been various changes and reforms. There have been efforts to disband it too but obviously they failed.
It also survived uncertain times like the Vikings would cojme along every now and again and burn down London Bridge.
London's development as a financial center goes back to 1066 too and a key part was likely due, at least in part, to the arrival of Jews during William's reign [2].
Why was this important? Well, Jews were prohibited from charging interest to other Jews. Muslims and Christians had similar constraints. But an oddity of Judaism was that Jews could charge interest to non-Jews [3]. This later likely contributed to conspiracy theories about Jews (eg blood libel) and antisemitism.
So ancient civil institutions like the Court of Aldermen still exist and certain rights given to the Freemen of the City of London still exist, like the ancient right to bring sheep in to the City over the bridge [4].
[1]: https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/history-and-her...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_and_interest_in_Judaism
[4]: https://www.euronews.com/culture/2022/09/27/unbaalievable-sh...
[+] [-] stainforth|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] simonbarker87|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] OtherShrezzing|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] temporarely|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] qingcharles|1 year ago|reply
p.s. the first rule of London is we don't talk about London...
[+] [-] epolanski|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] keiferski|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] denton-scratch|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dventimi|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] timr|1 year ago|reply
People are either being completely disingenuous, or they don't understand that City of London is a relatively insignificant portion of greater London. This fact alone illustrates how absurd the comparison actually is:
> As of the 2011 census, the City of London has a population of 8,072 and area of 1.12 square miles.
(For context, Manhattan has a population of 1.65 million people, with about 73,000 people per square mile. Even setting aside that lower Manhattan is more densely populated than upper, and that a lot of people commute in from the outer boroughs, the congestion pricing scheme would have affected at least 800k resident people, or about 10% of NYCs total population.)
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]