Have you been trying to get in that habit since April 2022 when this video was published on TikTok, or does your comment not relate to this video at all?
As a person from Central Europe, the most interesting thing is that England ended up with just one special city. In my much smaller country, about a dozen cities had charters recognising their rights, privileges and obligations. Up until the late 19th century, it seems that the wisdom for dealing with cities was to just let them be.
@@dragon12234 Quite a bit earlier than 1066; King Athelstan of (EDIT: Wessex and) Mercia took control over the other local kingdoms (including the Danelaw) between 924 and 927.
There were other cities that had special rights and freedoms too, but London was the ancient capital since roman times (although it didn’t always act as the capital) and it was therefore always especially mentioned and conceded to. You’re right though, it is weird that London has extra privileges over most ancient cities within England
And it does cause issues with so much being centralised in a small corner of the country. We do have projects to decentralise (Levelling-Up and the Northern Powerhouse Project) but I think it will take generations to show real change
I'd just like to say that you deserve so many more views. Your content is so informative and every time I watch I'm either thrown right back into history class and remembering what we learned or I'm learning something new! Thankyou for the effort you make for us ❤
I've never heard of any of this. I love how you cover things with such energy. It is so fun to learn from you!!! I have always loved history (I was the weird kid that actually watched the documentaries my teachers would show us in school, while most of my classmates slept lol). But you make it come alive with your vibrant energy. So again thank you!
I wonder if the myth came about like this: given its relative independence, ancient relationship with the sovereign, and unique form of self-governance, the City might seem somewhat akin to the Crown Dependencies of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. The latter three are self-governing and are *not* part of the UK. The notion of the City’s actual similarity can be refuted by this fact: unlike the Crown Dependencies, the City is part of a parliamentary constituency, and its residents vote for and are represented by an MP. Uniquely governed ≠ separate.
Yes, this; the Crown Dependencies are an excellent comparison. If one didn't know better it sounds plausible to wonder if the City of London had some similar arrangement.
I think the argument is that the COL is a separate legal entity from London due to the privileges from the Magna Carta.. Legally separate, not physically separate..?
I wonder if some might have also confabulated the status of the City of London with that of Vatican City, which IS a sovereign nation, adding to the confusion?
Could this come from a misreading of the word county? The City of London is a different (ceremonial) county from Greater London, and I for one certainly misread county as country from time to time. I can completely see this getting misread, then half-remembered wrongly, especially given the history and ceremony you brought up.
I think a big part is that people love to say “technically X is an independent country” about a variety of places. It’s more of a “fun fact” even though it’s not really a fact kind of like how Sealand isn’t the “smallest country in the world” because it’s not actually a recognized country by any countries.
I'll buy this one. I can't tell you how many people try to put the abbreviation for their county in the box for country. We only have the country box for the 5% of clients who live abroad. Sigh.
The City of London isn't even a county unto itself. It was part of Middlesex and then the County of London. It's just a different type of local authority to others, elected by its guilds (which represent business nowadays) more than by its residents (who nowadays are very few). City residents vote for the mayor of London and London Assembly members.
I think the confusion is also due to the fact the Met police have no jurisdiction in the City because the City isn't a London Borough. Hence why they have their own police force.
Yeah it is likely mostly due to this, an area within a wider area which has its own police force is definitely veering towards "city-state" status in terms of how most people would understand the term. So you can kind of see how people may become confused about the City being a "separate country." It is also the only place in the UK which has a non-residential vote which means that at local level it operates very differently to anywhere else in the UK in terms of representation. It is also an unusual entity in that it very publicly owns land outside of its boundaries and administers it as such (a lot of council estates in South London, Hampstead Heath, Epping Forest etc), which is much more akin to a city-state with an 'embassy' role than a typical local authority.
@@DavidMcKinstry-yx5tt Yes definitely all of the above, plus another thing that probably makes people think the City is somehow a separate country is the fact that Prime Ministers and the monarch have to attend the Guildhall for banquets etc. You wouldn't see the King going to a state banquet at Bromley Town Hall 😂. The fact you have these essentially 'state visits' to the City by the crown and government definitely make it look like a state within a kingdom
@@jakecavendish3470 Very true, plus when an overseas head of state visits Britain they are given a state banquet at Buckingham Palace to welcome them to the UK followed by a state banquet at the Guildhall to welcome them to the City of London, which in terms of diplomatic relations really is moving into being a separate country in all but name!
The Met police do have jurisdiction in the City though. Yes the City has its own police force, but they all have jurisdiction in the entirety of England and Wales. And I believe the City lost operational control of its own area after the Carnival Against Capital on June 18th 1999.
I am pretty sure that amongst the ancient liberties of the City is the right to engage with "principalities". Basically the Lord Mayor is allowed to meet with the King of Spain without the permission the UK government. The City does quite a bit of business promotion abroad and even though some of what forms part of brand London isn't in the City when you add things up there is an awful lot of sanctity and ability to project outwards independently of the UK government associated with the City. It would be believable to hear that the Bishop of London (whose see is wider than the City) has asserted that a foreign national whose visa or whatnot expires must be left unmolested by UK immigration while that person is residing within the City, but this would be in parallel to whatever fight is happening at the home office. Similarly it would not be surprising if a summons from either of the two sheriffs of the City would mean that a person arriving at the UK without permission of the UK government would be taken to the City rather than deported. Of course they are likely to be detained throughout the time. Similarly I suspect that during the medieval period more regularly permits for Jews to visit would have been issued than for the rest of England (ignoring antisemitic tropes as a simple matter of there being a requirement in the City and the guilds being active). The idea of a person being able to enter England specifically to go to the City can quickly evolve into a different country narrative. Add to this the Hansetic League - which the Wikipedia describes as "never more than a loosely aligned confederation of city-states.", of course London was a kontor but the mythology stands. It certainly is a daft myth that the City is a different country (Scotland and England are countries) or nation or anything of that sort. However I think it is fair to say that the City has a distinct jurisdiction character and that there are similarities between it and a jurisdiction like Hong Kong. However it isn't the only jurisdictional oddity in the UK or even England. I do think a bad government could quickly find itself crashing into issues with the City that could precipitate a minor constitutional crisis - Parliament could of course simply by Act change things. However I think having some special jurisdiction attributes and some mythology and pageantry works for all concerned and so it will be retained and evolve as it has for centuries.
I'm guessing that it's a misinterpretation leading people to think that it's like Vatican City, rather then just a really really old city with ancient bylaws. 🤣
The thing it has in common with the vatican is the vast amountvof money it launders. Amd the opacity of who owns that money, where it goes amd why noone pays tax on it..
I've never heard anyone claim that the City of London is not part of the UK. However, maybe this comes from people being confused when hearing that the City of London is not part of Greater London?
When people spread this silly myth in my direction I always tell them that Passport to Pimlico was an Ealing Comedy not a documentary!!! Not quite the same geographical area, but you get my drift...
People *might* be mixing up the idea behind the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, which actually aren't part of the UK, with the City of London. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man, as Crown Dependencies, are loyal to the king but, since they are not incorporated into England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, aren't part of the UK. Their people don't vote in UK elections or pay UK taxes and the vast majority of laws passed in the UK parliament don't apply to those islands. Instead, they have their own governments which date back from before there even was an England or UK. The king (who now of course doesn't exercise any power except through the UK government's instructions) has power over the islands' defence and foreign policy, and claims some vague "good government" power (whatever that means), which means they are not foreign countries, but neither are they part of the UK. The City of London also has its own government which dates back to time immemorial, but of course it *is* incorporated within England, its people pay UK taxes and laws passed by the UK parliament apply to it, so it is part of the UK.
That's an interesting myth ... 🤔 btw .. I enjoy the "long" shorts; since RUclips lets me queue them - and screen them to my tv - like the longer videos, it's much more convenient than "shorts". And I enjoy your content, so I hate to miss it! 🙂
I personally agree with CGP Grey's conjecture about the origin of this idea, namely when you combine ancient things, opaque traditions, the world's oldest Masonic temple and a modern financial industry hub, you attract weirdos.
Per Professor Hatton-Jones review of Edward IV's royal charter in 1947... wasn't Pimlico discovered to be legally part of Burgundy and defacto a separate country?
I think people get confused by the City not being part of (Greater) London, and somehow imagine that extends to it not being part of the UK. I’m not quite sure how they imagine it working - passport control on the Strand? But I’m pretty sure that’s what’s happening. Made for an interesting video at least!
It has its own government and most importantly its own tax laws, widely regarded as the most corrupt place on earth, since the swiss introduced more stringent laws on criminal money laundering and tax evasion, business has boomed there. It orovides anonymity to bast networks of criminal enterprise and is used to funnel wealth to tax havens and other shady dominions the world over Whilst not technically a different country its financial regulation, tax laws and police force are used to great benefit of very rich and iften very criminal people. It is in efffect a different country within a country. Its a big club and you aint in it. You van pour sugar on this all you want but its financial accountability makes it easentially a yreachiurous criminal state within our own borders.
I can understand how they would get confused because millions of people could have misunderstood CGP Grey and others. Did CGP Grey say it's a different country? No. But he said the monarch neeeds permission to enter and that the ceremony is only a formality and not an actual permission request
Probably lots of British tourists complaining about London while abroad, spreading the reputation of London vs everyone else thats sometimes felt considering it contains the majority of the population and the near entirety of the money
@@thefogboundfan8314Its the most dense place both in terms of people and space, its the size of an entire county and is so big it physically spills across the met boundary in most directions. Sure if you tally up literally every over city in the UK you match it, but its just so much bigger than even going Edinburgh + Cardiff + Belfast just doesn't compare at all, you need a long list
@@Rynewulf it's still 9 of 68. I don't question that it's big, but it's population are in a minority nationally. Awful place anyway, at least I bought a house with ease, something almost impossible there, condemned to rent and at a high price too. For a younger person starting out who wants to own their own home, a well chosen northern city / town is a more appealing prospect. Less of a concrete jungle too.
My best guess is they misinterpreted CGP Grey's video on the City of London? It is pretty easy to get confused by their status I think because it is so often highlighted as special and different.
This sounds like something like "Home Rule" municipalities in the US. These have different rules than "Cities", "Boroughs" or "Townships". But are in fact STILL under US (and their state laws).
@@ragnkja generally, recent memory would be shorter than living memory. But they are not two points on the same scale, they are two different ways of dividing time, and so they could overlap. Also, 'living memory' and 'recent history' would be more idiomatic than 'recent memory', but again, not the same way of thinking, so not three phrases you should think of as being in an order.
I think many very old cities do have charters giving special privileges, mostly to do with self governance, the exclusive rights to host markets (as in the neighbouring towns can't host a market), the right to raise certain taxes and the obligation to maintain militia both to serve the Monarch in times of War and keep order within the walls the rest of the Time (They were Soldiers AND Police force). Most of those Militias are now territorial army units if they still exist at all. I think London's "Honorable Artillery Company (HAC)" still has some of the most peculiar quirks. They are the guys dressed as Musketeers and Pikemen that escort the Lord Mayor, they are also Territorial army reservists AND man the guns at The Tower for firing salutes. The HAC (though not yet with the title of Honorable) are also listed among the units that mustered at Tilbury for Elizabeth 1st to stand ready to fight the Spanish should the Amada make landfall with its troops.
I've lived in London all my life (67 years!), drove a cab for over 30 years, always been interested in London and its history .. but not once have I ever heard anyone say this! ... did you just make it up or is this actually written down somewhere? I do love your vids btw ...
Haven't you heard? No one needs a REASON to believe whatever they want to believe any more! We believe things because we want to! That's good enough! Facts, evidence, all passé! Our own unjustified confidence in our own beliefs is all the rage! Burn your books now, they're worthless. 😒
It’s also why JPs, MPs, and Lords from the House of, have to swear allegiance to the crown and to a religious text - historically the bible, but now you can choose your own. They’re doing the same thing as the Lord Mayor, just a more minor, less publicised one
Have they just added an 'R' to the prhase City and County of London? Or Just confused, as many people are with Ceremonial County? The final thing, which I am guilty of saying myself, is that because it is really old, I think the city is older than a 'united England' when there were multiple kingdoms and tribes but I ain't so sure of that, but when have facts got in the way of a tale?
I think it comes from the complexity of the UK, it is a country made up of countries, with overseas territories and crown dependencies. So a part with different rules causes questions.
From the view of the rest of the country London might as well be foreign. The level of investment in infrastructure and public services has more in common with mainland Europe then it does with any other part of England north of Watford Gap
That's really funny! During my entire year and some change living in England I spent some time living in London, and never heard the idea that it's a separate country! Strange that I'm just learning of this now! What a funny idea! But, I suppose it could make for the basis of a rather cool historical fiction novel!
The idea is only the The City of London, the financial district, is a separate country. Not the entire Greater London, which is more likely to be where you lived.
@@barneylaurance1865 Oh, thank you for the clarification, but I understand that. I just thought it was strange for me to have lived in London at all and never hear this before!
"Passport To Pimlico" was a 1949 comedy film where documents were discovered that made Pimlico part of Burgundy and not, therefore part of the UK. Hence no rationing that was still in force in the rest of the UK. Very much like this idea that the City of London is separate.
A friend of mine believes this because ALex Jones often states that the City of London is a seperate state owned by interanational bankers. He also states that The City of London owns the American City Bank. So, anyway this is the source of where I heard about this particular belief about London.
Its not really a belief, its essentially the moneyboaunderig capital of the world. All aboutvwashing that money and keeping its owners anonymous as they funnel it off shore.
@@Brasswatchman I also think that David Icke mentions this a lot, that evil international bankers own the City of London as a seperate nation to the UK.
I think some of it may be from a belief (which I'm not sure if is true itself) that The City Of London is separate in the same way that England and Scotland are seperate, and are effectively a Constituent Country, like England or Scotland, possibly even more so because [insert odd law or the title of Remembrancer or some other reason]. It isn't helped by the fact once you start digging down you find all sorts of other weird legal states of various other parts of the country, like how some of the Channel Islands are "Crown Dependencies", which get even weirder when you learn about Sark, which is itself a dependency of (to?) Gurnsey.
So I did have some on a tour in the city of London tell me that the city of London is distinct for London. And so the city of London is technically Europes smallest capital city. I would guess some people heard this and got confused between it's own city and it's own country thinking it was similar to Vatican city (which is its own country)
Not only is your content top tier, but you delivery, the voice, the face acting is always just so enthralling. Are you as animated while doing your walking tours?
I've heard about this but in like "A part of the London is a special historical district" and... yes, it is common for big, old cities to have an "historical centre" that works differently from the modern metropolitan Area.
It's similar to the notion that Berwick on Tweed is still at war with whatever country. Formal documents in the past often enumerated such things as the city of london, berwick, chester etc. Sometimes a declaration of war enumerated a place that wasn't enumerated in the peace treaty, them being covered by the sovereign entity.
Far from it, it qhs very different laws than the rest of the uk, especially when it comes to the movement of vast amounts of money. Widely regarded as the money laundering capital of the world due to its anonymity and tax laws. Vast amounts of wealth are funneled and washed through the place daily. Its banking institutions sre much like those of the swiss banks of old, all the drug money, corrupt goverments, dictators. Shell corporations and a large portion of the worlds wealthbis hidden and moved within its systems.
I think it was the Crimean war... Anyway that got resolved. Though the Longest unfought war was apparently between the Isles of Scilly and the Dutch. Royalist Pirates operating from there just after the English Civil War raiding Dutch Shipping. The Dutch were forced to write a strong letter and declare war (just as the situation was being resolved) and it just sat in the Dutch "wars ongoing" tray for about 300 years! Kind of counts because the Isles of Scilly have an odd place in the UKs sovereignty (Like Isle of Man, Channel Islands etc, subject to but not quite fully part of due to legal technicalities)
The general notion that the City of London is a sovereign nation or not a part of the UK is straw manning the issue. It would have been far more interesting if you had stated why it is considered to be so different from the rest of the UK e.g. It has its own set of financial regulations that form part of its overall system of financial management which are different from the rest of the UK; the City of London has its own police force, which is separate from the United Kingdom's police forces - It has an independent police body with its own jurisdiction; the City of London has its own government, which is separate from the United Kingdom government. The City of London Corporation has a unique and independent governance structure that sets it apart from the national government of the United Kingdom etc
The Corporation of London is a local government body not national. The City is represented in Parliament by the MP for the Cities of Westminster & London and before the 19th century reforms it like other English boroughs sent 2 MPs to Parliament. Corporation is an old fashioned term for a borough or city Council. The City of London Police is distinct from the Metropolitan police who cover the rest of Greater London but are still part of the UK wide network of police forces. The City also forms part of the East London constituency of the Greater London Assembly the regional government for London
Most of what you said does not go against what I have already stated, only that you are attempting to show focus on the integrative aspects of the City of London while diminishing the self-governance that sets it apart; the speaker presented a straw man argument, and you responded with a red herring.
I think a lot of people also conflate the City of London with the Vatican as well. They see that they're both tiny self-governing cities located within larger historic cities and assume that they're both independent countries as well.
0:20 well presumably it wouldn't be a *foreign* country. Like Scotland and Wales, it would be a country England rolled up and united into its United Kingdom.
Perhaps it isn't important enough to mention, but shouldn't you really say " reigning monarch", rather than "queen",.....for obvious reasons. Jus' sayin', don't hang, draw, and quarter me. ;)
What I want to know is is there such a place as 'London'? I know that there's a City of London, a City of Westminster and a Greater London, but is anywhere just called 'London' by itself?
Never heard that. But are a fan of Patrick O’Brien’s Aubrey-Maturin novels. So knows The Savoy district in London wasn’t under the law of The Crown, but under Liberty of the Duchy of Lancaster. Meant among other things, someone in debt couldn’t be arrested for it there. Could be how the rumours started. Easily becomes that after a couple retellings. Yes. it’s basically where the Savoy Hotel is these days. Patrick O’Brien famously used historical facts in his novels. Still fact-checked it.
This is genuine - as a kid I was told you could ask to pee in a policeman's helmet if you were caught short in the City of London. I never go to put it into practice. Just as well, because I have my doubts.
In my (very hazy) recollection of that, it only applied if you were pregnant, too. Since that was clearly never going to be applicable to me, I never checked the veracity until a few minutes ago. The Law Commission investigated and could find no evidence of any such law, although they did note that urinating in a public place is not illegal country-wide. It is usually an offense in the local bylaws. They also noted that if the offender is pregnant, more leeway is typically given.
I thought it had something to do with the financial sector be independent from the crown in some way. The conspiracy theory has something to do with Rome (religious headquarters), Washington DC (political headquarters), and the London banking district (financial headquarters), the 3 powers that run the world each being their own entity with little oversight by the rest of the world. Or something like that.
There were parts of London where writs from other parts of England were not enforceable. (A practice that has long since ended.) Perhaps these liberties (such as the Liberty of the Savoy) may have been the start of these rumors.
I don't know how, but I've been going out with a guy that also watches her. We don't live in the UK, we don't even live in an English speaking country. So, now I can say Babe, wake up, new J Draper video just dropped
It might be that the concept of modern nation states is a thing from the 17th century. England/Britain/UK never really made that transformation. Look at the Channel Islands. Many things are more reminicents of a pre-modern almost feudal society.
I thought London was like Washington D.C. - a capital in a district that has a distinct status apart from all other counties/provinces. I've never heard that it wasn't a part of the U.K.
When I started this video, I was confused too. How could London be its own country and the capital of England at the same time? This doesn't make any sense!
Oh wow... Ok so Im from the US, and this notion of some old traditions or other small things allegedly equating to huge governmental things is so, so reminding me of arguments with American sovereign citizens. (For those nit in the know theyre people who claim thaf they are essentially governments in amd of themselves, not beholden to other forms of government - ie then all taxes on them or arrests of them are, to their view, invalid because of lack of jurisdiction. Theyre a mess to deal with - im a prosecutor so Ive been doing ut for years and it drives ne bananas.)
I think because City of London is kind of... a city inside a city inside a country inside a country (City of London inside Greater London, inside England, inside the UK) people maybe get it the wrong way round from that perspective too? IDK, just another potential source of confusion
I sort of see where this is coming from because the city has essentially feudal rights, dating to a time where independence was more of a spectrum and on the idea that it would be somewhat hard for the monarch to conquer the city if they wanted to. Modern people are used to thinking of unitary states without that sort of thing
i think the closest i've heard of something like that is in a CGPGray video on Brexit that London could theoretically become a city state for economic purposes? and rejoin the EU for its own benefits i will admit that it's been absolutely ages since i watched that and the situation is entirely theoretical and also applies to the whole jurisdiction rather than just the City of London but money being at the root of it makes total sense
If I remember correctly, he also said something about it being an unincorporated city, like how some US territories are unincorporated, and technically part of the US, but people born there are US nationals, not citizens.
Trying to get in the habit of referring to the UK's 'monarch' instead of queen, but it's difficult.
Nah, here onwards, all UK monarchs will just be referred to as queens, regardless of their gender.
@@AbhijeetBorkar Yaaaas
Have you been trying to get in that habit since April 2022 when this video was published on TikTok, or does your comment not relate to this video at all?
Try, "king".
@@AbhijeetBorkar Why?
As a person from Central Europe, the most interesting thing is that England ended up with just one special city. In my much smaller country, about a dozen cities had charters recognising their rights, privileges and obligations. Up until the late 19th century, it seems that the wisdom for dealing with cities was to just let them be.
A big difference is that England, post 1066, was always relatively centralized, especially compared to the HRE and later German Federations
@@dragon12234 Quite a bit earlier than 1066; King Athelstan of (EDIT: Wessex and) Mercia took control over the other local kingdoms (including the Danelaw) between 924 and 927.
There were other cities that had special rights and freedoms too, but London was the ancient capital since roman times (although it didn’t always act as the capital) and it was therefore always especially mentioned and conceded to.
You’re right though, it is weird that London has extra privileges over most ancient cities within England
And it does cause issues with so much being centralised in a small corner of the country. We do have projects to decentralise (Levelling-Up and the Northern Powerhouse Project) but I think it will take generations to show real change
@@Vonononie oh certainly
I imagine some people might be thinking of it as analagous to Vatican City, which is it's own country. Thank you for clarifying!
I'd just like to say that you deserve so many more views. Your content is so informative and every time I watch I'm either thrown right back into history class and remembering what we learned or I'm learning something new! Thankyou for the effort you make for us ❤
i agree, she's amazing
How many other brilliant RUclips channels have far fewer viewers I wonder? We can't tell because we never come across them.
I like that we all gave up on calling him the King and we're just gonna say Queen forever
She was queen for 70 years. Almost every person on Earth has only ever known a queen of England until very recently
@@evilsharkey8954Queen of UK not England
it's just cause she made these a while ago and released them now. at the time it was accurate
It was hard enough not calling him "King Prince Charles" - Prince had almost become his first name...
I've never heard of any of this. I love how you cover things with such energy. It is so fun to learn from you!!! I have always loved history (I was the weird kid that actually watched the documentaries my teachers would show us in school, while most of my classmates slept lol). But you make it come alive with your vibrant energy. So again thank you!
I was the history nerd too, still obsessed with documentaries and I’m nearly 60. Love J Draper’s energy and passion for History and teaching us stuff.
Ditto
I wonder if the myth came about like this: given its relative independence, ancient relationship with the sovereign, and unique form of self-governance, the City might seem somewhat akin to the Crown Dependencies of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. The latter three are self-governing and are *not* part of the UK. The notion of the City’s actual similarity can be refuted by this fact: unlike the Crown Dependencies, the City is part of a parliamentary constituency, and its residents vote for and are represented by an MP. Uniquely governed ≠ separate.
And only for local government. Not actual law. The same laws that apply in Westminster and Southwark apply in the City too.
Yes, this; the Crown Dependencies are an excellent comparison. If one didn't know better it sounds plausible to wonder if the City of London had some similar arrangement.
the answer to a question I didn't know needed asking 😂 very interesting how these rumors get started.
Seriously. The weird things you read in Internet comment sections. On that note, what I’d like to know is when did the last unicorn at London Zoo die?
I think the argument is that the COL is a separate legal entity from London due to the privileges from the Magna Carta..
Legally separate, not physically separate..?
I wonder if some might have also confabulated the status of the City of London with that of Vatican City, which IS a sovereign nation, adding to the confusion?
Could this come from a misreading of the word county? The City of London is a different (ceremonial) county from Greater London, and I for one certainly misread county as country from time to time. I can completely see this getting misread, then half-remembered wrongly, especially given the history and ceremony you brought up.
I think a big part is that people love to say “technically X is an independent country” about a variety of places. It’s more of a “fun fact” even though it’s not really a fact kind of like how Sealand isn’t the “smallest country in the world” because it’s not actually a recognized country by any countries.
I'll buy this one. I can't tell you how many people try to put the abbreviation for their county in the box for country. We only have the country box for the 5% of clients who live abroad. Sigh.
The City of London isn't even a county unto itself. It was part of Middlesex and then the County of London. It's just a different type of local authority to others, elected by its guilds (which represent business nowadays) more than by its residents (who nowadays are very few). City residents vote for the mayor of London and London Assembly members.
If you want an amusing look at how this might play out if it was true, I recommend the film “Passport to Pimlico”. Classic Ealing comedy.
I think the confusion is also due to the fact the Met police have no jurisdiction in the City because the City isn't a London Borough. Hence why they have their own police force.
Yeah it is likely mostly due to this, an area within a wider area which has its own police force is definitely veering towards "city-state" status in terms of how most people would understand the term. So you can kind of see how people may become confused about the City being a "separate country." It is also the only place in the UK which has a non-residential vote which means that at local level it operates very differently to anywhere else in the UK in terms of representation. It is also an unusual entity in that it very publicly owns land outside of its boundaries and administers it as such (a lot of council estates in South London, Hampstead Heath, Epping Forest etc), which is much more akin to a city-state with an 'embassy' role than a typical local authority.
@@DavidMcKinstry-yx5tt Yes definitely all of the above, plus another thing that probably makes people think the City is somehow a separate country is the fact that Prime Ministers and the monarch have to attend the Guildhall for banquets etc. You wouldn't see the King going to a state banquet at Bromley Town Hall 😂. The fact you have these essentially 'state visits' to the City by the crown and government definitely make it look like a state within a kingdom
@@jakecavendish3470 Very true, plus when an overseas head of state visits Britain they are given a state banquet at Buckingham Palace to welcome them to the UK followed by a state banquet at the Guildhall to welcome them to the City of London, which in terms of diplomatic relations really is moving into being a separate country in all but name!
The Met police do have jurisdiction in the City though. Yes the City has its own police force, but they all have jurisdiction in the entirety of England and Wales. And I believe the City lost operational control of its own area after the Carnival Against Capital on June 18th 1999.
My guess is that it's a mistake based off "the City of London is not part of London", which is at least arguably true.
I am pretty sure that amongst the ancient liberties of the City is the right to engage with "principalities". Basically the Lord Mayor is allowed to meet with the King of Spain without the permission the UK government. The City does quite a bit of business promotion abroad and even though some of what forms part of brand London isn't in the City when you add things up there is an awful lot of sanctity and ability to project outwards independently of the UK government associated with the City. It would be believable to hear that the Bishop of London (whose see is wider than the City) has asserted that a foreign national whose visa or whatnot expires must be left unmolested by UK immigration while that person is residing within the City, but this would be in parallel to whatever fight is happening at the home office. Similarly it would not be surprising if a summons from either of the two sheriffs of the City would mean that a person arriving at the UK without permission of the UK government would be taken to the City rather than deported. Of course they are likely to be detained throughout the time. Similarly I suspect that during the medieval period more regularly permits for Jews to visit would have been issued than for the rest of England (ignoring antisemitic tropes as a simple matter of there being a requirement in the City and the guilds being active).
The idea of a person being able to enter England specifically to go to the City can quickly evolve into a different country narrative.
Add to this the Hansetic League - which the Wikipedia describes as "never more than a loosely aligned confederation of city-states.", of course London was a kontor but the mythology stands.
It certainly is a daft myth that the City is a different country (Scotland and England are countries) or nation or anything of that sort. However I think it is fair to say that the City has a distinct jurisdiction character and that there are similarities between it and a jurisdiction like Hong Kong. However it isn't the only jurisdictional oddity in the UK or even England.
I do think a bad government could quickly find itself crashing into issues with the City that could precipitate a minor constitutional crisis - Parliament could of course simply by Act change things. However I think having some special jurisdiction attributes and some mythology and pageantry works for all concerned and so it will be retained and evolve as it has for centuries.
Money laundering capital of the world basically.
I'm guessing that it's a misinterpretation leading people to think that it's like Vatican City, rather then just a really really old city with ancient bylaws. 🤣
The thing it has in common with the vatican is the vast amountvof money it launders.
Amd the opacity of who owns that money, where it goes amd why noone pays tax on it..
I've never heard anyone claim that the City of London is not part of the UK. However, maybe this comes from people being confused when hearing that the City of London is not part of Greater London?
When people spread this silly myth in my direction I always tell them that Passport to Pimlico was an Ealing Comedy not a documentary!!! Not quite the same geographical area, but you get my drift...
People *might* be mixing up the idea behind the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, which actually aren't part of the UK, with the City of London.
The Channel Islands and Isle of Man, as Crown Dependencies, are loyal to the king but, since they are not incorporated into England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, aren't part of the UK. Their people don't vote in UK elections or pay UK taxes and the vast majority of laws passed in the UK parliament don't apply to those islands. Instead, they have their own governments which date back from before there even was an England or UK. The king (who now of course doesn't exercise any power except through the UK government's instructions) has power over the islands' defence and foreign policy, and claims some vague "good government" power (whatever that means), which means they are not foreign countries, but neither are they part of the UK.
The City of London also has its own government which dates back to time immemorial, but of course it *is* incorporated within England, its people pay UK taxes and laws passed by the UK parliament apply to it, so it is part of the UK.
That's an interesting myth ... 🤔
btw .. I enjoy the "long" shorts; since RUclips lets me queue them - and screen them to my tv - like the longer videos, it's much more convenient than "shorts". And I enjoy your content, so I hate to miss it! 🙂
I personally agree with CGP Grey's conjecture about the origin of this idea, namely when you combine ancient things, opaque traditions, the world's oldest Masonic temple and a modern financial industry hub, you attract weirdos.
Per Professor Hatton-Jones review of Edward IV's royal charter in 1947... wasn't Pimlico discovered to be legally part of Burgundy and defacto a separate country?
I think people get confused by the City not being part of (Greater) London, and somehow imagine that extends to it not being part of the UK. I’m not quite sure how they imagine it working - passport control on the Strand? But I’m pretty sure that’s what’s happening.
Made for an interesting video at least!
These questions come from people who never had a passport or traveled outside their US state...(I bet they are American).
It has its own government and most importantly its own tax laws, widely regarded as the most corrupt place on earth, since the swiss introduced more stringent laws on criminal money laundering and tax evasion, business has boomed there.
It orovides anonymity to bast networks of criminal enterprise and is used to funnel wealth to tax havens and other shady dominions the world over
Whilst not technically a different country its financial regulation, tax laws and police force are used to great benefit of very rich and iften very criminal people. It is in efffect a different country within a country.
Its a big club and you aint in it.
You van pour sugar on this all you want but its financial accountability makes it easentially a yreachiurous criminal state within our own borders.
Possibly they mistakenly assume it's like The Vatican. Which actually is an independent city state inside of a city.
Passport to pimlico,may be worth a watch
I can understand how they would get confused because millions of people could have misunderstood CGP Grey and others. Did CGP Grey say it's a different country? No. But he said the monarch neeeds permission to enter and that the ceremony is only a formality and not an actual permission request
I've never thought the City of London as separate, but it is certainly a morally objectionable subdivision of the government that should be reformed.
Meh. Does it work in a fashion? Then why fix it?
Probably lots of British tourists complaining about London while abroad, spreading the reputation of London vs everyone else thats sometimes felt considering it contains the majority of the population and the near entirety of the money
Majority of the population? Approx 9 million out of 68 million.
@@thefogboundfan8314Its the most dense place both in terms of people and space, its the size of an entire county and is so big it physically spills across the met boundary in most directions.
Sure if you tally up literally every over city in the UK you match it, but its just so much bigger than even going Edinburgh + Cardiff + Belfast just doesn't compare at all, you need a long list
@@Rynewulf it's still 9 of 68. I don't question that it's big, but it's population are in a minority nationally. Awful place anyway, at least I bought a house with ease, something almost impossible there, condemned to rent and at a high price too. For a younger person starting out who wants to own their own home, a well chosen northern city / town is a more appealing prospect. Less of a concrete jungle too.
My best guess is they misinterpreted CGP Grey's video on the City of London? It is pretty easy to get confused by their status I think because it is so often highlighted as special and different.
maybe people watched the movie "passport to Pimlico" and got the wrong idea??..
Well if they watched that film they would know at the end it turns out Pinlico is actually part of the UK after all
This sounds like something like "Home Rule" municipalities in the US. These have different rules than "Cities", "Boroughs" or "Townships". But are in fact STILL under US (and their state laws).
Look at the UK being progressive. Finally after about 1000 years, a man gets to be Queen
Well, Chrles 3 is the least popular king in recent memory, but at the age of 75, I don't think he'll be king for long
@@dragonweyr44Judging by the lifetime of his parents, it could still be ~20 years, not that short.
@@dragonweyr44
Is “recent memory” longer or shorted than “living memory”? I’d assume it’s shorter, but English isn’t my native language.
@@ragnkja generally, recent memory would be shorter than living memory. But they are not two points on the same scale, they are two different ways of dividing time, and so they could overlap. Also, 'living memory' and 'recent history' would be more idiomatic than 'recent memory', but again, not the same way of thinking, so not three phrases you should think of as being in an order.
I think many very old cities do have charters giving special privileges, mostly to do with self governance, the exclusive rights to host markets (as in the neighbouring towns can't host a market), the right to raise certain taxes and the obligation to maintain militia both to serve the Monarch in times of War and keep order within the walls the rest of the Time (They were Soldiers AND Police force). Most of those Militias are now territorial army units if they still exist at all. I think London's "Honorable Artillery Company (HAC)" still has some of the most peculiar quirks. They are the guys dressed as Musketeers and Pikemen that escort the Lord Mayor, they are also Territorial army reservists AND man the guns at The Tower for firing salutes. The HAC (though not yet with the title of Honorable) are also listed among the units that mustered at Tilbury for Elizabeth 1st to stand ready to fight the Spanish should the Amada make landfall with its troops.
I've lived in London all my life (67 years!), drove a cab for over 30 years, always been interested in London and its history .. but not once have I ever heard anyone say this! ... did you just make it up or is this actually written down somewhere? I do love your vids btw ...
There’s a big difference between the City of London and the city of London. The C or c is important.
like not all conservatives are Conservatives
The myth must be connected to the postwar Ealing comedy PASSPORT TO PIMLICO, in which Pimlico turns out to be a foreign nation...
As a Londoner I would actually like to declare independence, thanks. Passport controls at Liverpool St.
Well, we all know that Pimlico isn't part of the UK. There's even a film about it.
That's the film I was trying to think of. "Passport to Pimlico"
I wonder if this confusion stems from all of the little tiny islands surrounding England which are not part of the UK.
i think that dud confused not being a part of London (the greater one) and not being a part of the UK
Haven't you heard? No one needs a REASON to believe whatever they want to believe any more! We believe things because we want to! That's good enough! Facts, evidence, all passé! Our own unjustified confidence in our own beliefs is all the rage! Burn your books now, they're worthless. 😒
It’s also why JPs, MPs, and Lords from the House of, have to swear allegiance to the crown and to a religious text - historically the bible, but now you can choose your own. They’re doing the same thing as the Lord Mayor, just a more minor, less publicised one
It is its own county... maybe people have been reading that wrong?
Have they just added an 'R' to the prhase City and County of London? Or Just confused, as many people are with Ceremonial County? The final thing, which I am guilty of saying myself, is that because it is really old, I think the city is older than a 'united England' when there were multiple kingdoms and tribes but I ain't so sure of that, but when have facts got in the way of a tale?
Is Lizzie back? I’d prefer that!
Better without any of them.
Yes, I've just commented on that too 😂
She'd be a bit whiffy, wouldn't she?
@@peterclarke7240 you assume she wasn't before the end. All royalty stink.
I think it comes from the complexity of the UK, it is a country made up of countries, with overseas territories and crown dependencies. So a part with different rules causes questions.
However, Pimlico is part of France. I saw a film about that.
From the view of the rest of the country London might as well be foreign. The level of investment in infrastructure and public services has more in common with mainland Europe then it does with any other part of England north of Watford Gap
I blame Passport to Pimlico.
That's really funny! During my entire year and some change living in England I spent some time living in London, and never heard the idea that it's a separate country! Strange that I'm just learning of this now! What a funny idea! But, I suppose it could make for the basis of a rather cool historical fiction novel!
The idea is only the The City of London, the financial district, is a separate country. Not the entire Greater London, which is more likely to be where you lived.
@@barneylaurance1865 Oh, thank you for the clarification, but I understand that. I just thought it was strange for me to have lived in London at all and never hear this before!
Passport To Pimlico moved a bit?
@@adrianbruce2963 Sorry, but I don't think I'm following. Could you please clarify?
"Passport To Pimlico" was a 1949 comedy film where documents were discovered that made Pimlico part of Burgundy and not, therefore part of the UK. Hence no rationing that was still in force in the rest of the UK. Very much like this idea that the City of London is separate.
A friend of mine believes this because ALex Jones often states that the City of London is a seperate state owned by interanational bankers. He also states that The City of London owns the American City Bank. So, anyway this is the source of where I heard about this particular belief about London.
Its not really a belief, its essentially the moneyboaunderig capital of the world.
All aboutvwashing that money and keeping its owners anonymous as they funnel it off shore.
Ohhhhhhhhh. That explains a lot.
@@Brasswatchman I also think that David Icke mentions this a lot, that evil international bankers own the City of London as a seperate nation to the UK.
The London square mile financial district is in the city of London..
And does benefit from the ancient privileges from the Magna Carta...?
@@stuartd9741 money laundering capital of the world.
It's always fun to hear myths I've never heard of get debunked immediately upon first being told of them within the same video
I feel like people are conflating the Vatican and London
I think the factoid of “the City of London isn’t in (Greater) London)” became more extravagant overtime in some people’s heads
It is in Greater London though.
The Greater London Authority does not govern it @@DanielsPolitics1
Would it comfort you to know that I as an American have never heard of this but find it really cool?
I heard London isn't part of the UK because Ultron lifted it into space
I think some of it may be from a belief (which I'm not sure if is true itself) that The City Of London is separate in the same way that England and Scotland are seperate, and are effectively a Constituent Country, like England or Scotland, possibly even more so because [insert odd law or the title of Remembrancer or some other reason].
It isn't helped by the fact once you start digging down you find all sorts of other weird legal states of various other parts of the country, like how some of the Channel Islands are "Crown Dependencies", which get even weirder when you learn about Sark, which is itself a dependency of (to?) Gurnsey.
My parents are buried at The City of London Cemetery in Manor Park. They dabble in all sorts.
So I did have some on a tour in the city of London tell me that the city of London is distinct for London. And so the city of London is technically Europes smallest capital city.
I would guess some people heard this and got confused between it's own city and it's own country thinking it was similar to Vatican city (which is its own country)
But Buck House and the Houses of Parliament are in the City of Westminster.
@@Poliss95 well Amsterdam is regarded as the capital of The Netherlands but the government, monarch and Parliament are all based in The Hague
I can't believe London isn't real. Wild!
Not only is your content top tier, but you delivery, the voice, the face acting is always just so enthralling. Are you as animated while doing your walking tours?
I reckon she would be this engaging on the tours.
I assume years of tour groups developed the delivery.
So we got to that point,that you need to answer such questions....😂
I've heard about this but in like "A part of the London is a special historical district" and... yes, it is common for big, old cities to have an "historical centre" that works differently from the modern metropolitan Area.
I did not know this. Thank you, it's very interesting!
Here's another question. You mentioned the 'English Parliament'. What is the 'English Parliament'?
It's similar to the notion that Berwick on Tweed is still at war with whatever country. Formal documents in the past often enumerated such things as the city of london, berwick, chester etc. Sometimes a declaration of war enumerated a place that wasn't enumerated in the peace treaty, them being covered by the sovereign entity.
Far from it, it qhs very different laws than the rest of the uk, especially when it comes to the movement of vast amounts of money.
Widely regarded as the money laundering capital of the world due to its anonymity and tax laws.
Vast amounts of wealth are funneled and washed through the place daily.
Its banking institutions sre much like those of the swiss banks of old, all the drug money, corrupt goverments, dictators. Shell corporations and a large portion of the worlds wealthbis hidden and moved within its systems.
I think it was the Crimean war... Anyway that got resolved. Though the Longest unfought war was apparently between the Isles of Scilly and the Dutch. Royalist Pirates operating from there just after the English Civil War raiding Dutch Shipping. The Dutch were forced to write a strong letter and declare war (just as the situation was being resolved) and it just sat in the Dutch "wars ongoing" tray for about 300 years! Kind of counts because the Isles of Scilly have an odd place in the UKs sovereignty (Like Isle of Man, Channel Islands etc, subject to but not quite fully part of due to legal technicalities)
I just can't fathom how someone came up with the idea that the capital of the UK wasn't part of the UK 😂
Thank you! Now can you please explain why Milton Keynes has it's own fleet of nuclear-powered dirigibles?
Look, if *you* know someone with nuclear-powered dirigibles, are *you* gonna be the one trying to tell them what to do?
The general notion that the City of London is a sovereign nation or not a part of the UK is straw manning the issue. It would have been far more interesting if you had stated why it is considered to be so different from the rest of the UK e.g. It has its own set of financial regulations that form part of its overall system of financial management which are different from the rest of the UK; the City of London has its own police force, which is separate from the United Kingdom's police forces - It has an independent police body with its own jurisdiction; the City of London has its own government, which is separate from the United Kingdom government. The City of London Corporation has a unique and independent governance structure that sets it apart from the national government of the United Kingdom etc
The Corporation of London is a local government body not national. The City is represented in Parliament by the MP for the Cities of Westminster & London and before the 19th century reforms it like other English boroughs sent 2 MPs to Parliament. Corporation is an old fashioned term for a borough or city Council. The City of London Police is distinct from the Metropolitan police who cover the rest of Greater London but are still part of the UK wide network of police forces. The City also forms part of the East London constituency of the Greater London Assembly the regional government for London
Most of what you said does not go against what I have already stated, only that you are attempting to show focus on the integrative aspects of the City of London while diminishing the self-governance that sets it apart; the speaker presented a straw man argument, and you responded with a red herring.
I think a lot of people also conflate the City of London with the Vatican as well. They see that they're both tiny self-governing cities located within larger historic cities and assume that they're both independent countries as well.
0:20 well presumably it wouldn't be a *foreign* country. Like Scotland and Wales, it would be a country England rolled up and united into its United Kingdom.
Perhaps it isn't important enough to mention, but shouldn't you really say " reigning monarch", rather than "queen",.....for obvious reasons. Jus' sayin', don't hang, draw, and quarter me. ;)
My guess is someone's misunderstood "The City of London isn't part of London ^(meaning Greater London)"
I guess some people misinterpreted the old video by CGP Gray on the peculiarities of the City of London and came to the wrong conclusion.
What I want to know is is there such a place as 'London'? I know that there's a City of London, a City of Westminster and a Greater London, but is anywhere just called 'London' by itself?
There is always London, Ontario and London, France and London, Ohio, and London, Arkansas and London-
Maybe someone got county and country mixed up. City of London is separate from the county of greater London???
You didn't mention the City (Square Mile .)has its own Police Force, which isn't part of the Metropolitan police.
Never heard that. But are a fan of Patrick O’Brien’s Aubrey-Maturin novels. So knows The Savoy district in London wasn’t under the law of The Crown, but under Liberty of the Duchy of Lancaster. Meant among other things, someone in debt couldn’t be arrested for it there.
Could be how the rumours started. Easily becomes that after a couple retellings.
Yes. it’s basically where the Savoy Hotel is these days.
Patrick O’Brien famously used historical facts in his novels.
Still fact-checked it.
This is genuine - as a kid I was told you could ask to pee in a policeman's helmet if you were caught short in the City of London. I never go to put it into practice. Just as well, because I have my doubts.
In my (very hazy) recollection of that, it only applied if you were pregnant, too. Since that was clearly never going to be applicable to me, I never checked the veracity until a few minutes ago. The Law Commission investigated and could find no evidence of any such law, although they did note that urinating in a public place is not illegal country-wide. It is usually an offense in the local bylaws. They also noted that if the offender is pregnant, more leeway is typically given.
I think it’s just cos it’s weird - it’s own unique category. I bet people confuse it with the Vatican
Never count out good old-fashioned antisemitism as the cause of weird claims of sovereignty or extraterritoriality about financial centers
I thought it had something to do with the financial sector be independent from the crown in some way. The conspiracy theory has something to do with Rome (religious headquarters), Washington DC (political headquarters), and the London banking district (financial headquarters), the 3 powers that run the world each being their own entity with little oversight by the rest of the world. Or something like that.
Following on from this, can you do the independence of the Temple from the City (which means that the Lord Mayor cannot enter with his sword bearer)
There were parts of London where writs from other parts of England were not enforceable. (A practice that has long since ended.) Perhaps these liberties (such as the Liberty of the Savoy) may have been the start of these rumors.
I don't know how, but I've been going out with a guy that also watches her. We don't live in the UK, we don't even live in an English speaking country.
So, now I can say
Babe, wake up, new J Draper video just dropped
It might be that the concept of modern nation states is a thing from the 17th century. England/Britain/UK never really made that transformation. Look at the Channel Islands. Many things are more reminicents of a pre-modern almost feudal society.
So the City of London is just a part of the UK with admin privileges
I thought London was like Washington D.C. - a capital in a district that has a distinct status apart from all other counties/provinces. I've never heard that it wasn't a part of the U.K.
When I started this video, I was confused too. How could London be its own country and the capital of England at the same time? This doesn't make any sense!
It’s a little like the “Free Cities” of Germany. They are their own states within Germany’s federal system, but they are not their own countries.
Oh wow... Ok so Im from the US, and this notion of some old traditions or other small things allegedly equating to huge governmental things is so, so reminding me of arguments with American sovereign citizens. (For those nit in the know theyre people who claim thaf they are essentially governments in amd of themselves, not beholden to other forms of government - ie then all taxes on them or arrests of them are, to their view, invalid because of lack of jurisdiction. Theyre a mess to deal with - im a prosecutor so Ive been doing ut for years and it drives ne bananas.)
I think because City of London is kind of... a city inside a city inside a country inside a country (City of London inside Greater London, inside England, inside the UK) people maybe get it the wrong way round from that perspective too? IDK, just another potential source of confusion
so basicaly there are two citys of london and folks mixed one of them up with being a seperate country?
I hate to tell you this but I doubt Her Majesty The _Queen_ is going to be visiting City of London any more.
Might as well say every Bishop's Peculiar is it's own nation ;-)
In the hood we call that "checkin in". Just a friendly heads up lettin the locals know your in their hood, usually with good intentions. 🤣🤣🤣
* YOU’RE in their hood
I sort of see where this is coming from because the city has essentially feudal rights, dating to a time where independence was more of a spectrum and on the idea that it would be somewhat hard for the monarch to conquer the city if they wanted to. Modern people are used to thinking of unitary states without that sort of thing
i think the closest i've heard of something like that is in a CGPGray video on Brexit that London could theoretically become a city state for economic purposes? and rejoin the EU for its own benefits
i will admit that it's been absolutely ages since i watched that and the situation is entirely theoretical and also applies to the whole jurisdiction rather than just the City of London
but money being at the root of it makes total sense
If I remember correctly, he also said something about it being an unincorporated city, like how some US territories are unincorporated, and technically part of the US, but people born there are US nationals, not citizens.
I wonder if people are thinking it's like Vatican City in Rome, where it's its own country within a country. 🤔
You can tell how long ago this was filmed by the usage of the word "Queen"
Avez-vous entendu parler de la fameuse œuvre de Shakespeare où il mentionne la Palestine ? Vous allez trouver ça sûrement réjouissant
London is in Onterio Canada.
"Alright, we're doing this!!!" - I burst out laughing, Thanx!
The first thing they have to do is go swear allegiance to the queen? I think it's a King now :P