debunked: City of London a sovereign state

[Unregistered]

There's a popular conspiracy theory that the City of London (yes London in the UK) secretly runs the world of finance and that all tax havens are in cooperation with this sovereign state. They've provided NO EVIDENCE. They even go as far to claim it has its own police force and laws and that the popular scapegoat they use, the Freemasons, headquarters is based there.

Now, I can't stand conspiracy theorists, they constantly try and attack our land of the free. But anyone in their right mind can dismiss this nonsense straight away until they provide proof.

[Mick]

All cities have their own police force and local laws, so that's a bit of an odd point.

[Unregistered]

This is your opinion, but all the evidence points towards that it is a sovereign state, the Queen has to bow and ask permission to enter like she would any country. An odd thing to do if it was actually part of the UK.

Stop putting 'debunked' at the beginning of the topic title, you've debunked nothing.

[Mick]

The person who posted this thread titled it "debunked: ...."

I will edit the tread title if the thread actually contains a debunking. But here the OP chose the title.

And what's odd about noting that all cities have their own laws and police forces. That's true. The City of London is very unique and interesting historically, but it's just a municipality. The Queen does not have to ask permission to enter, nor does anyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Bar,_London

Content from external source:

It has long been the custom that the monarch stop at Temple Bar before entering the City of London, so that the Lord Mayor may offer him or her the City's pearl-encrusted Sword of State as a token of loyalty. This historic ceremony has often featured in art and literature, as well as shown on television when it occurs at special occasions in the present era. However, the popular view that the monarch requires the Lord Mayor's permission to enter the City is incorrect.^[2]

There are also several variants of this conspiracy theory where Queen actually owns the City of London.

[Alhazred The Sane]

The City of London does have special status, mostly to do with paying taxes. This is one of the reasons it is able to maintain its status as a world leading financial centre, it is also the only reason that the UK refused to sign up to the recent Financial Stability Pact - Cameron recognised that the push by France had more to do with diluting the clout of the City of London than it did with saving the EU.

The City of London is not London city. It's a tiny area, about a square mile in size. It does have it's own police force, separate to the Met, but only 3 police stations. The laws are slightly different there too, but as it has almost no residents this hardly matters. Until it comes to banking. No head of state needs to ask permission to enter, but then again there's hardly any need for a head of state to visit - it's almost entirely commercial, full of banks and financial service companies. If you want to see the stereotypical bowler-hatted pin-striped-suited Englishman, this would be the place to come.

It does have the right to run its own affairs. In effect, it operates as a tax-haven, and is regarded as an offshore haven for foreign businesses.

At the moment it is the site of considerable controversy, as every Friday night in a basement at a secret location, there are bare-knuckle fights arranged between members of the Illuminati, the Bilderbergs, and the Lizard-folk of the NWO.*

*I might be wrong about that last bit.

[MikeC]

Indeed you are wrong - it is between the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the Lizard-folk AND the NWO.

Or so I heard.

[Lee Wilson]

Now, I can't stand conspiracy theorists, they constantly try and attack our land of the free.

Good grief, is this as good as it gets ?

[MikeC]

This is your opinion, but all the evidence points towards that it is a sovereign state, the Queen has to bow and ask permission to enter like she would any country. An odd thing to do if it was actually part of the UK.

And all the verifiable evidence says that is not true. The only evidence that says it is true is some peole saying it is true.

Stop putting 'debunked' at the beginning of the topic title, you've debunked nothing.

you refusing to believe actual evidence and prefering hearsay does not mean it hasn't been debunked.

[cheeple]

All cities have their own police force and local laws, so that's a bit of an odd point.

They are part of the Trilateral commission which also includes Washington DC and the Vatican, you wanted Proof have you heard of the Libor Scandal, most americans have not yet it's huge, London manipulates precious metals to keep their fiat ponzi scheme going, you wanted proof there are whistleblowers who have stepped forward.

[MikeC]

Libor has little or nothing to do with precious metals, and the Trilateral commission was a bunch of people - it had 87 Americans, 20 Canadians and 13 Mexicans.

Europe was represented by 160 people - 20 from Germany, 18 from each of France, Italy, the UK, 12 from Spain and 1-6 from pretty much every other country. The Vatican has no representation

the Asia-Pacific group had 117 people - 75 Japanese, 11 South Koreans, 7 Aussies & Kiwis, 15 from the various ASEAN nations and 9 from China Hong Kong and Taiwan.

[Brol]

The Queen does indeed have to ask permission from the Lord Mayor of the City of London to enter. That Lord Mayor of London (Mr. Alderman David Wootton), is not to be confused with the Mayor of London (Mr. Boris Johnson), these are completely separate jobs.

I don't why. Tradition I suppose.

Dozens upon dozens of books confirm this:
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=monarch+...w=1309&bih=713

[Mick]

The Queen does indeed have to ask permission from the Lord Mayor of the City of London to enter. That Lord Mayor of London (Mr. Alderman David Wootton), is not to be confused with the Mayor of London (Mr. Boris Johnson), these are completely separate jobs.

I don't why. Tradition I suppose.

Dozens upon dozens of books confirm this:
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=monarch+...w=1309&bih=713

Well, quite. It's just a tradition performed during a particular ceremony. There's nothing to actually stop her going in.

[Gunguy45]

Maybe Mick meant "Well, not quite"?

[Mick]

No, I mean "quite", as in "yes, it's just a tradition"

Might be a British usage of the word:

Quite:

Exclamation:

Expressing agreement with or understanding of a remark or statement.

Or more amusingly:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=quite

1.	Quite	7 thumbs up
	A word true gentlemen use when they agree with something anothergentleman has spoken. It can also be used as an adjective in stead of "really". That man is quite the lad. Yes, quite.

[Charlie Primero]

Now, I can't stand conspiracy theorists, they constantly try and attack our land of the free.

"Our Land of the Free" That gave me a good chuckle. Thanks man.

[Gunguy45]

I thought about that after I posted......been quite a while since I worked with any Brits.

[Spongebob]

No, I mean "quite", as in "yes, it's just a tradition"

Might be a British usage of the word:

Quite:

Exclamation:

Expressing agreement with or understanding of a remark or statement.

Or more amusingly:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=quite

1.	Quite	7 thumbs up
	A word true gentlemen use when they agree with something anothergentleman has spoken. It can also be used as an adjective in stead of "really". That man is quite the lad. Yes, quite.

Quite...

[Spongebob]

I thought about that after I posted......been quite a while since I worked with any Brits.

Quite...

[MikeC]

Indeed.

I understood it....but then I'm only 2 generations out of the old country....

[Charlie Primero]

Last edited by Mick; Yesterday at 02:57 PM. Reason: unflattering photo of the Queen removed. No that I like the queen particularly, but it's not polite.

How does this censorship work on your forum Mick?

Are all "unflattering" photographs of political leaders prohibited on your forum?

Will you censor unflattering photographs of President Barak Obama? Will you censor photographs of the Supreme Leader of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Does your courtesy extend to wealthy business people such as George Soros and Bill Gates, or does this honor only apply to monarchic blood with genetic superiority granted by God ?

Does this prohibition extend only to other European monarchs such as Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Prince Albert of Monaco, or does it extend to ALL royals including the Emir of Kuwait and the King of Swaziland?

In order to comply with your rules and the social standards here, we the users need guidance and information.

Help us help you make this forum better. We provide you with content and traffic. You provide us with leadership and direction.

[solrey]

What's the point of putting up pictures of any politician, unflattering or not, considering this is not a political forum? I agree with Mick, I wouldn't want to see this forum dominated by Alex Jones wannabes, which seems to be happening lately Mr. Peoples Republic of Texas.

[Charlie Primero]

What's the point of putting up pictures of any politician, unflattering or not, considering this is not a political forum? I agree with Mick, I wouldn't want to see this forum dominated by Alex Jones wannabes, which seems to be happening lately Mr. Peoples Republic of Texas.

Read the initial post in this thread.

Are you implying that because I live in Texas, I am an "Alex Jones wannabe" ?

[solrey]

Are you implying that because I live in Texas, I am an "Alex Jones wannabe" ?

I'm implying that your choice to use the phrase "People's Republic of Texas" for your location is a political statement and AJ has referred to Texas as the "Republic of Texas". If it quacks like a duck...

[Charlie Primero]

I'm implying that your choice to use the phrase "People's Republic of Texas" for your location is a political statement and AJ has referred to Texas as the "Republic of Texas". If it quacks like a duck...

Allow me to assuage your concerns and relieve your prejudices.

Alex Jones is what is popularly known as a Conservative American Patriot. They believe in a mythical time and place called Revolutionary America where people were supposedly free. The believe that smaller government and strict adherence to the ideals of the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution are an acceptable state of social organization.

I am the opposite of Alex Jones. I believe that freedom from violence is a basic human right, and that freedom can only exist when the majority of people in a society abide the philosophy of Non-Aggression.

Consequently, Alex Jones thinks I'm crazy. Quite the feat eh? I'm also banned from his forum.

It is true that we do both live under the government known as "Texas" and consider the State of Texas to be corrupt, but for different reasons.

I do understand how that makes us appear to you like "ducks". A similar belief exists in Texas regarding English and Chinese people. They all appear the same to the majority of Texans who never bother to learn otherwise.

If you find lumping people into broad categories based upon where they live either more comforting and highly convenient, that's okay as long as you are aware of the alternative.

[Mick]

How does this censorship work on your forum Mick?

Are all "unflattering" photographs of political leaders prohibited on your forum?

No, not if they provide some useful information, or if you explain why you chose that photo (and it's not simply to be rude).

But it seemed you were simply making a point about the "land of the free" comment, and saying "hey actually, we are talking about a state ruled by a Queen", and then posted an unflattering photo of her. I replaced it with a photo more representative of the subject.

So if you want to post unflattering photos of anyone, then go ahead, just explain why you are doing so.

[BRoI]

Well, quite. It's just a tradition performed during a particular ceremony. There's nothing to actually stop her going in.

The onus is upon you to prove that.

[Mick]

The onus is upon you to prove that.

See post #4, above.

[cheeple]

They believe in a mythical time and place called Revolutionary America where people were supposedly free.

So your saying Revolutionary America is a myth?
Your saying Freedom never existed?

They believe that smaller government and strict adherence to the ideals of the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution are an acceptable state of social organization.

Are you saying that strict aderence to the ideals of the Constitution are not acceptable?
If I read this correctly and understand what you disagree with it sounds like you would agree that
More government is the answer
and
You disagree with the Constitution

[Charlie Primero]

No, not if they provide some useful information, or if you explain why you chose that photo (and it's not simply to be rude).

Totally fair. This quirky dedication to politeness is, in my opinion, one of the coolest things about your forum Mick. Most "debunking" and "skeptic" forums seem to exist more for the purpose of engaging in contests of snark and condescension than for discussing interesting information.

Although I often fail to meet my own expectations of it, I actually dig politeness. This is the reason I avoid posting curse words, and always try to use proper capitalization and punctuation.

..."hey actually, we are talking about a state ruled by a Queen", and then posted an unflattering photo of her.

Correct. The proclamation that they live in the "Land of the Free" by a subject of the royal prerogative of a genetic monarch was just tooo funny.

In the photograph I posted the Queen's eyes looked mean, as if she were thinking about chopping off someone's head. I though it humorous in the fun spirit of debunking which this forum is dedicated.

I understand celebrity fondness. My daughter is severe Anglophile. She made me pay for her to attend Oxford and watch parts of the Diamond Jubilee. Ug.

[Mick]

Thanks for being reasonable. Politeness is a bit of a gray area, and I'm sure in making calls I sometimes let my own biases slip through - but hopefully we generally remain on the polite and productive side of discourse.

[Charlie Primero]

So your saying Revolutionary America is a myth? Your saying Freedom never existed?

Correct. People back then were not free, especially the blacks, women, and Indians. American Patriots worship a myth.

Are you saying that strict aderence to the ideals of the Constitution are not acceptable?

Correct. That is too much government for me. The Articles of Confederation would be better. A truly free society would be even better.

I would love to discuss politics with you, but let's not muck up this thread or Mick's forum with it.

I'm a supporter of http://tragedyandhope.com It's free to sign up there. Look me up on the forum and ask me difficult questions.

[BRoI]

See post #4, above.

"the popular view that the monarch requires the Lord Mayor's permission to enter the City is incorrect.2"
2. The Gates of London in the Seventeenth Century (unpublished MA thesis, Courtauld Institute of Art, 2003) David Robinson, Temple Bar: the History, Architecture and Fabric of a Celebrated London Monument (unpublished English Heritage Report)"

Nothing like an reputable source eh!

And that's nothing like a reputable source.

Wikipedia cites an unpublished art student's MA thesis, and an unpublished English Heritage Report.

Great stuff.

[Mick]

How about the City of London itself?

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about...emple-Bar.aspx

Content from external source:

The Temple Bar ceremony, which is still occasionally re-enacted at a monument to the Bar, involves the monarch stopping to request permission to enter the City and the Lord Mayor presenting the Sword of State as a sign of loyalty.

It's a ceremony, they re-enact it. There is zero evidence to suggest otherwise. If you've got some, then present it.

Here's an account of the ceremony from the 1600s, pages 17-18 here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=sc3...%20bar&f=false

And another interesting one.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7sf...0major&f=false

[BRoI]

My assertion:
The British monarch needs permission from the Lord Mayor of London to enter the City of London.
Numerous sources which confirm this:
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=monarch+...pw.r_qf.&cad=b

Mick's assertion:
This is purely ceremonial, the British monarch can comes and go as (s)he pleases in the City of London.
Sources Mick's provide to prove his case:
1. Wikipedia cites an unpublished art student's paper, which in-turn cites an unpublished English Heritage report - Nothing then.
2. The City's website, which confirms the monarch asks permission to enter the city - Thanks for that one.
3. A book which mentions the Protector (not a British monarch) having to perform the ceremony too - This doesn't help Mick's case.
3. A book (snippet view) which mentions the ceremonial - So what?

[cheeple]

Correct. People back then were not free, especially the blacks, women, and Indians. American Patriots worship a myth.



Correct. That is too much government for me. The Articles of Confederation would be better. A truly free society would be even better.

I would love to discuss politics with you, but let's not muck up this thread or Mick's forum with it.

I'm a supporter of http://tragedyandhope.com It's free to sign up there. Look me up on the forum and ask me difficult questions.

it says it's by invitation only can you send me an invite

[BRoI]

"This may sound an unusual idea, but the strange thing is that it does apply to just one of the areas the hon. Member for Orpington has mentioned. The City of London, unlike any other local authority, has almost semi-sovereign powers. Since the 18th century it has described its decisions as "acts" in the same way as we talk of Acts of Parliament, and this is quite right, because the City of London has, within very broad terms, power to alter its own constitution if it wishes to do so. The City of London is distinct from anywhere else in that it can alter its system of election. Legally, I believe, it could alter it tomorrow, by Act of the Common Council—although I do not think it is likely to do so."

- Michael English, Minister of Parliament, speech in the House of Commons, December 11, 1968
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate...8-12-11a.455.1

[Trailspotter]

My assertion:
The British monarch needs permission from the Lord Mayor of London to enter the City of London.
Numerous sources which confirm this:
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=monarch+...pw.r_qf.&cad=b

Well, during the celebration of her Diamond Jubilee in June this year, the Queen attended a service at St Paul's Cathedral, which is in the City. She arrived there without any special ceremony of asking permission to enter the City.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRmIZTNlIvs

The only tribute to this tradition was her walking in the Cathedral behind the Lord Mayor bearing the Pearl Sword. Following the service at St Paul's, the Queen attended a reception at nearby Mansion House - the official residence of the Lord Mayor of London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18327711

[BRoI]

Well, during the celebration of her Diamond Jubilee in June this year, the Queen attended a service at St Paul's Cathedral, which is in the City. She arrived there without any special ceremony of asking permission to enter the City.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRmIZTNlIvs

The only tribute to this tradition was her walking in the Cathedral behind the Lord Mayor bearing the Pearl Sword. Following the service at St Paul's, the Queen attended a reception at nearby Mansion House - the official residence of the Lord Mayor of London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18327711

Unfortunately your youtube source only shows the Queen in the City of London, not entering it.

St. Pauls, as you can see on the map, is towards the centre. So your video doesn't prove anything either way.

Mansion House I know well, I walked past several times a day when I use to work in Cousins Lane. Was never invited to a reception though.

[MikeC]

There's an interesting article on the City of London Corporation, its history, privileges, relationship with Parliament & the Crown, etc here - http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/...rporation-city

[BRoI]

There's an interesting article on the City of London Corporation, its history, privileges, relationship with Parliament & the Crown, etc here - http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/...rporation-city

Great article. Good find.

Alas, all the City needs do, is label its detractors; "conspiracy theorists," and the nodding-dogs on this forum and many like it, shall immediately fall-in line and attack the supposed tinfoil-hat sporters, who dare criticise unregulated, untaxable, political lobbying banks and financial institutions.