Talk:City of London Corporation

message: "Those who have worked for in the City" is obviously wrong, but I'm not sure if it's supposed to be "have worked in the City" or "have worked for $something in the City" so I won't correct it. dahamsta 08:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Work

message: The legal name is "The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London".  Most people call it the "City of London".  The Common Council decided that if "City of London" was confusing then "City of London Corporation" could be used as disambiguation. --Henrygb 23:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: __meco (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has many legal exemptions and oddities, but because it has always arranged loans for the government of the rest of Britain it is left to run itself. As they say, "if it ain't broke don't fix it".86.42.205.116 (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I suspect a lot of people see the word "Corporation" and get wigged out about "Why is this private company running things?" , not realising Corporation has a very different legal meaning to the common useage of the term as "A company that does business". All sorts of things are "Corporations", councils, governments, people, your dog, etc. It doesn't actually *mean* anything that people seems to think it would mean. It just means "An entity with independent legal existance" or something to that effect 2403:580E:42:0:1C10:29FF:FED2:568D (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe all City Councils were 'Corporations' until around the late 1960s/early 70s when a massive reorganisation took place, including renaming. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A micronation? 

message: :Paragraph 1, sentence 1: The City of London Corporation (legally and formally known as the Corporation of London) ...'
:Paragraph 2, sentence 1:  The City of London Corporation is formally termed the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London
So what is its formal name, the Corporation of London or the Mayor and Commalty and Citizens of the City of London? (I suspect that maybe the "Corporation of London" is its official name, and its formal name i.e. the name used in formal contexts and the English are ever so good at is "the Mayor and Commalty and Citizens of the City of London".)
—Felix the Cassowary 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: Does anyone know when the Corporation of London was established? It doesn't have a royal charter does it? I see the date of 1189 in some places. Wikidea 10:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is assumed to be an original royal charter that has since been lost. But you have identified a weakness of this article (which is ironic considering the the corporation is notable for and very proud of its long history). — Richardguk (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Started a new section: City of London Corporation#History. There have been many royal charters, including the earliest surviving one from William the Conqueror in 1067, but the corporation is older still. Legally, the corporation is incorporated "by prescription", in other words, it is so ancient that the law presumes that it must have been incorporated even though there is no surviving direct proof. — Richardguk (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History??

message: Who is this person and why is most of this article about his random opinions on the City of London????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.168.197 (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all explicitly researched and referenced in his book and I think we can be sure he would have been sued out of his boots by now if it wasn't all true! It is also widely known via the tax justice network, and people are far less tolerant of the Cities antics since the banking collapse. --Andromedean (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What would Shaxton's take be if the C of LC owed £1.3bn instead of making and holding on to it? Are high state taxes and national debt really preferable to low taxes and no debt?78.18.252.15 (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicholas Shaxton 

message: The voting system of C of London Corp is covered on several page (including references on the Plutocracy page) ... There seems to be a fundamental inconsistency in the coverage, most pages referring to 'business votes' and to 'votes being allocated to businesses', whilst the Governance of City of London page states "Under the new system, the number of non-resident voters has doubled from 16,000 to 32,000. Previously disfranchised firms ... are entitled to nominate voters, ... and all such bodies are now required to choose their voters in a representative fashion.".
The difference between the two descriptions seems critical, if votes are simply allocated to businesses, then the system seems inherently paternalistic, if not plutocratic. However, if effective mechanisms are in place to ensure free elections WITHIN companies' workforces, then a completely different picture emerges (one might almost then call them 'worker' or 'employee votes').
I went as far as consulting the Corporation website, which merely suggests (rather then enforces) ways in which companies are advised to choose their voters.
Perhaps someone who knows more about the system - and whether it is effective - can contribute.Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies in Wikipedia coverage of City voting system 

message: So as not to create the wrong impression, I think it should be made clear somewhere in the article that what the City of London means by "Commoner" is not the same as the dictionary definition and widely known meaning of "commoner". Commoner (particularly in the UK) is usually taken to mean somebody from a low social class background (the term presumably deriving from the commoners who worked Common land). The Cambridge Dictionary gives the following definition for the word:
"Commoner - a person who is not born into a position of high social rank"
However the City of London appears to mean pretty much the exact opposite when it says "commoner". The term in this context appears to derive from the fact that the City of London Corporation was originally known as a "commune" and thus citizens of the "commune" are called "commoners". As the City of London says:
"The commune may have been the origins of the development of another element of local governance. Gradually, Aldermen began to summon "wise and discreet" citizens from their wards to their meetings for consultation on particular matters. In 1285, a group of 40 citizens, between one and four from each Ward, was to consult with the Aldermen on the common affairs of the City. From 1376, this assembly had regular meetings and was known as the Common Council. It gradually assumed greater responsibilities and the business of the Court of Aldermen declined."
I think we need to put something into the article like:
"Commoner in the context used in this article is taken to mean a member of the Common Council, a citizen or landowner of the City of London. This differs from the commonly held understanding of what a commoner is."
::::I don't disagre with your suggestion, since clarification may be helpful. But WITHIN the UK, the term is generally understood to mean 'the people' (whose who are neither Lords nor Royalty), much as we have a 'House of Commons'. I don't see the need for blockquoting on the def. (it isn't a quote and is short) and possibly the other text should be within the history somewhere. Pincrete (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commoners 

message: Come on guys! The Shaxon article in the New Statesman is nonsense - how can a governing body be a tax haven?  The quote "has extracted privileges and freedoms from rules and laws to which the rest of Britain must submit" simply isn't true! I note the previous discussion above where it looks like whoever was trying to correct it was bullied away. Bit of a stain on Wikipedia's credibility this. HenryTheHexapus (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: HenryTheHexapus, you are largely right, certainly the Shaxson article is not about the 'Corporation', but about 'the City', both as an area and as a metonym for the 'banking industry'. I think the Shaxson material was shunted from city page to city page (there are several pages about 'the City') and somehow got dumped here. I have little involvement/responsibility for this page, but am aware of some of the page's history. … … … ps I accidentally restored the Shaxson quote you removed, but have now moved it to the main 'City page'.Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaxson 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on City of London Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060905022232/http://cityoflondon.gov.uk:80/Corporation/our_services/Education/schools/schools.htm to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/our_services/Education/schools/schools.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070208052217/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk:80/Corporation/our_services/Education/schools/primary_schools.htm to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/our_services/Education/schools/primary_schools.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on City of London Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104125603/http://217.154.230.218/NR/rdonlyres/18CD7E39-26EB-4CF4-BBF8-EB770F7AE9AB/0/13THECOURTOFCOMMONCOUNCIL.pdf to http://217.154.230.218/NR/rdonlyres/18CD7E39-26EB-4CF4-BBF8-EB770F7AE9AB/0/13THECOURTOFCOMMONCOUNCIL.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104125603/http://217.154.230.218/NR/rdonlyres/18CD7E39-26EB-4CF4-BBF8-EB770F7AE9AB/0/13THECOURTOFCOMMONCOUNCIL.pdf to http://217.154.230.218/NR/rdonlyres/18CD7E39-26EB-4CF4-BBF8-EB770F7AE9AB/0/13THECOURTOFCOMMONCOUNCIL.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have heard that one family owns most of the land in the City of London Corporation.  He is Duke, I think.  This seems worth pursuing and mentioning that specific person.StevenTorrey (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: StevenTorrey, I don't know about ownership in 'The City', but it is possible that you are mixing this up with the Duke of Westminster, who was the famous 'ducal' landowner in the UK, but most of his ownership was (he died in 2016, so now it belongs to his heirs) on the opposite side of London, Mayfair, Westminster, Belgravia etc. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who owns most of the land? 

message: Citation 7 runs to a dead link.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.55.66 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: User:The Land, I acknowledge that your source confirms that it is possible to vote in two local elections in the UK (if you can persuade the relevant person that you are a permanent resident of two places, which is not really defined, but explicitly discounts simply owning/occasionally using more than one residence). What I don't accept is that the source says this is 'normal' in the UK. Ordinarily if you register in one area, you forfeit the right to be registered in your previous, since you have declared a new permanent residence.
More important than the possibility of doing that elsewhere in the UK, why is it relevant to the CofL voting system? CofL business voters are explicitly NOT residents of the CofL (merely workers there), and indeed it is forbidden to be both a business and a resident voter of CofL. The section is explaining the anomaly of being able to vote in two places, which, except for students in local elections, is extremely uncommon in the UK. Your edit implies it is normal throughout the UK for people to vote in two places, which it isn't, especially when they do not live in one of those places (which is the case with CofL business voters).
What I am essentially saying is that this kind of detail belongs on a 'UK voting system' article, here it adds nothing to the understanding of CofL, and creates a misleading impression. Pincrete (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  voting in two places 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on City of London Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029232404/http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/parks/name/c/corporationoflondon.htm to http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/parks/name/c/corporationoflondon.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on City of London Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518111410/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/history-and-future/history-and-heritage/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/history-and-future/history-and-heritage/Pages/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612213314/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DEA0EEB3-9449-4E72-AA99-7C35D995FBB4/0/Courtcommoncouncil.PDF to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DEA0EEB3-9449-4E72-AA99-7C35D995FBB4/0/Courtcommoncouncil.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203161200/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Leisure_and_culture/Local_history_and_heritage/development.htm to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Leisure_and_culture/Local_history_and_heritage/development.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130815012629/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/history-and-heritage/mansion-house/Pages/History-of-the-Government-of-the-City-of-London.aspx to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/history-and-heritage/mansion-house/Pages/History-of-the-Government-of-the-City-of-London.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121117062708/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/how-we-work/elections-and-wards/Pages/worker-registration.aspx to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/how-we-work/elections-and-wards/Pages/worker-registration.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140925013932/https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/how-we-work/elections-and-wards/Pages/election.aspx to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/how-we-work/elections-and-wards/Pages/election.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020812154344/http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/parks/corporationoflondon.html to http://www.ramblers.org.uk/INFO/parks/corporationoflondon.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217174027/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/green-spaces/management-of-our-open-spaces/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/green-spaces/management-of-our-open-spaces/Pages/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on City of London Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151113212353/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/how-we-make-decisions/budgets-and-spending/Pages/City-of-London-Funds.aspx to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/how-we-make-decisions/budgets-and-spending/Pages/City-of-London-Funds.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The lede says "The Corporation is probably the world's oldest continuously-elected local government authority." However the article doesn't seem to explain this in any more detail; most importantly it fails to explain when those elections began. Even if this is only known roughly, it seems worth mentioning. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections 

message: The Court of Common Council section of this page says, "A Common Councilman must be a registered voter in a City Ward, own a freehold or lease land in the City, or reside in the City for the year prior to the election. The individual must also be over 21; a Freeman of the City; and a British, Irish, Commonwealth or EU citizen." However, the phrase "Freeman of the City of London" is linked to a section of the page Freedom of the City which implies that Freedom of the City is now for the most part ornamental and carries no substantive rights. So which is it? Either:
* It is incorrect that one must be a "Freeman of the City of London" in order to be elected to the city government, or
* The phrase is linked incorrectly, and "Freeman of the City of London" is different from "Freedom of the City of London", or
* The entry on the page "Freedom of the City of London" should be revised to add that Freedom of the City of London carries the very substantive right of being able to stand for election
Bayle Shanks (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Bayle Shanks, short answer is I don't know, but suspect a wrong link, 2nd option above - since being given the 'Freedom' of any city is a fairly rare honour. I'm not very active on this page (largely vandal-watch), but in the past have found the 'City's' website to be pretty informative about most of these issues, through arcane terminology is somewhat the norm in 'the City'. Pincrete (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Pincrete! Bayle Shanks (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessity of Freedom of the City to stand for election?