Where do the ancient rights of the City of London come from?

They say they date from "time immemorial" but what are their real origins?

The City of London is the square mile located at the heart of London, and which was founded in about AD 70 by the Romans who called it Londinium. It is unique in that it's governance is separate from that of London's and indeed the other nations in the UK. This is down to it's "ancient rights" - and one of these ancient rights is the right to opt out of legislation made by Parliament (though the City rarely exercises this right, the last time being when the Voting Reform Acts were passed, the City preferring to organise it's democracy separately).

But where do these ancient rights come from?

They are mentioned in the Magna Carta, which was signed by King John in 1215 under pressure from the Norman barons at the time. The Magna Carta is famous for laying down civil liberties, such as trial by jury and the right not to be held without charge. But it also makes a specific reference to the City of London: “the City of London shall have all its ancient liberties by land as well as by water.’

In 1215, the Normans had been in England for 149 years. So the "ancient liberties" clearly predated the arrival of the Normans. When William the Conqueror arrived in 1066, he treated London differently from the rest of England. Instead of laying siege to the walled city, he agreed to respect their rights possibly because London was very rich even then, and had the ability to raise an army from the continent to remove him if he gave them trouble. But where did the ancient liberties come from?

To find out we need to go back to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, which were written by a series of Anglo-Saxon monks who chronicled the Anglo-Saxon period. They took pains to provide as much history of the pre-Anglo Saxon period as they could find out as well, but the focus is always on the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who invaded Britain in the 5th century AD, often referring to the native Britons as "Welsh" which meant "foreigner" in English.

They record when the Romans left Britain:

A.D. 418. This year the Romans collected all the hoards of gold (14) that were in Britain; and some they hid in the earth, so that no man afterwards might find them, and some they carried away with them into Gaul.

and when the Anglo-Saxons arrived:

A.D. 449. This year Marcian and Valentinian assumed the empire, and reigned seven winters. In their days Hengest and Horsa, invited by Wurtgern, king of the Britons to his assistance, landed in Britain in a place that is called Ipwinesfleet; first of all to support the Britons, but they afterwards fought against them.

The first mention of London comes in AD 457:

A.D. 457. This year Hengest and Esc fought with the Britons on the spot that is called Crayford, and there slew four thousand men. The Britons then forsook the land of Kent, and in great consternation fled to London.

There is no more mention of London for 150 years until these entries:

A.D. 604. This year Augustine consecrated two bishops, Mellitus and Justus. Mellitus he sent to preach baptism to the East-Saxons. Their king was called Seabert, the son of Ricola, Ethelbert's sister, whom Ethelbert placed there as king. Ethelbert also gave Mellitus the bishopric of London

A.D. 616. This year died Ethelbert, king of Kent, the first of English kings that received baptism: he was the son of Ermenric. He reigned fifty-six winters, and was succeeded by his son Eadbald. And in this same year had elapsed from the beginning of the world five thousand six hundred and eighteen winters. This Eadbald renounced his baptism, and lived in a heathen manner; so that he took to wife the relict of his father. Then Laurentius, who was archbishop in Kent, meant to depart southward over sea, and abandon everything. But there came to him in the night the apostle Peter, and severely chastised him, (19) because he would so desert the flock of God. And he charged him to go to the king, and teach him the right belief. And he did so; and the king returned to the right belief. In this king's days the same Laurentius, who was archbishop in Kent after Augustine, departed this life on the second of February, and was buried near Augustine. The holy Augustine in his lifetime invested him bishop, to the end that the church of Christ, which yet was new in England, should at no time after his decease be without an archbishop. After him Mellitus, who was first Bishop of London, succeeded to the archbishopric. The people of London, where Mellitus was before, were then heathens: and within five winters of this time, during the reign of Eadbald, Mellitus died. To him succeeded Justus, who was Bishop of Rochester, whereto he consecrated Romanus bishop.

Notice the dismissive mention of Londoners as "heathens" while King Ethelbert is not referred to as a heathen even though he converted around the same time!

A.D. 886. This year went the army (Danish vikings) back again to the west, that before were bent eastward; and proceeding upwards along the Seine, fixed their winter-quarters in the city of Paris. (37) The same year also King Alfred fortified the city of London; and the whole English nation turned to him, except that part of it which was held captive by the Danes. He then committed the city to the care of Alderman Ethered, to hold it under him.

After that London is referred to as a "corporation" and the people within it as "citizens", a Roman word, and is then mentioned as meeting place for when various kings wanted to make peace treaties.

So what can we conclude from this? During the Roman empire, London would have been inhabited by the Roman elite, who then left in AD 418, leaving an empty walled city. The city is then occupied by Britons from Kent who were fleeing the Anglo-Saxons. This would have been the Cantiaci tribe. They convert to Christianity in AD 604 (the dismissive comment about them being heathens indicates they weren't Anglo-Saxons, because the Chroniclers tended to use nicer words for one of their own). And their "rights" get fixed under King Alfred in AD 886.

One final piece of evidence is the symbol of the City of London, which is a dragon, a symbol of the native Britons (to this day the dragon also shows up on the Welsh flag and the Cornish flag, the other two remaining Brythonic peoples of the UK).

So we have Brythonic imagery, the Roman idea of citizenship and elections, and then an acknowledgement of their independent status in King Alfred's reign under an alderman - an alderman is an elected council member under English law. The indications are that the ancient liberties were developed by the Cantiaci, while safe in their walled city, with borrowings from Roman era law, and by AD 886, they would have been the only part of England electing their leaders, who were separate from the King.

From 1066 onwards, they continued to do their own thing under the settlements agreed by William I and King John, until the Scottish Stuart Kings inherited the English throne. Two Stuart kings tried to remove the rights of the City of London; Charles I, who ended up getting executed by Parliament (even though the City only has a "remembrancer" in Parliament) and Charles II, who ended up being replaced by William of Orange and Mary II in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1690 that transferred power from the King to Parliament. Tellingly, in the charter of 1690, in the midst of enumerating Parliament's rights, there is also a reference to the City of London's rights:

“That the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London shall for ever hereafter remain, continue and be, and prescribe to be, a body politic, in re, facto, et nomine … and shall have and enjoy all their rights, gifts, charters, grants, liberties, privileges, franchises, customs, usages, constitutions, prescriptions, immunities, markets, duties, tolls, lands, tenements, estates and hereditaments whatsoever.”

Nobody has interfered with the City since.

So how old are the "ancient liberties" of the City of London? By my calculation they date from AD 457; 1559 years.