This question was asked in the following post: https://freeasthysweetmountainair.wordpress.com/?s=the+crown What is a Crown Dependency? What is the Crown? But perhaps the question was misleading. Who is the Crown is probably a more appropriate question.
I’m delighted to note that someone else came to the same conclusion that I had drawn with regard to Cameron’s refusal to go along with EU proposals: He didn’t have permission to do so. And it wasn’t our monarch who refused this. It was the Corporation that made things clear to DC.
The British Government could not agree to this new ESM without breaking their contract with the Corporation of London and would therefore forfeit the Crown.
The above is Ian Parker-Joseph’s take on this and is exactly my opinion on this too. I’m no expert but having taken note of many references to the suggestion that:
The ‘Crown’ is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is
not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. It is the Vatican of the commercial world.
It therefore seems logical that random party leaders do not have a mandate to sign up to agreements which might upset the apple cart.
So the question remains hanging in the air: IF the Crown is a committee of several members as mentioned above then on whom are Crown Dependencies dependent? Many feel that Crown is a term for the Queen but if this is not the case then do we really wish to continue this dependence on members of a Corporation? Please feel free to contradict this if you have evidence to the contrary. However, as the previous post has not been contested it would seem that the question remains unanswered.