This sort of thing happens in the US, too, at least in the Northeast corner of it. The land that my house sits on is owned by the Unitarian Universalist church down the street, and each year I owe them $4 or the equivalent in livestock or firewood. To date I've always found it easiest to mail them a check but someday if I'm feeling grumpy maybe I'll give them a duckling.
Likewise France's oldest debt: <a href="https://modeledbehavior.com/2010/01/31/the-worlds-oldest-existing-government-debt/" rel="nofollow">https://modeledbehavior.com/2010/01/31/the-worlds-oldest-exi...</a><p>The UK has never been through a "year zero" forcible reconstitution, so its constitutional and administrative arrangements are full of little adhoc anomalies (the various islands like Sark and Man, the City, "County" Durham, chancel repair liability, and so on). Mostly these are a fine and picturesque addition to the texture of the nation. There's certainly no real appetite to "fix" things, although Scotland managed to abolish the feudal system (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc._(Scotland)_Act_2000" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc...</a>)<p>However, this means that the sort of internal tensions which in the US get nailed to the mast of the constitution instead float around, un-crystallized. Until now, when the "brexit" vote has triggered a cascade of constitutional crises: is parliamentary consent required to leave the EU? How does this affect the Good Friday Agreement? What about Scotland? What exactly is the constitutional status of the Human Rights Act and why do the conservatives keep trying to abolish it? And so on.
The article refers to "London", but likely that means what is now the City of London, just one of 32 boroughs of Greater London. Few live in the City of London ("the City") these days, it's mostly business and finance.
One thing I wasn't sure of after reading the article, are the objects then given back to the city after the ceremony or do they need to provide more objects the next year.<p>The former seems implied from the age of the items, but that doesn't seem like rent to me.
All these weird antiquated ceremonies and traditions remind me of Doug Stanhope's take on the UK still having a monarchy @ <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctOHo4RzZEc" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctOHo4RzZEc</a> - tiny quote: "for gods sake is this a country or a renaissance festival, what kind of Dungeons and Dragons bullshit is that?"
Stratfield Saye House is rented from the Queen too, for the price of one silk flag per year. Although this has only been going on for a mere 200 years. <a href="http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/annual-waterloo-ceremony-duke-of-wellington-pays-his-rent-2-32295" rel="nofollow">http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/annual-waterloo-cere...</a>
There is a urban fantasy novel by Mike Sheldon based on the two oldest quit rents mentioned in this article.<p><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6673065-sixty-one-nails" rel="nofollow">http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6673065-sixty-one-nails</a>
I'm torn between finding these kinds of things completely ridiculous and appreciating keeping old traditions alive. There's just something neat about these kinds of things. Hilariously pointless, but neat.
"But each fall, usually in October, the city and the crown perform the same exchange, for no particular reason other than that they always have."<p>It's tempting to laugh at this silliness, but 1000 years from now coders will still be putting the open curly brace in C code on a separate line for no particular reason other than that they always have.
> a knife, an axe, six oversized horseshoes, and 61 nails<p>It looks like, based on the photo, that the horseshoes take 10 nails each, so that could why they are accompanied by 60 nails.<p>So why 61? A spare?
More impressive to me is the fact that Britain is still paying interest on a debt from 1720 (due to South Sea Bubble krach)<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/world/that-debt-from-1720-britains-payment-is-coming.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/world/that-debt-from-1720-...</a>
Considering that since then some three or four kings/dynasties have been rather unceremoniously disposed of ... looks like a bit of a formality, to rub it in.<p>I mean, you execute/exile/etc the person you owe the debt to, and keep paying it to the one you pick to replace him in the job of president - er, I mean, king?