4 ms·

Warning: The City Of London[0] is different from the city of London[1]. The former is within the latter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London http

Warning: The City Of London[0] is different from the city of London[1]. The former is within the latter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

jstx1 5y ago
And CGP Grey - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
fmajid 5y ago
Actually the City of London is independent of London, like a square mile-sized hole in its heart. In many ways, it is also independent from the UK government as well in practice if not in law.
- globular-toast 5y ago
  Indeed. "London" is actually more correctly the city of Westminster. London was a walled city while Westminster wasn't so it could grow.
- carnitine 5y ago
  The City is not even remotely independent of the government. Name one way in which it is so? It is also part of London proper, just separate from the GLA, e.g. it is part of London Councils.
  - dijit 5y ago
    My understanding is that it's the only territory in the UK not under the Crown. The government is an extension of her majesty, and since the Queen can't even enter without prior permission.... though I believe there's some form of power exerted on the City by parliament. They are governed by the "City of London Corporation" which is much different from the "Mayor of London". They have their own police force, power stations, elections. Etc; Unless you have information I don't have.
    - kevingadd 5y ago
      This is fascinating, I saw this exact "queen can't enter without prior permission" bit in some alt history fiction recently and was convinced they must have made it up. I wonder if Washington DC's special status in the US was inspired by this City Of London arrangement in some way?
      - javert 5y ago
        Washington, DC was made a federal district so that the seat of national government would not be dependent on any particular US state for its security, but would be able to provide its own security force. This was because the Congress had been beseiged by disgruntled citizens when it met in Philadelphia, and the state of Pennsylvania had refused to intervene. I'm getting this from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#History
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        Washington D.C.’s special status exist to guarantee the independence of the central government from particular pressure of the host state, as opposed to the City of London’s privileges which are historically to protect well-to-do local merchants and craftsmen from the intrusive power of the nobility.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > They are governed by the "City of London Corporation" which is much different from the "Mayor of London". Specifically, the City of London Corporation is headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London, who is a completely different person than the Mayor of London who heads the Greater London Authority, which is the government of what most people think of as the city named London, which is a completely different thing than the City of London.
    - Milner08 5y ago
      The City has an MP and takes part in general elections. Its very much part of the UK and London. It just has some laws relaxed. I am not even sure that the whole 'the queen cant enter' thing is real. I have heard several times its just a custom they follow but not actually something they could enforce or do enforce at all.
- euroderf 5y ago
  To hear this Guardian columnist tell it[0], the City of London (the Square Mile) is a medieval anachronism entirely outside of parliamentary control. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corpor...

jstx1 5y ago

And CGP Grey - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc

fmajid 5y ago

Actually the City of London is independent of London, like a square mile-sized hole in its heart. In many ways, it is also independent from the UK government as well in practice if not in law.

globular-toast 5y ago
Indeed. "London" is actually more correctly the city of Westminster. London was a walled city while Westminster wasn't so it could grow.
carnitine 5y ago
The City is not even remotely independent of the government. Name one way in which it is so? It is also part of London proper, just separate from the GLA, e.g. it is part of London Councils.
- dijit 5y ago
  My understanding is that it's the only territory in the UK not under the Crown. The government is an extension of her majesty, and since the Queen can't even enter without prior permission.... though I believe there's some form of power exerted on the City by parliament. They are governed by the "City of London Corporation" which is much different from the "Mayor of London". They have their own police force, power stations, elections. Etc; Unless you have information I don't have.
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    This is fascinating, I saw this exact "queen can't enter without prior permission" bit in some alt history fiction recently and was convinced they must have made it up. I wonder if Washington DC's special status in the US was inspired by this City Of London arrangement in some way?
    - javert 5y ago
      Washington, DC was made a federal district so that the seat of national government would not be dependent on any particular US state for its security, but would be able to provide its own security force. This was because the Congress had been beseiged by disgruntled citizens when it met in Philadelphia, and the state of Pennsylvania had refused to intervene. I'm getting this from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#History
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      Washington D.C.’s special status exist to guarantee the independence of the central government from particular pressure of the host state, as opposed to the City of London’s privileges which are historically to protect well-to-do local merchants and craftsmen from the intrusive power of the nobility.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > They are governed by the "City of London Corporation" which is much different from the "Mayor of London". Specifically, the City of London Corporation is headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London, who is a completely different person than the Mayor of London who heads the Greater London Authority, which is the government of what most people think of as the city named London, which is a completely different thing than the City of London.
  - Milner08 5y ago
    The City has an MP and takes part in general elections. Its very much part of the UK and London. It just has some laws relaxed. I am not even sure that the whole 'the queen cant enter' thing is real. I have heard several times its just a custom they follow but not actually something they could enforce or do enforce at all.
euroderf 5y ago
To hear this Guardian columnist tell it[0], the City of London (the Square Mile) is a medieval anachronism entirely outside of parliamentary control. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corpor...