> 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.

It's my understanding that the Corporation administers local government in the City, and it is itself plutocratic rather than democratic, but otherwise Parliament's laws for England apply just as well within the City as without. Banking regulations and so forth that govern business in the City come from FCA, which came into existence by an act of the UK Parliament.

I mean, Manchester has its own police force, Merseyside has its own police, and so forth. Each borough in the England has its own elections. What's peculiar about the City is that the electorate of the City's elections includes businesses as well as residents. But it's not some kind of extraterritorial oddity as some conspiracy theorists think.

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.

Entrance is not codified in law, mostly ceremony- but it may as well be law the way our monarchy is tied to traditions

There's a commons MP for the City of London _and_ Westminster (jointly) but that arrangement is... peculiar and not like other regions of the UK at all. She doesn't officially represent the CoL from their perspective.

There _is_ a member of the House of Lords who is directly posted by CoL and his job is to prevent the erosion of rights that City of Londoners enjoy.

The City also has a 'remembrancer' [0], effecively a lobbyist who represents the City's interests to Parliament.

[0] https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/about-the-city-of-l...

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?

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

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.