Note for non-British readers: Boris Johnson is the Mayor of London, not the Lord Mayor of London. The latter is a largely ceremonial and supportive role concerned only with the ancient City of London, the square mile containing the financial district.
Left a comment on the original article but it was removed. Disappointing to see such pointless inaccuracy on a website devoted to a subject where nuance and precision count for so much. I could have understood getting it wrong the other way round, but the author - a lawyer educated in the UK - had to actually add a word in to make it incorrect.
> 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 arguably the financial (offshore) capital of the world and home to over eleven thousand people.
The City of London lives inside of the city named London but the two Londons have separate city halls and elect separate mayors, who collect separate taxes to fund separate police who enforce separate laws.
The Mayor of the City of London is called 'The Right Honourable Lord Mayor of London' to match his fancy outfit.
He gets to ride in a golden carriage and work in a Guildhall while the mayor of London has to wear a suit, ride a bike and work in an office building.
The City of London also has its own flag and its own crest and gets to act more like one of the countries in the UK than just an oddly located city.
The corporation that runs the city of London is older than the United Kingdom by several hundred years.
It was created by Romans in 43 CE as "Londonimium" with their temples, public baths, roads, bridges and a wall to defend their work. It's this wall which is why the current City of London exists - for though the Romans came and the Romans went and kingdoms rose and kingdoms fell, the wall endured protecting the city within. After the Romans William the Conqueror came to Great Britain to begin modern British history he found the City of London, with its sturdy walls more challenging to defeat than farmers on open fields. So he agreed to recognize the rights and privileges City of Londoners were used to in return for the them recognizing him as the new King. Though after the negotiation, William quickly built towers around the City of London which were just as much about protecting William from the locals within as defending against the Vikings from without.
This started a thousand-year long tradition whereby Monarchs always reconfirmed that 'yes' the City of London is a special, unique place best left to its own business, while simultaneously distrusting it. Many a monarch thought the City of London was too powerful and rich. And one even built a new Capital city nearby, named Westminster, to compete with the City of London and hopefully, suck power and wealth away from it. This was the start of the second London.
As the centuries passed, Westminster grew and merged with nearby towns eventually surrounding the walled-in, and still separate City of London. But, people began to call the whole urban collection 'London' and the name became official when Parliament joined towns together under a single municipal government with a mayor. But, the mayor of London still doesn't have power over the tiny City of London which has rules and traditions like nowhere else in the country and possibly the world.
For example, the ruling monarch doesn't just enter the City of London on a whim, but instead asks for permission from the Lord Mayor at a ceremony. While it's not required by law, the ceremony is, unusual to say the least.
The City of London also has a representative in Parliament, the "Remembrancer", whose job it is to protects the City's special rights. Because of this, laws passed by Parliament sometimes don't apply to the City of London: most notably voting reforms ...
I don't need to nor, personally, want to. However, the people already there have a right to be there, especially those born in London, who grew up there, who have families, jobs, community involvement etc.
> The secret City of London which is not part of London
The City is part of London under any normal person's interpretation of that word. Being as charitable as possible, it is true that the ceremonial county of Greater London does not contain the City. But the Greater London administrative area does.
It's also not "secret". Many people aren't aware of it, but that's through ignorance on their part rather than secrecy on the part of the City. The City plasters its logo all over the place: on all street signs in the City, on police uniforms, on statues, etc. Even the bollards in the City bear the colors of the City's flag. It's impossible not to notice that the City is different from the rest of London.
So that's two mistakes in the headline alone.
> The mayor of Greater London has nothing to do with the original City of London, which still has separate governing bodies and a mayor.
This is wrong. The Mayor of London has authority over the City of London, through the Greater London Authority (although some power is delegated to the Corporation, in the same way it is to borough councils).
There is indeed also a mayor of the City (confusingly called the Lord Mayor of London), but that mayorship is largely ceremonial in nature.
> Oddly enough, if the monarch wants to enter the City of London, she first must ask the Lord Mayor for permission.
This is just an urban myth, no such permission is required. In fact, the sovereign has precedence over the Lord Mayor (in the context of formal events and such like).
I lived there for 7 years and I don't share the same feelings. Sure it's not like you live in 1984 but it feels much more like a "police state" in comparison to the rest European capitals.
I am not sure Londoners would love the landlocked existence. And having all their food delivered by plane. And paying lets say 1000-2000% of the current utility bills.
And with the City and the institutions in London - no way in hell the mayor of London to get more independence. He gets way too powerful that way.
Being a Londoner born-and-bred who "escaped" 15 years ago, I wouldn't say that but I do sincerely empathise with your sarcasm as it surely doesn't fall far off the mark, sadly..
reply