Well it sounds like Holland is oversimplifying the situation a little bit which is perfectly understandable. Using his metric we can divide Egypt into two territories: The country and the Greek poleis, but as you correctly guessed your legal status would matter much more than your location as your personal rights and social standing would not change although most cities had unique laws that you would do well to obey.

The reason it is poleis plural and not just polis is because Alexandria was not the only one, there was also Ptolemais Hermiou which was roughly the size of Memphis and had its own self-elected administrative council after the Greek fashion and Naukratis a trade city established in the 6th Century BCE. Although the latter had begun to decline by the reign of Cleopatra, Ptolemais was a regional capital that came to eclipse Thebes and rival Memphis. The primary categories of individuals in Alexandria and Ptolemais were citizens, non-citizen Hellenes, Egyptians, other immigrants, and slaves. To acquire citizenship individuals had to show that they were Hellenes and be registered with the gymnasium (or if they were women their father had to be registered with the gymnasium) to pass the exam required for citizenship, although no one is quite sure how new immigrants acquired citizenship in the first place.

Alexandria is and was considered a separate entity from Egypt in many respects, and was as much a colony or newly established city state as a true Egyptian city but I would not go so far as to consider it a "free city", it was tied to the Egyptian countryside which provided its sustenance, and the majority of its free residents were not citizens but Egyptians and non-Alexandrian Hellenes so only a very small portion of its inhabitants were technically Alexandrians even if we do not count slaves. This is not exactly new for ancient city-states, generally citizens made up a small pool of the population but in any case it means that most people living within Alexandria did not enjoy the status we might associate with Alexandrians.

Of course the city did have its own internal administration but it was still part of the same underlying state, given the status of other Greek cities in relation to the rest of Egypt and the custom of applying Greek law wherever Greeks were concerned this is not really sufficient grounds to consider Alexandria apart from Egypt. Culturally, Alexandria had an identity of its own, to the extent that travelling between the cosmopolitan hub and the rest of the country was jarring enough for the phrase "Travelling between Alexandria and Egypt" or comments to that effect to come into vogue, but although Alexandria's primary cultural influence in the 1st Century BCE was Hellenism the second was Egyptian which is exemplified by both artistic and literary motifs unique to Alexandria that combine the two. Arguably, although Egyptian deities were adopted in regions as distant as Roman Britain, Alexandria's religious scene was more Egyptian than any outside of Egypt with animal cults like Apis bull seeing immense popularity and mummification being common practice with not just the Soma housing the mummified Alexander the Great and Ptolemaic royalty being within the city but also a large necropolis being present to the west of the city. All of this does not necessarily mean that on a political level they were one but it shows the strength of their connection.

The reason he singles out Alexandria is not merely because it was the administrative and economic capital but because Alexandrian citizenship brought with it special rights and privileges, namely in the areas of fiscal and political advancement as the highest levels of governmental office were only attainable to Alexandrians, in fact even within this category many positions seem to have been retained by certain families and tribes (particularly Macedonians) but comparable if not equal rights were held by registered citizens of Ptolemais. All in all, it seems to have been a sought after distinction that was carefully restricted throughout the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. One law seemingly peculiar to Alexandria was that Hellenes were not permitted to marry Egyptians, Cyreneans or Persians, while in the rest of the country these unions occurred without legal restrictions, that said I am not sure if this was the case in Ptolemais or elsewhere but it makes sense that it existed as a means to limit the pool of eligible citizens but at the same time given that both parents would have to be citizen this theory is not perfect. Many predominantly Hellenic settlements had their own gymnasium and eligible individuals would register here to attain many similar benefits which brings us to our next topic to consider.

After citizenship came identity, the ethnic and cultural category which people were registered under in the state census, which had two primary groupings: Hellenes and Egyptians. (Again there were actually a lot more than these, like Syrians, Persians, Arabs, Jews, Indians, Libyans and so forth but these minorities were negligible in terms of size and impact compared to the other two categories.) Hellenes were exempt from certain taxes such as the obol tax and the salt tax, and they were capable of attaining administrative offices in the royal administration and the poleis. Teachers, Persians, athletes, actors and priests were also exempt from certain taxes and many priests were given the status of Hellenes even if they lived a great distance from Alexandria and were not Greek. The non-mercenary cavalry and pool of hoplites and officers was also comprised of Hellenes, and these individuals held more land rights than any other group save temples insofar as they were allowed to own and cultivate their own estates which generally comprised of vineyards, pastures and vegetable plots while the rest of the country's real estate was owned by the crown or the temples with the exception of small vegetable plots outside of the villages and urban areas and a large area of land around Alexandria that was sold or leased to Alexandrian citizens by the crown.

The rest of the country comprised of cities, villages, towns and ports which each might have had a unique mode of governance or unique laws and rates of taxation, the variation between the nomes, or provinces if you will, are still poorly understood and appear arbitrary but even if there purpose and impact seems arbitrary it demonstrates the extent to which Ptolemaic rule was at times arbitrary.

It is hard to say if Cleopatra would have ruled with the rights of the Pharaoh, or more or less than that, because the rights of the Pharaoh have no consistent definition throughout time but in theory her rights as the monarch of Egypt would have been unlimited except where otherwise limited as in the case with groups or situations which held special rights or protocols. The limited self governance of the poleis was just that, limited.

Practically, there was absolutely a difference between the Ptolemies actions in regards to Alexandrians or Egyptians and the power these groups held in regards to the crown. Ptolemaic history is rife with instances where the Alexandrian mob supported, overthrew or killed either kings and queens or prospective kings and queens while most Egyptian revolts, which tended to center around the Thebaid were short-lived and served primarily to accelerate or precipitate social change. Indeed, Cleopatra's own civil war with her siblings and eventual restoration to power took place within Alexandria and centred around her and Caesar winning at least the tacit support of the Alexandrians in addition to defeating the forces of Ptolemy XIII and Arsinoe IV. The rest of the country was largely uninvolved despite Cleopatra's supporters in the southern regions, and much like in past Ptolemaic succession crises, Alexandria was the key to being considered the ruler of Egypt even as it was considered to be almost its own city-state.

With all this in mind both geography and citizenship played a role in the actions of the ruler but citizenship would have been the primary criteria for interactions with specific bodies. However this was usually dictated on a case by case basis when dealing with Hellenes or Alexandrians in Egypt as a whole but first of all we should note that the crown's interests and most certainly the interests of the monarch would not usually intersect directly with the lives of common people. Everyday legal and fiscal matters would be handled on the local level, and the strategoi who governed each Nome answered directly to the crown but were capable of handling most any issues in their territory. The Ptolemaic state was a sprawling bureaucracy which served the direct wishes of the crown but employed administrative officers and scribes at a regional and local level, often by making use of temple and municipal authorities who could be readily deputised, which means that in Alexandria or Upper Egypt you would be dealing with very different authorities but they would be working for the exact same government, generating censuses, collecting taxes, levies and keeping order.

These regional authorities be they priests, royal scribes, or officials were often required to meet in Alexandria, and finances and relevant information was required to be transmitted back to the centralised bureaucracy in the capital further tying these disparate branches of governance together.

Continued