Lord Mayor - and what it means for London?

Fallen London
1

Lord Mayor - and what it means for London?

I know this is the second thread about the title but I feel the first one is too focused on (in my opinion) mostly inconsequential part of The Jovial Contrarian’s speech. Yes it was probably a stealthy insult since he knew whoever was going to win was going to be a female so he arranged the title of Lord with Her Majesty in advance. Great we got it out of our system. Now what I am way more interested in - is the rest of his speech.

We all know the office of Mayor is corrupt, shambolic and altogether unfit for purpose. Therefore, as my last act, I have abolished it. I have put in an appeal to Her Majesty. From now on, London shall have a Lord Mayor instead.&quot


I’m fairly sure we all remember the previous Election. Contrarian was always interested in change and yet since his ascent to office we haven’t witnessed much change. Have we? He seemed rarely present in everyday life, his presence at seasonal events and holidays was very subdued to non-existent… It makes me ask - what was he doing in the meantime? Sure we can try to find meta-reasons for his absence - FBG were busy with releasing new game so they didn’t have much time to develop his story-line. But that doesn’t sound like FBG that I know and admire to me.

Let me pose a few questions. We know The Jovial Contrarian was coming to power as a Revolutionary and with the primary goal to challenge and change the corrupt bureaucracy of London. Now he outright states as much in his speech. Yet he also comes with a solution of sorts. One allegedly approved by the sovereign of London. Do you think he’d go through all the trouble just to give his successor a spiffy title and humble her a little? All of you who voted for him - do you think the Contrarian is really that vain? What he hasn’t mentioned and what hasn’t been shown yet is - what are the other changes that come with this title? By his own statement - the office of Mayor was corrupt, shambolic an unfit for a purpose.

  • How will the new position of Lord Mayor be different?
  • What stake does Her Majesty have in it?
  • All the candidates of this year’s Elections were riding on the promise of stopping an upcoming harmful event? Do you think the The Contrarian doesn’t know about it? Is it possible he might’ve made some precautions? Some early preparations to allow his successor to wield some real power to actually help London?
  • Or was he just a different version of Feducci? Completely self-absorbed narcissist interested only in milking the office for all it’s worth and enjoying himself at parties?

I’d like to think there is plenty more happening behind the scenes and I do expect quite a lot of changes happening to London, upcoming Seasonal events and the general status quo of London. And I’m curious what you all think about it. It might be just my crazy mind running on 24+ hours without sleep but I smell a conspiracy…
edited by Tyr_Teg on 7/30/2019
edited by Diptych on 7/30/2019

2

Begging your pardon, but I’ve removed the colouring from your post. First, because coloured text is for Failbetter staff only, and second, because it made it invisible on mobile!

3

Can anyone explain to non-Brits like me what the difference between a Mayor and a Lord Mayor actually is - provided there is one?

4

Currently London has one of each, i believe - one is more civic, one more parliamentary - have i got that nuance right…?

To quote myself - from the previous such Thread ::

  • The Jolly Contrarian has not just jeered, but engineered the insult, in machinations with The Throne (the paradoxical pragmatic philosoph Anarch) - THUS - we might expect the title ‘LORD’-Mayor may well have certain new constraints, as well as greater reach of Office :: I DO believe the retiring Mayor has bridled and reined his successor - to her vivid outrage and indignity - if secretly, as yet !!!

-:- Psmyth - tarot shuffle drazzler and racconteur -:-
.

5

[quote=Diptych]Begging your pardon, but I’ve removed the colouring from your post. First, because coloured text is for Failbetter staff only, and second, because it made it invisible on mobile![/quote] Ah yes thanks. For some reason it appeared in two different colors when I posted it for the first time so I edited it to be all white but haven’t realized that would only worsen the situation for some devices.

6

For most of history, the Lord Mayor was simply the mayor of London. Several major cities (from Dublin to Sydney) have been granted the title &quotLord Mayor&quot over time, though usually if you say &quotthe Lord Mayor&quot without context, people will understand that you mean London’s. The distinction is entirely ceremonial; it gives you a higher spot in the order of precedence, but otherwise changes nothing about the office.

The chief things of interest about the Lord Mayor’s office:

  • the Lord Mayor has authority over only &quotthe City,&quot that is, the original medieval boundaries of London; he has no authority over, say, Westminster or Southwark
  • within the City, the Lord Mayor takes precedence over everyone but the sovereign; even the Earl Marshal trails after him
  • the Lord Mayor is elected by members of the livery companies (i.e. guilds), not by the populace at large
  • the Lord Mayor’s election is followed by a cool procession, fireworks, and other fun

In the 1990s or so, a referendum was held that led to a change in how London is governed. There’s still a Lord Mayor (as there is a Lord Mayor of Westminster and mayors of other boroughs within Greater London), but a new position, Mayor of London, was created to oversee the whole vast agglomeration.

The chief things of interest about the Mayor’s office:

  • the Mayor has power over all of Greater London
  • the Mayor is directly elected

One other thing: There’s been some observations about the fact that it’s a Lord Mayor in a year where all potential candidates are female. A quick reminder that in English, as in most European languages, masculine forms can be both masculine and neutral; the &quotLord&quot in the title refers to the office, not the individual holder, and so doesn’t change based on the mayor’s gender. The fact that London’s first female mayor could be called &quotDame Mary Donaldson&quot and &quotmy Lord Mayor&quot in the same breath, without irony, illustrates the point nicely.

So what does this have to do with London? Well, in-world, this change is simply the restoration of an old style. Everyone knows that the Lord Mayor of London governed the city before the Fall; when the office was restored as simply the Mayor of London, this probably was taken as an insulting downgrade. The reestablishment of the title &quotLord Mayor&quot would probably be seen, especially by those who remember a sunlit London, as a restoration of due privilege.

Metagaming, I’m not sure what to make of it. Our Mayor of London has certain similarities with Sadiq Khan: it is directly elected, after a fashion, and it has authority over everything from the House of Chimes to Watchmaker’s Hill. Neither of these things, however, is likely to change with the title Lord Mayor. It is entirely possible that the change happened simply to correct an anachronism, though if so I commend the opportunism of whoever decided to let the Contrarian gain political capital by the change. It’s also possible that Failbetter does intend to use the title to mark some kind of change; if so, however, I don’t have any grounds for speculation as to what.

Edited so nobody in the City of Westminster kills me for accidentally calling it a town.
edited by Siankan on 7/30/2019

7

I’m guessing here, but, knowing the Contrarian, the apparent upgrade’s practical effect might be to bog the office down in ceremonial pageantry to make its holder appear ridiculous and prevent them from getting anything done?

8

I believe that the mayor not getting anything done is already the primary mark of the office.

9

Thank you, Siankan! :)

10

All my guilt for voting Contrarian last year has instantly evaporated into golden coloured mist now.

11

Honestly, I think that the whole thing might just be the contrarian having one last laugh. If it had been mrs plenty or her fortune teller, then the gag would have been something like “oh I’m a lord now, eh? Fancy!” and maybe something about them being women. But since it’s virginia, the whole thing has got that extra bite to it. I don’t think it signals any big change or anything. Remember, this is the guy who set up an empty chair so people could yell at it. He’s more cunning than he seems, but also loves a laugh.

12

<snip>
So what does this have to do with London? Well, in-world, this change is simply the restoration of an old style. Everyone knows that the Lord Mayor of London governed the city before the Fall; when the office was restored as simply the Mayor of London, this probably was taken as an insulting downgrade. The reestablishment of the title &quotLord Mayor&quot would probably be seen, especially by those who remember a sunlit London, as a restoration of due privilege.

Metagaming, I’m not sure what to make of it. Our Mayor of London has certain similarities with Sadiq Khan: it is directly elected, after a fashion, and it has authority over everything from the House of Chimes to Watchmaker’s Hill. Neither of these things, however, is likely to change with the title Lord Mayor. It is entirely possible that the change happened simply to correct an anachronism, though if so I commend the opportunism of whoever decided to let the Contrarian gain political capital by the change. It’s also possible that Failbetter does intend to use the title to mark some kind of change; if so, however, I don’t have any grounds for speculation as to what.

Edited so nobody in the City of Westminster kills me for accidentally calling it a town.
edited by Siankan on 7/30/2019[/quote]

Or perhaps it’s meant by the Contarian as a signal that London is preparing to take back some autonomy–and is a subtle denigration of the Masters’ authority?

13

…I must have missed that festival; could someone direct me to an echo of this Empty Chair?

14

Silly, to yet feel this worthy -:- in support of the Jolly Contrarian’s unquestionable Subtlety:

This (Journal) quote follows my having just got the Neathly Tarot Gloves, and encountered the then sitting-mayor, the Jolly C. - then drew a tarot throw for him, and we went to his office, to debate the candidates, etc … In leaving, i played journalist ::

Summer in the Neath is gentle, yet.
Asking the Contrarian of his plans : Vacation? Revolution? Subversion? Collaboration? Hobbies?

  • &quot Yes and No. &quot

24 July, 1897 (Ladybones Road)
… Trust your correspondent when I assure you you do not wish to know.

Fallen London

.
edited by Doctor_Static on 9/27/2019