the London mayor

[englishhobby]

Student B. You are the mayor of Volgograd and you are talking to the London mayor
discussing the good points and problems of public transport in your cities.

Above is an instruction for students' paired work. Is the definite article properly used?

 

[bhaisahab]

Student B. You are the mayor of Volgograd and you are talking to the London mayor
discussing the good points and problems of public transport in your cities.

Above is an instruction for students' paired work. Is the definite article properly used?

Yes. Although "the mayor of London" would be more usual.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Yes. Although "the mayor of London" would be more usual.

You would not capitalize "Mayor"?

 

[bhaisahab]

You would not capitalize "Mayor"?

I wouldn't but it wouldn't shock me if others did.

 

[Raymott]

I just discovered that the Mayor of London and the Lord Mayor of London are two different positions. In Australia, all our Lord Mayors (of the states' capital cities) are the mayors of those cities.

 

[Grumpy]

The Lord Mayor of London occupies a non-political elected post with a largely ceremonial and representative role, covering only the "City of London": a small area in the centre of London containing many historic buildings, and banking and other financial institutions. The Mayor of London is a politician, elected to be responsible for actually running all of Greater London, including the City of London.

 

[englishhobby]

The Lord Mayor of London occupies a non-political elected post with a largely ceremonial and representative role, covering only the "City of London": a small area in the centre of London containing many historic buildings, and banking and other financial institutions. The Mayor of London is a politician, elected to be responsible for actually running all of Greater London, including the City of London.

That's interesting! I thought only the queen was left from the past to play ceremonial roles. Do British people argue about the necessity of the post of the Lord Mayor the way they do it about the queen and the monarchy?

 

[emsr2d2]

I argue about the necessity of any post which is unelected and which takes up taxpayers' money.

 

[5jj]

There are hundreds of the vermin around. Lords-lieutenant anf High Sheriffs spring to mind.

 

[englishhobby]

I argue about the necessity of any post which is unelected and which takes up taxpayers' money.

.
So, are there more posts like this in Britain, I mean just symbolic and ceremonial? Sorry for being overly curious.)

 

[englishhobby]

There are hundreds of the vermin around. Lords-lieutenant anf High Sheriffs spring to mind.

Wikipedia refers to the post of High Sheriff as an "unpaid privilege with ceremonial duties".

 

[bhaisahab]

Wikipedia refers to the post of High Sheriff as an "unpaid privilege with ceremonial duties".

Yes, unpaid but with excessive expenses.

 

[Grumpy]

That's interesting! I thought only the queen was left from the past to play ceremonial roles. Do British people argue about the necessity of the post of the Lord Mayor the way they do it about the queen and the monarchy?

It's not something that is much debated. Most British people enjoy seeing our traditions being carried on, and they certainly contribute towards helping our tourism industry. Having said earlier that The Lord Mayor's roles were largely ceremonial and representative, I would emphasise the importance of the latter role. Like it or not (and many people in this country appear to disapprove) the financial institutions in the City of London make this country a great deal of money. Lord Mayors generally come from that background, are elected by their peers, and spend a great deal of their year in office promoting our financial industry around the world, often as part of government-sponsored delegations. The expenses of the office of Lord Mayor are largely paid for by these same City financial institutions - who would soon complain if they thought that they were not getting value for their money.

The official duties of Lord-Lieutenants (the Queen's representatives in each of Britain's Counties) and High Sheriffs (modern descendants of the mediaeval ‘Shire Reeves’ who were responsible to the king for the maintenance of law and order within the shire, or county, and for the collection and return of taxes due to the Crown) are very largely ceremonial these days. Neither are elected posts, but the holders are appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of county committees, and much of their time is spent supporting local charities and other good causes. Neither Lord-Lieutenants nor High Sheriffs receive any pay for what can be very busy schedules (up to 300 engagements a year for a High Sheriff, according to a recent government report). Lord-Lieutenants do get their travel expenses repaid; High Sheriffs get absolutely no expenses paid whatsoever - their cost to the public purse is zero.

 

[Grumpy]

Yes, unpaid but with excessive expenses.

I don't think so. Please see my earlier post on the fact that High Sheriffs receive no expenses whatsoever.

 

[emsr2d2]

It's not something that is much debated.

I can agree with you that the role of Lord Mayors is not much debated. The role, and cost, of the monarchy is discussed quite frequently.

Anyway, we are a long way off-topic here so if the OP is happy with the responses to their original question, then I think we should leave it there.