Talk:List of lord mayors of London

Lord Mayor for 2022-23, Nicholas Lyons, should be listed as a Merchant Taylor rather than an Insurer. Whilst he is also a Liveryman of the Bakers, Insurers and Educators, his mother company is Merchant Taylors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:38BF:C900:9021:17E4:2461:4D2B (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

history relating to william pryke lord mayor in 1925

Richard Whittington

I would say Whittington was Lord Mayor four times. From Museum of London: "In 1397 the Mayor, Adam Bamme, died in office and the King chose Whittington to become the new mayor. He was re-elected the following year, and again for 1406-7 and 1419-20. This made him Mayor of London four times." --Henrygb 16:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is correct, but as he followed immediately in his own right then the two terms are conflated to one term.The two first terms are counted as one. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S

Lord Mayors vs Lords Mayor

A user blanked this page and pasted the content to List of Lords Mayor of London. I have reverted the change pending the outcome of discussion here.

If it is decided to move the page, it will now require an administrator to delete the other page first. Please do not attempt to move this page by copy and pasting. JRawle (Talk) 14:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Lord Mayors of London or List of Lords Mayor of London?

Please vote here for Lords Mayor or Lord Mayors and sign by entering ~~~~

• Lord Mayors: this is the form used on the City of London site. [1] They are not Lords, so I don't see why it should have that plural form. Also, "Lord Mayors" has the greater number of hits on Google. JRawle (Talk) 14:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Lord Mayors. "Lord" is an adjective indicating how important these particular Mayors are. (It's far more clear-cut than most questions like this, because there are ordinary Mayors who can ask to have "Lord" put in front of their titles.) Proteus (Talk) 15:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lords Mayor. The traditional plural form in British usage is 'Lords Mayor'; the Liverpool city government page uses 'Lords Mayor', as does that of Birmingham, and the Council of Westminster (and see also similar comment here). You wouldn't say 'attorney-generals' or 'court-martials', would you? Spider Jerusalem 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • They're entirely different constructions: an Attorney-General is an attorney, and a Court Martial is a court, "general" and "martial" being mere adjectives describing what type of attorney and what type of court they are. A Lord Mayor is quite clearly a mayor. Proteus (Talk) 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I could only find references to Lord Mayors: Birmingham City Council [2] ; Liverpool City Council [3] ; City of Westminster [4] ; And, regarding that previous comment, Dublin City Council [5] JRawle (Talk) 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Lords Mayor It has been standard for hundreds of years to say Lords Mayor. It makes no sense grammatically, but English is like that. Similarly one writes Lords Lieutenant, Attorneys-General, Governors-General. English, as they say, is a language with as many exceptions as rules. I do wish people would stop using web sites. I did a survey some years ago for a newspaper article on accuracy in websites. One one elementary question, what is the British Queen's title is in law a whopping 81% of websites (including one of another head of state describing a state visit to the UK), had it wrong. Buckingham Palace's website is notorious for its errors among historians, while 10 Downing Street left out a prime minister from a list once. The Irish prime minister's website got the name of the first Irish head of state wrong (a fact that it was ridiculed over in the media), while google searches prove details about Éamon de Valera, the Prince of Wales, Bill Clinton and a host of others that are 100% wrong. The White House website once got the name of members of the cabinet wrong, while the French government website once got said that the Second World War ended in 1947. Every newspaper and practically every website proves that Diana, Princess of Wales possessed a title that never existed, as the lady herself repeatedly pointed out to everyone who cared to listen. Another prominent website had the second President of Ireland inaugurated four years after the ceremony took place! In other words, websites are notorious for the bullshit they contain. Most official websites are written by junior civil servants who write what they think is right, or they think sounds right, without checking. Wikipedia's biggest weakness is its preoccupation with the internet as evidence. That produces all sorts of crap in articles. So please, less of the internet-itis. It proves nothing. If Buckingham Palace can't get something as basic as year the UK got its current name right, do you really expect others to be much better. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)}

Whatever you think about using the internet as a source, User:Spider Jerusalem said the websites of those councils use "Lords Mayor" and they don't at all. While I have to confess I previously thought "Lords Lieutenant" was correct, Lords Mayor just sounds silly. JRawle (Talk) 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I quote: 'The Lord Mayor has no executive role in determining policy, or in the management of the Council, and Lords Mayor are generally expected to avoid direct involvement in constituency matters during their year in office.' (found here, on a page of the site for the City of Westminster). Spider Jerusalem 11:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just goes to show, none of these sites can be trusted. That has both "Lord Mayors" and "Lords Mayor" on the same page! JRawle (Talk) 12:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether it sounds silly or not is irrelevant. It just is the way the term has been pluralised and has been since I think it was the 14th or 15th century. Some modern usage uses Lord Mayors but as neither is universal at this stage, and both are used, and one's usage is primarily on dubious websites and in newspapers, while the other features in thousands of historic documents for hundreds of years, and continues to be said widely, then Lords Mayor has the weight of evidence behind it. If in 20 or 30 years time Lord Mayors came to dominated and the older version disappear (just as cows replaced kyne in modern English) then one could justify Lord Mayors. But not now. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As a late entrant to this race, I strongly agree with FearÉIREANN. See my discussion with JRawle over on Talk:List of Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers (which should, I maintain – with support from Hansard and official House of Lords publications – be "Lords Chancellor" etc.). Websites must always be treated with caution, but you can download official government publications in pdf format. These should be more reliable. SiGarb | Talk 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As a further late entrant to this discussion, I also strongly believe that the term "Lords Mayor" is correct. My recollection from being taught this is that mayors were chosen in the month of May; the word "mayor" relating directly to this activity. Mayors of larger conurbations were raised to the title "Lord Mayor" to reflect their higher position and therefore the plural must be Lords Mayor.Haynestre (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Lords Mayor as the historically used form. Also Lords Chancellor, Lords Lieutenant, etc. I think the ancient usage is that these people are all lords (albeit in an almost pre-peerage sense), with the term Mayor, Chancellor, etc., as an adjective, describing what type of lords they are. We use those adjectival terms as nouns today, but the old usage is clear. Laura1822 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But, in ancient usage, they all started off without it: there was the Chancellor, the Treasurer, the Marshal, the Constable, etc., and over time they added meaningless honorifics to the front of their titles. Indeed in some usages it's still left off (e.g. "To Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Counsellor James Peter Hymers, Baron Mackay of Clashfern, Our Chancellor of Great Britain"). Proteus (Talk) 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex Rodrigeuz

This entry for the mayor of 1300-1301 is erroneous, as are a lot of other people listed as being Lord Mayor. I have checked the official material given at the bottom from the City Of London Corporation itself and Alex Rodriguez was NOT the mayor at the time, nor have a number of people listed as being Lord Mayors ever held the office. Anyone researching the Lord Mayor and its history should be aware of this. It appears that whoever wrote the article, or someone who came along later, has filled in certain parts as the .pdf states, but then at what they must have deemed "less important and obscure" times and years gone and picked names at random. I think a warning at the head of the page should be made in order to warn people of these "errors" so that unwitting people aren't caught out.

According to the Liber Albus, the City's compendium of laws brought together by John Carpenter in 1423 Russel and Blound cover this period between them. So I have removed Rodriguez who is obviously a jester - the list now conforms with the City List which I suggest should be put here instead. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S

Sir William Acton, 1st Bt

According to the memoirs of Sir Abraham Reynardson (Lord Mayor in 1648):

“Upon Sir Henry Garraway’s retirement, the King’s party, desiring to continue the line of Royalists, put Sir W. Acton in nomination for the mayoralty. The election was then preceded by Holy Communion and sermon, the manner of it the same as that described by Fleetwood in Elizabeth’s reign (d, pages 106-107; j, page 21). The choice and nomination were with the Common Hall, and the selection was by the Court of Aldermen (d, page 115) of one of two sent to them from the electors. A Common Hall of young mechanics and other unqualified persons would not hear of Acton,1 for Soames and Wright had the most voices, but desired to be spared from serving. Acton was anxious only to know the King’s mind, and resolved to hold office until the King should put him out. At a subsequent meeting, duly constituted, Acton was legally elected, but displaced by Parliament in favour of Wright."

Shouldn't Acton be included in the list?

Quoted from 'London during the great rebellion, being a memoir of Sir Abraham Reynardson, Knt' pages 13-14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.230.23 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Links

The other day I removed some of the non-existent links as part of an effort to tidy up the article. Today this was undone - citing no explanation - so here it is. I have changed it back to how it was when I removed the links. Having links to pages which do not exist looks messy and does not help anyone. I hope to spend more time removing other non-existent links on the page at some point soon - however it is such as large job it is just a case of little and often. Anyone who has time - please help! Uvghifds (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, firstly it would be helpful if you could use edit summaries, which will make it far less likely that your edits will be reverted. As a general point red links are OK in lists such as this if the subject is sufficiently notable to have their own WP article.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Serlo

I don't know what the reference you link to is sourced from, but every other document relating to the era has Serlo. Your doc clearly had a typo. Please see, for instance: "London in the Later Middle Ages: Government and People 1200-1500" By Caroline M. Barron, which details not only the Mayors, but also the Sherrifs (Serlo was Sherrif before becoming Mayor).Lexysexy (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

My guess is that the erroneously named "Lord Mayors of the City of London from 1189" document was scanned, and that there are also other OCR translation errors. I very much doubt that it's a typo - it would be unusual to make the same typo twice, and no other typos.

BTW: It's not "my" document - it is (was) the ONLY document on the page quoted as a source.

If "every other document relating to the era has Serlo", then perhaps the article needs to list some more (and better) sources than the "Lord Mayors of the City of London from 1189" document?

Are any of these other documents you alude to available online?

Perhaps you can compare the "Lord Mayors of the City of London from 1189" with your other sources to see if there are any other errors in it?

Again, thanks.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that "John Noorthouck (1773) 'Addenda: The Mayors and Sheriffs of London', A New History of London: Including Westminster and Southwark, pp. 889-893." refers to him as "Serle Mercer". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So: 1) It's not "my doc"; 2) It doesn't "clearly had a typo"; and 3) "every other document relating to the era has Serlo" is also a false statement. Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully?

Can you produce a second document with "Serlo"? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Touchy! Is this a slanging match? 1. It was your reference document, 2. Typo is shorthand for a printing error, and 3. I'm sorry about that, I should have said every other document I've ever seen has "Serlo". "Serle" derives from "Serlo", perhaps the "New History of London" has chosen to use the modern spelling, for whatever reason, but I believe I can see the potential for error there anyway - Serlo le Mercer with the "lo" accidentaly dropped. I'm 50% Serle. Yes, in due course, to the ultimate question.Lexysexy (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Serlo was noted for siding with the barons against King John. You will find additional references in: I."London 800-1216:The Shaping of a City", CNL Brooke & G Keir, p254; 2. "Magna Carta", James Clark Holt, p56; 3. "Liber de Antiquis Legibus" (in the possession of the City of London) at: http://www.archive.org/stream/chroniclesofmayo00fitzuoft/chroniclesofmayo00fitzuoft_djvu.txt

Lexysexy (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedantic? Yes. Touchy? No.

Thanks for the references. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A pleasure. I've written to the City of London to point out the error.Lexysexy (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The City of London have now corrected the Serlo error in the document used as the original reference.Lexysexy (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's nice when that sort of thing happens, and happens quickly, isn't it! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Chnen Buckingham

The Gentleman's Magazine, London England, Volume 163 has an article on page 226 (reference [6]) and it seems the Mayor's name may be Owen Buckingham.

Should the article be changed to this name - or show both? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Jackie, I'm afraid you've lost me. 1704 does say "Owen". What is Chnen?Lexysexy (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeems to be a changed version of the WP page - and if you do a websearch the 1704 chap does appear as Chnen. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

London Wiki

Material linking off from the equivalent London Wiki page [7] can be used in articles here (or serve as the starting point for such articles). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Pluralisation in the Mother Livery Company column

qv. Lord Mayors of London

@Mabelina: When editing, I used plurals for the livery companies because of the column title "Mother Livery Company" -- although Lord Mayor X was a Grocer, his Mother Livery Company was the (Worshipful Company of) Grocers. I can't think of a good replacement title for the column to make the singular consistent. Thoughts? ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 05:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: I am glad you have brought this up because we are endeavouring to make City livery companies and their correct style easy to understand and no doubt to avoid the frequent punctuation pitfall in the plural form (see below). Having given it thought too I considered that a Lord Mayor's mother livery company/trade would be aptly dealt with in the singular, especially since there is, or should be, a Wikilink; my thought processes were that the Lord Mayor is/would have been described as, by way of example, Citizen & Mercer, Alderman & Mercer and then Mayor (sic "Lord Mayor", and then Alderman & Mercer again after his year of office) and one would say in normal parlance he is a Mercer, or a Liveryman of the Mercers' (Co.) short for Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Mercers, or upon becoming the head of that livery company, Master Mercer. Note all throughout his career, he would be described as Mercer in the singular, except where referring to the body corporate of the Worshipful Company of Mercers, aka Mercers' Company and reference books either state Mercers' (with the apostrophe) or Mercer, but to my knowledge never Mercers. I should be pleased to hear your further thoughts to reach the optimum phraseology. Many thanks indeed. Best M Mabelina (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

PS. looking back at past discussions it is good to see that the correct decision was arrived at regarding Lord Mayors...

Though "the Company" or "the Xs' Company" is more formally used, there are many many examples of the pluralised non-possessive form being used briefly (and possibly not colloquially) for a Company (particularly a different Company) by official and/or specific sources, for example:

• from the Skinners
• from the Drapers
• from the Mercers
• from the Clothworkers
• from the Merchant Taylors
• from the Salters

Agreed that the singular form is nicest, and it's not a huge problem if things are inconsistent, but it is still ugly. Uglier still would be the pluralised possessive forms, but as per the links above that isn't necessary.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 22:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: following your first example from the Skinners - yes "from the Skinners" is correct English and later under Sir William Follett it states "Mercers' Company" (ie. of the [Worshipful] Company of Mercers)...

so the question is ..... given all the info above (& more to come, if necessary) ..... is he "of the Mercers" or "from the Mercers" - the answer is YES! So when describing him (being the Lord Mayor) he should and quite correctly can be styled Mercers', but this is not only ugly but liable to become corrupted at any time soon - but it hasn't so far elsewhere! So presumably best not to replace all the singular forms of mother livery company to include the possessive plural apostrophe? In any event, the said person would ordinarily be described as an Alderman & Mercer, etc... so why confuse matters? M Mabelina (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: just to take stock, hopefully these updates are what you are looking for? Please advise. M Mabelina (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mabelina: "from the..." is mine -- it's not a case of a representative sample of sources using (eg) "from the Mercers", but instead using "the Mercers", etc, except where a possessive is explicitly required, such as in "the Mercers' Company". The first source was a history published by the Skinners, the second a history specifically of the Drapers, etc. ie: A wide range of primary/expert sources use the simple plural as an abbreviated form, which is also potentially germane to various Livery Company and biographical articles. My preference in order is:

1. Relabel the column to something suggesting singular contents, though I still can't think of a way to phrase it.
2. Pluralise the column contents to match the column title
3. Leave column title and contents inconsistent.
4. ...
5. The horrible stranded plural possessive (not even regularly used by the Livery Companies themselves).

That said, I'm only mildly in favour of #2 over #3 (foolish consistencies, mild irritants, and all that), so on the hope that sometime option #1 will win out, and unless there's any strong opinions from anyone else, balance of laziness suggests leave it as singular and fix the column title... sometime ;-). Anyway, this exchange can remain here for posterity and/or future response/linking as required. Cheers, ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 07:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: Thanks & we are in agreement! Thinking cap time!! Cheers M Mabelina (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

20th century table

Could the two sides of the table be balanced out more.

Information on London wiki can be made use of - a mixture of OR, Wikisource and other sources. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Lord Mayors of London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303173820/http://www.london-city-history.org.uk/biography.htm to http://www.london-city-history.org.uk/biography.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

New format

Could we please have some discussion about the new collapsed format, and whether it is desirable? I found the old format preferable. Eebahgum (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eebahgum. Ref your other message, collapsed tables could be (or at least should have been able to be) expanded using [show] at the right, but the order of the show "button" and the sort columns is out of whack. I've set the view to uncollapsed by default, and if there's no strong consensus for collapsing then that can remain (I don't mind uncollapsed, it was just that there's probably close to 600 rows). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hydronium^~Hydroxide, for the reply. Now I have sussed it out I like your drop-down listings and the dynamic column sort facility. My initial confusion was (as you say) the [show] feature seeming to be associated with the rather unimportant 'Notes' column, and so not at once seeing how to get the tables open (when burning midnight oil). Perhaps the word [show] could be in a brighter colour, like a bluelink - does WP have such conventions? That would make the collapsed format more approachable. Thankyou anyway, it must have taken some work to do and it is a very useful edit. Apologies for my momentary alarm (now subsided), and regards, Eebahgum (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Lord Mayors of Birmingham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Sir Edward Cooper (1919)

I have a COI , cannot edit the article space, subject may be a candidate for an article/this info may help researchers.

Sir Edward Earnest Cooper was a musician, vocalist, an architect, his family life may have also been recently written about. ESparky (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

References

@ESparky: I don't have a particular interest in making an article on this topic, but depending on your level of COI, you may be able to edit Draft:Edward Earnest Cooper. Actual risk from COI appears likely to be low given he died almost a century back, so if you do and you notify me, I will review it for move into mainspace provided, of course, that it meets requirements for reliable sourcing, neutrality, notability (general or subject specific), declaration of COI, content, style, formatting, etc. etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Hydronium Hydroxide I am very good friends with Cooper's great-grandson. I'm not really sure if there is anything more than a stub article there, but I thought it might be useful to future researchers if (some of) Cooper's references were exposed in his line item in this article, indicating that there is more to be found on Cooper. Thank you for your response! ESparky (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There's also footage of his Lord Mayor's Show from 1919 here. (Pinging ESparky in case it's new to you; thought you might be interested). Thanks for the links. The JSTOR one in particular looks good. Mortee (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Most editors support the lowercase lord mayors on the basis of MOS:JOBTITLES, which instructs editors not to capitalize formal titles in their plural forms. The proposer has also noted that the lowercase form is consistent with article titles for the other British cities moved in Talk:List of mayors of Birmingham § Requested move 5 September 2017, as well as a number of other articles and categories.

Editors have listed examples of reliable sources using both Lord Mayors in title case and lord mayors in lowercase. There is no conclusive common name from the evidence presented, as editors disagree with the Google Search results. (This may be a result of the filter bubble caused by Google Personalized Search.) Therefore, this discussion does not present an adequate reason to override the MOS:JOBTITLES guideline in Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

(non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 01:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

---

List of Lord Mayors of London → List of lord mayors of London – per MOS:JOBTITLES (or List of lords mayor of London or List of mayors of the City of London or List of lord mayors of the City of London or List of lords mayor of the City of London). Following the multi-article RM at Talk:List of lord mayors of Stoke-on-Trent, we had about a 24-hour period when none of the articles in Category:Lists of mayors of places in England and Category:Lists of mayors of London boroughs conflicted with MOS:JOBTITLES by using capital letters for the plural of a title. Amakuru has correctly pointed out that this article was excluded from the moves that resulted from the multi-article RM at Talk:List of mayors of Birmingham, and has reverted a year-old move initiated by SMcCandlish. The problem in the Birmingham RM for this particular article seemed to be that the desired form was "List of mayors of X", but List of mayors of London is a redirect that leads to a different place (to Mayor of London#List of Mayors). In my view, it would at least be an improvement to move this to lowercase, as with all the other entries of Category:Lists of mayors of places in England and Category:Lists of mayors of London boroughs. Just changing uppercase to lowercase would avoid the issue with the List of mayors of London redirect. There has been a recent trend toward lowercasing consistently, with a clarification of MOS:JOBTITLES and a string of RMs including (chronologically) those at Talk:List of mayors of Birmingham (July 2017), Talk:List of provosts of Aberdeen (September 2017), Talk:List of mayors of Leeds (October 2017), Talk:List of prime ministers of Elizabeth II (October 2017), Talk:Mayor of Barnstaple (November 2017), Talk:List of chairmen of the House Republican Conference (December 2018), and (just within the few weeks) Talk:List of governors of New York, Talk:List of lieutenant governors of Michigan, Talk:List of chancellors of Germany, Talk:List of presidents of Austria and Talk:List of lord mayors of Stoke-on-Trent – each of those was a formal RM, and most of them were multi-page moves, and six of them were more recent than the most recent one I notice that moved in the other direction and stayed there (List of heads of state of Angola → List of Presidents of Angola, which was primarily proposed for a different reason). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The key difference between "mayor" and "Lord Mayor" is that the former is a common noun, so the construct works. The latter is a title though, and almost always capitalised (compare [8] with [9]). So it would not be correct to lowercase it as "lord mayors". Given that we can't just say "mayor", it seems most sensible to keep the page here, as a list of holders of the capitalised title "Lord Mayor of London". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • But MOS:JOBTITLES clearly says that a job title only uses uppercase when it "is not plural", and we already have lots of "List of mayors of X" titles in Category:Lists of mayors of places in England and Category:Lists of mayors of London boroughs, and we now also have List of lord mayors of Leicester, List of lord mayors of Stoke-on-Trent, and List of lord mayors of York, not to mention all those other lists that I listed above (although I suppose I did just mention them). I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to make between "Mayor(s) of X" and "Lord Mayor(s) of X". "Mayor of X" is also often a formal title. Thank you as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

    The dictionary links I provided above should help you to understand the distinction. "Mayor" is a common noun, written in lower case in the dictionary, while "Lord Mayor" is a title written in title case. "Lord Mayor" does not exist as a separate common noun, and is almost never written in lower or sentence case. And saying we shouldn't write a title in upper case simply because it appears in the plural is not borne out by any examples. For example List of Dalai Lamas (not "dalai lamas") and even, somewhat surprisingly, List of Presidents of the United States - that one actually could be written either way, since "president" exists as a common name while "President of the United States" is a capitalised title. When pluralising a title though, it should absolutely retain its case the same as any other pluralised proper noun. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of that seems like an interesting idea, but seems like a generally novel interpretation. MOS:JOBTITLES makes a clear distinction about plurals of formal titles, and the assertion of "not borne out by any examples" is clearly false. Many examples were already given above, and many more can be found if you look for them rather than looking for exceptions. A title cannot be a proper noun if it is plural, as a plural is clearly describing a class of entities rather than a distinct single entity. It's true that there are some contrary examples in other Wikipedia titles, though. Thank you as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You characterise my idea as "novel", but really it's this proposal that is novel when we consider usage in the real world. Unlike "mayors of London", "lord mayors of London" is hardly used anywhere as a construction whether in singular or plural. See [10][11][12][13][14][15] for just a few examples. For the relevant guideline as to why the current name is correct, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters - this advises us that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia", a condition which is met here. MOS:JOBTITLES is a useful guide, but no part of the MOS is intended to override real-world usage. Hence why we end up with some otherwise-quirky titles such as k.d. lang. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be conflating somewhat different subjects – guidance about what constitutes a proper noun in English vs. particular observed examples of some publications using "Lord Mayors" with capital letters. Certainly there are some people and organizations that use different capitalization guidelines than Wikipedia does. Many publications use uppercase more extensively, while Wikipedia tries to minimize that practice. Also, I don't think I would consider the government of the City of London and the government of the city of Bristol to be "independent" sources on the subject of lord mayors – such sources tend to use uppercase to give an impression of greater importance to the titles used within their own organization. Thank you as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also note that the link above given as one the BBC News website is not something published in their own voice as independent news reporting. It is the text of a speech by Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. It seems possible that the BBC ceded editorial control over that text to its author – someone who might get angry if others changed his text in any way. (Again though, I am not saying that everyone follows similar guidelines as Wikipedia's.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support per manual of style. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The title is Lord Mayor. If the others are incorrectly capitalised, they should be corrected to e.g. List of Lord Mayors of Leicester. The holder of the office changes every year or two, but there is only one holder of each office at a time. Lord Mayors is the correct plural, not Lords Mayor. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The title is "Lord Mayor of London", not "Lord Mayor". If we are discussing more than one of them at once, it is not a proper noun and should use lowercase, according to MOS:JOBTITLES ("is not plural"). —BarrelProof (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:JOBTITLES, WP:NCCAPS, and a bunch of previous RMs of this sort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose utterly pointless tinkering. There are several hundred links to the article so are you going to change all those articles or are you going to leave them as redirects in which case nothing is achieved, except the links will be split up ? The article has been around for 15 years, and any editor who knows the topic would expect to see the title capitalized. We need editors to make a useful contribution by filling in missing articles in the list rather than getting hung up on MOS. How about it!Motmit (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOTBROKEN, there should be no strong need to change links, unless the links are visible, in which case the desirability of a style cleanup for the articles that link here is not really affected by the title we choose here – the proposed destination name already exists and links here. Any editor looking for the topic at either title should have no difficulty finding it, although the lowercase version would involve a bit less fingering exercise. I don't think we really need to have articles on all of these people – we know very little about many of these men. If you prefer to devote your energy to other matters, that is perfectly fine, of course. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. No strong need for change. So many more important tasks need to be done. Bmcln1 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  That's not an argument at all. Moving the article takes a minute and won't leave any more important tasks undone. Surtsicna (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support per JOBTITLES. A search for the use of "lord mayors of London" on the Times, Guardian, BBC also all make clear that this is the correct answer.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you actually read the links you've supplied? The Times and Guardian ones show clearly that "Lord Mayors of London" is preferred. And the BBC link has the wrong url, it's BBC.co.uk, not .com. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how you're seeing that. At the link for The Guardian, I see a 6 out of 9 majority of articles using lowercase, and at the link for The Times, I see a 6 out of 8 majority using lowercase (of course capitalizing Lord if it is the first word of a sentence). At BBC.co.uk, I see a 3 out of 8 minority for lowercase, and at BBC.com (which is also published by BBC), I see a 3 out of 3 unanimity for lowercase. Consider also that when usage is mixed, we should follow our own guidelines. Many publications use uppercase more extensively, while Wikipedia tries to minimize that practice. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. MOS:JOBTITLES says plural forms should not be capitalized. AP Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style both say that titles such as this one should only be capitalized when preceding the name of an officeholder. The plural form appears in lower case in both British and US publications. There does not seem to be anything special about the phrase "lord mayors"; lots of places have them. Surtsicna (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per evidence by Yaksar, above, that major British media mainly lowercase the phrase when in plural, in line with our own MOS. Thus, I don't see a valid argument to make an exception from JOBTITLES. No such user (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  No, au contraire. I already pointed out that Yaksar's evidence shows the opposite of what they claim. Plural or otherwise, the term is consistently capitalised in sources. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: It may be worth noting that another multi-article RM has just been closed that has a similar move of job title list articles to lowercase. The discussion may be found at Talk:List of presidents of the Czech Republic. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  As already noted, that is not similar. "President" is indisputably a common noun, whereas for "Lord Mayor", the vast majority of sources treat it as a proper noun. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support Clearly a common noun, not a proper noun, and MOS:JOBTITLES applies. Mauls (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support – lowercase "lord mayors" is not uncommon in sources, and our guidelines say to avoid over-capitalization, specifically of job titles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Consistent with majority usage in RS (as shown above by Yaksar/BarrelProof), and MoS. Colin M (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:JOBTITLES and Yaksar's analysis. CThomas³ (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

William Marlowe

With the '1455 Sir William Marlowe Grocer' listing the link is to a 20th century namesake. Correct link/differentiated name? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

references

I have just filled in bibliographical details for several of the existing references, and updated some of the links. It's not quite clear, though, why a few Lords Mayors have inline citations while most do not - a legacy, perhaps, from when the article was in an earlier state of compilation, and some verifications were required? Eebahgum (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

new lord mayor

Nicholas Lyons GeorgetheGreat1999 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The mother livery company of Nicholas Lyons is Merchant Taylors, rather than Insurers 2A02:C7C:504B:9900:7536:8893:B31C:A87A (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition, the mother livery company of Vincent Keaveny is Solicitors, rather than Woolmen. Thank you 62.255.103.162 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023

Add 1356, Henry Picard, vintner to the list.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Picard_(Lord_Mayor) and https://books.google.hu/books?id=w28BAAAAYAAJ&dq=Sir+Henry+Picard++Lord+Mayor+1356&pg=PA466&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Sir%20Henry%20Picard%20%20Lord%20Mayor%201356&f=false 2A01:36D:1500:6550:91B4:39EC:5588:F508 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Already done - His name was actually already on the list but it was hidden as there was a typo which hid the name from the list. DDMS123 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

1368 Mayor

Here his name is given as 'Simon de Montfort', but [[16] and [17] give 'Simon de Mordone.' What should be the correct name here? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

2021 and 2022 Mayors' Companies

There is a divergence in the livery companies for these two mayors here and on https://liverycommittee.org/about/city-of-london-corporation/the-lord-mayor/current-and-past-lord-mayors/ Jackiespeel (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)