Lord Mayors Show Cancelled

[GUT]

Never heard this before....

But in a Western Australan Newspaper 17 Nov 1888

Three articles in a row all listed as London November 14

1. Warren resigns

2. another letter fom Jack

3. Lord Mayor feeds ten thousand of London's poor by canceling the Lord Mayor's Show.

Anyone know anything?

[David Orsam]

Believe it or not GUT, this ties in with Pierres' GOGMAGOG letter.

When the details of the Lord Mayor's procession were published in the first week of November 1888 it was noted in the press that it was "unusually short" and contained no novel features. The London Evening Standard complained on 5 November 1888 that:

"It is clear, indeed, from the official programme, that we are not to have a show at all, for we can hardly dignify with that appellation the scanty and unimpressive Procession announced for Friday next....the journey will be conducted with a most unwonted absence of parade and display."

Previous parades had been more like a carnival with wild beasts, elephants and camels being featured, lots of people dressed up in costumes, loads of bands, and, most importantly, a number of impressive floats (or what we would today describe as floats). The 1888 parade was a slimmed-down version, with just a few bands and not much else of interest.

At the same time, it was announced that money would be spent on lunch for the poor on Lord Mayor's Day, no doubt leading to a belief that money was being spent on feeding the poor rather than on the parade.

It was in response to criticisms in the press of the lack of pageantry in the parade that GOGMAGOG wrote his letter to a couple of newspapers saying that it would still be good and everyone should come along.

A report sourced to the Press Association dated 10 November 1888 stated:

"Alderman James Whitehead was sworn in to-day as Lord Mayor of London. The usual parade was abandoned, it being deemed more expedient to distribute the cost of such a show among the poor of the city. This action is partly commended by the press".

Clearly this wasn't entirely accurate and the journalist who wrote it may have been confused not only by the above mentioned reports but also by a report from the Times of 31 October 1888 which stated that "The Lord Mayor Elect wishes it to be understood that although the proposed parade of Volunteers on 9th of November has been necessarily abandoned". This was a reference to a cancelled parade by the Metropolitan Volunteers at the request of the Volunteers' Commander-in-chief.

But there was certainly a parade of sorts on 9 November 1888.

[GUT]

Believe it or not GUT, this ties in with Pierres' GOGMAGOG letter.

When the details of the Lord Mayor's procession were published in the first week of November 1888 it was noted in the press that it was "unusually short" and contained no novel features. The London Evening Standard complained on 5 November 1888 that:

"It is clear, indeed, from the official programme, that we are not to have a show at all, for we can hardly dignify with that appellation the scanty and unimpressive Procession announced for Friday next....the journey will be conducted with a most unwonted absence of parade and display."

Previous parades had been more like a carnival with wild beasts, elephants and camels being featured, lots of people dressed up in costumes, loads of bands, and, most importantly, a number of impressive floats (or what we would today describe as floats). The 1888 parade was a slimmed-down version, with just a few bands and not much else of interest.

At the same time, it was announced that money would be spent on lunch for the poor on Lord Mayor's Day, no doubt leading to a belief that money was being spent on feeding the poor rather than on the parade.

It was in response to criticisms in the press of the lack of pageantry in the parade that GOGMAGOG wrote his letter to a couple of newspapers saying that it would still be good and everyone should come along.

A report sourced to the Press Association dated 10 November 1888 stated:

"Alderman James Whitehead was sworn in to-day as Lord Mayor of London. The usual parade was abandoned, it being deemed more expedient to distribute the cost of such a show among the poor of the city. This action is partly commended by the press".

Clearly this wasn't entirely accurate and the journalist who wrote it may have been confused not only by the above mentioned reports but also by a report from the Times of 31 October 1888 which stated that "The Lord Mayor Elect wishes it to be understood that although the proposed parade of Volunteers on 9th of November has been necessarily abandoned". This was a reference to a cancelled parade by the Metropolitan Volunteers at the request of the Volunteers' Commander-in-chief.

But there was certainly a parade of sorts on 9 November 1888.

Thanks David, so not cancelled, just downsized?

[David Orsam]

Thanks David, so not cancelled, just downsized?

Indeed.

[Pcdunn]

Interesting.

[Pierre]

Indeed.

How long was it?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

How long was it?

Haven't we been all over this Pierre?

As you well know, it was predicted to be about a quarter of a mile long, or 1,320 feet.

[Pierre]

it was predicted to be about a quarter of a mile long, or 1,320 feet.

But was it actually 1,320 feet?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

But was it actually 1,320 feet?

Don't be silly Pierre, no-one actually measured it.