Correct, he is Mayor of London, which is a directly elected position given him particular authority (along with the London Assembly) over Greater London - a 600 square mile region with about 8,000,000 people. This is in contrast to the office of Lord Mayor of the City of London, which is a (now mostly ceremonial role) with jurisdiction over about one square mile with about 7,000 permanent residents.
I never understood why Londoners wanted another layer of bureaucracy when they decided to have an actual mayor.
The City of London has existed in a reasonably recognisable 'modern' form for about 800 years, and occupies roughly the same area as was first settled by the Romans nearly 2000 years ago. The office of Lord Mayor dates back to AD1189. And these are basically the reasons it was all preserved. Because history matters to a lot of people, especially in the United Kingdom. But the structures that were used to elect a Lord Mayor were arcane and ancient as well and not suited to a modern democratic mindset - so splitting off that role into one that is almost purely ceremonial, while setting up a more modern system of local government for one of the worlds largest and richest cities was seen as desirable.
It didn't really add bureaucracy because both the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of the City of London really don't have any bureaucratic power.
It's symbolic but some of the symbolism does matter - the Lord Mayor derives his or her position from a charter signed by King John in 1215, about the same time he signed Magna Carta. This represented a step in the growth of British democracy - where a King was forced to yield some of his power to the people. Earlier charters had been issued, including one by William the Conquerer in 1067. These things are landmarks that those who believe in the rule of law in England, and what has grown out of England, tend to believe are worth preserving.
The Queen is not supposed to enter the City of London without the permission of the Lord Mayor. Permission is now assumed to be given for normal purposes (ie, if she is simply going shopping or making a public appearance within the bounds of the city), but there are still occasions when the ceremony is followed. Laws and traditions that symbolise the fact that the Monarch's powers are limited are not lightly given up.
I’m afraid I lost all respect for Johnson during the Olympics.
I quite like his politics, but his general demeanour worries me at times.
It's symbolic but some of the symbolism does matter - the Lord Mayor derives his or her position from a charter signed by King John in 1215, about the same time he signed by King John in 1215, about the same time he signed the Magna Carta. This represented a step in the growth of British democracy - where a King was forced to yield some of his power to the people. Earlier charters had been issued, including one by William the Conquerer in 1067. These things are landmarks that those who believe in the rule of law in England, and what has grown out of England, tend to believe are worth preserving.
I love the fact that it goes straight back to King John and the Magna Carta era. The thing about history is that once it's gone, it's gone. You don't get it back. So I'm glad they're keeping the tradition.