Talk:Archbishop of York

Archive on speculation

Who is the new Archbishop of York after david Hope?

After the retirement of David Hope in February 2005, initial speculation on his successor centered mainly on John Gladwin (Bishop of Chelmsford), Nigel McCulloch (Bishop of Manchester), and Richard Chartres (Bishop of London). On March 5, The Times in a leader ("Balanced ticket") endorsed Chartres, but noted that popular rumor suggested that he would be uninterested in leaving London and unlikely to accept nomination. The column praised Gladwin's skills as a leader and adminitrator but suggested that he would most likely be considered too openly "liberal." McCulloch therefore appeared to be the frontrunner.

On June 12, the Times futher reported ("Black bishop on York shortlist") a list of five names which they claimed to be the Crown Nomination Commission's shortlist: McCulloch; Graham James (Bishop of Norwich); Michael Langrish (Bishop of Exeter); Tom Wright, (Bishop of Durham) — and John Sentamu (Bishop of Birmingham), the eventual choice. Whether this was indeed the commission's shortlist remains unknown, as well as whose was the second name they sent to the prime minister's office.

Just thought, for historical reasons, it would be a good idea to include the above back-story. Doops 18:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Hutton

There are two Matthew Huttons in the list, one 1595-1606 and one 1747-1757. Both link to the earlier one at the moment. Anybody got any ideas on the best way to disambiguate them? Rhion 12:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Manner of signing name

According to the Diocese of York website, Achbishop Sentamu signs himeself, "+Sentamu Ebor:", Sentamu being his "first Christian name". I have modified the text accordingly.

SammyB 11 Jan 2006

I can't see that the current text makes sense. Sentamu, according to John Sentamu, is his surname, not a forename. It may be a Christian name: I don't know. MacAuslan (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Primates' Meeting

Does the Archbishop of York (as Primate of England) attend the Primates' Meeting? I am wondering because if he doesn't then Rowan Williams is the first Abp. of Cant. to have been to the mtg before being so named (having been Primate of the Church in Wales), which is worth a mention in his article. Carolynparrishfan 23:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Numbering

I was confused by the inconsistent numbering. For instance, why aren't St. John of Beverley or John Dolben included in the numbering of the Johns, and why isn't John Gilbert numbered? I never heard nor read of John Habgood's being referred to as John VIII. Where does this numbering come from, please? --RobertG ♬ talk 10:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Paulinus

William of Malmesbury records that Paulinus of York was appointed archbishop of York by the pope, although his successors were bishops. Is there some other source which contradicts this? If not then this should be added. Richard75 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It might help to read the article on Paulinus - where it's explained that the pallium for Paulinus arrived after he'd been driven from York. As a general rule, modern secondary sources are used in preference to medieval works in Wikipedia articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. I missed it because it's only mentioned in the section about Paulinus being Bishop of Rochester afterwards -- I'll add another mention somewhere where one might expect to find it. Also it might be a good idea to mention that in this article too, since even though his appointment was not effective, it is still noteworthy that the pope decided to appoint an archbishop ealier that the first archbishop. Richard75 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Archbishop of York/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates Keith D 09:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Coat of arms

the arms from the German article

The German article uses the slightly different coat of arms on the right, where a little crown or coronet is integrated into the mitre (the file is based on the arms of the Bishop of Durham and the person who created it left the mitre as it was for Durham). Am I right to suppose that this coronet should not be in the arms of the Archbishop of York and that the file should be replaced by the one used here? Oudeístalk 20:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

death count

This information needs a secondary source that discusses the number of deaths by method of death in relation to the office. It’s not enough to just haphazardly source the supposed method of death for each individual...you need some secondary source that makes the point that it’s important to the office. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

See also User talk:Dudley Miles#Archbishops of Canterbury. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

pre-Conquest

On the talk pages of Lincoln and Chichester bishops I've suggested changing the table heading 'pre-Reformation bishops' because that's putting the cart before the horse. The ABY heading of Conquest to Ref is much better - but why 'pre-Conquest'? That has the same post hoc problem. The period is generally known as Anglo-Saxon; yes, surely, York was in the Danelaw, but it can still be chronologically counted as Anglo-Saxon.Katiehawks (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

We need separate sections for bishops and archbishops, but I do not think the archbishops should be separated into sections. The last pre-Conquest archbishop, Ealdred, carried on after the Conquest and Edward Lee is shown as the first post-Reformation even though his appointment was approved by the Pope so the first part of his incumbency should be regarded as pre-Reformation. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

At present, the article doesn't even mention that the archbishopric was ever a Catholic see. Though it should. natemup (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Taken from York in 1072

If they were taken FROM York and not BY York, to whom were thy given?

Did at least St Andrews become exempt ("apostolic see")? Or were they given to Hamburg-Bremen?

Lund would not be founded before 1107. And Nidaros split off Lund as late as 1158.--Ulamm (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)