Jump to content

Talk:Archbishop of York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessment comment

[edit]

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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

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

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

Coat of arms

[edit]
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)[reply]

death count

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

pre-Conquest

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Taken from York in 1072

[edit]

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)[reply]