Jump to content

Talk:Archbishop of Canterbury

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DavidShaw (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 18 November 2012 (→New archbishop of canterbury: correction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New archbishop of canterbury

Rowan Williams is no longer archbishop of canterbury, Justin Welby has replaced him - the page needs updating!

This is premature. Williams remains archbishop until the end of this year. Welby does not take over until next March. DavidShaw (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications for the gig

In theory can ANY anglican archbishop (any vicar? any member?) be made Archbishop of Cantabury. I'd always thought you had to be from the Church of England but Rowan Williams isn't. A Geek Tragedy 12:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably helps to be a bishop in/from the U.K. Theoretically, I suppose, any Anglican bishop could be named, but I am not clear on that, one way or the other. Since the Church of England is established, meaning it has an official relationship with the government of the U.K., the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by the Government, with the Queen basically rubberstamping the choice of the ruling government. This means, of course, that Tony Blair is responsible for the fact that Rowan Williams is the current Archbishop of Canterbury. --Midnite Critic 18:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God, for a second I thought that said Robin Williams was the new Archbishop. :) --Dante Alighieri 13:27 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Well, Robin Williams IS an Episcopalian...--Midnite Critic 18:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Roman Catholic Church appoint its "own" Archbishops of Canterbury, to "compete" with those who head the Church of England?

The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England is the Archbishop of Westminster. When the Catholic hierarchy was re-established in England in 1850, parliament passed a law saying that the Catholic Church was not allowed to use any of the same diocesan names as the Church of England did. john k 18:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Abp. of Westminster isn't the head of the church in England. There's no national primacy. He is metropolitan for several dioceses.

Catholic Heirarcy in England

No, there is no Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury. The Catholic Heirarcy is seperate.

Interestingly, however, a pall appears on the Arms of the Archbishop. This is a CATHOLIC symbol of a metropolitian Archbishop and can only be received from the Pope.

ABCs used to be RC... Greentubing 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was received from the Pope. Fishhead64 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's a pallium not a pall. A pall is what covers the coffin at an RC/Anglican/Lutheran funeral. --Midnite Critic 18:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, the similarly shaped heraldic "ordinary" is called a "pall". But the archbishop's arms don't have a generic pall; they have an actual pallium. Pallia also appear on the arms of the Anglican Archbisops of Armagh and Dublin; and although the current arms of the Archbishop of York doesn't have a pallium, there is some evidence of alternate medieval set that did. Doops | talk 23:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there IS a "Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury" - this article is all about him! By Law in England the Church of England is the Catholic Church; those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church are non-conformists, just like Methodists, Baptists, or any other non-established denomination. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothy Titus By Law, rofl. You can't legislate truth.96.227.69.105 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arms

Arms of the See of Canterbury

I've created a image (right), but will resist from adding it until others are okay with it, due to the high visibility of this page. You can see other examples by me at Anglican Diocese of Auckland and Anglican Diocese of Christchurch. Greentubing 11:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

A very fine article but I suggest one change. In the first paragraph, this section should be removed and placed in the section called Origins.

"This claim is disputed by the Roman Catholic Church, in whose name St Augustine established the diocese. After the Act of Supremacy, the Catholic Church considered this diocese suppressed, and the line of succession broken on 17 November, 1558 with the death of Reginald Cardinal Pole."

It is of historical note that the RC Church considers Pole as the last valid successor, but Dr Williams is the current incumbent recognized by law. Placing this in the first paragraph of the article gives undue weight to the opinion of the RC Church. The RC Church has the same problem with the Archbishopric of Uppsala in Sweden and many other formerly Roman Catholic sees. Again a fine article, very well written. --Highdesert 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very technical start

Shouldn't the detailed stuff about exactly what Roman Catholics think about the Anglican communion be removed from the start? After all the article on Roman Catholicism claims to go back to the apostle Peter without everything about the great schism with the orthodox churches and every point in which the papal succession is questionable being detailed, nor do most WP articles on a religious or church group contain so much on differing point of view. I think perhaps this article degrades its own quality in this way and should just refer interested parties to a history article. --BozMo talk 11:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Head?

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England and of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Is 'head' the right word here? --Docg 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, that's the Queen. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/role/index.html uses the terms "Primate of All England" and "Leader of the Anglican Community". Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'head' is absolutely the correct term to describe the Archbishop of Canterbury: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4405844.stm Head is understood to be the "CEO" of an organisation - this role in the Church of England is filled by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Tony Blair is the Leader of the Labour Party, but he is also the head of it. In a like manner, the same analogy applies to the Archbishop of Canterbury in respect to the Church of England. Reference to the Queen as the head of the Church of England is inaccurate. The title "Supreme Governor" is given to British Monarchs largely historically - and relates to administrative functions only - the Queen is NOT an ordained priest and therefore CANNOT be constituted the head of any portion of Christ's church as apostolic succession would not allow this. The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church and churches in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church are said to be in communion with the See of Rome. As churches that are in full communion with the Anglican Communion are said to be in communion with the See of Canterbury, then the Archbishop of Canterbury must following the same logic, be the head of the Church of England. This evidence is augmented by the fact that recently meetings regarding Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism were held in Rome - between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury - if the Archbishop is the not the head of the Church of England, then why did he attend such an important meeting? An organisation such as a the Church has a hierarchy, and therefore a head. Christ did not ordain prophets and princes, but priests to lead his church. Therefore, if the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT the head of the Church of England, who is? Csh1066 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the term 'head' does not just mean leader in Christian context, it has theological connotations, which make it the wrong word here. Biblically Christ is 'head' of the church, and Protestant Christians have often criticised Roman Catholics for calling the Pope 'head' - as that's Christ's role. So for us to call the archbishop the head would be inaccurate. It might leave people thinking they made the same claims for him as RCs do for the pope. No Anglican AFAICT would call him such.--Docg 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this reasoning is that Anglicanism stands in both a catholic "and" reformed tradition. Christ is the only head of the (entire) Church, but the church still has governance here on earth. Therefore, in relation to the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury is its head on earth. If he is not the head of the Church of England here on earth, then why is he the highest ranking British citizen (outside the Royal family) in the British Order of Precedence? Why is the Archbishop of Canterbury the focus of unity for the Anglican Communion? Why is it the Archbishop of Canterbury who meets with the Pope? Why is it the Archbishop of Canterbury who calls the Lambeth Conference? The term 'theological connotations' is rather vague - what does that mean precisely? Even though the phrase 'AFAICT' is used, it seems a rather sweeping statement to say 'No Anglican' - the Church of England is a broad church, there are some in it, who would shudder at the thought of being called a 'Protestant' for example. Csh1066 07:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reliable source to show that the Church of England refers to him as its 'head'. If you can, then I retract my objection.--Docg 13:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, from my reading some years ago, the term 'head' as originally used to describe himself as 'Head of the Church' by King Henry VIII may have been used more in the sense of him being the 'first person' (or 'principal person') of the Church in England rather than in the sense of being the 'leader' of the Church. This seems to have a certain logic to it considering the way that the Monarch was understood as being the 'font' of all things within the kingdom. Afterwriting 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Personally I prefer Doops' version of the second para (diff) to Stevertigo's - just doesn't read well to me. "Punctuated" doesn't seem to make any sense in context, and calling it a "Roman Catholic station" makes it sound more of a military role! I don't want to start an edit war over it though so I won't revert - any thoughts anyone else? David Underdown 09:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apostolic succession

Hi. Just a note on apostolic succession — yes, there is an unbroken line of archbishops from Augustine to Williams; and yes, there is also an unbroken line of apostolic succession. But they're two different lines, so we can't mention one and then use the pipe trick to link to the other article. (Why are they two different lines? not every archbishop has been ordained by his predecessor — some were not yet bishops upon election; others were ordained not by their immediate predecessor but an earlier one; others were ordained in a different province, e.g. York or (in the present case) Wales.) Doops | talk 08:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglican understanding of apostolic succession differs from the Roman Catholic, but it is important to emphasise apostolic succession as a key tenet of Anglicanism, which is why I had links to the other article. Where the Roman Catholic Church considers apostolic succession in the terms of all Popes being directly descended from Peter (one line), Anglicans consider it in the generic sense that the 12 apostles were the first Bishops of the Church and through the laying on of hands, have translated that ministry throughout all generations subsequent to the present time in the maintenance of the three-fold ministry of bishop (episcopal), priest (presbyteral) and deacon (diaconal). All Anglican priests at their ordination have to affirm that "the Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, worshipping the One True God" - consecration of any Archbishop in the Church of England must be by an Archbishop (or his Deputy) assisted by at least 2 other Bishops. In this way, apostolic succession is continued in the Church of England - all Archbishops of Canterbury can trace their minsitry back to the 12 apostles. I hope this clarifies that to see the issue as "apostolic succession one line" and "line of Archbishops one line" is to apply a Roman Catholic interpretaion of the succession in order to suggest its irrelevance in this article. I think the Anglican understanding of the succession should be inherent in the article and therefore the link to the article on apostolic succession restored. Csh1066 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. We don't do 'inherent' understandings of one POV. We do neutral point of view. So, if what you say is correct, we can say "is in the apostolic succession, according to Anglicans" - which is to describe an Anglican POV. But we can't say "is" because that would take an Anglican POV. However, I've no problem with the Anglican POV being most prominent in an Anglican article - we just can't say it is 'true'--Docg 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For Catholics, apostolic succession isn't just about the papacy, otherwise it'd be the papal succession. The article itself is POV on the continuous line back to St Augustine since Augustine and some of his successors were authentically appointed by the holy see, yet more recent ones haven't been, thus breaking the line of legitimacy.

Hmmm?! This last comment is certainly very POV. "Legitimacy" of what precisely? Anyway, surely it is more correct to refer to 'episcopal succession' when referring to the line of succession of a particular bishopric - 'apostolic succession' is a more general term affirming belief that bishops are in an historical succession from the apostles. Anglicanus (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primus Inter Pares

I thought the Crown was head of the Anglican Communion? Archbishops are merely heads of their sees and there are senior archbishops among the sees, am I right?

No, as stated elsewhere on the talkpage, the monarch is Supreme Governor (not head) of the Church of England, but has no specific role in the wider Anglican Communion (even in other Commonwealth Realms which share the same monarch). David Underdown 08:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other roles

At the moment this mini section has only one role and one place. I think it should be expanded to include more roles. The Archbishop is also visitor to many school, colleges and charities. Most of the positions are ex officio. A list can be found on the parliment website [[1]] SGoat 06:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that list is that it's not entirely clear which posts are held as the Archbishop of Canterbury and which are held as Rowan Williams. It's also incomplete - where for instance is the ex officio Chancellorship of Canterbury Christ Church University? Timrollpickering 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list does make it clear which roles are ex officio. The ones with a '?' following them (as shown by the key at the end of the entry). These roles are held by the Archbishop of Canterbury (whoever he is). The others are held by Rowan Williams. With regard to the list being incomnplete it may well be, but as it comes from the House of Lords website and we do not have any other good sources of verifiable lists it seems the best we have. As the entry only contains 4 other roles at present shouldn't we at least use some more of these that have been checked. SGoat 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I didn't see that and "Visitor (ex-officio)" in the list implies the other way. Timrollpickering 14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leader?

the text:

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the principal leader of the Church of England and by convention is also recognised as head of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The current archbishop is Rowan Williams.

seems to be better than other proposed changes. I say it should stand. -- SECisek 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but why is it better? Could justification please be provided as to why this is the preferred option. Firstly, before this revision, I have never heard of the Archbishop of Canterbury being referred to as the "principal leader" of the Church of England. "Spiritual leader" - yes, "Senior clergyman" - yes, even "Head" in some media/newspapers articles. What is a principal leader in a religious context? Moreover, the term "and by convention is also recognised as" is unnecessary and redundant - the Archbishop of Canterbury IS the head of the Anglican Communion, because those churches that choose not to recognise him as such, are not actually in the Anglican Communion. That's like saying that the Queen is recognised by convention as the Head of the Commonwealth - no, she just is, because although she's not actually de facto in power in all the Commonwealth countries, if they do not accept her as the Head of the Commonwealth, they're not in the Commonwealth. In a like manner, while we're not suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury is like the Pope with a centralised curia, he is the Head of the Anglican Communion, full stop. I just think the paragraph regarding the leader is too confusing and needs simplifying. I think the key point is that in the Church, the "CEO" for Anglicans is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Csh1066 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what he isn't. He's not even the CEO of the CofE, let alone the Anglican Communion. "Principal" in this context is just an adjective, used because he's not the only leader of the CofE (so we can't just say he's "the leader"); but if you don't like it I'll change it to the equivalent "main."
'Spiritual leader' doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since the CofE is a spiritual organization. You could say he's the spiritual leader of England itself, perhaps— but I doubt in today's day and age that would fly! As for "senior cleric" — well, aside from how painful "senior" sounds to the ears of anybody who speaks Latin (the senior bishop right now would appear to be Thomas Butler, who became Bishop of Leicester in 1991), "senior cleric" really sounds more appropriate for something less heirarchical than the CofE.
You're right that he IS the head of the "Anglican Communion" insofar as such a thing exists — but the Communion exists only as a matter of convention so it amounts to the same thing in the end. When I wrote that I was trying to find a way to express the very real difference between his role in the CofE and the Communion. I guess if you prefer, though, we can go back to the old "...and is the symbolic head of the Anglican Communion" wording. How do you feel about "symbolic" ? Doops | talk 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia

I do not like to edit web pages. However, would someone please edit the Archbishop of Caterbury page to include that he is calling for Sharia Law to be enacted in the UK. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.45.160 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really about the office is general, not the current incumbent. Any mention of this story would be more appropriate in the Rowan Williams article. David Underdown (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman archbishops, reason for establishment of see at Canterbury

I'm about to add info on this to the Origins section in this article, doing away with the Fact template; but I'm citing a book by John Wacher, first published in 1974, whereas I note that a 2nd edition was published in 1995, which I haven't seen. I'm also improving the section generally. You may wish to look into it. Nortonius (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done this. (Later:) Ha! I just noticed that I marked the edit to the article as 'minor'! Sorry, that was unintentional, and wasn't designed to pull the wool over anyone's eyes! Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence of a retiring Archbishop

the Archbishop ranks above all others in the realm (except the Royal family)

what happens to his rank when he retires? does he fall steeply in precedence to just above the Barons (as a retired Bishop below ordinary retired Bishops)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, all those who actually retired during the 20th and 21st centuries have been created life peers, I don't know if they take their precedence based on that, or as a retired bishop. David Underdown (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, a life peer (i.e., a life Baron) or even a hereditary baron, ranks lower than a retired Bishop.....therefore, I guess the reasoning of also bestowing a life peerage on a retiring Archbishop is not to confer higher precedence, but rather to allow him to continue sitting in the House of Lords (as a temporal lord as opposed to the sitting in the House as a spiritual lord in his previous position)......Trajanis (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the following is the order of precedence (and I was wondering where a retiring Archbishop would rank---just as any other retired Church of England diocesan bishop (ordered according to seniority of consecration)? or a special rank above that because of the previous archdiocese position?):

Bishops

24 Church of England diocesan bishops with seats in the House of Lords (ordered according to seniority of consecration)

16 Other Church of England diocesan bishops (ordered according to seniority of consecration)

Suffragan bishops (ordered according to seniority of consecration)

Retired Church of England diocesan bishops (ordered according to seniority of consecration)

Hereditary Barons

Life Barons of the United Kingdom"

Trajanis (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, I beleive that retired Archbishops revert to the style of Right Reverend, rather than Most Reverend (since the Church of England has not yet taken up the ida of Archbishops Emeritus), so I can only assume they would rate according to their consecration (which potentially throws up anotehr wrinkle when the present incumbent retires - he was consecrated a bishop in the Church in Wales, not in the Church of England). Anyway, this is all really beyond the scope of this page, which is supposed to be for discussing improvements to the article. David Underdown (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the precedence of the Archbishop is discussed in the article. Therefore, I believe precedence is within the scope of this page.Trajanis (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as noted in the website of the Church of England: "Retired archbishops properly go back to the status of a bishop but may be given as a courtesy the style of an archbishop." http://www.churchofengland.org/contact-us/addressingtheclergy.aspx Trajanis (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

therefore, the correct precedence of a retired Archbishop would ordered according to seniority of consecration of all retired bishops (including archbishops). In addition, retired archbishops are also created life barons (albeit at a lower level in the table of precedence) in order to allow them to keep their seats in the House of Lords Trajanis (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retired archbishops are technically correctly addressed as "The Right Reverend" as a regular bishop (instead of "The Most Reverend" when in office) http://oliffcollection.homestead.com/ArchbishopsCanterbury.html Trajanis (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

interestingly, the children of an archbishop or bishop have no spot on the table of precedence (during the actual term of office of their father), but upon retirement of their father (when he is ennobled with a life peerage) enter the table of precedence at a rather high level (superior to all baronets and knights (other than Knights of the Garter and Knights of the Thistle) Trajanis (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic undo weight?

Why is the Roman Catholic opinion of the Archbishop's legitimacy given so much attention in the lead of this article? Ltwin (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous addional roles of the ABC

A few years ago my wife and I were attending a service in the Anglican church in Stratford on Avon on what happened to be Shakespeare's birthday (although given the number of purists that obviously read and comment on this page, that should of course be "the anniversary of Shakespeare's birthday"). To our surprise, Rowan Williams was there as a "guest" for the occasion and gave the homily. During subsequent discussions, it emerged that in times gone by, the ABC was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer (spelling?).

Which brings me to the main point, which is: would it be appropriate to include a bit of a historical section in which could be included what were other roles of the ABC? Old_Wombat (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say include it if you can find a source. Probably would be better in the Archbishop_of_Canterbury#Additional_roles subsection Hot Stop (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it came from Rowan's own lips, how much more "verifiable" can it be :) ? But seriously, I do accept your point; I have no other source. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the news today

On this date, the Toronto Star (a major Canadian news organization) included the image seen on this page of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. It was part of a photographic "A to Z" series of those who will attend the wedding of Prince William to Catherine Middleton. Every other photograph in the series was from a commercial entity. It was quite wonderful to see that what they thought was the best photograph of a man who has spent many years in the public forum was one taken by a volunteer member of the WMF family. Risker (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bromley College

The Wiki entry for the Archbishop says he is associated with Bromley College, and links to Bromley College of Further Education. I suspect this is an error (thiugh I don't know for certain). Instead, he is probably linked to Bromley College, an establishment for retired clergy and their widows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.77.35 (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Canterbury?

Why is it the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than Archbishop of London as one would expect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered in the article – apparently London was originally intended to be an archbishop's see by Pope Gregory I in the 6th century, but Canterbury was chosen instead "owing to political circumstances." Did you miss that? Whether or not you did, I think that perhaps there could be a little more detail in the article about "why Canterbury", it's a good question. What were those political circumstances? Were there any British bishops who might have objected to these plans? (I don't think that's such a daft question, though we may not be able to answer it) Another question might be, "why did the archbishops stay in Canterbury?" I can only guess an answer to that, for now. Anyone? Or, I have some of the main sources already cited in the article, plus a few others that may be helpful, maybe I'll see if I can do something. Nortonius (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Did you miss that?: No, and I don't think it answers my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Patience, sport! No, I agree that it's inadequate, and I haven't answered your question, but I gave you a thoughtful response, which is more than anyone else has done in the month since you first posted, as far as I can tell. You are aware that Wikipedia is written by volunteers, using their own time and resources? Anyway, I'm looking into it. I'll do what I can, among my other commitments, unless someone beats me to it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the original question is that Canterbury was the capital of the Kingdom of Kent at the time that Augustine arrived in England (AD 596). He was allowed by King Æthelbert to establish himself in Canterbury and that is where the archbishopric has remained. London was not part of the Kingdom of Kent in the 6th/7th century. See the Wikipedia article on Æthebert: Æthelberht_of_Kent#Augustine.E2.80.99s_mission_and_early_Christianization. DavidShaw (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

York and Canterbury are the archbishoprics of England; the three main bishoprics are London, Durham and Winchester. If any one one can see how that information relates to the article, s/he could put it it in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to add to this discussion that London wasn't the capital of anything for many centuries after the Roman withdrawal from Britain. Indeed it was a bit of a mess until it was taken by Wessex and restoration began in 886. It then didn't become the capital of England (though really technically the neighbouring city of Westminster is the seat of government) until after the Norman conquest. David (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Also: Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

Why is this in the see also? What does it have to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury? It should probably be removed from the list75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also is intended to link articles that cover similar themes. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the primus inter pares of the Anglican church while the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the primus inter pares of the Eastern Orthodox church. That sounds like enough of a similarity between the two roles to merit a see also link. Unless a consensus forms to remove it I don't think it is doing any harm. Road Wizard (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archbishop_of_Canterbury&oldid=523643832"