Talk:Bishop of Durham

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

Proposed Merger[edit]

The Prince Bishops article is rather bare, and I can't see a reason why we should need to have a separate article from this one (with fewer links and details). It also gives unnecessary confusion between Prince Bishop and Prince Bishops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.13.181 (talk • contribs) on 23 March 2007.

I have altered the merge tags to give a preferred direction for the merge. I note also that they were placed back in March 2006 and there has not been much interest. In my opinion Prince Bishops of Durham should be merged to Bishop of Durham as the latter is the ongoing article and the former is part of the history of the latter. --Bduke 12:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Where on earth has the list of bishops gone? There's a reference to an article which apparently doesn't exist and never has... whoa, and we have a horribly messy edit history too. Ugh. Time to fix this. Shimgray | talk | 17:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at other articles, a lot of old bishoprics have been inexplicably vandalised like this... gah. Lots of cleanup. Shimgray | talk | 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New arms, based on Fox-Davies' drawing[edit]

Arms of the See of Durham

I've created this image, which I'll leave up to someone paying attention to these articles, to include in this article. It is based on a drawing accompanying an article by the venerable Fox-Davies on ecclesiastical heraldry, though I had no blazon to work to. Greentubing 08:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that your drawing is correct in showing the mitre having a rim from a "ducal coronet". I wonder however if you have resources to nail that down and verify that it is not supposed to be "a coronet of the type used by Dukes"? A problem arises because a so-called "ducal coronet" is NOT (as common sense would have made it) the type used by non-royal Dukes. A so-called "ducal coronet" has four strawberry-leaves, and the coronet used by a Duke (on his head at coronations, and in his crest above his coat-of-arms) has eight strawberry-leaves. The wiki article on "County Palatinate" says that the rim is that of a coronet "used only by Dukes". In all probability this is an error in THAT article (it should have said "ducal coronet" instead) and your drawing is correct. But is it possible to nail it down? I have posted this same observation at the "County Palatine" article's discussion-talk-page.69.86.130.90 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
Minor quibble: did you use strawberry-leaves as your model, or acanthus-leaves? In other places on wikipedia the strawberry-leaves on coronet-rims look different than they do in your drawing. No biggie.69.86.130.90 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Recent change[edit]

I deleted the sentence that said that the Bishop of Durham is the senior-most bishop of the province of York, as it would seem to make more sense that the Archbishop of York would be. I know how these things work, though, and I realize that there may be some obscure technical reason why this might not be the case. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bishop of Durham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of map[edit]

I think it is a pity that the map has been removed. It was never intended to show the current boundaries. It shows the historic boundaries and I think that is important. It was in the history section. I do not intend to get into an edit war. So I would welcome the views of others here. --Bduke (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed again and then reinstalled by me. Please add some other opinions. --Bduke (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it back in again Newystats (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eardulf twice?[edit]

Why is Eardulf in the list twice - is this covered in the source? Newystats (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bishop_of_Durham&oldid=1195727970"