Jump to content

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.

[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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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]

Wikipedia inconsistent on coronet in coat of arms

[edit]

The Wikipedia articles on the Diocese of Durham and the Bishop of Durham do not use the same image for the coat of arms. The coronet differs between the two. Each has its problems. According to one source, the coronet is supposed to be "a ducal coronet" (which, NATURALLY, Heralds being the creatures that they are, is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from "the coronet of a duke"). In Googling and also reviewing other British coats of arms in Wikipedia, I find good reason to believe that the "ducal coronet" has upon its rim four strawberry-leaves which I'll call "baubles" or "leaves". (The coronet of a duke has eight strawberry-leaves.) In the standard way of rendering a three-dimensional coronet into two dimensions, this means that one strawberry-leaf would be placed front-and-center, and that at each of the left and right extremities of the circlet one-half of a strawberry-leaf will show in profile. In the coronet shown at the article on the Bishop of Durham, the number is right but they don't really look like what we think of as "strawberry-leaves". In the coronet shown at the article on the Diocese of Durham, the baubles DO look like strawberry-leaves, but the number is wrong. It shows that there are eight, but showing five (one front-and-center (opposite one in back that we can't see), two on the extremities in profile (halves) as in the "ducal coronet"), but two more (opposite two in the rear that we can't see) on each side of the front-and-center strawberry-leaf, in-between it and the half-in-profile leaf on that side. This is not a "ducal coronet" but, rather, the "coronet of a duke".

I think someone should start with the image at the Diocese of Durham, and erase two leaves from the coronet's rim to make it into a ducal coronet. This graphic also has the advantage of being a lot larger. It would be easier to simply erase two strawberry-leaves than to change the baubles at the Bishop of Durham into strawberry-leaves.
Why this nitpick actually matters is because of confusion in a conversation, in which was mentioned the actions of the 1st Earl of Durham, occurring at a time when I would have thought that the Bishop of Durham was STILL the Earl of Durham. There is no resolution to the confusion, because the 1st Earl was so created in 1833, while the Bishop's Earldom wasn't abolished until 1836. As with the Earldom of Mar, and the Earldoms of "Oxford" and of "Oxford and Asquith", this does sometimes happen, even though it's not supposed to. But supposing I had looked at the image with the coronet of a duke and thought "Well, that explains it, I just erred in thinking that the Bishop's secular peerage was an Earldom, and now I see it's a Dukedom". I would have ended up with misinformation that I believed to be true, which is contrary to Wikipedia's spirit. (Fortunately I dug further and found out that the Bishop's secular peerage was an Earldom.)2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Please beef up the disambiguation for Durham peerage-titles

[edit]

Please make sure that the disambiguation-links for "Bishop of Durham", "Dicocese of Durham", "County Palatine of Durham", and "Earl of Durham" (peerage of 19th-century creation, and including its more-famous individual Earls) are as robust as they should be, with each Article providing a path to any of the others with which it is apt to be confused.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bishop_of_Durham&oldid=1244072143"