Question about English Archbishops

[Redbeard]

I'm working on an ATL starting in 1042 with canute's son Hardeknud surviving (by odd miracle) and of course this will have to involve the then very important question of which Archbishops ruling what.

In the current Chuch of England the Archbishop of Canterbury, as I understand it, have a kind of "first among equals" role in relation to the other Archbishops. But when did this happen - before breaking with Rome? From my studies so far I haven't found a clear answer, and I have a suspicion that the Archbishops in catholic times had only the Pope as superior (an English Vice-Pope would somehow not be in context).

My idea is to have the Archbishop of York (Edward the Confessor) getting Scandinavia (in competion with the AB of Bremen), as York then had strong Scandinavian ties and York thus being a real bid for the "super-Archbishop" title in competion with Canterbury in a North Sea Empire - but was any such position an option by mid 11th century?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Thande]

I don't think it's viable by that period. Canterbury, IIRC, had been pre-eminent right from the start as the seat of St Augustine. The only way York could get such a role, I think, is if this empire simply did not include Kent.

 

[V-J]

IIRC it was only resolved some time post-conquest. Before then, the position of who had primacy within England was disputed. What you suggest would seem to be feasible. But Wikipedia probably knows best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canterbury-York_dispute

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

In the current Chuch of England the Archbishop of Canterbury, as I understand it, have a kind of "first among equals" role in relation to the other Archbishops. But when did this happen - before breaking with Rome? From my studies so far I haven't found a clear answer, and I have a suspicion that the Archbishops in catholic times had only the Pope as superior (an English Vice-Pope would somehow not be in context).

The crazy thing is it's "The other Archbishop", singular. For some reason, I've never been able to understand, there's only 2 Archbishops in the Church of England. Canterbury is "primus inter pares" in the Anglican Communion, where there are 'lots' of archbishops.

Now... I don't know Canterbury's status WRT Wales and Ireland and Scotland in the Catholic era, but today the (anglican) churches of Wales and Ireland have their own archbishops, who are not part of the Church of England (although they are Anglican).

Similarly, Canada has 4 (ecclesiastical) provinces in the Anglican Church of Canada, and hence 4 Archbishops/Metropolitans (Plus the Primate, the head of the whole church).

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

My idea is to have the Archbishop of York (Edward the Confessor) getting Scandinavia (in competion with the AB of Bremen), as York then had strong Scandinavian ties and York thus being a real bid for the "super-Archbishop" title in competion with Canterbury in a North Sea Empire - but was any such position an option by mid 11th century?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

I suspect strongly that if the political center of power moved north, it would be possible to move the ecclesiastical center of power, too. While Canterbury has strong historical reasons for her primacy, the fact that that see is so near London, the heart of OTL England didn't hurt one little bit. The Pope did tend to allow kings their own way often, especially if 1) it didn't involve the Pope losing power and 2) no other major Catholic monarch opposed it. Since, those aren't the case in your TL, AFAIK, I suspect that the Pope could be talked into it. (It might take a few years and some sort of bribe, possibly even an new pope, but it could easily happen.)


Certainly, if York and Canterbury were in different 'countries', you could get York independent, easily. Once that was established, then if the Danelaw expands to all 'England', she could maintain her primacy.

 

[Falastur]

The crazy thing is it's "The other Archbishop", singular. For some reason, I've never been able to understand, there's only 2 Archbishops in the Church of England. Canterbury is "primus inter pares" in the Anglican Communion, where there are 'lots' of archbishops.

Now... I don't know Canterbury's status WRT Wales and Ireland and Scotland in the Catholic era, but today the (anglican) churches of Wales and Ireland have their own archbishops, who are not part of the Church of England (although they are Anglican).

Similarly, Canada has 4 (ecclesiastical) provinces in the Anglican Church of Canada, and hence 4 Archbishops/Metropolitans (Plus the Primate, the head of the whole church).

It's to do with the establishment of Catholicism in England in the 600s. A missionary (can't remember who) was sent by the Pope (he talked the Pope into it) to England to establish Christianity there. He was expected to go to Mercia or somewhere like that to start his mission but instead, for reasons I forget, chose to go to Kent. He converted the Kentish King and asked permission to establish a church in Kent's capital, Canteburh. This, of course, became Canterbury. Later on, when more priests came to join him, he was allowed to appoint Bishops and appointed a close friend to the Bishopric of Canteburh, which was the biggest and most powerful diocese in the (still very early) era, so he appointed a close friend and declared him (somewhat beyond his right to, iirc) to be the superior of the two other existing Bishops, at least one of which I think he didn't get on well with anymore. Bishoprics then spread across England as Christianity did. Later on, when the Vikings took over Northumberland, they decided to appoint their own Archbishop so that they could not be considered to be subservient to the native Church. When England was unified, they kept both Archbishops. In fact at one point there was a third Archbishopric formed (London?) but iirc it didn't last longer than about 20 years.

As for Scotland, Ireland and Wales - Scotland and Wales didn't get Archbishops for several centuries after this period iirc, but that doesn't mean they were subordinated to York or Canterbury. Scotland I believe was one diocese, the Bishop directly reporting to Rome. The Welsh had a few Bishops I think, again reporting to Rome. The Irish at this stage had a disorganised Church but was soon (next century) to form four dioceses, each of which appears to have taken the measure largely by themselves to ordain themselves as Archbishops. The churches of these countries really didn't intermingle with each other or the English, they're a non-issue here.

The problem here, of course, is that London is the better city to use as a capital, and Canterbury is closer to London than York. A king is likely to prefer a Primate who can be called quickly, and the archbishops of Canterbury, being only 30 miles (a day's ride) from London often travelled to the Capital for their own purposes too. One possibility I'm thinking of is this...in OTL the Archbishops of York were given the title Primate of All England as a kind of consolation prize for being made subservient to Canterbury. I'm thinking that a Scandinavian King would still eventually settle permanently in London, and I think that makes a dominant Canterbury virtually secure. Perhaps York could be granted the Primacy of Scandinavia instead of England as a reward for accepting Canterbury's domination?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

It's to do with the establishment of Catholicism in England in the 600s. A missionary (can't remember who) was sent by the Pope (he talked the Pope into it) to England to establish Christianity there.

St.Augustine. No, not that one, the other one.

He was expected to go to Mercia or somewhere like that to start his mission but instead, for reasons I forget, chose to go to Kent. He converted the Kentish King and asked permission to establish a church in Kent's capital, Canteburh. This, of course, became Canterbury. Later on, when more priests came to join him, he was allowed to appoint Bishops and appointed a close friend to the Bishopric of Canteburh, which was the biggest and most powerful diocese in the (still very early) era, so he appointed a close friend and declared him (somewhat beyond his right to, iirc) to be the superior of the two other existing Bishops, at least one of which I think he didn't get on well with anymore. Bishoprics then spread across England as Christianity did. Later on, when the Vikings took over Northumberland, they decided to appoint their own Archbishop so that they could not be considered to be subservient to the native Church. When England was unified, they kept both Archbishops. In fact at one point there was a third Archbishopric formed (London?) but iirc it didn't last longer than about 20 years.

Now that you mention it, there is mention of that other Archbishop in Robert' ASB (ISOT) scenario 'England expects every man to do his duty'.

Also from the same wiki article,

These early bishops of York acted as diocesan rather than archdiocesan prelates until the time of Ecgbert of York, who received the pallium from Pope Gregory III in 735 and established metropolitan rights in the north.

so this is long before the vikings were running things in the north.

As for Scotland, Ireland and Wales - Scotland and Wales didn't get Archbishops for several centuries after this period iirc, but that doesn't mean they were subordinated to York or Canterbury. Scotland I believe was one diocese, the Bishop directly reporting to Rome. The Welsh had a few Bishops I think, again reporting to Rome. The Irish at this stage had a disorganised Church but was soon (next century) to form four dioceses, each of which appears to have taken the measure largely by themselves to ordain themselves as Archbishops. The churches of these countries really didn't intermingle with each other or the English, they're a non-issue here.

The problem here, of course, is that London is the better city to use as a capital, and Canterbury is closer to London than York. A king is likely to prefer a Primate who can be called quickly, and the archbishops of Canterbury, being only 30 miles (a day's ride) from London often travelled to the Capital for their own purposes too. One possibility I'm thinking of is this...in OTL the Archbishops of York were given the title Primate of All England as a kind of consolation prize for being made subservient to Canterbury. I'm thinking that a Scandinavian King would still eventually settle permanently in London, and I think that makes a dominant Canterbury virtually secure. Perhaps York could be granted the Primacy of Scandinavia instead of England as a reward for accepting Canterbury's domination?

According to Wiki, you've got it backwards:

The archbishop is a member ex officio of the House of Lords, and is styled Primate of England. (The Archbishop of Canterbury is "Primate of All England".)

 

[Falastur]

According to Wiki, you've got it backwards:

Bleh! Just my luck.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Bishoprics then spread across England as Christianity did. Later on, when the Vikings took over Northumberland, they decided to appoint their own Archbishop so that they could not be considered to be subservient to the native Church. When England was unified, they kept both Archbishops. In fact at one point there was a third Archbishopric formed (London?) but iirc it didn't last longer than about 20 years.

As for Scotland, Ireland and Wales - Scotland and Wales didn't get Archbishops for several centuries after this period iirc, but that doesn't mean they were subordinated to York or Canterbury. Scotland I believe was one diocese, the Bishop directly reporting to Rome. The Welsh had a few Bishops I think, again reporting to Rome. The Irish at this stage had a disorganised Church but was soon (next century) to form four dioceses, each of which appears to have taken the measure largely by themselves to ordain themselves as Archbishops. The churches of these countries really didn't intermingle with each other or the English, they're a non-issue here.

In these early days, the Celtic church, while acknowledging the supremecy of Roman and the Pope, was essentially independent and had very different rules of operation. Abbots were more powerful than bishops, for instance, and, as you say, they had no office titled 'archbishop'.

Your post seems to imply that all the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons happened from the south, emanating from St.Augustine's mission and Canterbury. This is quite false. There was also a wave of Christianization proceding from the West and North. In fact the differences of usage were the reason behind the Synod of Whitby, which the RC's basically won. (Perhaps unfortunately.)

 

[Belushi]

IIRC Lichfield was also the seat of an Archbishop for a short period during the reign of Offa.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

IIRC Lichfield was also the seat of an Archbishop for a short period during the reign of Offa.

Right, that's the one.

Hygeberht (also spelled Hygberht, Hygebeorht, or Higbert) (died after 803 AD) was the bishop of Lichfield (779–787) and archbishop (787–799) of Lichfield during the reign of the powerful Offa, king of Mercia, in the late eighth century. Little is known of his background, but he was probably a native of Mercia. It was Offa who pushed through the elevation of Lichfield to an archbishopric, but the change in Lichfield's status was never popular with the other southern English archbishopric, Canterbury. After Offa's death, his distant relative Coenwulf became king and petitioned the pope to have Lichfield returned to a simple bishopric, which happened in 803. By this date, Hygeberht was no longer considered even a bishop, as he is mentioned as only an abbot at the council that oversaw the demotion of Lichfield in 803. He died sometime after that, but the date is unknown.

Bold italic emphasis added.