Talk:Historical development of Church of England dioceses

Anglicanism Mid‑importance

	Historical development of Church of England dioceses is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

In The Times of May 23, 1836, there is a 3rd report from a Royal Commission on the Church of England, which makes recommendations on making new dioceses and tidying up boundaries. The main recommendations were

London to include a good portion of the Metropolis
Diocese of Bristol to be wound up. City of Bristol to go to Gloucester, southern part to Diocese (ie Dorset, which was oddly detached!) of Salisbury
Ely to be expanded by transferring Huntingdon and Bedford from Lincoln; also Lynn, Fincham and Sudbury (part) from Norwich;
Scilly Isles to be declared part of Exeter
something about Hereford, I am not sure what. the language confuses me
Lincoln to consist only of Lincs and Notts
Notts to be in Province of Canterbury
Oxford to be expanded by adding Bucks (from Lincoln) and Berkshire (from Salisbury)
Peterborough to be expanded by adding Leics (from Lincoln)
St Asaph and Bangor to be merged
Hexhamshire to Durham
Carlisle and Sodor and Man to be merged. also to cover entire Cumberland, Westmorland, Furness.
Chester to include Flint! entirely to Province of York
new diocese of Manchester : all of Lancashire except Furness
new diocese of Ripon : that part of Chester in Yorkshire, etc

some of these got implemented quickly. some didn't.

were the provincial borders not aligned with the diocese borders back then?

much fun after this - there was an Established Church Act 1836. there have been books written about 19th century CoE reform and we have very little about this. will see what i can do Morwen - Talk 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly a Bill to merge St Asaph and Bangor that was introduced to parliament. Not sure how far it got... Lozleader 23:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the provinces thing: the way I read what you have- Notts was part of York diocese, moving it to Lincoln would involve putting into Canterbury province, Flintshire was in St Asaph (some was already in Chester diocese), which came under Canterbury, so this would have involved provincial boundaries following diocesan ones, because dioceses were entirely in one province. Lozleader 23:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westmorland etc.

As far as I can see, Kirkby Lonsdale and Kendal rural deaneries, as part of Richmond archdeaconry formed part of Ripon diocese in 1836, going to Carlisle in 1856, although Youngs contradicts himself. Can't figure out where Furness and Cartmel rural deanery went in 1836, it should have gone into ripon too, i'd have thought... Lozleader 21:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I decided he was contradicting himself too. you may well be right - it certainly makes more sense that way! i've tried searching gazette but it seems to not be useful for diocese changes before the mid 19th century. Morwen - Talk 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I amy well be wrong, too...[1] seems to know what its talking about.. It's confusing! Manchester diocese was supposed to be set up after Bangor and st Asaph were combined, but as that never happened they just went ahead anyway in 1847. At which point Chester diocese consisted of "Cheshire, the deanery of Warrington, Lancashire, and part of Flintshire and Shropshire." So where did Furness and Cartmel go and when??Lozleader 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More here [2]Lozleader 22:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where it seems that changes were not carried out until 1856 because until after the death of the incumbent bishopLozleader 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3], the creation of Manchester dioceses was to wait until St Asaph and Bangor to limit the number of bishops in the House of Lords. Interesting... Lozleader 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the reason for merging Bristol and gloucester [4] Lozleader 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird to all points. Interesting to see they were trying to keep the number of bishops stable like that: similar thinking in the Reform Act 1832 left the House of Commons with exactly the same number of seats it had before! Morwen - Talk 07:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, there were moves to reduce the number of dioceses in the Church of Ireland (from 20 to 12) from 1833 also. The changes were not to take effect until the death or retirement of the incumbents, so it took a while. Not sure whether Irish bishops sat in the Union House of Lords. I suppose they did until disestablishment. Lozleader 07:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed there were lots of mergers such that the Anglican and Roman hierachy in Ireland are now very different. Find it interesting nontheless that in Ireland there are two people claiming to be Archbishop of Dublin, say, whereas in Great Britain the Catholics set up an entirely new hierachy and haven't tried to appoint an Archbishop of Canterbury.

House of Lords says "The Church of Ireland did obtain representation ... after the union... Of the Church of Ireland's ecclesiastics, four (one archbishop and three bishops) were to sit at any one time, with the members rotating at the end of every parliamentary session (which normally lasted approximately one year). The Church of Ireland, however, was disestablished in 1871, and ceased to be represented by Lords Spiritual."

Morwen - Talk 08:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "reformation" was far from straight forward or complete in Ireland. I believe there was at least one individual who managed to be both an Anglican (they didn't call it that then of course) and Catholic bishop at the same time. Lozleader 11:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Penny Cyclopedia (1833) on Google Books says that the Barony of Westmorland was a rural deanery in the Diocese and Archdeaconry of Carlisle, and the Barony of Kendal was in the archdeaconry of Richmond in Chester. Oddly it hints that archdeaconry of Richmond wasn't entirely Chester.

It also says that all of Lancashire was in Chester, in the archdeaconries of Richmond (Amounderness, Furness, Cartmel) and Chester (the rest). It notes that under the 1833 the whole of the county is to be part of the new diocese of Manchester; except the Cartmel and Furness which would go to Carlisle. Morwen - Talk 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen - Talk 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Gazette of August 31, 1847 deals with the Carlisle expansion : the Ecclesiastial Commissioners detaches Kendal, Coupland, Furnes and Cartmel deaneries from Chester; and putting these all in a new Archdeaconry of Westmoreland, in Carlisle. this is done at the same time as the Manchester creation, it appears. pages 3159 and 3160. Morwen - Talk 21:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, pulling together all these sources

Kendal, Copeland, Furness and Cartmel were always treated as a single unit
they were in Chester in 1836 and stayed so
when Manchester was created in 1847 they were supposed to be added to Carlisle
the bishop of Carlisle did not agree to this
they remained part of Chester, therefore, and were not ceded to Manchester as one might expect geographically
in 1856 they became part of Carlisle as scheduled

Morwen - Talk 10:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-conquest?

There seems to be a bit of a hole in the article - the 'ancient' diocese list really starts at, or around, the conquest. For example, Lindisfarne, surely one of the most important ancient sees, is only mentioned in passing. Hexham also gets missed out, despite an article elsewhere on the Bishop of Hexham. I'm not really in a position to do this myself (as I have extremely limited knoweldege), but it is an important part of church history. Duncan (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dioceses Commission report

Available at the main C of E site is: A Background Report for the Dioceses Commission (by Dr Colin Podmore). It's a very useful document indeed. D B D 15:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem NPoV

Writing Historical development of Church of England dioceses#Colonial dioceses, I am listing a diocese's country next to it. What should one list as Jerusalem's "country"? Israel/Palestine? Help me, Manual of Style! D B D 21:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your message from talk MOS to here because that page is for discussing improvements to the MOS page.

See Jerusalem#Early modern period and thereafter for historical stuff. At the present day Jerusalem is defacto a part of the State of Israel, since 1967, but not recognized as such by all other nations. In the 1841 period of your table, the state was Palestine. Jerusalem was under Ottoman rule from 1517 to 1917, when it came under British control, and was still considered a part of the state of Palestine. See Jerusalem article and sources for further. As for NPOV, well, if the table intends to reflect present-day status, put Israel, and if challenged, add a footnote noting that the term only reflects the defacto status, or present political control.
FWIW. —Telpardec TALK 22:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]