LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.
fro THU EDITOR Or THZ " BPICTATOR."] Sin,—The discrepancy in the lists of the Archbishops of Canterbury is easily explained. In 1348 the monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, elected Thomas Bradwardine as their Primate. The King, wishing to keep the nomination in his own hands, prevailed on the Pope, Clement VI., to quash the .election, and to appoint by provision John de Ufford, a paralytic old man, who died of the Black Death before con- secration. Dean Hook has, therefore, omitted his name from his list of the Archbishops. But he admits the intruder, Roger Walden, also appointed by Papal provision, who was for two years the de facto, but not the de jure, Primate during t he disgrace and banishment of Archbishop ArundeL Arundel returned with Henry Bolingbroke in 1399, and Roger Walden
retired into poverty and private life. Five years later, through the generosity of his rival, he was appointed to the bishopric of London, but died within a few months. His name is omitted by Parker, Godwin, and F.omner from their lists, but appears in the " Registrnm Sacrum" of Stubbs. " Haydn's Dictionary of Dates," from which you quoted, gives the names of both Ufford and Walden and the name of Arundel twice over, yielding a total of ninety-five. Hook allows ninety- three, some other authorities ninety-two only. On the whole, it seems correct to say that the late Archbishop Benson was the ninety-second, and that Dr. Temple will be the ninety- third Archbishop of Canterbury.—I am, Sir, &e.,
Previous page
