I agree with everything and can not see why a dare I say it fundamental fact ie that the Cathedral s origins are pre Reformation and that the Cathedral was built at a time when the church in England had its allegiance to Rome should be completely ignored I am not pushing an agenda here but I think there is something arrogant and dismissive about the use of the words crowbarring of a not very pivotal fact as used by one of the editors in the section above this I think now Anglican is a good compromise in that it accurately defines the Cathedral s current status but also suggests without labouring the point that this was not always the case Enough information I would venture to say for an interested reader to find out more should they choose or desire to do so