Talk:Cosmo Gordon Lang

message: Lang's title was Baron Lang of Lambeth, as it is in the introduction of the article, and as stated in the page of The London Gazette cited in the "Retirement and death" section of the main article. To this title is added the territorial designation "of Lambeth in the County of Surrey." It is simply not correct to say that his title is "Baron Lang", and if we're referring to the title along with its territorial designation (which I think we should – there's no reason not to), then we have to say "Baron Lang of Lambeth, of Lambeth in the County of Surrey", as given by the source. —Calisthenis(Talk) 15:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For ease of reference, the relevant passage of the Gazette page given is the bottom left-hand corner (the section dated "April 3, 1942"). —Calisthenis(Talk) 15:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct User:Calisthenis. Looking at "Baron Lang of Lambeth, of Lambeth in the County of Surrey": his title is what comes before the commas (so "Baron Lang of Lambeth"), and the territorial designation, usually their residence or a place with which they have strong ties, is what follows (so "of Lambeth in the County of Surrey"). If used in full, it can't be written as "Baron Lang, of Lambeth in the County of Surrey" because that leaves off half his title which makes it wrong. Even though it says "of Lambeth, of Lambeth", this isn't an error. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk  17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peerage title 

message: An editor has added incomplete lists of Lang's honours, with tags drawing attention to their incompleteness. As Featured Articles have to meet the criterion "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details" I have commented out the incomplete section for now. Do colleagues agree that this is the right approach, pending completion of the lists to meet criterion 1b? Tim riley talk 21:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of honours 

message: : "the first bachelor to hold the appointment in 150 years"
Say what? Is it normal for archbishops to be married? Came here from the main page, looking for an explanation. Found none, even tho bachelor has other meanings that could apply. DAVilla (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally found an answer in the references. Yes, apparently typical for Anglicans, maybe should have been more obvious. DAVilla (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: DAVilla, during the Reformation, Archbishop Cranmer was twice married; thereafter Queen Elizabeth disapproved of married clergy but by the 18th and 19th centuries many, I think probably most, C of E clergy, particularly the senior ones, were married. And if you think about it, that Lang was the first bachelor A of C for a century and a half is ipso facto a departure from the norm. I can't offhand think of another bachelor A of C since Lang. There isn't any rule about the matter, but I think it is reasonable to note that Lang was an exception to the norm. As a friend IRL of the main editor of the article, the late Brian Boulton, I am confident that BB wasn't making a Torygraphish innuendo about "confirmed bachelors", but was simply stating the facts. Tim riley talk 21:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, interesting. I wasn't even thinking that. The definition that confused me was "low-level ecclesiastics, as young monks and recently appointed canons". Anyway, thanks for the clarification. DAVilla (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First bachelor in 150 years