Talk:Sarah Mullally

message: What is the explanation for her being styled "Dame" when male UK clergy who have subsequently been knighted are not styled as "Sir"? Is there a separate convention (or lack of a convention) for women clergy which allows this?  Anglicanus (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Male clergy traditionally do not use a helm and crest on their coat of arms either. I think these martial trappings, along with the knightly accolade, were held to be unsuitable for one in holy orders. There is no such military association with the title "Dame". Opera hat (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Apparently for knights it makes a difference whether they had the title before they were ordained (they keep it, but they can't gain one while ordained). Dames keep the title either way. Which seems a little ridiculous if it's about earthly glory and ordination, but that's the rules as laid out by the C of E. Source: https://www.churchofengland.org/contact-us/addressingtheclergy.aspx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.136 (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about "Dame" style 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sarah Mullally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070602160248/http://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk:80/RMH/info/aboutus/boardmembers.htm to http://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/RMH/info/aboutus/boardmembers.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In coverage of her appointment to London, none of these significant sources have even once used "Dame Sarah Mullally" or "Dame Sarah".
*10 Downing St
*Diocese of London 
*Church Times (one occurrence in a third-party quote)
*BBC 
*Telegraph
*Grauniad (same quote)
I suggest that this is pretty clear indication that Mullally is not using and does not intend to use her Dame title as Bishop of London. I propose that we omit the title from the first sentence and the infobox, and note her decision to to use it in the appropriate prose section later. DBD 18:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: She is free to use, or not use, any titles that she has been granted. In the same way as she is allowed to use any or all of her given names: just because she doesn't use her middle name, doesn't mean that we remove it from the opening sentence. She is officially Dame Sarah; by leaving it out, we are suggesting that she isn't. She has used it in the past and it is her title. Other sources reporting the announcement have used "dame" (eg The Times, Sky News, ACNS, and the Diocese of Exeter). The reason it was removed the first time, was because there was confusion as to whether she was allowed to use the title. Conversely, Bob Geldof cannot rightfully use the title sir but is regularly referred to as Sir Bob; "sir" is not added to the first line and its use is clarified in the Awards and honours section. I shall be adding dame back to the article, as leaving it out is an error. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk  18:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should use the title "Dame" as that is officially correct, regardless of whether Mullally uses it or not, and anyway it is far too early to boldly state that "this is pretty clear indication that Mullally is not using and does not intend to use her Dame title as Bishop of London". BabelStone (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'dame' 

message: Her views on abortion came from her personal blog and deal about the case of Rick Santorum`s daughter who was born with a disability. What she says in the article seems to relate directly to this specific case. I would like to ask someone to please provide a RS abourt her views on abortion, if she supports abortion only for extreme cases or abortion on demand.
85.246.102.156 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the blog post is in response to a particular case, her discussion of her views do seem to me to reflect the wider issue of abortion. She talks about her "approach to this issue" not her "approach to this case". BabelStone (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  As BabelStone says, the quote is her summing up her views towards abortion. It follows on from the previous paragraph: "drives Santorum to talk about the difficult issue of abortion. [para break] I would suspect that I would describe my approach to this issue". You're asking for a reliable sources (I assuming from your use of RS), but her personal blog is fine as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk  17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, the only reliable source for someone's opinion on a particular issue is that person themself, i.e. in an interview or a self-published discussion such as her blog. I would not consider a newspaper report on her opinion to be more reliable to her own words. BabelStone (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on abortion

message: This article could mention that in 2021, Mullally presented the last of the Lent Talks, but I am not sure 
where this would best go in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollo August (talk • contribs) 20:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lent Talks

message: Unsure how to handle this but Mullally has been and remains in deep trouble in relation to the suicide of Fr Alan Griffin, leading to criticism by the coroner's inquest and by the Bishop of Blackburn in the House of Lords. If Private Eye is to be believed - and it is usually OK for stuff like this - "the catastrophic handling of the allegations by the Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, has led to a dramatic breakdown of trust with her clergy". Those clergy include a further 41 who seem to think Mullally may be complicit in poor handling of allegations, while "some are quietly planning legal action ... others, encouraged by the threatened vote of no confidence that led to the defenestration of the Bishop of Winchester, are now proposing a similar vote against the Bishop of London".
Yes, NOTNEWS applies to some extent but surely something has to be said, especially if anyone has access to reports in mainstream heavyweight newspapers? - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism