plummer published in mike christie and i are working on bede's article and the general assesment of most modern scholars is that the letter is genuine given plummer's age i don't think a mention in laurence's article about plummer's belief is that pertient although i am pretty sure it'll make its way into the bede series of articles on the canon law bit i think the bit i've mentioned is enough to establish that it was irregular but that opinions are divided gotta love those victorian scholars who just knew what was right grins i guess my main problem with plummer is that he's over a hundred years old more modern scholars seem to think that reliance on canon law wasn't as important to the papacy and the chuech at this point in time for laurence the important points are that he was consecrated by his predecessor and that some folks may have felt this was irregular plummer seems to be more concerned with what bede was doing and saying that what actually happened in laurences time i'd rather throw this information into the historia article talk