In message of 13 Nov, MILLSC64@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/11/2005 21:52:06 GMT Standard Time, tim@powys.org > writes: > > > In message of 10 Nov, T2quirke@aol.com wrote: > > > > >Is the Archbishop elected by the bishops or appointed by the Queen? > > > > By the Prime Minister. > > > > Not quite, Tim - see the Archbishop of Canterbury's website. (Certainly not > by the bishops.) In message of 11 Nov, David Hawgood <david@hawgood.com> wrote: > > > > > > Is the Archbishop elected by the bishops or appointed by the Queen? > > http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/office/appointmentprocedures.html > describes a complicated procedure, setting up a commission, then... > * The Commission sends two names to the Prime Minister for consideration. > * Assuming he is content with them, the Prime Minister commends a name > to the Queen. (If he so wishes the Prime Minister may request a further > name or names from the Commission). Once the chosen candidate has indicated > a willingness to serve, > <http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page5681.asp>Ten Downing Street > announces the name of the Archbishop-designate. > * The Archbishop-designate is presented at a > <http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/office/../releases/2002/020723.html>news > conference. > * The Dean and Chapter of the diocese of Canterbury > <http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/office/../events/index.html>formally > elect the new Archbishop of Canterbury. In terms of real-politics, I can only see this as a prime ministerial apoointment. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org