The uncertainty over the next Archbishop of Canterbury that we have seen in recent days, came about thanks to a deadlock in the Crown Nominations Commission, a new system of appointment. No longer is it the gift of the monarch, or even the prime minister. The commission has 16 voting members.

The Archbishop of Canterbury was appointed in the weirdest fashion. It was 1611, the year that the Authorised Version of the Bible was printed, and King James explained to the Privy Council why he had appointed George Abbot.

He was, the king told them, merely honouring the last request of the Earl of Dunbar, something of a favourite, who had died the month before. The story that had got out was that Dunbar had directed that “his hart should be putt into a cuppe of gold and presented to the king’s majestie in sign of his loyall service, in recompence wherof he desired nothinge but his majestie would … preferre Mr Abbot to the sea of Canterbury”.

To the see he went, and hung on till his death 22 years later, despite being driven into internal exile at his house in Kent for a time, after Charles I came to the throne in 1625.

The uncertainty over the next Archbishop of Canterbury that we have seen in recent days, came about thanks to a deadlock in the Crown Nominations Commission, a new system of appointment. No longer is it the gift of the monarch, or even the prime minister. The commission has 16 voting members.

Of these, six are from the diocese of Canterbury, six from General Synod (three lay, three clerical), and there are four more: a lay member of the Church of England as chairman, nominated by the Prime Minister; a bishop nominated by the bishops; the Archbishop of York or another bishop; and a representative of the whole Anglican Communion, who at the moment is no exotic African or Polynesian, but Dr Barry Morgan, the Archbishop of Wales.

Read More