Talk:Cosmo Gordon Lang

Typo?

I enjoyed rereading this article, though I didn't like Lang any more than I did after earlier perusals. I wondered if "He was immensely industrious, and exceptional administrator..." is meant to read "He was immensely industrious, an exceptional administrator..." Tim riley talk 19:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I tracked down the editor who originally added this and they have corrected it - it was as you suspect.

As to the article topic - yes, I largely agree. My perception is that this is the narrative of a good man descending into increasing self-obsession.... TSP (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Peerage title

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)

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)

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)

Lists of honours

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)

First bachelor in 150 years

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Alan Don

Just picked up Faithful Witness - The confidential diaries of Alan Don, published in 2020. Don served as Lang's secretary and chaplain from 1931 until 1940. It will certainly have some useful material. It obviously wasn't available at the time of this article's FAC in 2009. In the event of there being anything that looks controversial, I'll flag it here first for discussion. KJP1 (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Good stuff. I look forward to it. Tim riley talk 09:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Abdication crisis

Having reached this point in Don's diary, I'd like to expand a little on Lang's role in the crisis. Specifically:

• Second para. last sentence, "The king believed that Lang's influence was strong" - he was right to do so. Beaken records that Lang and Baldwin met seven times during the abdication crisis, a number he describes as "unusual"; that Lang wrote privately on 25 November to Baldwin urging an early announcement of the king's intention to withdraw; and that Lang "made the most of his opportunities" to hasten the king's departure. In effect, Lang, and Baldwin, were quite certain that Edward was unsuited to be king, and did all that they could to bring about his departure. In this regard, I think the description contained in the Edward VIII article is a little misleading. This says, "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang, was vocal in insisting that Edward must go". To me, this implies he expressed this view publicly - which he definitely didn't, although he was vocal in private. That he was publicly critical after the event is certain (see below). So, I'm proposing a small expansion on Lang's pre-abdication involvement.

• Third para. / poem / concluding sentence - Don's version follows Lockhart. Two things. Should we have the Lockhart/Don version, and offer the other as the footnote? If we keep the current version, what does the beginning of the last line, "How Lang Oh Lord" actually mean? The alternative, "And, auld Lang swine" is surely clearer, and funnier? Then the Compton Mackenzie last line, "dealt a disastrous blow to religious feeling throughout the country". First, does anyone have the source, as I'm not quite clear what this actually means? Second, the line wasn't in the 2009 FAC, [1], and to me it looks slightly odd as a standalone sentence, although that may just be because it follows the rhyme. Third, Beaken, who is also Lang's most recent biographer, writes, "Lang's broadcast was arguably the biggest mistake of his primacy", and Don's diary records the huge volume of mail about it which poured into Lambeth Palace. He also criticises Lang for not having shared the text in advance. I think this could do with a bit of expansion, recognising the need in a FA to keep even the most important topics within limits.

• Lastly, there is a fascinating entry in the diary for January 20th 1936, ten months before the crisis exploded - "That the Prince of Wales would like to make way for the Duke of York and his charming Duchess, I do not doubt". For Don to be writing this so early is interesting, and I'd like to put it in a footnote. But we don't have any footnotes, so that would need a new section.

I would be very interested in the views of other editors. KJP1 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is what Compton Mackenzie wrote:

Dr Lang from the time he became Bishop of Stepney had devoted the whole of his acute mind, the whole of his personal charm, the whole of his power of organisation to strengthening what sincere Anglicans called good churchmanship ; to him King Edward's attitude towards ecclesiastical observances was a bitter mortification. Some of this mortification found expression in that broadcast address, and bewildered those who did not understand the particular chagrin of the Primate. It would have been a wise self-restraint not to speak thus even in the Cathedral of Canterbury. From Broadcasting House such an address dealt a disastrous blow to religious feeling throughout the country and destroyed in advance any possible effect of the Archbishop's 'recall to religion' a fortnight later. ‘The pity of it, O, the pity of it,' that the Primate did not recall his own speech in the House of Lords twenty-five years earlier when as Archbishop of York he reluctantly voted with the Government during the crisis of the Finance Bill. "There were times when he that ruleth his spirit is better than he that taketh a city." With those words taken from his own mouth his broadcast must stand rebuked.

Mackenzie was fond of the word ‘disastrous’ – it occurs eight times in his book, applied to all sorts of things, and I’m not sure his disasters are to be taken as gospel. The quote was in the FAC version, but before rather than after the verse, and, like you, I don’t quite know what Mackenzie meant. If you are proposing we remove it I shall second the motion.

How long, O Lord...? is the opening of Psalm 13, since you ask, but I agree with you about swapping the two versions around. I know BB preferred the existing layout, because I urged the 'old Lang swine' version on him but he preferred to footnote it. Citation 109 ought really to be an explanatory footnote, and so the note you propose about the 20 January 1936 diary entry can fit into a new footnote section to keep it company.

I like to think that Brian would be pleased that two of his friends and colleagues are continuing to take such care as we can of the article. Tim riley talk 15:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Tim riley - Most helpful, and thanks. I should have known you would have known the "How Long, Oh Lord, How Long", and should really have recognised it myself. I agree on the swap. The Mackenzie, I am minded to take out. I guess he's saying something like; "opposition to Lang's speech, and to Lang himself, undermined his 'Recall to religion' drive which followed shortly thereafter". But I think Beaken's "worst mistake of his primacy" is much stronger, more closely related to Lang, and can be supported by some good stuff from Don on the extraordinary volume, and vituperance (is that a word?), of the post received. I'll have a go at something, drop it in, and then we can see whether others support, oppose, or are utterly indifferent to the good Dr Lang. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is interesting, and he uses "auld Lang swine". But, although he quotes Don, the author hasn't read the footnotes with sufficient care - Beaken makes clear that Lang kept Don, and everyone else, in the dark on his private communications with Baldwin. Do you happen to know whether Lang's private diary covering the crisis has been published? Obviously Beaken used it for his 2012 biography. KJP1 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

For my own part – though others may think differently – I agree and would:

1. Swap the verses and footnote the Psalm 13 version
2. Lose the Mackenzie quote and replace it with the Beaken one
3. Add the diary footnote.
4. Find something other than vituperance, a perfectly good word, it seems to me, but one that is unknown to the OED and Chambers. Vehemence, perhaps?

Thank you for your care of this article, KJ! Draft on! Alas, I know not if the diaries were published. Tim riley talk 19:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've had a go. Grateful thanks, as ever, for your advice - and grammatical corrections! Amend as you see fit. I hope I've not over-egged it, but I do think it one of the critical junctures of Lang's primacy. Now, we can see what others think. Sadly, not BB - it would have been an informative, and fun, conversation to have had. I can hear the "swine" debate, over a bottle of Pinot Noir, now. I hope he would be happy with it. KJP1 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think BB would have conceded the point if we had both pressed it. I recall that when overhauling the article on Bernard Shaw there was much mutual eyeballing in our efforts to keep the word-count below 12,000, but each gave way with goodish grace if the other insisted. As to Lang’s reputation I recalled that Chips Channon tore into him in his diaries, and I’ve dug this out apropos of the broadcast:

Of course the most conspicuous rat of all is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Old Cosmo Cantuar, who, in a monstrous broadcast last night, poured scorn on the late King, and branded his social circle as people whose ways of life were alien to all that is best in the instincts and tradition of the English people. This is a terrible indictment and an unfair one. The King’s circle, since Wallis, at least, has consisted of Ambassadors, Cabinet Ministers, the Coopers, the Edens, the Brownlows and many more whose personal reputations are quite unsullied.

I'm in favour of your redraft; I think the section is now strong enough without adding this (from Channon’s diary for 14 December 1936), but I put it here by way of supplementary evidence. Tim riley talk 08:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm pleased you like it. The Channon is actually rather good, if wonderfully hypocritical! The other thing that would be nice to include is the Orpen portrait. It is very good indeed. I'm guessing it's still at Bishopthorpe Palace but Coomons doesn't have it. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a black and white reproduction of the Orpen here, included (by me) on the basis of fair use to illustrate Henson's words. Tim riley talk 16:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that’s nice. Where can we fit it into this article? I am assuming fair use would cover CC’s own article? KJP1 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why fair use wouldn't apply here. The image could go alongside the Lang/Henson exchange in the Legacy section. Tim riley talk 16:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Orpen died in 1931, so I believe this is public domain in any case? We could include a full-resolution colour version, if we only had one! (Bishopthorpe is only an hour from me - and I have met the current archbishop - maybe I could ask if I can pop over to take a photo....) TSP (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

TSP - A splendid idea! If you had time, it would be a great addition. And, I think, a pleasant day out. KJP1 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)