Double countersignatures are rare except in the case of Lords Commissioners of the Treasury (who always sign in pairs). 5/5
06.03.2026 20:36
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Double countersignatures are rare except in the case of Lords Commissioners of the Treasury (who always sign in pairs). 5/5
It's also countersigned by the NI Secretary, though his signature doesn't appear in the usual place.
The second Warrant is simpler than the first since there's no docket. It's also countersigned by both the NI Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. 4/5
Aside from this, the first Warrant is quite similar to a standard UK Warrant. It even has a docket at the end explaining its purport. The NI Warrant appears to be signed by the Clerk of the Crown for NI instead of simply featuring their printed surname like at Westminster. 3/5
While UK Warrants no longer name the Lord Chancellor, NI Warrants name the NI Secretary (though the signification of the royal pleasure in the first Warrant is attributed to a generic Secretary of State as is the case with contemporary UK Warrants). 2/5
Two Warrants directing the Northern Ireland Secretary to pass documents under the Great Seal of Northern Ireland. The first is for Letters Patent conferring City status upon Bangor while the second is for Letters Patent appointing a High Court Judge. 1/5
Eton would subsequently amend their statutes to relax the the Provost's residency requirements, however. 2/2
Very British Problems. After accepting the Provostship of Eton, Lord Hugh Cecil expressed concern that his attendance at the Church Assembly and the Coronation might conflict with Eton's residency requirements. It's not clear if No. 10 responded [PREM 5/586/6]. 1/2
Stanley Baldwin's submission to Edward VIII regarding Lord Hugh Cecil's appointment as Provost of Eton [PREM 5/586/6].
She made a grand total of 18 submissions to the King. Two of them involved recommendations to remove people from the Order of the British Empire. You can see the whole collection here! cbaionline.org/corpus/exhib...
Now those documents refer to "Queen Elizabeth the First". It's not clear when this change occurred. Since the old wording was in use through at least July 2022, the alteration may have been made after the King's accession. A bit of tidying-up, perhaps. 2/2
When entering the documents connected with the restitution of the Archbishop of Canterbury's temporalities into the CBAI, I noticed there's been a small tweak to the wording. Under the late Queen, they referred to "Our Royal Predecessor Queen Elizabeth". 1/2
The Gazette has announced that the King has directed that nine individuals be removed from the Order of the British Empire. This is done on the advice of the Prime Minister; the relevant submission looks like this.
Yes, at some point the 20 mark figure gave way to £20 (Gibson suggests it happened around the time of the Valor Ecclesiasticus). I suspect it was just easier to replace marks with pounds even if it doesn't quite make sense from an economic standpoint.
Under Edward III, it was declared in Parliament that the Lord Chancellor should present to Crown benefices valued at under 20 marks for the benefit of the Clerks in Chancery. This quote is from vol. 2 of Gibson's Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani.
Indeed! I think we both attended a talk by the head of that team a while back.
No, as @adamchapman.bsky.social said, it was a valuation of the benefice's worth rather than a direct stipend. Originally, the division between LC & Monarch ensured that the most lucrative benefices were filled by the Monarch in person while still giving the LC preferments for the Chancery clerks.
Although Andrew has been pushed onto the royal sidelines, he remains in the line of succession. His arrest may finally force Parliament to change that. venerablepuzzle.wordpress.com/2026/02/20/t...
The £20 figure comes from the survey of the Church's finances undertaken under Henry VIII in 1535. Needless to say, it's quite out of date! You can find a 1786 printing of The King's Book here: archive.org/details/bim_...
Ultimately, it turned out to be a moot point since the office of Lord Chancellor was not, in fact, abolished. Consequently, the Lord Chancellor still makes ecclesiastical appointments that are valued at under £20 in The King's Book. 3/3
First page of a minute from William Chapman regarding the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage. It has a handwritten annotation from Tony Blair agreeing with Chapman's recommendations.
However, Blair's Appointments Secretary, William Chapman, submitted a minute arguing that the Lord Chancellor's patronage should revert to the Crown instead. Blair signified his agreement in a handwritten note. 2/3 cbaionline.org/corpus/items...
First page of a minute from Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
In November 2003, Lord Falconer of Thoroton sent Tony Blair a minute recommending that the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastiastical patronage should be transferred to the Church when the office was abolished. 1/3 cbaionline.org/corpus/items...
@gro-tsen.bsky.social In light of our conversation about the lack of punctuation in Letters Patent, you might find this interesting. Here's an instrument that has had punctuation and paragraph breaks added, presumably for readability. You can see the whole thing here: cbaionline.org/corpus/items...
Those instruments include Writs to the relevant escheators as well as a Mandate to the Knights, Freeholders, and other tenants of the Archbishopric of Canterbury commanding them to obey her as their Archbishop and Lord (note: these examples relate to the See of Bath & Wells). 2/2
Today, the Archbishop of Canterbury did homage for the temporalities of her See. Afterward, the King signed a Warrant like this one directing the Lord Chancellor to pass the necessary instruments under the Great Seal. 1/2
I guess the legislative solution isn't too difficult after all...
Of course, if they're going to do this for Mandelson, they should probably do it for Andrew, too. Last year's fudge seems increasingly untenable.
Letter from the Kennedy Trust to the Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary acknowledging a letter stating the PM had re-appointed Lord Harlech as a Trustee and noting that No. 10's letter had been addressed to someone who left office several years earlier.
Awkward [PREM 5/595/1].
Note that in Dr. Temple's Case it was also held that the proper way to challenge a bishop-elect on theological grounds was to petition the Crown to withhold the Royal Assent to the election. 4/4
They were: procedural defects in the election itself or if the person purporting to be the bishop-elect was not, in fact, the Crown's nominee. But procedural defects wouldn't derail a confirmation since the Archbishop also has the power to cure them. 3/4
In R v Archbishop of Canterbury (1848), a divided Court of Queen's Bench had declined to grant a mandamus in similar circumstances. And in Dr. Temple's Case (1869), the Vicar-General of Canterbury held there were only two valid grounds for challenging a confirmation. 2/4
Yeah; the applicants disagreed with the bishop-elect's theological views and sought a mandamus to compel the Archbishop of Canterbury or his Vicar General to hear their objections. However, the court held that the Archbishop had no jurisdiction to entertain those types of objections. 1/4