Talk:List of Bishops of Selsey

About merge
Much of the information here is also at Bishop of Chichester, & the table there has a far more attractive look. I can't think of a reason not to merge the content of these two articles & make this one a redirect. -- llywrch 22:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a distinct connexion between the Anglo-Saxon Kings of Sussex and the Anglo-Saxon Bishops of Selsey.

The table at Bishop of Chichester is out of date. It does not reflect the latest research but should, perhaps, be left there as representing the traditions of the see. A pretty table is no guarantee of accuracy.

Hovite 00:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

To which may be added that standard works of reference such as Handbook of British Chronology list the bishops of Selsey and Chichester separately.

Hovite 21:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But none of this addresses my proposal for merging the two articles. -- llywrch 18:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Bishop of Chichester article treats Chichester primarily as a diocese which has had two seats in its history, first the town of Selsey, than the town of Chichester. It distinguishes between the bishops who were at each town, just as you say the Handbook of British Chronology does. If the town of Selsey had a more particular connection with the Anglo-Saxon kings, that could just as easily be described at Bishop of Chichester. I think the merge makes a great deal of sense, just based on looking at the two articles. Any other thoughts? Wesley 03:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)