article

Investigating the Archbishops Surprising Family Ties

5 min read

No, the new Archbishop is not Bernard Manning’s niece — and here’s what’s actually true

Short answer: No. There’s no credible evidence that Dame Sarah Mullally is related to Bernard Manning. The rumor looks like a brief Wikipedia prank that jumped to social media—and then ran away from the facts.

Now the interesting part: while the internet chased a fake family tree, real history was being made, and some key details about that history got mangled too.

The biggest corrections up front

The rumor that wouldn’t die

The claim was simple—and catchy: the newly named Archbishop of Canterbury is the niece of Bernard Manning, a comedian known for offensive material. According to the original report, someone tweaked Mullally’s Wikipedia page to say it. The edit was quickly cleaned up, but screenshots and posts spread on X, and the story stuck.

What’s true:

What’s not verified:

Bottom line: This looks like a textbook “Wikipedia graffiti → viral post → lazy echo” chain.

What actually happened on day one

On Friday, 3 October 2025, the Church of England named Dame Sarah Mullally the next—and 106th—Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman to hold the post. She spoke at Canterbury Cathedral the same day, telling a packed nave: “in an age that craves certainty and tribalism, Anglicanism offers something quieter but stronger.” Those remarks are on the record. (BBC; The Guardian; Reuters)

She also promised to confront past safeguarding failures that damaged trust—again, consistent with major outlets’ reporting that day. (Reuters)

The real timeline: when she actually starts

Historic? Yes. Instant? No.

Context: why there was a vacancy

Justin Welby announced his resignation on 12 November 2024 after a damning safeguarding review and formally laid down office by 6 January 2025. The see remained vacant until Mullally’s nomination—roughly nine months, often described as “almost a year.” (Guardian)

Who Sarah Mullally is—without the myth

How a prank beat the truth (for a moment)

Think of Wikipedia like a public noticeboard. Most of the time it’s well watched; sometimes, someone scribbles on it. If a journalist, a pundit, or a hurried producer catches the scribble before the cleanup, the scribble can become “news.” That appears to be what happened here: a fleeting false edit, screenshotted and shared as if it were biography.

What kept it alive:

What ended it:

What we could verify vs. what we couldn’t

Verified

Unsubstantiated

Corrections

Our process (and what we’ll keep watching)

We cross-checked the original article against:

We’ll keep an eye out for any authenticated broadcast clip or written correction involving the alleged Ed Vaizey remark. If a reputable source surfaces, we’ll update.

The takeaway