Jump to content

Talk:Chancellor of the Exchequer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really Old Stuff

[edit]

To be added. I'm off to be now. Mintguy 

John Anderson                  1943-1945     National Government
Hugh Dalton                    1945-1947     Labour
Stafford Cripps                1947-1950     Labour
Hugh Gaitskell                 1950-1951     Labour
Richard Austen Butler          1951-1955     Conservative
(Maurice) Harold Macmillan     1955-1957     Conservative
Peter Thorneycroft             1957-1958     Conservative
Derick Heathcoat Amory         1958-1960     Conservative
Selwyn Lloyd                   1960-1962     Conservative
Reginald Maudling              1962-1964     Conservative
(Leonard) James Callaghan      1964-1967         Labour
Roy Harris Jenkins             1967-1970         Labour 
Iain Macleod                   1970              Conservative
Anthony Barber                 1970-1974         Conservative
Denis Healey                   1974-1979         Labour 
(Richard Edward) Geoffrey Howe 1979-1983         Conservative
Nigel Lawson                   1983-1989         Conservative
John Roy Major                 1989-1990         Conservative
Norman Lamont                  1990-1993         Conservative
Kenneth Harry Clarke           1993-1997         Conservative
Gordon Brown                   1997-             Labour


As this is the #1 hit on Google it deserves a better article. Goodnight Mintguy 22:43 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hm. Some of the stuff in here should perhaps be moved to Exchequer. --mav 21:14 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Um... Exchequer is an archaic term that derives its name from a piece of chequered cloth that was once used to count money. The government department is acutally called 'the Treasury' or 'HM Treasury', only rarely called the Exchequer. Mintguy
What about other countries, though? Deb 21:24 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I don't know about other countries, but I was just wondering whether it is really correct to say, as the article currently does, "... the Chancellor of the Exchequer ... who heads the Exchequer"
Yeah, that's why I just redirected it to Chancellor of the Exchequer at first. But I guess the Exchequer article could talk about the original term some more. Adam Bishop 21:25 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite to correct info (the Budget no longer takes place in March. Until a couple of years ago both Britain and Ireland used the Julian Calendar to run the tax year. That was only recently changed meaning that both counties moved their Budget dates from January (IRL) and April (UK) to November. Also some other info, including explaining what the C of the E is the equivalent of in other states. FearÉIREANN 22:31 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The tax year end still ends on April 5. It used to be 25 of March till the changeover of calendars, when people complained about having to pay a full years tax for a year less 11 days. Mintguy 01:33 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Third oldest office? Certainly Lord Chancellor and Lord Privy Seal are older, but I'd think others are as well...anyone know where that bit came from? john 05:59, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Robe of office

[edit]

I recall there's a robe that the Chancellor wore on formal occasions, though by Snowden/Churchill's time this was just once a year to oversee the appointment of some magistrates. Anyone know when this was abolished altogether, along with the function.

Also am I right that this is the robe (as worn by Lord North)?

Timrollpickering 18:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PC?

[edit]

Removed 'PC' from Rt Hon Gordon Brown PC MP. PC is not normally used for a Member of the House of Commons. Privy Council status is indicated by Rt Hon. PC is often used for members of the House of Lords.

Changes

[edit]

I've made some "bold"-ish changes to this. Apologies if I've overdone it (but I don't think I have). I have not removed anything but I have reorganised the text for style. I've added in a few bits, nothing major, but I have not checked any facts.

The basic point of these changes is to make the text flow more logically - ie summary, then important facts plus disambiguation, followed by detailed section on responsibilities, then trivia. Previous version was a bit all over the place.

Explanation of some of the changes:

  • To say "ancient title" in the first few words might suggest it is no longer the current title. Fine to point out that it's ancient, but it shouldn't be in the introductory sentence; I think it gives the wrong impression. The first sentence of the second par does now makes it clear that it is an ancient title, but better still would be if we could give a precise-ish date.
  • I didn't like the rest of the first sentence, either... "The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the ancient title held by the British cabinet minister whose responsibilities are akin to the posts of Minister for Finance or Secretary of the Treasury in other jurisdictions." - well, to define the post with reference to other countries seems peculiar, like saying "The Prime Minister is the office whose responsibilities are akin to the President or King in other countries". Better to define it first in terms of the UK system, then follow it with an explanation that relates to other countries.
  • The article need to emphasise the power of the office - hence one of the four offices of state is now more prominent, and the fact that he's generally number two to the PM is in par 2. (This needs emphasis, as the job is in this respect totally different to, say, the US Secretary to the Treasury, and for US readers it's not an obvious point.)
  • need to refer to HM Treasury from the start
  • "Historically, the Chancellor controlled monetary policy as well as fiscal policy" - Ken Clarke is hardly an historical figure. "Until recently" is better.
  • there's a third Chancellor these days to get confused about...
  • "summarised" rather than revealed - the Budget is distinct from the Budget Speech

Help please:

  • when does the title date from?
  • when did he switch to controlling HMT rather than the Exchequer?
  • more trivia could be of interest...

Thoughts, anyone? Gabriel Rozenberg 18:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salary

[edit]

When I was studying British government in the 1970s, the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually exceeded that of the Prime Minister. Is this still true? Where might I find a list of salaries of British government officials? Unschool 17:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Kingsley Wood

[edit]

Sir Kingsley died on 21 Sep, 1943. He could not be possible stepping down on 24 September. Can anyone help verifying the exact tenure of his chancellorship?--218.103.231.56 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

Given the confusion caused by the various Lord Chief Justices who have temporarily served as Chancellor of the Exchequer (I see that Lord Denman, a Whig if ever there was one, was until recently listed as a Tory because he happened to be temporarily holding the office during Wellington's caretaker ministry), I wanted to add a footnote to indicate which of the Chancellors were the lord chief justice holding the exchequer in a temporary capacity. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea how to do it. The text in the footnotes, so far as I can tell, appears nowhere in the actual page, but is merely indicated by notices like "pmafter" and "alsopm". So I have no idea what on earth is going on. Can anyone help? john k 00:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darling

[edit]

We apparently only have a tiny, completely inadequate picture of Darling, but shouldn't we have one (preferably a better one) of him in this article, given that he's the current chancellor. john k 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree. I put the pictures in a while ago to spruce up a dull table. There isn't the space for photos of all of them. So my idea was that the criterion for inclusion would be Chancellors who had a particularly long or pathbreaking tenure. Gladstone and Pitt are probably unarguably worthy here... Brown fits for his decade. Darling would fit too, for being the current man. I think arguably Lawson would be good as well, perhaps more so than Howe, and Snowden is arguably not so important. However in practice I ended up just sticking in photos that Wikipedia already had. Room for improvement. 18:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly sure of Pitt - he's significant as a prime minister, not particularly as a Chancellor. Same deal with Walpole. Of course, the early chancellors in general aren't terrifically important. Gladstone, definitely. He's "the man who made the job," as Jenkins says. Of the rest of the 19th century, I'd suggest Althorp, Disraeli, and Lord Randolph Churchill as the most clearly notable. Lloyd George probably deserves a listing, and maybe Neville Chamberlain - he was more significant than Snowden and longer serving, at least. Rab Butler and Denis Healey would also be plausible candidates. At any rate, I'd suggest that Darling's picture shouldn't go in the list, but separately, somewhere near the top of the article. john k 05:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improved list

[edit]

Comments on the improved list of Chancellors:

- The new pictures are great but they are teenyweeny and perhaps some of them, eg Roy Jenkins's, could be cropped to headshots so that they work better.

- Now that Darling's pic has shrunk down perhaps the time has come to put him up at the top of the page somewhere as well, eg in place of the Treasury photo, in line with Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

- Someone has well-meaniningly added numbers to a list of Chancellors. But the idea of numbering UK politicians is a bit more contentious than it might seem. See here. The US idea that you can be, to use the main example, both 22nd and 24th President hasn't really spread to any list of UK ministers that I've seen and I think that numbering this list in the same way is peculiar: Gladstone has become Chancellor number 19, 22, 26 and 28! If there are numbers I think it should just be one per person. 20:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The numbering is a total mess because it relies on value judgements that are neither universal nor commonly made, e.g. does the numbering "reset" at any time (and why 1801 rather than 1921?), do returnees count more than once (e.g. Snowden, both Chamberlains), what about when the same person is appointed in a new government (Snowden, Anderson) and so forth. The British practice to identify Chancellorships is to talk about when someone was Chancellor. Timrollpickering 06:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No numbers. They really do need to go. Has anyone ever called Hugh Childers the "29th Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom?" Or, for that matter, can one find any reference in the last ten years to Brown as the "73rd chancellor of the exchequer of the United Kingdom"? Hell, this number is, in fact, not even correct on its own terms, since Pitt was the first prime minister and chancellor after the act of union of 1801, which went into effect at the beginning of the year - Addington only came in two months later. john k 06:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note the additional problem that the Lord Chief Justices who occasionally served as interim chancellor (Lord Denman may be the only one in the period where the numbering is currently being done) should perhaps not be counted. john k 06:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tenterden as well. Timrollpickering 06:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the number of chancellors we don't have pictures for is sad - surely there must be some available photographs of Lamont, Lawson, Healey, Macleod, Lloyd, Amory, Thorneycroft, Butler, Dalton, Wood, Horne, Hicks Beach, Goschen, Childers, and Lewis? Any pictures of the last four, at least, would presumably be in the public domain at this point. john k 06:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also some of the party labels are a bit off - Walpole a Tory?! And for some of the lesser ones I'm not sure if there are accurate or not as some Tories participated in Whig governments in the 18th century. Timrollpickering 06:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Roy Jenkins, Brussels.jpg

[edit]

Image:Roy Jenkins, Brussels.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering?

[edit]

Is there any point in the numbering in the table of UK Chancellors? I fear that this may suggest that there is some official or widely-accepted numbering scheme (whereas I assume it is just something that a particular editor has decided would be worth doing). Bluewave (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus (see above) is indeed not to number this list. Numerophiles, please leave it alone!! 10:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tory/Conservative

[edit]

The table at the bottom sometimes uses Tory and sometimes Conservative - aren't they the same thing, so should be standardised? George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's confused because "Tory" has persisted as a nickname for the Conservatives, but in the 1830s the Conservative Party emerged from the shattered British Tory Party. The best "line in the sand" is Peel's 1834-1835 government which issued the Tamworth Manifesto. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Anybody know where the name comes from? Hrcolyer (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. 11 Downing Street

[edit]

The article states that No. 11 Downing Street is the official residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but is it not instead the official residence of the Second Lord of the Treasury? --Mdebets (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Lord Henry Petty.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chancellors of the Exchequer vs. Category:Chancellors of the Exchequer of England etc.

[edit]

Categories Chancellors of the Exchequer of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom are all three categories within Category:Chancellors of the Exchequer. — Robert Greer (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Denis Healey.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Denis Healey.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chancellor of the Exchequer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive list changes

[edit]

Lists of Chancellors has been reformatted to be a similar (but not identical) style to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom- a featured list. Column of which Prime Minister the Chancellor served under has been changed to the Government served in, as the title of Prime Minister is somewhat anachronistic in places. A new column has been added with the monarch served under, as this is very relevant with earlier Chancellors. Another column has been added for references, as some information is slighly dubious and needs proper supporting referencing - for example Spencer Perceval was previously listed as holding office after his death.

Information on individual Chancellors has been added- titles, constituencies, honorifics

The 1221-1558 Chancellors list is still an awkward part of the page, the infobox states that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was formed in 1316 but the list contradicts by having Chancellors dating back 100 years prior. Some clarificatoin might be needed in respect of this.

Apologies if this was too extensive of an edit, however it was done in good faith to create a more visually interesting and informative table.

Thank you

ToastButterToast (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good effort. I'm skeptical of some of your nomenclature for ministries - the numbering by elections is a modern innovation. Such things as Salisbury ministries up to 5 seem odd. LookLook36 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, not your fault - you're following the PM list, which has recently been radically overhauled. I reckon this numbering scheme is highly problematic. LookLook36 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you point out, the numbering was taken from the PM list. I'm kind of ambivalent to it, it's useful for modern ministries but largely pointless for pre-modern ministries in which elections didn't hold the importance they do today. That said, seeing things like 'Pitt I-IV' doesn't sit well with me. I think the column would do just as well with or without numbering for pre-modern ministries.ToastButterToast (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called nomenclature of ministries is open to historical interpretation and I find it hard to see the problem here, other than aesthetically. @LookLook36: If numbering by elections is really a modern innovation as you purport, do you have any WP:RS to confirm this? Regarding Pitt the Younger, what I find really bizarre is how one could reasonably reach the conclusion that he led only one ministry for nearly eighteen years. Four Pitt ministries seems just about right in my view; do remember that premierships ≠ ministries. Regarding Lord Salisbury, you may want to have a look at my reply at Talk:Great Stink#Ministries where I made the case in regards to Lord Derby. With each general election comes a new Parliament and a new ministry, that has been the case for over a century as far as most sources are concerned. If indeed this is a modern convention, then please provide proof and I will rectify my edits accordingly. I have made a few tweaks on both lists. The nomenclature is barely problematic for most seasoned readers and the guide at List of British governments is pretty straightforward.--Nevé–selbert 19:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be contrary, but I would appreciate if you were able to provide some of those sources on the convention on the numbering ministries? Particularly in regards to pre-20th Century governments. ToastButterToast (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take this up with RGloucester, he wrote the consensus on ministry articles.--Nevé–selbert 00:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chancellor of the Exchequer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting terms of office by ministries

[edit]

I noticed that recently some of the Terms of office have been split to coincide with electoral mandates/ministries. Whilst this change was surely well intended I don't think it's necessary a helpful addition for several reasons.

  • There is a lack of consistency with it, although recent Chancellors such as Philip Hammond are split into May I & II, a lot of other Chancellors aren't. Gordon Brown served continuously in all three of the Blair ministries and no such separation is made.
  • The term of office for Chancellor of the Exchequer should be regarded as continuous without break. A Chancellor's term doesn't stop and start every election or change of Prime Minister. The sources which the list cite use this convention, e.g. George Osborne served 2010–2016, as opposed to 2010–2015 and again 2015–2016. There is no basis to split the terms in the same way the President of the United States might be, and to do so may even be misleading to readers about the nature of the British constitution.
  • This is my own opinion, but I don't think it's helpful to readers. If a reader wanted to use the list as a quick reference guide it would be better to have the start and finish of their term in an easy to understand format without it being broken up. It's sufficient to know that Chancellor X served in Ministries A, B & C without giving the specific dates of those ministries. If the reader wanted to find out how long each ministry lasted, the is an easy to find link in the ministry column.
  • Finally, the question should always be asked what would a reader expect to find in a published encyclopedia or book on the issue. It seems unlikely to me that such a split would be made, and indeed in the books I own no split is made.

If no one expresses any objections, I will remove these in the next couple days. ToastButterToast (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of those points, but not all. You argue that the terms of office for each Chancellor should be regarded as continuous, although you forget that the Chancellor can only remain in office if he is reappointed when a new government is formed. I guess (as a compromise), the split terms could be shaded.--Nevé–selbert 21:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is the first source I have seen use the word reappointment, and I think you are interpreting it to be something it isn't. It isn't a formal reappointment, even the source you link mixes between the terminology for ministers being appointed and remaining in their posts. It should also be noted that source is just Spectator blog post and not necessarily a definitive or reliable source on how the Government works. The official United Kingdom government website does not split terms as seen here, neither does Parliament's Hansard online archive and although I can't link to it, 'Compendium of British Office Holders' by Timothy Venning does not split terms or list 're appointments' either. For this reason, and all the other aforementioned reasons, they should be completely removed. Shading in split terms would not be a beneficial addition and may actually make the issue worse.
If you still object to this, I would suggest it may be helpful to ask for a third opinion; we very recently have had a heated debate and I don't want another one. ToastButterToast (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the last point, a Twitter press release isn't a particularly reliable source for fairly obvious reasons. ToastButterToast (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now implemented the change on this page, as well as on the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary pages. Please do not revert these changes unless you have a very good reason to do so, and can cite numerous authoritative and reliable sources to back your claim up. As literally no sources I can find make this split, this could plausibly be construed as WP:OR. ToastButterToast (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I shan't revert, but I will have to double-check the markup. I use an older version of Windows and |rowspan= often plays tricks with my browser.--Nevé–selbert 20:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, in that case you likely aren't the only person for whom it renders unusually. What browser are you using out of interest? It might be related to that rather than the Windows OS. ToastButterToast (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

stepping stone

[edit]

Given that 11 Chancellors of the Exchequer since the late-19th century have gone on to be Prime Minister, would it not be prudent to put that the Chancellorship is often seen as a stepping stone to Prime Ministerial office? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please point out if this 'convention' is stated somewhere, unfounded claims without a reliable citation cannot be useful for this article. See Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Blair, Wilson, Attlee, and Thatcher, they were never Chancellor of the Exchequer before becoming Prime Minister. Also I think you mean 12 Chancellors (including Sunak) now! Qwerty123M (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon Exchequer?

[edit]

The claim that the Exchequer was an Anglo-Saxon development was detailed further at the main Exchequer article, stating that according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Exchequer collected tribute for the Danes in the late 10th century. Both article cited Loyn (1984) for the claim. I don't have Loyn's text, but I do have translations of the Chronicle, and the relevant passages do not mention the Exchequer. The Dialogue of the Exchequer mentions the belief that it predated the conquest, but only for the purpose of disputing it. There seems to be confusion here between the Exchequer, which is not documented earlier than Henry I, and royal finance, which of course did precede the conquest. In particular, Loyn might have assumed out of habit that since payments were collected, the exchequer must have collected them. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor of the Exchequer

[edit]

what jobs has she done previously is she really as good at maths as she makes out to be.Racheal Reeves. Was she just a filing clerk at the Bank of England. Can anyone help me find out.Thanks Janice Moule 2A02:C7C:3E35:2000:615A:B0F2:4DD2:6CB2 (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer&oldid=1241679718"