Talk:Lord High Treasurer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Third highest office[edit]

I don't know the right answer, but the existing statement makes no sense: "The holder of the post is third highest of the Great Officers of State, ranking below the Lord High Chancellor and above the Lord President of the Council."KD Tries Again (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

My ancient edition of Whittakers Almanack, suggests that the two archbishops rank ahead of the Prime Minister, so that he (or rather the first Lord) is perhaps actually the fourth. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lord High Treasurer bears a white staff as his symbol of office[edit]

It is my understanding that this was a symbol of the Privy Councilmen. Not just Lord High Treasurer. Came across while I was doing other work I don't know how to edit photo captions but believe this should be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.108 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

In addition to this article, there is an article about the commissioners at Lord of the Treasury. It seems to me that the information could really be handled in one place. Thoughts? -Rrius (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment -- There is a chonological distinction between the period when the office of Lord High Treasurer was usually held by an individual and that since 1714 when it has always been in commission. The difficulty is that the break is not a sharp one. Both articles are little more than stubs. I would like to see a lot more about what the official functions of the Lord High Treasurer were and how the furctions changed so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (rather than the Lord Treasurer or First Lord) holds the purse strings. I was two days ago looking at some Treasury documents which appeared to make clear that in the 18th century, the Treasury Board actually met and made financial decisions. I suspect that the change came with Pitt the younger, who (as First Lord and Chancellor) was inclined to make decisions on his own, rather than at a Board meeting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure what the practical result of that comment is supposed to be, so I will treat it as suggesting the articles should remain separate to maintain a distinction, regardless of whether that was the intent, because the point should be addressed. As it stands, both articles deal with the same office and largely overlap. There is certainly a loose chronological distinction, as the office went in and out of commission multiple times. All the same, there is no reason why that distinction should not be handled in one article. Were the information about the Treasury Board days to be included here, it could be a new section. Even in that case, the entire text of Lord of the Treasury would make a respectable, but short, discussion of the modern commissioners. Also, the text of the whole article would still be well within article size limits. -Rrius (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • My previous comment was a "comment" not an objection. I hoped that some one else would particpate in the discussion. I can also see the logic for a merger. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I used to be in favour of merging articles but having been away from WP for a while now trying to use links to articles that have been merged, merging articles often ends up making a dog's dinner of it. What happens is that the historic stuff gets merged into the main article, then a couple of months later someone thinks that there is too much history stuff from the old article in the merged article. Eventually when using Wikipedia you find links that go to articles under a different title to the link you hit, and find little of the original article now exists in the edited down version of the merged article. I have ended up having to go back to the link, go into the history and find the pre-merged version to find information that had been lost in all the merging and editing. It is happening all over, and making Wikipedia increasingly unfriendly to use because of deleted and merged articles directly links all to new articles that have little of the information the link promises. So for that reason, my feeling is to stop the mania for merging and build up articles separately and linked, rather than squashing everything into the one article that may not have the specific information the link promises. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I would ask you to look again at the articles and reconsider. This isn't a case where what you are suggesting is likely to occur. There is not a bulk of historical information that would be lost in the way you suggest. The articles cover the same ground in slightly different ways, with each emphasizing different points in a way that could fairly easily be weaved together, with the Lords of the Treasury text proving information that should already be in the section here called "The modern commissioners" anyway. I am not a merge-o-maniac, and I hope you will take a second look and consider whether this case makes sense as an exception to your default position. -Rrius (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)