This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wrote the first draft of this article but I haven't touched on a couple of issues that could prove interesting (for reasons of lack of information at fingertips);
If anyone can add something of substance about these two issues, it would really help the article. -- Roisterer 11:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, just who considers/considered the Australian ministries to be the "equivalent of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster" - [1]? If the case must be made that they were a sinecure, why cannot that simply be said, without dragging in irrelevant allusions to faraway places? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wrote the first draft of this article but I haven't touched on a couple of issues that could prove interesting (for reasons of lack of information at fingertips);
If anyone can add something of substance about these two issues, it would really help the article. -- Roisterer 11:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, just who considers/considered the Australian ministries to be the "equivalent of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster" - [1]? If the case must be made that they were a sinecure, why cannot that simply be said, without dragging in irrelevant allusions to faraway places? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)