# Talk:Pipe rolls

Shouldn't this article be moved to Pipe rolls? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't do it, I'm just a drone. Perhaps one of the big boys will help? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Should work now. Don't forget you are free to add {{db-move}} to any redirect that is preventing the move of a page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. The fact that this is the form used by the National Archives – who are by definition the most reliable source on the matter – seems an indisputable argument to me. (Having said that, I now look forward to the wheel-war.) – iridescent 00:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Deacon. I'll deal with you later Iridescent. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I always thought I was the only person in the history of Wikipedia who had ever actually read this page (it's one of the links from Bruce Castle). Apparently not. – iridescent 00:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I bet you weren't even half as surprised as I was to see that some editors obviously had it on their watch lists. And to find you here as well Iridescent. It was User:Ealdgyth got me here, following a link from her Nigel (Bishop of Ely) article. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Not only do we have this article... we have... Foot of fine. Aren't you impressed? I was more impressed the other day to discover that more peopel than me had obscure medieval bishops on their watchlist....Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I used to confuse this with the Rolls Series, so I put both on my list. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm more than half tempted to merge the two into a single Mediaeval court rolls of England article (anyone caring about one will also likely care about the other, and nothing seems to be served by keeping them apart). I'm sure any genuine medievalist would scream blue murder at the idea, but I'm not sure what's really gained by keeping them separate. – iridescent 13:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Pipe rolls aren't really court rolls though, they are Exchequer rolls. For me, it makes it easier to link to a fuller explanation if we keep the as separate articles, as well as they are on my list of things to expand. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this at DYK, if any of the watchers can think of a better hook, please suggest it. I really do not do good hooks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally happy with the breakdown of the sectioning, but don't really have a better idea how to work it. Suggestions are welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's any way to split the "History" section in half without making it too messy it would probably be useful – at themoment it dominates too much. Also, one glaring(ish)omission (to me) is that nowhere does it say why they stopped. Was there any particular significance to 1833? – iridescent 23:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing I have says why they stopped. My guess, would be that it became redundant. If I recall my British history, 1833 was when they did a bunch of reforms, including getting rid of the rotten boroughs? I'd guess house cleaning. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
As a further note, I've ordered a few more books that might shed a bit more light, but most study of the pipe rolls stop after the High Middle Ages, as they became increasingly less interesting with other sources of historical documentation. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A book I'm working with (George Edmond Howard's "A treatise of the Exchequer and revenue of Ireland") says that the decisions of the Exchequer of Ireland were recorded in the Pipe Rolls, also known as the Rotulis Annalis. Is this (and the alternate name) true, to your knowledge, and worth including?
On an aside, excellent article. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be for the Irish Pipe rolls, not necessarily for the English pipe rolls. I don't see that in a quick glance through my stuff, but that doesn't mean that Howard's off base here. When did he write it? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1750-something :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yikes! Then probably better to say "historically known as ..." or something similar. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Noted, ta. On an unrelated note, User:PeterSymonds and I are going to get Scutage into some degree of order, hopefully GA. Interested in helping out? Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth,
I'm puzzled by your deletion of links to the Shakespeare documents on the National Archives website. That's not a use of the primary sources themselves; the citations you deleted are merely links to the National Archives catalogue. In any event, I'll place them here on the Talk page so that they're available for researchers who might find them handy to have: E 372/444, 1598 Mich-1599 Mich, 40 Eliz I and E 372/445, 1599 Mich-1600 Mich, 41 Eliz I. NinaGreen (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

They don't really tell us much about the pipe rolls though - the information is covered by the journal citation. Linking to the pipe rolls or their catalogue is just linking to link extra - there is no need to pile on references. One reference is enough, especially because they are to specific listings. They would be handy or useful in an article on Shakespeare, here on the pipe roll article, they are actually too specific - not really related to the whole pipe roll picture, if that's understandable? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess as reasonable people we can disagree. :-) The article contained the statement that post 13th-century Pipe Rolls aren't all that useful to historians because of the existence of other records, and I added, as a qualifier to that statement, material indicating that the 16th century Pipe Rolls are the sole source of information as to Shakespeare's residence in Bishopsgate and Southwark. Any Wikipedia user interested in that fact would probably find it useful to have the links to the current reference numbers in the National Archives catalogue. But no matter. They're here on the Talk page. NinaGreen (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The opening para assertion that the rolls were kept by the English government for 700 years from the 12th century is patently incorrect as the state of England ceased to exist after less than 600 years. Would anyone object to my correction of that para by insertion of the wording in square brackets:
“a collection of financial records maintained by the English Exchequer, or Treasury [and subsequently those of Great Britain and the United Kingdom]”; and
“records kept by the English[, British and UK] government[s] covering a span of about 700 years.”
My hesitation is because I am a casual visitor and don’t know the core subject, and because that the treasuries of the British and UK states were the correct organs of government is an assumption following from the existing wording.
Or would someone with a less fleeting relationship with Pipe Rolls like to address the error? Not Proven (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe they continued to be kept by the English government - see National Archives where they describe them as "A nearly continuous series runs from 1155 until 1832, the earliest series of English royal records; only four are missing." and then here from the National Archives where they are described as "The Pipe Rolls are the oldest series of English governmental documents, and were created by the most ancient department of the English government, the Exchequer, which existed by 1110. The earliest survivor dates from the reign of Henry I, and is second only to Domesday Book itself in its antiquity as a public record. They were created principally to record the accounts of the sheriffs of the counties of England..." ... they are strictly pertaining to the governance of England ... they don't concern themselves with the wider parts of the UK. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the records related to the governance of England or more widely, it is that the page says the records were maintained by the English Government up to the 19th century, when England no longer existed as a state. Whoever maintained the records after 1707 it was not an organ of the English state, and my second proposed edit continues to seem necessary.
That said, while it seems grossly unlikely that a separate English Treasury survived under the British Government after 1707 (not least because of the emergence of the role of First Lord of the Treasury by 1714), I cannot confirm this and so cannot justify my first proposed change. I do, however, continue to think the phrase “maintained by the English Exchequer, or Treasury” almost certainly in error. Further inputs appreciated. Not Proven (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm frequently encountering Rotulus Pipae, Rotuli Pipae, Magna Rotuli Pipae, Magnus Rotulus Pipae, Magne ..., and abbreviations including Rot. Pip., Magn. Rot. Pip., etc.  These are quite common in British genealogical and heraldic works, especially of the 19th century (e.g., as frequently found in Google Books), so this comes up all the time in doing research on notable families and figures. These alternative terms should be accounted for in this article, and redirects made.  I don't know enough about the subject to be 100% certain that every single one of these necessarily refers to the subject of this article at all times, which is why I have not done that all yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not certain enough either, which is why I haven’t either. There’s a reason this article is stuck at GA, I just don’t have the interest or the sources to give it that final research push or polish to FA. --Ealdgyth (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)