In modern times (with a very long lens being used for "modern", here), it has become something of a sad joke for a senior English politician to be made Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

It is currently a position without real responsibilities that is granted to a junior cabinet minister without a portfolio. While this may sound like a remarkably cushy job (and it is), it is also basically seen as a political dumping ground for people to whom the incoming administration had made cabinet promises but who, in the end, really cannot be admitted to the cabinet proper. Many people have found themselves in this position and simply shrugged it off, going on -- like Winston S. Churchill, Clement Atlee, Lord Beaverbrook, etc. -- to bigger and better things. Others, however, have not responded so favourably. Charles F.G. Masterman felt that the position was given to him as a slight, and that it had more or less ruined his career; Arthur Ponsonby also somewhat resented the position, feeling it was stifling his effectiveness as a reformer, and Sir Oswald Mosley felt so jilted at having been reduced to it and its attendant inconsequence that he eventually resigned and went off to do other things.

I know that the actual responsibilities of the Chancellor re: the Duchy itself have now descended to "a deputy", as Wikipedia vaguely describes it, but I'm not entirely sure why, or why this particular position should have become the de facto "also-ran" prize for people who might otherwise have been important. Does anyone know?