Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:57, 6 October 2008

	Governor-General of India is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 17, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 8, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted February 18, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

India B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.

Political or Government Office

Looking through the list of viceroys, in their succession boxes some are categorised as holding the position under a Political Office, and others as a Government Office. Does anyone have an opinion on standardising this (along with the other positions of Governor-General)? Stephennt 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Title

Wow, things have certainly changed around here! I'm not quite sure about the tag 'provisional'. It seems to be used instead of interim. Certainly Goschen, who I'd removed from the previous incarnation of this page, was in no sense a provisional viceroy.

Wow again.

--Mr impossible 00:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All except Goschen were described as "Provisional" Governors-General in my sources, especially the 1911 EB. (A few used "Acting," but these were the same sites that wrongly distinguished between Viceroys and Governors-General.) -- Emsworth 01:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The page has been hijacked on my computer, most of the article has been replaced by a religious rant.

Emsworth, on what basis do you claim that Viceroy was some sort of informal term, like "Viceroy of Ireland?" In official documents and accounts the Viceroys were referred to as "Viceroy and Governor-General of India". 1911 states otherwise, but I'm not sure that this is correct. john k 23:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The current Britannica, by the way, gives the ambiguous formulation " between 1858 and 1935 the title was applied to the British governor-general of India." This suggests somewhere in between a mere informal reference ("styled") and an actual formal title. But the title seems to have been used in a much more formal capacity than that of "Viceroy of Ireland." john k 23:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, so Emsworth, you never answered my questions...I'll note that multiple, multiple sources, including Britannica, say that Canning "became 1st viceroy of India" in 1858. And, at the very least, it is more confusing than enlightening to treat Mountbatten's time as viceroy and his time as post-independence governor-general as equivalent. john k 17:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As long as we don't have articles on the provisional gg's, I'm converting the succession boxes so that they skip them, so that one can easily navigate between the viceroys. john k 15:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the definite article from before Lord William Bentinck's title. Bentinck's title was a courtesy title, something he held because he was the younger son of a duke. Courtesy titles are social conventions, not actual peerages. "The" before a lordly title is an abbreviation of "The Right Honourable" (for barons, viscounts and earls) or "The Most Honourable" (for Marquesses). As Bentinck was not a peer himself, merely the holder of a courtesy title, "The" did not apply. Cymro61 12:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Council of India

I've copied the Council of India section into a separate article. I'm not quite sure this was the proper thing to do, but there appear to be quite a few references to the council which require linking, and the section is rather long. - Crosbiesmith 22:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Masalai removed the hyphens, calling them "fustian antiquarianism". I agree that the title sounds incredibly grand. I have here a copy of Wavell: the viceroy's journal (1973, Oxford: University Press, ISBN 0192117238), which hyphenates throughout, of which examples can be seen at pp. 29 and 30. Also, since the phrase on that page is "Governor-General" and not "governor-general", it is reasonable to say that it was a proper noun. Also it probably was the intention, when that office was first created to make it sound grand. Greentubing 04:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Function of the Viceroy

I'm surprised that this is a featured article. Perhaps the 1833 Act should be explained further; the article is weak in what the specific powers of the Viceroy 1858-1947 actually were. For example, how often did he exercise direct rule (ignoring the Council or later the Indian Congress or Moslem Leage 1946 and on)? How much did he have to report back to London? Was this a legal requirement or done by convention?

British Monarchy

References to the British Monarch have been removed. --Lawe (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that the title of Empress/Emperor of India was an adjunct to UK titles, and not a separate title under Indian law, in much the same way that there was not a separate title under law for the monarch of Canada prior to 1953. I think that absent any references which specifically state that the monarchy of India was legally distinct from the British monarchy, everything should be moved back to 'British'. Prince of Canada 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that India was granted independence in 1947. Can't be independent while under a foreign power. --G2bambino (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, rather like the Ireland situation. --Cameron* 19:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And much like the Ireland situation, the title of King of Ireland (as held by the British monarch) was a title of the British monarch, not a separate title unto itself, no? Victoria signed Victoria RI on British documents, not Victoria R on the British and Victoria I on the Indian. This suggests to me that there was no such thing as the Indian monarchy. Are there sources which state otherwise? Prince of Canada 22:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: George VI was Emeperor of India 1936-47, then King of India 1947-50. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. It only became a legally distinct title upon independence, not before. So references to Indian Monarch for anything pre-1947 seem to be incorrect. Prince of Canada 23:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no references to a pre-1947 King of India. --G2bambino (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

'Cause there was no such thing, as a King/Queen of India or King/Queen of Pakistan, pre-1947. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. --G2bambino (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources would be useful, however. Prince of Canada 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That show India was independent after 1947? --G2bambino (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that show the use of the title 'King of India' and associated 'Indian monarch'. Prince of Canada 04:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why for the use of the title "King of India"? What else would you describe the monarch of India as other than the Indian monarch? --G2bambino (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to show that there was in law a separate monarchy of India. This is all happening prior to the Royal Styles & Titles acts, after all. Prince of Canada 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you are asking for sources that show India was independent after 1947. The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 was already in effect. --G2bambino (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) No, I made it perfectly clear what I am asking for: a source which shows that a separate monarchy existed in India, with a separate title. Prince of Canada 05:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And nobody knows why you want a ref for the title. If you doubt the existence of a separate monarchy, then you doubt the independence of India. --G2bambino (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I say I doubted the independence of India? *looks at the thread*... nope. I said I'd like to see a reference for the use of the title. There isn't a reference at Emperor of India, either, and there really should be. Prince of Canada 05:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And haven't said why you want a reference for the title. It's baffling becuase there's no mention of a monarchical title made anywhere in this article. --G2bambino (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "the representative of the Indian monarch." I see no references for the fact that a specifically Indian monarch ever existed. Prince of Canada 05:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes no mention of a title, which is what you were asking for a source for. If you doubt the existence of an Indian monarch then you doubt the independence of India between 1947 and 1950. --G2bambino (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am questioning the use of the term 'King of India' (from which 'Indian monarch' is derived) as a separate term. I have never seen it used before--only Emperor/Empress or Imperator/Imperatrix when signed--and would therefore like to see a source for its use. Prince of Canada 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "King of India" is never used, and "Indian monarch" is not derived from it. "Indian monarch" is another way of saying "monarch of India." That option can be used instead, if you like. --G2bambino (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't address the question of the use of 'monarch of India' as separate from 'monarch of the UK.' Do you have a source or no? Prince of Canada 06:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So, you are again questioning the independence of India after 1947. There are sources that affirm the country was indeed independent after that date. --G2bambino (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said, no I am not. Do stop putting words in my mouth, thanks. I am asking for a source which states that the monarchy was legally distinct. Do you have one or not? Prince of Canada 06:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But you are; pay attention to the words that come out of your mouth, thanks (will you now whine about my adopting your way of communicating?). If India did not have a distinct monarchy, it must have been under another country's monarchy, which, itself, would act on the advice of that other country's ministers. That would make India not independent. There are sources, however, that would prove such a claim as false. --G2bambino (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am asking if you have a source which clearly states that there was a separate monarchy of India in that time period. It is not a difficult question to answer: do you or don't you? Prince of Canada 06:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, huh, glossed right over it. Another attack. Well done, keep going! Prince of Canada 06:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew you'd whimper about it; funny that you've been upset by having your very way of speaking turned back on you. Maybe that's why you didn't see it at first.

If there was no separate monarchy then there was no separate state. --G2bambino (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, more insults. So, to be clear, you do not have a reference that clearly states the monarchy & title are separate. You could have just said so in the first place. Thanks. Prince of Canada 07:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, more whining! So, to be clear, you do not have a reference that clearly states the country was not independent? You could just have said that in the first place. Thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) I never said the country wasn't independent. I was asking for confirmation of the use of 'monarch of India' as a separate title/usage. That's all. You decided to bring insults into this. Looks pretty bad for you, y'know. Prince of Canada 07:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and a 'thank you' for removing the attacks from Lawe would have been nice. I know you saw them; your little attack page in your sandbox is clear. Interesting, by the way... I removed any incivil allusions to you from my talk page as an act of good faith. But you extremely quickly restored that page. Hmm. Prince of Canada 07:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you started with the sarcasm (and not just here). Sorry I have to act so immaturely, but it's just a demonstration to you of exactly how you speak to others. It does indeed look bad, so, please, heed your own words.

If you are saying the country did not have a separate monarchy, you are saying the country was either not independent, or already a republic.

Oh, and if you removed the attacks for my benefit, and not to protect Lawe, then thank you. --G2bambino (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Any sarcasm you see here is your projection. I asked questions in good faith and got rewarded with evasion and insults. You keep saying things like 'if you are saying' when I have made it clear I have not said those things. I have asked for a source confirming the title and usage. Clearly you don't have one, which you could have simply said in the first place. One has to wonder why you would continue playing games when the answer was so simple. Prince of Canada 07:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, welcome to the world at the other end of PrinceOfCanada's mouth.

Any games are yours alone; as you know full well that a country cannot be independent and under a foreign power, your requests for a source that says India had a crown that was legally distinct from that of the UK are pure pedantry. I mean, really, what's your alternative? "After 1947, India became a sovereign state but continued to be governed by the British-King-in-Council? --G2bambino (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please. I asked a simple question, as I had never seen the term used before. Your perception of sarcasm is yours alone, and the hurling of insults was your choice alone. You don't have a source, you could have said so, but instead you chose to belittle and insult me. One wonders why. Prince of Canada 07:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Because you do it to others, and namely to me, that's why. You misinterpret the most innocuous and/or straightforward remarks and fly off the handle in a flurry of sarcastic barbs and derisive commentary. I, and others, have tried to explain that to you in a civil manner before, but to no avail. As I said, I'm sorry to reduce myself to that, but I really am just mirroring you. I will stop now.

I simply don't understand why it matters if the term "Indian monarch" (or "monarch of India") has been used before. I'm sure it must have been, at some point. But, not every word on Misplaced Pages needs its own source, and we have to compose sentences and paragraphs that communicate concepts to readers with accuracy and in a digestible fashion. I can try and search out a source if you are going to pursue this (though, you're equally able to do so as well), but, as "British monarch" is either inaccurate or confusing (depending on how one reads it), what is the alternative? --G2bambino (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I should say: any more discussion of personal matters should be moved to my talk page. I will address whatever questions you may have. --G2bambino (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew you would find a way to make yourself blameless. And, point of clarity, you have tried to explain no such thing to me before, whether in a civil manner or no. Your lack of ability to recognize the reality of how you treat people is not my problem. Prince of Canada 07:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody can say I didn't try. As someone put it to me: PrinceofCanada will either mend his ways or find them mended for him. I guess I can't argue with that. --G2bambino (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I should think anyone who reads this thread could say, unequivocally, that you didn't try. I asked a question; you refused to answer, and followed up with belittling and insulting remarks. I explained extremely clearly why I wanted to know. You kept belittling, and have now tried to pretend you're some sort of.. victim? Crusader? Do us all a favour and leave WP like you promised to. Prince of Canada 07:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• B-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of High-importance
• India portal selected articles
• WikiProject India articles