Talk:Governor-General of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Governor-General of India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 17, 2004.

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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The page has been hijacked on my computer, most of the article has been replaced by a religious rant.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 [sic] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?