Talk:Governor-General of India/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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The page has been hijacked on my computer, most of the article has been replaced by a religious rant.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

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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 06:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, huh, glossed right over it. Another attack. Well done, keep going! Prince of Canada t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 t | c 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 Wikipedia 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 t | c 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 t | c 07:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh noooo, I can't find any sources for King of India. It appears the closest thing would be British monarch reigning over India 1947-50. GoodDay (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that's exactly the sort of information I was looking for. Like I said, I'd only ever seen Emperor/Imperator, never King. Prince of Canada t | c 12:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This is weird; what was India from 1947 to 1950? GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That was precisely my question.. I'd never heard 'monarch of India' or 'King of India' ever used before. Yes, it makes logical sense that the terms would be used, but I'm pretty certain you of all people would agree that matters Royal are not always logical ;) Prince of Canada t | c 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
At least we know George VI was King over India; thus the position of Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
By 'King over', do you mean '(someone who is a) King (who is also boss of) India'? Prince of Canada t | c 13:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I meant, India had a foreign monarch (the monarch of the UK) as its Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
GD, how can a country have a foreign monarch but still be independent? Saying so is an oxymoron. --G2bambino (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
India from 1947 to 1950 is confusing. We need a source for King/Queen of India. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Wha? --G2bambino (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah.. that's what I meant. I wasn't particularly clear. That's my read of the situation, too. There's a fascinating discussion here that I'm wading through. So far it's looking like the consensus there is that 'King of India' was not ever actually an official title. Prince of Canada t | c 13:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
What we're asking ourselves, is this. Was there ever, a Kingdom of India? Had India become a republic after 1953? the answer would've been -yes. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

King of India

Was it a official title, held by George VI? We need a source folks. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't an official a title. Why do you ask? --G2bambino (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
We need a source, that says King of India in it. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
But why? (That's a genuine question; I'm not being flippant.) --G2bambino (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
So we can end the dispute over its inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It isn't included, GD. --G2bambino (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, then what's all the fuss, by PoC? GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe it has something to do with the use of the term "Indian monarch" in the article. It could be "Indian sovereign", "monarch of India", "heredetary ruler of India", anything that describes the monarch who reigned over an independent India. "Indian monarch" seems sufficient to me, though. --G2bambino (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, the Indian monarch it is. Afterall, India must've had one, or there would never have been a Governor General of India (and thus, this page wouldn't have existed). GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Well... no. I've been hunting and hunting, and haven't yet found anything to indicate that the monarchy between 1947 (end of Empire) and 1950 (republic) was called 'King of India'. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This arguement is nonsense. The Governor-General of India was appointed by the British Monarch. see British_Raj. --Lawe (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Atleast, we agree that there was a monarch (whether it be of India or over India) from 1947 to 1950. The existance of a GG of India, prooves that. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely. I'm just waiting on a reference which states that the monarch was known as the King of India -- that's where 'monarchy of India' would derive from. I'm fairly certain that there was no such official term. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
A separate title isn't necessary to prove the existence of a separate monarchy. Examples: A) India was a British colony before 1947, but the monarch was still separately titled Emperor/Empress of India; B) Canada had a legally separate crown after 1931, but no separate title for the monarch until 1952. Looking specifically for references to "King of India" is a red herring. --G2bambino (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Is not. Questioned statements require sources. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 04:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Then, could you please be unambiguously clear about what statement it is that you're questioning. The words "King of India" simply do not exist in the article. --G2bambino (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
What I wrote above is perfectly clear: Oh, absolutely. I'm just waiting on a reference which states that the monarch was known as the King of India -- that's where 'monarchy of India' would derive from. I'm fairly certain that there was no such official term.
A source which shows either one to have been in official usage would necessarily legitimise the other. And there are links in the article to King of India, so.. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 04:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Just did a scan of the article and I couldn't see any references or links to King of India. If there was, it would either have to be removed, or decapitalised to king of India, because the title never existed. Hence, searching for it is, as I said, a red herring. All that needs to be established is that there was a legally separate crown for India after 1947 (as there was for all the other Dominions/realms post 1931), if recognising India's independence somehow isn't enough. --G2bambino (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(out)It has nothing to do with India's independence. Again: do you have any sources which show that 'monarchy of India' or '(K)king of India' are official terms? If they are merely terms of convenience, this should be noted. [[this is the link I'm referring to. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 04:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I see G2bambino's quest to make articles unreadable continues apace. Bambino seems to assume that because a) India was independent after 1947, and b) India's head of state between 1947 and 1950 was George VI; that therefore c) George VI must have been "the Indian monarch." I don't think this is at all clear. The idea that each of the dominions (as they were still known in 1947) had their own separate monarchy was one that doesn't really seem to have existed at the time when India was still a monarchy. The dominions were considered independent states, but also realms of the British monarch. It was only later, really, that this idea of separate crowns developed. Saying "Indian monarch" instead of "British monarch" is just obfuscatory and confusing, and provides no useful content to justify itself. One would add that it was precisely the fact that nobody in India considered George VI to be an "Indian monarch" which led the Indians to decide to become a republic only three years after independence. john k (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

But...the 1931 Act of Westminster established that the Dominions each had a separate crown, separate from the British. Both India and Pakistan were subject to this Act on their becoming Dominions. The reason there was no separate title of King of India' for George VI 1947-1953 is because India did not prolumgate a separate Royal Titles Act to give him such a title, as all the remaining Dominions did in 1953 following the Accession of Elizabeth II. Besides; India (along with all the other dominions) was covered in the phrase 'and the British Dominions beyond the Seas' in his title.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Viceroy vs. Governor-General

I wish there was more discussion of the use of these terms. My understanding is that a) Viceroy referred to the Viceroy's role as overlord of the princely states, while Governor-General referred to his role as head of the administration of British India; b) that in the event of the physical presence of the monarch in India, the Governor-General would cease to be Viceroy, and remain merely Governor-General; and c) that only the permanent appointed governors-general were entitled to be called viceroys - acting governors-general were only governors-general, and never called viceroy. But I'm not sure why this is my understanding. The article provides no real help on this score. john k (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the Hyphen?

"Governor" is a noun, "General" is an adjective, and there is no need whatever for a hyphen between them (any more than there is in "Attorney General", and so on). Why, then, is there a hyphen between them throughout this article, and even in the title? I have left it in, as the contrast between the text (which I can change) and the title (which I can't) would only add to the confusion, but it's startling to see this mistake effectively endorsed by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.216.193 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


In my observation, other than Canada, all the other GG articles are so, at least for current Commonwealth realms. This is due to their usage, and that Canada actively does not. I would say that most sources just hyphenate it as is the norm, and thus it is written here as such. 162.157.81.204 (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Flag

Hello, I think that for the header we should use the flag that was used for nearly a century rather than the obscure one lacking any important symbols and which was only in use for a couple of years. Cyndane5 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Cyndane5

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Governor-General of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Governor-General of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

@Peter Ormond: I am wondering why you reverted the infobox. Because as I see it, there is a number of "issues" with it:

  1. It doesn't have any insignia, and instead replaces it with a flag only used for two years, which is still shown else where in the article.
  2. Repititionn of "Final holder" both the images (of which there are too many) and the parameter give the same information.
  3. No predecessor.
  4. Final holder has needles information as dates and there are two "lasts". There can only be one last.

Thanks. Skjoldbro (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Until 1947, the position was officially called Viceroy and Governor-General of India, who was the representative of the monarch of the United Kingdom. After independence in 1947, the position was called Governor-General of India, who represented the monarch of independent India. This articles includes both of these offices, but they were constitutionally different from each other. This is why we show two flags, and two lasts, two images of final holders in infobox (one for the colonial viceroy and one for the governor-general of independent India). Peter Ormond 💬 19:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Peter Ormond: Then why aren't both insignias used? And why isn't Mountbatten also shown as first, since he was Governor-general of Dominion of India? Why isn't Canning shown with image, as he was last under Company rule? And shouldn't then also be in first, as the first under monarchal rule? My guess would be, that it would clutter it too much, hence my revised infobox. If there were 4-5 constitutionally positions in the same page, would they all need to be shown, in the infobox, with own flags, images and first & lasts?
Additionally, there is no need for "last" in image, as last is already shown later in the infobox, which is why it is smart show something different, like longest. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The indian constitution

About indian freedom 183.82.178.120 (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to Move (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 11:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Governor-General of India → Governor-general of India – WP:MOSTITLES ~TPW 10:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Content immediately below copied from WP:RM/TR:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are these cockamamie page moves not advertised anywhere? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Its another matter than no one called him (and they were all males) a GG after 1858, only the Viceroy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

British governor general of india

Slow 2405:205:C88B:49A5:0:0:709:68A1 (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Correction

You can Warren Hastings as first Viceroy rather than longest serving. Swanand C (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Governor-General_of_India/Archive_1&oldid=1109987287"