Talk:List of governors-general of India

2nd Earl of Lytton
Why isn't the 2nd Earl of Lytton included in this list? According to his bio he served briefly (1925) as viceroy, and the articles on the Earl of Reading and Lord Irwin list him as successor and predecessor, respectively. Favonian (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Events in the term of Lord Auckland
Why is Shah Shuja characterised as a "cruel Afghan traitor"? That is an interpretation of Shuja which, whatever its merits, has not place in an encyclopaedia. Likewise, the defeat of the British Invasion of Afghanistan is attributed to "Strong" Afghan army. This again is an interpretation and not a fact. These are minor points but they suggest a worrying bias which may be present in other parts of this entry. I hope someone can review the whole entry and try to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David chaffetz (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What is ...
... the deal here? I created two sections in the Company rule in India and British Raj pages with lists of the G-Gs and Viceroys. People who over the years have attempted to stamp vanilla symbols of British royalty on those pages have got nowhere. Someone seems to have stolen those sections and created a new page, a blatant content fork if not also a POV fork, where they can indulge in the royalist fetish. Please don't tell me that WP allows copying. It does in the aid of encyclopedia building, not creating your own little domains of fantasy. Please remove that gratuitous last column; otherwise, I will do so in a week. If you want to add the prime ministers who actually made the appointments with the constitutional monarchs rubber-stamped, be my guest; but, the royals have to go. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The 'Government of India Act 1858' clearly states that "The Appointments of Governor General of India, . . . shall be made by Her Majesty by Warrant under Her Royal Sign Manual". So even if the appointments were made on the advice of the prime minister, it was the monarch who did the appointing, not the prime minister. By the way, WP:TALK clearly states that the 'Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor'. Do statements like 'stamp vanilla symbols of British royalty', 'indulge in the royalist fetish' and 'creating your own little domains of fantasy' help improve the encyclopedia in any way? Rockcodder (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please don't make one list inconsistent with other similar lists of governors-general on Wikipedia. A discussion should be open for all lists, not just one.  Peter Ormond 💬 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The Indian Governor-General was a serious appointment, especially during the Raj years, and the senior-most in the empire. Several served as GG of Canada before they were appointed in India (Elgin, Minto, and Willingdon; Metcalfe, the putative counter-example, was only Acting GG in India), and several went on to cabinet appointments in Britain. It was the gold standard, not Canada, whose only non-India-serving GG that I can recognize is John Buchan, who I greatly admire as a spy novelist (Greenmantle and Huntingtower are worth as much a read as The Thirty Nine Steps).  Even in the Company years, there were several notable ones (Cornwallis or Wellesley for example).  In any case, Canada has the prime ministers in the columns, not the monarchs, who for the most part fill up empty space in India.  And empty space, however much we might delight in it as a metaphor of their political heft, serves no great encyclopedic purpose.  The monarchs in Canada appear in felicitously infrequent rows our eyes can glaze over.  You are welcome to do that.  Also please don't import (from the Company and Raj pages) into the Indian list the column of deeds and misdeeds done; it is incongruous in a vanilla list, which is what all the others.  That is if consistency is of the essence.  So summing up.  India is the gold standard. Without the Indian empire there would have been no British empire, and when India left the British empire unraveled, or began to style itself as a more egalitarian undertaking.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy with how it looks now? Rockcodder (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Which one do the two of you prefer? this one, this one or this one? Rockcodder (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The first and the third one are fine.  Peter Ormond 💬 06:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)