Talk:Princely state/Archive 1

Re:Post Independence
I'm changing the "accession" section. Where it said that the princes were deposed peacefully, it is incorrect. The titles were allowed to be retained, inter alia to enable the privy purses to be paid. The titles were abolished along with the privy purse. VivekM 23:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It is stated:

After independence, the (Hindu) Maharana of Udaipur displaced the Nizam of Hyderabad as the most senior prince in India, and the style Highness was extended to all rulers entitled to 9-gun salutes.

This i wholly incorrect. Even after independence, Nizam was drawing the highest privy purse among the Indian rulers followed by Maharaja of Mysore.

Rajachandra (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Princely state vs Principality
Perhaps the opening paragraphs could make more precise the reasons for two such apparent synonyms. --Wetman 23:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'ld love to, but as far as I know there is no linguistic logic involved, just clear traditions, a bit like there is no reason to keep calling British comital peers Earl (which doesn't even really correspond to the Norse Jarl) and all their continental counterparts Count, nor to call a ruling native prince in the Dutch East Indies Regent, but the colonial masters seem to have found it satisfactory thus to hint indirectlty that these are in the end 'only' dark-skinned, usually 'heathen' natives, not quite the equals of their own inter-married European nobility without saying so (and defeat the purpose of officially recognizing native titles as part of indirect rule) Fastifex 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The princely states were known by that name (and were never officially called 'principalities') but I don't know if this usage was informed by any intention to differentiate status. As the fief of a duke is a duchy, so the domain of a Rajah is a 'Rajya' or state, hence princely state, possibly. But you never know. The Maharajas were also held to 'rule' and the word 'reign' was never used, and this usage was apparently deliberate.
 * Their 'ruling' reality did however give them status ahead of the peers (thus, 'duchy' rather than 'dukedom'). Any tiny state in treaty relations with the Crown outranked the Dukes of the realm in the warrant of precendence. Their place, as affirmed at the coronation of Edward VII, was 'after the foreign ambassadors and before the peers'. So the 'dark heathen' attitude was not really such a touchstone of behavior. ImpuMozhi 16:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant general histories
This is not an article to give detailed histories of principalities. Dates when territories became principalities or when they disappeared, and the immediate circumstances are relevant to this subject, of course. --Wetman 01:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Kipling's "the man who would be king" has an account of native states in it. Don't know if that helps with anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.63.33 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nepal?
There is an inconsistency here,  where someone has put Nepal in the list of "princely states". Was it or wasn't it ? If Nepal was indeed a princely state,  then the subsequent paragraph which says that all of the princely states had to join India or Pakistan would appear to be incorrect and require revision.Eregli bob (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A semi-inconsistency perhaps; Nepal had a treaty with Britain that expired in 1923 and can perhaps be regarded as a princely state up to that date. Very much a borderline case though. On another note somebody has added the Sikh Empire to the list as it ceased to exist in 1849 this is definetely an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrm87 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is or is not counted as a princely state for the purposes of this article, the table under the heading 'Under suzerainty of the Central Government' says there were five states with direct links to central government but then goes on to omit Nepal, listing only four. My feeling is that Nepal should be included given that the text above the table explains its unique position, but if it's felt that Nepal shouldn't be listed, then the table heading needs to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.40.24 (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Gun salutes
The article is full of references to "gun salutes" but no context is provided. The article 21-gun salute provides some information on this in the Indian context but no sourcing or verifiability. But this article is much worse int hat respect, as it assumes our readers know of the significance and importance of gun salutes as a hierarchical component. This would be trivial except gun salutes are used in tables and text as an important piece of information. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Chitral
I have deleted Chitral from amongst the regions under Jammu & Kashmir State as sin 1911 Chitral was a separate Salute State (11-Guns) and the suzerainty of the Maharaja had been transferred to the Emperor of India. Since 1895 Chitral Sate was part of the Dir, Swat and Chitral Agency overseen by a Polictical Agent based in Malakand. Thus Chitral was no longer in the Gilgit Agency and the Resident in Jammu & Kashmir had no credentials in Chitral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.46.69 (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Kashmir
However, M.A. Jinnah, creator and Governor-General of Pakistan, included Kashmir in his concept of Pakistan. The British-controlled Gilgit Scouts staged a rebellion in the Northern Areas, as a result of which this region became effectively a part of Pakistan, unilaterally without a referendum and is up to the present being administered by Pakistan as a part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK)

The above statements are not true ... Please see History of Kashmir... I'll edit this section when time permits...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

nepal is not a princely state
nepal was never ever princely state .nepal should not be in this table because nepal never gave any princely purse and nepals monarch was always addressed as HIS MAJESTY and the prime minister as HIS EXCELIENCY ,in other hand they addressed the kings of princely state as exceliency,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.164.175 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)