From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

is this the same as a Regent?

Well, sometimes a regent and a viceroy are essentially the same. But normally a regent rules over a country in either the temporary absence of the monarch, or when the monarch is unfit to rule himself (either due to youth or insanity). A viceroy generally rules over some kingdom of which the king is the monarch, but which he does not live in. But sometimes a regent can do that, as well. john k 16:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


"A vicereine is a woman in a viceregal position" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Kwantung and Kwangsi"[edit]

That should probably be either "Guandong 關東 and Guanxi 關西" or "Guangdong 廣東 and Guangxi 廣西". The combination "Guandong 關東 and Guangxi 廣西" doesn't make sense. --Babelfisch 04:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. --Menchi 05:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revillagigedo [[Image:The information on the two counts as Viceroys of New Spain was great to find and accurate They were my great great grand fathers and I remember my grandfather Jose Guemez taking me to Chapultepec Castle and showing me his picture . Now small wolrld my grandson 10 years old had to do a project on Viceroys , thanks to the information that I had from your web I was able to show it to him in a way he could understand , An share the same pride I do Thanks Isabel G Guémez

List of Viceroyalties?[edit]

There's the mention of a number of former viceroyalties in this article. Are we listing only those viceroyalties that used the title or a similar meaning title, or also those viceroyalties that were called something else but being viceroyalties (e.g. if the word doesn't exist in the language, but that's what the rule of the area was, do we include it or not?)? Yom 18:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Definitely only those linked to a viceroy (preferably in a rather strict sense)! Otherwise we're hopelessly drifting into numerous other terms, such as province, for no reason at all. Fastifex 19:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Viceregal / Australia, Canada, NZ[edit]

You refer to the use of the adjective 'viceregal' in these countries (in referring to a governor or governor-general) as 'incorrect'. However, it is quoted by some dictionaries as a correct use of the word, and I would argue that it is a correct use, as these officials represent the British monarch and are therefore acting as 'vice-regents'. The term is employed even on Royal tours in referring to a 'viceregal residence'; this is surely preferable, in the interests of communication, to using the cumbersome adjective 'gubernatorial'.

  • Viceroyal is acceptable only when Viceroy is- dictionaries often report fairly common practices, even when not formally correct. So for a mere Governor, it would be absurd, that's a rank well under VR and G-G; even for a Governor-general, it is technically incorrect except when the term Viceroy is explicitely established (for the office or nominatim), which has no other necessary purpose then to mark the incumbent out as more (indeed almost) 'regal' then any other official, hence generally only for royalty (so denied to commoners with the same mandate) or a few positions at G-G level of exceptional importance/prestige- thus a Spanish colonial Viceroy could be the superior of a Governor-general (e.g. the G-G of the Philippines). If your problem is with the word gubernatorial as such, which is admittedly less obvious as it is really Latin, and can be confusing as there is no specific version for a G-G, an elegant alternative is simply to use the genitive instead Fastifex 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I could not disagree more. Viceregal is regularly used as an adjective to describe the Governor-General of Australia and expresses the fact that the governor-general is an absolute deputy of the Queen. I am unaware of 'gubernatorial' ever being used in Australia or elsewhere in the Commonwealth Realms. If you look at the official website you'll find the word used there. I am unconvinced that Wikipedia is better informed than the viceregal protocol advisers, although it may be that the protocol of the Spanish empire was different. In any case the only contemporary governors-general are all viceroys in the sense of exercising all of the royal functions and powers except their own actual appointment so it seems strange to prefer a practice which became obsolete in 1821 when the Viceroyalty of New Spain ceased to exist to once which exists now. The nature of the contemporary office in the Commonwealth is precisely that there is no superior or intermediary between the governor-general and the Queen. Incidentally, and to recall, for example, that contrary to popular usage, the primary title of the [administrator of the British raj] was 'governor-general'. An elegant solution is to follow contemporary usage, particularly when it affirms a central constitutional prnciple. Alan 18:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I deleted the allegation of poesy in the use of 'viceregal' after reading the Balfour Declaration 1926:

      In our opinion it is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations that the Governor-General of a Dominion is the representative of the Crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain or of any Department of that Government.

      It is hard to imagine a more precise definition of the governors-general as viceroys than having the the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain. It is worth noting the Declaration also contained special provisions for India making clear that the governor-general of India held a lesser status than the governors-general of the Dominions. Alan 01:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Fastifex, I am not prepared to launch an edit war. I think your information is wrong and I've documented my reasons. I'd urge that you do the same. You may also care to use a spellchecker. Alan 16:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'ld love to read the 'official website' (apparently something Australian), but your link doesn't work (now?), so I can't comment on what I cannot access. As for the 1926 Balfour declaration, that is a) a declaration, more a political instrument then an authoritative document; b) to recent to apply to most viceroyalties, the bulk of which weren't British anyhow; c) in your quote devoted to Governors-general, nothing specific for viceroys which term is not even mentioned, if you start such Hineiniterpretierung you could just as well apply it to Governors and Lieutenant-governors in certain minor territories, or even various other posts of gubernatorial substance; d) only concerned with the real political report between present Comonwealth nations, not with the formal protocol which is the one constant difference between both titles Fastifex 19:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Please don't think you're going to provoke me by by wrting 'apparently Australian' as if that disqualified the site from consideration. The URL for the official website of the Governor-General of Australia, where 'viceregal' is used regularly, is I repat my suspicion that the viceregal protocl advisers are more familiar wuth these matetrs than a Wikepedian editor who does not document his sources.

The Balfour Declaration 1926 records the conclusons of an Imperial Conference. Those parts of it which dealt with legislative issues were enacted in the Statute of Westmister. Those parts of it which dealt with the royal prerogative speak for themselves and do not require legislation. Issues of English usage are determined, I submit, by usage rather than formal protocol, a protocol, moreover, for which we have seen no surces beyond the argument that certain governors-general were subject to viceroys in 1821. Use by a governor-general is reasonably good evidence, I would have thought, of formal protocol (if that mattered) as well as usage. Alan 06:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I've tried the corrected link (I didn't mean anythinh derogatory about Australians, see no reason to, in fact I like them just like prince Charles does), but found it googles 21.600 times Governor-general, and ZERO hits of viceroy or viceregal, so that is 100% irrelevant Hineininterpretierung, not even usage (which is irrelevant anyhow) and rather a proof against any link. The only one who put any source in Viceroy is me, so pretending I'm the unsourced odd one out is grossly absurd. Fastifex 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In this debate on the use of 'viceregal', you have cited nothing to prove your formal protocol except the Spanish example. I cited the Balfour Declaration. Frankly, you seem to focus on the word 'viceroy' without addressing the underlying function the word represents. Your argument that 'viceregal' cannot be used of governors-general because the former governors-general of the Philippines were subordinate to the viceroys of New Spain until 1821 can hardly be called determinative for the usage of 'viceregal in the contemporary Commonwealth realms. In reality, that example supports my argument that governors-general are viceroys because a contemporary governor-general is not supervised by any other official. Before the Balfour Declaration they were supervised by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It will be interesting to know why Commonwealth English is subordinate to this formal protocol.
You state that 'formal protocol' overrides, please cite the sources for such an argument. While I apologise that 'Hineininterpretierung' is not from one of the languages in which I am competent, it would probably assist this discussion if you told us what it actually means. Alan 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, my Google results are significantly different from Fastifex's. The results are:
Each search returns examples, on the first page, of the term 'viceregal' or 'vice-regal' being used in relation to a governor-geeneral with examples from Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand.
I plan to delete the reference to technically correct, but I'll give the usual delay for a reply. Language is determined by usage, not undocumented formal protocol. Alan 01:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Vicereine ?[edit]

The article states that it is "very rare" for a woman to be a vicereine in her own right (as opposed to the wife of a viceroy). Just out of interest, have there been any women in history who have been vicereines in their own right? Obviously there have been female governors-general, e.g. Dame Silvia Cartwright in NZ, but I can't think of a single instance in history where a woman has held the position of viceroy.

  • Off hand I couldn't think of one either, so I googled a bit- I never heard of her, but according to a members-only website (but google had a cache) Marie-Amelie of France, daughter of King François I, married Portuguese king Henrique II and was Vicereine (can't be as wife) of Portugal and mother of Portuguese King Sebastão II. Mind you, this may be in incorrect translation- thus another result was for a 'vicereine of the Netherlands' Isabella, but her title was landvoogdes, i.e. rather 'Governess-general'; other results concerned (Spanish) Naples, Aragaon, Valencia. So if you're really intrested, look or princesses in those dynasties, but do your homework before entering them as 'examples' which might well be misleading. Are you game?

P.S. when you create a Talk-section by splitting an existing one (a good method) it's best to change (or at least delete) the old title in the edit summary, it can be really confusing! And don't forget to sign and date (with 4 times ~), otherwise some people just won't take you seriously Fastifex 14:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge ?[edit]

  • STRONG OPPOSITION - Viceroy and Governor would be hard to merge (I don't see the point either), and what about Governor-general (often more akin to Viceroy, Governor can be a lower level!), but 'Royal governor' would be an utterly absurd choice, as there are even imperial viceroys Fastifex 15:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG OPPOSITION, although with the caveat that there is, in Australia at least, no hierarchy between the governor-general and the governors. The governors are appointed directly by the Queen on advice of the state premiers. The governor-general has no formal or actual role in their appointment and is incapable, under our constitution, of directing them in the exercise of their functions. Lieutenant-governors in Canada have a different relationship to the Crown.Alan 18:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • MORE STRONG OPPOSITION: As something of a student of the Spanish Empire in the Americas, I think it makes little sense to merge the two categories for the simple fact that the royal governor (i.e. Ovando in Hispaniola) and the viceroy (i.e., Mendoza in New Spain) are most definitely not the same thing. Although the Viceroyalty supercewded the royal governorship, they were two different offices. The governorship certainly did nopt entail the same kind of conflation with the monarchy that the viceroyalty did.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
  • Oppose. All good reasons above.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
After a month without any support, just opposition, I'll now remove the merger notice Fastifex 13:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Fastifex, can you explain what your problem is with the version that Codex Sinaiticus and I support? Yours makes a sort of OR/POV jump in saying that V.E. was a sort of successor to Haile Selassie, since no government in the world (aside from that of Italy, of course) recognized his claim to the title. The version I support, however, says that he claimed that he was a successor to Haile Selassie (we don't even have a citation, so even this may be conceding too much - I've put a fact tag on it). Moreover, you use of the word "use" instead of "hold" regarding Haile Selassie's claim to the title is inappropriate since no government recognized V.E.'s claim to the title and universally recognized H.S. as the legitimate holder of the title and Emperor of Ethiopia. Finally, the use of "autochthonous," (and why not also"foreign,") "Orthodox," "Coptic," and "Solomonic" are all irrelevant. This article is firstly about the title of Viceroy, while this section is simply to clarify what the actual title for the head of Ethiopia was in dispute. We have articles on Victor Emmanuel and Haile Selassie; readers can simply click the hyperlinks to go to those pages to see very quickly that Haile Selassie was Ethiopian (and Orthodox), while VE was Italian (and Catholic). These would be the inherent assumptions, with the exception of religion, which really had very little role in the matter—in a case like Susenyos, where the Emperor was Ethiopian, it would, but the much more important issue was that there was an invasion of Ethiopia by Italy, not that Victor Emmanuel was Catholic! Please, let's discuss the issue before an edit war truly emerges. I think you'll see why your wordy version is unnecessary and includes OR and POV in favor of V.E. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't even see why the whole sentence explaining about Victor Emmanuel and Haile Selassie is even necessary to the article "Viceroy"... Neither of these men was a Viceroy. Cut that sentence out, and the article does just fine IMO. But, if it must be included, it may as well be accurate, and my view on that concurs with Yom. Mentioning things like what religion these two non Viceroys are, is getting even further afield from the article topic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you pronounce it?[edit]

I think a phonetical alphabet written version should be added to the article I can't really tell how you pronounce it. Especially the end. Is it like a french "roi", or "roy" just like the beginning of "royal"

Yes, it is 'roy' like 'joy'.Begu Khel 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Exotic Counterparts"?[edit]

I think this sub heading needs to be changed and by that I'm not referring to "Oriental". It should be "Eastern Counterparts"(Dimas Subagio 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

Edit to Informal Use[edit]

I removed this paragraph from the Informal Use section:

"A kuncleroy is the modern day equivalent - who governs a street or hood in the name of and as representative of the OG. The term derives from the Latin prefix kuncle-, meaning "da man" and French roi, meaning bigdawg. His hood or larger territory is called a kuncleroyalty. The relative adjective is kuncleregal. A kunclereine is a woman in a kuncleregal position (rare, as it usually includes gangsta high command), or a Kuncleroy's wife. The etymological allusion to the royal style makes it be perceived as higher than governor-general and lord lieutenant, equivalent to the Viceroy even when in some cases it is a synonym for that administrative rank, and not necessarily above several 'provincial' (lieutenant-) governors."

My reasons for this are, quite simply, its supposed etymology is bogus. The word kuncle is not of any Latin that I know. On top of that, it is absurd to believe that if the word was truly of Latin origin, that it would mean "da man". Secondly the word roi in French means King, not "bigdawg". On top of the obvious etymological flaws, the paragraph is nearly a verbatim copy of the opening paragraph of the original article. Kaalreth 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As pejorative[edit]

Might be worth mentioning the modern practice of using the term Viceroy as a pejorative, e.g. L. Paul Bremer being referred to as Viceroy of Iraq as a way of likening the American occupation of Iraq to old-style colonialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonditz (talkcontribs) 17:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


I'm quite surprised that an established editor does not understand the differences between references and citations, and is willing to edit war over policy. The {{refimprove}} tag, which has been on the articel for 9 months, states:

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009)

The editor claims the Russian section has a source, but it does not appear in the article view at sall. Perhaps it's being used incorrectly. Anyway, after the editor added new text to the article, I added an {{unreferenced}} header to the section, as the claimed source" was not visible. Rather than simply add the requested citations, the editor removed the Unreferenced without explanation! I find this behaviour without excuse. From the editor's behavior, I am left to conclude that the information he has added is in fact unsourced, and that he is knowingly adding OR to the article. I see no other reason for stubbornly refusing to add the reqested citations, which should include volume and page number from the referenced work. I am adding this here so a reasoanble editor who is interested can continue to try to uphold WP policy. However, I cannot continue to work on this article as long as it is owned by violators of WP policy. Also, the user is "hounding", and has added at least one Unrefernced tag to an articel I have edited recently. I expect more to follow now. - BilCat (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct - inline citations need to be added to the sections in question, not just references at the bottom of the article. Unreferenced material can rightly be challenged and removed per WP. Anotherclown (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Can, but doesn't have to be. The vast majority of the information on Wikipedia lacks inline citations - why did you pick this particular set of information to delete? Do you think it's all wrong?--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Inline citions have to be added if challenged - that's policy. Since a Refimprove header has been here since Masrch, that's been sufficient time for the article to have been properly cited. In addition, a user who added new information has refused to cite his sources, which includes giving volume nad page number, not just the name of the reference. Given his consistent refusal to properly cite sources, I am left with no choice but to assume he has none, and is claiming an existing source as an excuse. - BilCat (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Please can you take a more cooperative attitude - this is about working together to create something good, not enforcing rules because they are rules. What is it specifically that you doubt the accuracy of and want sources for?--Kotniski (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
No. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Viceroys???[edit]

It's pretty strange that there is no mention in this article about the Spanish Viceroyalties (and its Viceroys) in the Americas, a regime that lasted some three centuries and that spanned -in its heyday- from California and Florida to the southern Patagonia. IANVS (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Something that major, you can be pretty sure it was wp:vandalism. Check the history. In this case, user: blanked the section. I restored it as was, although that admittedly might still need some work. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


I am somewhat unconvinced by the literal nature of the "literal translations" offered. As it says in the lead, a viceroy is a vice-king (vice-roi). However, by the looks of its etymology, a Namestnik would be somebody acting на месте (in lieu / in situ) of someone else. To that extent, "lieutenant" (place-holder) seems the nearest word etymologically, not "deputy". It Is Me Here t / c 20:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Etymologically, yes, you do have a point. And "lieutenant", in fact, is the most appropriate translation for namestniks of the pre-Petrine period. In the 18th century, however, the role of namestniks grew significantly in importance, and they were not at all unlike their Western counterparts, the viceroys. And while in the 19th century the namestniks' authority was somewhat reduced, they still wielded significant power in the Caucasus and in Poland. All this perhaps needs to be further clarified in this article, but I wouldn't go so far as to completely remove the Russia-specific section.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 6, 2012; 20:58 (UTC)
We seem to be talking about slightly different things here. I'm saying that (A) it does not seem appropriate to call the word "deputy" (etc.) a "literal" translation of "Namestnik". If I'm not mistaken, your point is that (B) the role of Namestniks was similar enough to that of viceroys to justify their inclusion in this article. I don't have a problem with B; I'm just saying that we should do something about A. It Is Me Here t / c 23:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I see (and you are right about my take on point B). However, regarding point A, a quick gbooks search would show that the term "deputy" is a fairly common translation of namestnik as well. Perhaps it is etymologically wrong, but this variant nevertheless enjoys some usage, so it probably isn't a bad idea for this article to include it as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 7, 2012; 13:26 (UTC)
Fair enough – maybe then remove the word "literally"? It Is Me Here t / c 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. It's definitely not a literal translation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2012; 04:09 (UTC)

about "temporary occupation" of Ethiopia[edit]

Excuse me but it is an incorrect expression to say that Italy occupied temporarily the territory of Ethiopia: we are not talking about putting an hat above a chair in a cinema. Moreover the most of League of Nations participants recognized Italy sovereignty over Ethiopia in that years, so that historically speaking we cannot write about 'temporary occupation'. Other way the duration of such an occupation is clearly specified by the dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)