Talk:Governor-General of South Africa

Correct facts?

The reference to "local (white)" persons is superfluous - where else in the British Empire was there a local (non-white) governor-general?

Maybe not in the Empire, but in the Commonwealth - India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Nigeria, Gambia, Sierra Leone, all had local (non-white) citizens holding the post of Governor-General.

The implication is that SA was the only contry in the commonwealth that applied a colour bar which was not the case - how many Aboriginals became GG of Australia, Maoris [sic] of New Zealand, or "red Indians" of Canada?

Not comparing like with like. In these 'dominions' the indigenous population was in the minority. The 1960 referendum in SA was whites only. Australia has never had a woman, let alone an Aborigine as GG, unlike Canada or NZ, but this is down to conservatism.

For that matter how many Indians were Viceroy of India either?

See comment above.

Right up to 1965 Rhodesia (then a British colony) had a white GG - Sir Garfield Todd.

Incorrect. Garfield Todd (he was only knighted in the 1990s on the recommendation of the NZ government) was never 'Governor-General' of Rhodesia because there was no such post. Sir Humphrey Gibbs was Governor (although the Smith regime stripped him of his authority and appointed an 'Officer Administering the Government' after UDI) and remained so until the declaration of a republic in 1970.

With reference to the Governors General of South Africa, it is my opinion that members of the Royal Family like Lord Athlone made better Governors General than the racist fascists who occupied that office until the Republic of South Africa was declared in 1961. Princess Alice was deeply loved by all races and language groups and she even spoke Dutch which impressed the Afrikaans community. The total impartiality of the Royal Family, enabled him to be a concilliator not least during the Flag Contraversy 1925-1928. In the South African context one wonders if more members of the Royal Family had been sent out there, whether things would have been different. The systems of Queen's Representative clearly works because here we are in the 21st century and thoroughly modern countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, not to mention Jamaica, Barbados etc still have a Governor General and it works. However, I think the days of sending royalty out to these countries are long gone, more's the pity. I hope and pray that in the years to come, the term Your Excellency, may still be heard in Government Houses around the world.

With reference to the comments above regarding White only Governors General, it is true to say that there were non white Governors General in India, Pakistan, Sierra Leone The Gambia etc but this only occured afer independence and in most cases a republican form of government was introduced soon afterwards.

In the case of India for example, the first Governor General of independent India was Lord Mountbatten who had been the last Viceroy and the first Governor General of Jamaica was Sir Kenneth Blackburn who had been the last Governor of colonial Jamaica.

Fair use rationale for Image:Governor General Union of SA 1931 Flag.png

Image:Governor General Union of SA 1931 Flag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Monarch and Prime Minister columns

With the way the "Monarch" and "Prime Minister" columns are set up, they are misleading, because they make it look as if the Monarchs and Prime Ministers changed at the same time as Governors-General. For example, the Earl of Clarendon was viceroy under George V, Edward VIII and George VI, but there is no way of telling that from the table. Similarly, Smuts's first term started during the office of Viscount Buxton, not during that of Prince Arthur as the table would seem to imply. - htonl (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No prospect of consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Governor-General of the Union of South Africa → Governor-general of the Union of South Africa – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Tony (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Inconsistently used in sibling articles, often in the plural, which rather proves the point. Tony (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. In this context, "Governor-General" is a specific title. The South Africa Act which created the post consistently uses "Governor-General". One might write of "governors-general" in the plural without capitalisation, but when one writes of the particular post it is capitalised. The same can be seen in, for example Governor-General of Australia, Governor-General of New Zealand, Governor General of Canada, etc. - htonl (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Htonl and User:GabeIglesia—Well, just as every job advertisement caps the so-called title of the job: "Garbage Collector Grade II". Capping is rampant, and is often boosterism. Where do you draw the line? Most style guides recommend downcasing. It would be particularly recommended for "ZA has had three governors-general". That is clearly generic. We now write "South African government", and "South African prime minister". Why is this different? Tony (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It's different for exactly the same reason that the title of the article "Prime Minister of Australia" is capitalised even though one might write "Australian prime ministers" in prose. There is a clearly established convention in the naming of this and similar articles. - htonl (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, in response to "most style guides recommend downcasing," MOS:JOBTITLES mentions specific instances when they should be capitalized ("when the correct formal title is treated as a proper name"). MOS:CONSISTENCY should also be considered in this case, not only for all of the governor-general articles, but for all other articles that concern prime ministers, secretaries-general, and other similar job titles, all of which follow this naming convention. You will also note that just now in that sentence, I did indeed de-capitalize these terms, because I am using them in the generic sense. I don't disagree with you in this case that they should be de-capitalized in generic usage, but when referring specifically to the formal, official position (especially in the title of the article), they should be capitalized. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:TITLE and MOS:CAPS. Occupational (including governmental) titles are not capitalized except when directly attached to a person's name. Htonl, above, is giving an incorrect analysis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Concur with Htonl. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, titles are capitalized when attached to a person's name or when the correct formal title is treated as a proper name. We can draw a parallel to Prime minister and the many, many articles of various countries' prime ministers (e.g. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister of Georgia). These articles are not titled Prime minister of the United Kingdom or Prime minister of Japan. This proposed move would also disrupt consistency with other Governor-General articles (e.g. Governor-General of Australia, Governor-General of India, Governor-General of New Zealand - do we want to rename all of those too?). WP:CONSISTENCY is one of the criteria for a good article title - that is, "it is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Plus, MOS:INSTITUTIONS and MOS:POLITICALUNITS similarly draw the distinction between capitalizing generic names and formal titles (e.g. "the university offers this course" vs. "the University of Delhi offers this course"). Indeed, "Governor-general" is the generic name, but as the article is discussing the formal title and position, it should remain "Governor-General of the Union of South Africa." GabeIglesia (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Proposal: My principal issue here is with consistency between this and other similar articles. What if we agree to close this discussion and open a centralized discussion including all the "Governor-General of X" articles? - htonl (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support that, Htonl. What do others think? Tony (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I am open to that as well - opening up the discussion more broadly - although I think such a discussion is much bigger than just all of the "Governor-General" articles. This convention pertains to every article we have on official government positions (Prime ministers, secretaries-general, presidents, ministers of foreign affairs, etc.). This convention applies to all of those articles, so I think it would be good to have this big discussion and have a lot of input on it. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What say the matter be raised at the MOS talkpage first off. Tony (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. We always capitalise individual titles like this (i.e. titles that are held by a single individual at any one time). See Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, United States Secretary of State, Vice-Chancellor of Germany, etc, etc. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only does it seem odd to single out an article on a defunct post, but you cannot compare an office of state to a garbage collector, in which case capitalisation would be seen as boosterism. References to the post before and after it was abolished are overwhelmingly to "Governor-General" "Union of South Africa" Polemicista (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing comment: The contents of Category:Governors-general and its subcategories are not entirely consistent, so we should probably hear more of this. The MOS seems a good place to start. Andrewa (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 19 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Governor-General of the Union of South Africa → Governor-General of South Africa – Proposed page is simpler per WP:COMMONNAME and already redirects. Tærkast (Discuss) 21:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). –Ammarpad (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Older requested move 24 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: void. The established article title is "Governor-General of the Union of South Africa". The RM needs to start from there with a proposed title. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Governor-General of South Africa → Governor-General of the Union of South Africa – This was moved from factual title to inccoret one due to misunderstanding of the titles. I initially declined the request and start RM discussion, but I don't know why Anthony Appleyard cut the discussion midway and moved the page despite obvious factual error. The Union of South Africa is not the same as South Africa. The former is a historic predecessor state to the later. Therefore it is inaccurate to move Governor General of the Union of South Africa to Governor General of South Africa. The position ceased to exist with the cessation of the old state. There was never post called "Governor-General of South Africa" –Ammarpad (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Tærkast (Discuss) 16:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Nobody can confuse the Union of South Africa with the modern day Republic, with a President as head of state and government, else other former Commonwealth republics which previously had Governors-General should have their pages moved to, see Governor-General of India, Governor-General of Uganda, Governor-General of Kenya. And on that note, you might as well move Monarchy of South Africa to the Monarchy of the Union of South Africa, based on your reasoning. There is no factual error in calling it Governor-General of South Africa, as the Union was the predecessor of the current Republic of South Africa, both of which include "South Africa." There is no Governor-General of the Republic of South Africa, and there's no chance anyone would confuse it with the current state. I could literally list all articles of governors-general and monarchs of former Commonwealth realms, later republics. The reason it was moved still stands, per common name. A search result clearly indicates the proposed title is far less common than the now moved [1], and the same results for Google Book search. The article itself explains the role of the Governor-General as representative head of state quite well enough. --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. It incorrect to say that the "Union of South Africa" is a historic predecessor state to "South Africa". The "Union of South Africa" is a historic predecessor state to the "Republic of South Africa"; the name "South Africa" covers both of them. Consequently it is not incorrect to refer to the "Governor-General of South Africa". There is also the question of consistency - for example in the case of Australia there is an article titled "Governor-General of Australia", not "Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia". - htonl (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Governor-General of South Africa, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Governor-General of the Union of South Africa → Governor-General of South Africa – It was requested that the original uncontested move revert to the article's original name due to, among other reasons, it being the article's title for 13 years. Well, the Republic of China article was at Republic of China for many years before being moved to Taiwan, its common name. The second reason is the assertion that the title "Governor-General of South Africa" is incorrect. The fact that the "of the Union of South Africa" was part of the title is neither here nor there, because nobody can confuse the Union of South Africa with the modern day Republic, with a President as head of state and government, else other former Commonwealth republics which previously had Governors-General should have their pages moved to, see Governor-General of India, Governor-General of Uganda, Governor-General of Kenya. And on that note, you might as well move Monarchy of South Africa to the Monarchy of the Union of South Africa, based on your reasoning. There is no factual error in calling it Governor-General of South Africa, as the Union was the predecessor of the current Republic of South Africa, both of which include "South Africa." There is no Governor-General of the Republic of South Africa, and there's no chance anyone would confuse it with the current state. I could literally list all articles of governors-general and monarchs of former Commonwealth realms, later republics. The reason it was moved still stands, per common name. A search result clearly indicates the proposed title is far less common than the now moved [2], and the same results for Google Book search. The article itself explains the role of the Governor-General as representative head of state quite well enough. Tærkast (Discuss) 19:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. As per my comment in the previous (voided) RM discussion. For consistency - we have an article titled "Governor-General of Australia" not "Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia", and we have an article titled "President of South Africa" not "President of the Republic of South Africa". There is no inaccuracy in referring to the "GG of SA", as has been claimed - "South Africa" refers to the country in both the Union and Republic forms. - htonl (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Governor-General of South Africa is a perfectly correct and understandable short form of the title, and the words "the Union of" are not needed for disambiguation (in the same way that we use, for example, Governor-General of the Bahamas rather than Governor-General of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas). Alkari (?), 25 March 2018, 00:55 UTC
• Oppose. This article is about the historical office, Governor-General of the Union of South Africa, that existed between 1910 and 1961, when the country's name was Union of South Africa, which has its own article, separate from the article titled South Africa.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The country's name was "Union of South Africa" then and is "Republic of South Africa" now. The name "South Africa" applies to both (and the wikipedia article South Africa covers both in its History section). - htonl (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Exactly per Htonl, and the same argument used for this, can be such as Commonwealth of the Philippines, which also had a President, but whose head of state article title is President of the Philippines, not President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, which technically as the predecessor state and "historical office" (predecessor to the President of the Republic of the Philippines) would be the "correct" term according to the argument you're trying to put across. Never mind the fact that common name policy and other reasons I put forth in the request seem to be ignored.

Further point, during the Commonwealth of the Philippines, it also had a High Commissioner whose article is at the common short form, not High Commissioner to the Commonwealth of the Philippines because it is the same state, different name, and the common name of the office. There is no reason to have it at the long form, as the successor state and common name takes precedence. It is not "incorrect" to suggest the proposed name is wrong, else the proposed name would not redirect here in the first place. --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Clear common name. The country was always commonly known as South Africa. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom and other commenters. —  AjaxSmack  02:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Succession

It is true that the Governor-General was formally the representative of the monarch and not himself the head of state. However, under the Union various powers were directly vested in the Governor-General and not in the monarch: for example the appointment of cabinet members; the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament; and the appointment of delimitation commissions. When South Africa became a republic, the powers of the monarch and the powers of the Governor-General were both merged in the State President. Section 3 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act provided:

3. As from the date mentioned in section one, any reference in any law in force immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, in the Union of South Africa or in any other territory in respect of which Parliament is competent to legislate―

(a) to the Union of South Africa or the State, shall be construed as a reference to the Republic;

(b) to the Crown or the King or the Queen or the Governor-General shall be construed as a reference to the Republic or the State President as the circumstances may require;

(c) to the King-in-Council or the Queen-in-Council or the Governor-General-in-Council, shall be construed as a reference to the State President.

In other words, the State President was the legal successor of the monarch and also the legal successor of the Governor-General. - htonl (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)