Timeline for In the British empire, what was the difference between a Governor General and a Viceroy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2015 at 1:47 | history | protected | Semaphore | ||
| S Jun 15, 2013 at 22:53 | history | suggested | Elrond |
Add epoch tags.
|
|
| Jun 15, 2013 at 22:10 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 15, 2013 at 22:53 | |||||
| Jun 15, 2013 at 20:35 | vote | accept | Gwen | ||
| Jun 15, 2013 at 7:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackHistory/status/345812480519462912 | ||
| Jun 14, 2013 at 18:49 | answer | added | fortytwo | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jun 14, 2013 at 17:04 | answer | added | Tom Au | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 14, 2013 at 16:27 | answer | added | MCW♦ | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 14, 2013 at 15:58 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 14, 2013 at 17:40 | |||||
| Jun 14, 2013 at 15:54 | comment | added | Felix Goldberg | I think that there was not much of a practical distinction, it was more a matter of customary titles. Viceroys were sent for India and Ireland, elsewhere they were governors (of all kinds). (But maybe I'm missing something here, so not posting an answer yet). | |
| Jun 14, 2013 at 15:46 | comment | added | NotVonKaiser | A governor general ran a colony, whereas a viceroy is a kind of butterfly. ;P | |
| Jun 14, 2013 at 15:40 | history | asked | Gwen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |