CRETION OF AUTHORITY LOUIS XV [Risolto]

FOR FRENCH INDIA COIN`S FROM 1715-1774

You could just say that Mahe and Ponduchery do not have local rulers, feature French heraldry on their coins and it would be nice to have their ruling authority set to French kings or republic or Napoleon.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/mahe-1.html

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pondichery-1.html 

My understanding is that we should not infer kings or emperors to just mimic mother issuer structure but rather use local ruling authority being probably “French Settlements in India” as a Period https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q646374

This way all issues in different sub issuers (Mahe, etc) will be linked together in the ruler page

Poke @sujit_kumar 

Compendium

My understanding is that we should not infer kings or emperors to just mimic mother issuer structure but rather use local ruling authority being probably “French Settlements in India” as a Period https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q646374

This way all issues in different sub issuers (Mahe, etc) will be linked together in the ruler page

 

Poke @sujit_kumar 

I agree

Ok then I poke @tdziemia because original request is not valid anymore :-)

French Settlements / Établissements français de l'Inde has been added as a ruling authority at the level of sub-issuer India, French.  

I think it's working, but when someone else confirms it is as desired, I'll close this.

tdziemia

French Settlements / Établissements français de l'Inde has been added as a ruling authority at the level of sub-issuer India, French.  

 

I think it's working, but when someone else confirms it is as desired, I'll close this.

 

It works thanks!

Actually, I somewhat disagree. While creating a ruling authority called “French Settlements” is appropriate, it still complicates things. French India coins sometimes bear symbols of the French Monarchy, such as this: N#113454 and there's many examples. The thing is, French India was recognised as a colony of France/overseas territory. I don't see why there shouldn't be a monarch as ruling authority if it is a colonial possession. Let us have a look at another example, which is, the EIC. The British Crown had no direct involvement in the coins minted by the EIC. However, in Numista, EIC coins have English monarchs as ruling authority which doesn't make sense as the FEIC/French India was much more closely related to the crown. The French East India Company was heavily influenced by the Crown and had less autonomy than BEIC. I don't see a reason why there shouldn't be a French Monarch as the ruling authority of the coins with respect to their ruling years. Although, this is just a suggestion, “French Settlements” is still very appropriate for a ruling authority.

x72

Actually, I somewhat disagree. While creating a ruling authority called “French Settlements” is appropriate, it still complicates things. French India coins sometimes bear symbols of the French Monarchy, such as this: N#113454 and there's many examples. The thing is, French India was recognised as a colony of France/overseas territory. I don't see why there shouldn't be a monarch as ruling authority if it is a colonial possession. Let us have a look at another example, which is, the EIC. The British Crown had no direct involvement in the coins minted by the EIC. However, in Numista, EIC coins have English monarchs as ruling authority which doesn't make sense as the FEIC/French India was much more closely related to the crown. The French East India Company was heavily influenced by the Crown and had less autonomy than BEIC. I don't see a reason why there shouldn't be a French Monarch as the ruling authority of the coins with respect to their ruling years. Although, this is just a suggestion, “French Settlements” is still very appropriate for a ruling authority.

I would second this, they were issued in the name of that King and the colonies were French possessions.