Sikh king for Britain

[jkvlondon]

7 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

This is nonsensical.. I believe the article however farfetched suggests that this man is descended from a illegitimate bloodline of duleep Singh  

sorry the fact that Duleep was married to a Christian 'barsteward' or, this guy's claim , that he may be descended from an illegimate tryst with Duleep's son Frederick ? The first is a fact , the second highly doubtful as None of Duleep's progeny had children in line  with Guru ji's bachan . How can anyone be sure as a maid is hardly going one to admit she had an affair to anyone less than a prince (no profit, no excuse )

[ipledgeblue]

On 07/07/2017 at 0:24 AM, Sukhvirk1976 said:

A contradiction in terms no such thing as a monarchy and democracy. You seem to be mixing up political systems.. 

Moreover are you talking about the dismantling of the Indian state as opposed to the secession of the panjab and its independence 

In this case, I was talking about how there were still Princely states when India has been independent for a while.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princely_states_of_British_India_(by_region)

[Sukhvirk1976]

On 07/07/2017 at 9:04 AM, jkvlondon said:

sorry the fact that Duleep was married to a Christian 'barsteward' or, this guy's claim , that he may be descended from an illegimate tryst with Duleep's son Frederick ? The first is a fact , the second highly doubtful as None of Duleep's progeny had children in line  with Guru ji's bachan . How can anyone be sure as a maid is hardly going one to admit she had an affair to anyone less than a prince (no profit, no excuse )

I think you don't quite understand the article, the suggestion is that that this man may be the descendent of someone who was 'illegimate'. Which is in itself highly plausible.. Because in those days the aristocracy had many mistresses of low and high social status.. The fact the made may or may not have said anything is irrelevant.. Whilst I do not buy into the idea myself to dismiss it on the argument you have proffered does not hold weight. 

The more interesting argument is that if (hypothetically speaking) this person through let's say dna evidence was proven to carry the bloodline of duleep Singh then would people be so enthusiastic to have a monarchy led by descendents of Maharaja Ranjit Singh... 

Personally I reckon the idea proffered by people here would evaporate pretty quickly if that would turn out to be true.. Should be careful what we  wish for I think! 

This whole idea is pretty ridiculous to be fair? Pretty retrogressive I reckon... Analogous to the ideology of ISIS and the desire to create a caliphate, some kind of reimagined present day Sikh utopian state. But one which disenfranchises the masses and hands power to autocratic ruler.. 

I mean seriously? Do people even think these ideas out? 

[Sukhvirk1976]

On 08/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, ipledgeblue said:

In this case, I was talking about how there were still Princely states when India has been independent for a while.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princely_states_of_British_India_(by_region)

Your mistaken.. At independence there were Princely states that were essentially satraps of the British.. 

However all of these states were almost immediately assimilated into the Republic of India.. Either by force or through consent.. Though the  process of accession and integration took a number of years, essentially the Republic took full centralised control.. They were as a part of their accession required to implement democratisation of their states.. Enfranchisement of each and every person was a key ideal of the Indian state.. A number of rajpramukhs/rajas enjoyed nominal control but in reality were neutered. 

The Maharajas enjoyed for a number of years official titles and pensions and were figure heads there was never really any devolved power structure between these states and the government of India

Incidentally the Princes were stripped of their official titles and the process of integration pretty much completed in the 50s

 

[pavitarsk]

On 06/07/2017 at 1:43 AM, Singhsburys said:

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the living ancestor to the Sikh throne? Who else can claim a right?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-518674/Routine-test-reveals-white-debt-collector-Halifax-secret-great-great-grandson-king-Sikhs.html

I read this one too.

[Singhsburys]

9 hours ago, pavitarsk said:

I read this one too.

I did read elsewhere that he made the statement "he likes curry but has no interest in the Punjab, he's happy where he is"

 

 

[pavitarsk]

.