These are from Southern Rhodesia, not Rhodesia. I know they have "Rhodesia(n) Issue" on them, but Rhodesia wan't a political entity at that time. Southern Rhodesia does require the addition of Victoria, Edward VII and Edward VIII to cover these and other notes.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Rhodesia was actually originally the territory ruled by the British South Africa Company until 1923, when both Northern & Southern Rhodesia were created.
Northern Rhodesia always used whatever circulated in Southern Rhodesia right up to 1964, when Northern Rhodesia became independent as Zambia.
If we take 1923 as the start date for Southern Rhodesia, this removes the requirement for Edward VIII and George VI. Are we sure the term Rhodesia applied to the territory ruled by the British South Africa Company?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ceh2019"If we take 1923 as the start date for Southern Rhodesia, this removes the requirement for Edward VIII and George VI. Are we sure the term Rhodesia applied to the territory ruled by the British South Africa Company?
Yes, as Rhodesia was named after the founder of the British South Africa Company himself - Cecil Rhodes.
The private banks in Rhodesia issued notes as late as 1938 - therefore, including both King Edward VIII & King George VI is totally necessary.
The question is when was that part of Africa officially named Rhodesia? The Wikipedia artcle (taken with as much salt as you see fit), gives a date of 1895 for "Rhodesia" and 1898 for "Southern Rhodesia". That puts almost all of these notes in the latter. 1923 is when Southern Rhodesia became a colony, not when it came into being as a political entity.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
