Move Cooch Behar into India Princley States [resuelto]

Cooch Behar is under India › Indian North-Eastern Dynasties › Cooch-Behar, Kingdom of 

It should be under India > India Princely State

Not all coins from Cooch Behar were struck for the Indian Princely State under British suzerainty.

Aidan.

Thank you.

We are in the process of restructuring the section formerly called “Indian Princely States” so that it also includesd coins of the same place that pre-dated British rule.

To start with, the section is now called “Indian Local and Princely States.”

This is intended to correct the issue brought up by BCNumismatics.

Will keep your request open until it is moved to fit with this new structure.

Amazing thank you. 

tdziemia

Thank you.

We are in the process of restructuring the section formerly called “Indian Princely States” so that it also includesd coins of the same place that pre-dated British rule.

To start with, the section is now called “Indian Local and Princely States.”

 

This is intended to correct the issue brought up by BCNumismatics.

 

Will keep your request open until it is moved to fit with this new structure.

'Indian Princely States' needs to be retitled as ‘Indian Princely States under British suzerainty’.

Aidan.

The section is no longer being used to include only coins under British suzerainty.

BCNumismatics

Not all coins from Cooch Behar were struck for the Indian Princely State under British suzerainty.

 

Aidan.

This section now has the early coins with the Issuer as “Kingdom of Cooch Behar”:  N#452920

…and the later coins with the Issuer as “Princely State of Cooch Behar:”  N#473548

This keeps continuity of all coins for this issuer in the modern era under the grouping “Indian Local and Princely States” while still recognizing the periods of independence and British suzerainty.

Thank you! Also true for Mysore. Should I create a new ticket? 

Yes, please.

Hello, @sujit_kumar @tdziemia @Sramsrin @Vic65 

If we are doing this, than we can be a unique database that keeps The maratha empire, & later princely states as a whole to lower confusion.

ex:

Maratha empire(section):

Maratha empire>Peshwa of Pune():

        Maratha empire>Peshwa of Pune()>Newalkar Maharajas of Jhansi

        Maratha empire>Peshwa of Pune()>Ghorpade Chiefs of Gooty 

Maratha empire>Holkar of Indore(): ___ also Indore Princely state

Maratha empire>Holkar of Indore()>Indore-Mehidpur Feudatory

Maratha empire>Bhonsle dynasty(): 

         Maratha empire>Bhonsle dynasty()>Bhonsles of Nagpur ___ also Nagpur Princely state 

         Maratha empire>Bhonsle dynasty()>Kingdom of Thanjavur-Maratha 

         Maratha empire>Bhonsle dynasty()>Chattarapatis of kolhapur ___also  Princely state of Kolhapur 

         Maratha empire>Bhonsle dynasty()>Sawants of Wadi

         Maratha empire>Bhonsle dynasty()>Chattarapatis of Satara (1708 - 1818)___also satara_princely state

Maratha empire>Scindia of Gwalior(): — also IPS Gwalior

Maratha empire>Gaekwad of Baroda():___ also IPS Baroda

And for all the issues after 1818, they can be tagged as an IPS period,

However what should be done with IPS: Jamkhandi, And Miraj, And the patwardhan chintaman rao rupee ?

should they just be left as is, regards