British Kings and Queens of Pakistan

Why have all the coins under Pakistan had a British King or Queen added to the title?

Pakistan has been independent since it's creation so the is absolutely no connection to British monarchs, it makes no sense. Because it used to be part of British India maybe? Well why not add a few monarchs to modern South African or American coins using the same "reasoning".

It seems to be yet another ill conceived idea along the lines of changing the denominations for non Latin alphabets into gibberish.

So who is responsible and has he been fired or executed yet?

Please, PLEASE, stop making "improvements".

Pakistan was a Dominion with the British monarch as head of state until it became a republic in 1956.

Whether it adds any value to reference a head of state who is neither named nor pictured on the coin is another question entirely.

Yeah, I have to say that this sort of thing depresses me - *really* depresses me - about Numista. I feel like it has been going backwards since I joined. I absolutely do not consider it to be a reliable reference anymore.

I think that's a little far fetched.. Most of it is a reliable reference I bet all of the coin details are right, so to read that makes me think youre just a pessimists.

I don't think having king/queen's names is really appropriate.

It cheapens the brand...

As it have been already said, since they they ae not pictured or written ot the coins, it seems weird.

On the other hand, it was a dominion at the time and British monarch was a legitimate ruler. And if somebody starts collecting lets say just coins of Elizabeth, he would miss those ones if it was not written.

And one more thing:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces35599.html
Should Maria Theresia be removed from this one?

I guess you could make the case for including the British monarch for the dominion period 1947 - 1956 although it serves no numismatic purpose as no king or queen appears on the coinage either in effigy or by reference. From 1956 onwards though? Whoever is ruler of the UK has no more relevance to post independence Pakistan than whoever is Chancellor of Germany.

It's no big deal, it doesn't impair the functionality of the catalog (unlike the ridiculous gunyah farce) but it does create the not entirely unjustified impression that the catalog is some kind of common core schoolboy project.

I think if I were a Pakistani or Indian I would feel vaguely insulted. They fought for 100 years to gain their independence and a lot of brave men died to bring it about.

I am sorry, but do we look at the same catalogue? There are no coins after 1956 which would mention British monarch, besides those which were first minted before 1956, when it is a case where monarch could/should be mentioned.
If that is a case, I believe simple comment on a coin page would do the magic.
Or all those monarch names could be sent into comments - this could be a nice compromise. This would calm down any rebellious Pakistanis.

Many of those coins referenced were struck long after Dominion status had lapsed. If anyone strongly feels the need to include whoever was on the British throne in 1959 as a relevant piece of information then by all means state your case. Maybe there's something which I'm not seeing.

I do not want them there neither, but I believe they should be included in pre-independence coinage.

For coins that cover both these options, some additional info should be added.

The original post was made over a year ago, I can't recall exactly what prompted it. Maybe I was just in a bad mood that morning, it's not unknown ;)

Uh, It was a trap. Fallen to the old thread. I will try to submit some changes later in the evening. (Saw some values/name problems there also) Maybe it will get sorted out.

Uhm, ever heard of British India? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj

It's understandable on pre-independence coins, the problem are that some of the coin issues straddle both pre and post independence, like this one

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8332.html

The rules says that the ruler's name should be given if there's a portrait or a monogram, isn't it implied that it should not be given if there's no portrait or monogram? (or any other identifying marks)

For example Spanish euro follow this pattern, Juan Carlos I is only named when his portrait is on the coin

We are geting somewhere! Now we have a pattern to follow.

It would be logical to move those monarchs to comments - with special comments about coins that are both pre and post independence.

This would remove illogical names, while maintaining the name of the monarch on the coins, so they would still be searchable - maybe there is someone who only collects Elizabeth II coinage or something similar.

Who's the referee for Pakistan. Perhaps it would be an idea to get their perspective on things

There is currently no referee for Pakistan.

Have a read here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_Pakistan .

Aidan.