Talk:White Rajahs

Improvement drive

Brunei is currently nominated on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Come and support it with your vote! --Fenice 18:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sandokan

Aren't the White Rajahs enemies of the fictional Sandokan?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

I have a feeling that this article should be renamed to Kingdom of Sarawak. __earth ^(Talk) 13:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, if somebody can help move or redirect again to Kingdom of Sarawak (which is now redirected to Sarawak), I'll be happy to do the infobox and add a better version of the flag and the beaver crest of the Brooke dynasty --Bukhrin 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - Kingdom of Sarawak should be about a political entity (country) ie the Kingdom of Sarawak. White Rajahs should be about the rulers of said entity ie the White Rajahs. Cjrother 01:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• True but the article is mostly about Sarawak rather than about the dynasty. __earth ^(Talk) 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely the article on Sarawak, this article should be about the Royal house of the Brookes'/the White Rajahs. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual title here is 'Rajah of Sarawak'. 'White Rajah' was just a nickname. I'm suggesting, therefore, we move to 'Rajah of Sarawak' to bring it in line with how Wikipedia deals with other Royal and noble titles. 'White Rajah' could still re-direct here. Indisciplined (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

White Rajah is not a nickname ... White Rajahs is a term of art that has been applied to the three Enlgishmen who ruled Sarawak as their private kingdom. This is a term that has appeared almost since the beginning of James Brooke's reign. It is worthy of its own entry and should not be part of the Kingdom of Sarawak. I agree that the posting lacks substance ... it would have been much more meaningful if the original poster had the background to devote more substance to the three men rather than to echo content for the country. There is an incredible amount of information available for all three rajahs. This is what my grandmother would have called doing a half-baked job ... the intent is good, the outcome is lacking.72.37.171.116 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is collaborative in nature. Why don't you contribute too rather than just complaint if you feel so high and mighty about it? It's better for you to make good of your words rather than supply us with empty rhetoric about your grandmother. At least other contributors aided. What have you done? __earth ^(Talk) 02:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion and Nationality

• I'm beginning to suspect the Rajah's may have converted to Islam, and am wondering if they were British subjects, if not they couldn't use the prefix "sir", and would only be entitled to postnominal letters. Anyone have any ideas? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The three Rajahs were not Muslim. They remained British subjects all their lives. They had the unique position of being British subjects and monarchs in their own right. There were some protocal issues about how they would be presented to the English monarch who was also their sovereign. I believe that there was an agreement that while in England, they were British subjects and did not use the title of Rajah but of Sir, and when in Sarawak they were monarchs.

Sarawak in the time of the Brookes was not predominantly Muslim. It had a small Malay population who were Muslim but the majority was the native tribes who were pagans. Religions then were so much simpler than they are today and it seemed that people co-existed much better then than they do now.Eve8camp (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

buried in England

Is it not curious that all three chose to be buried in England? It is no mean feat to transport a body around the globe. And aside from that, there is the symbolic value of planting one's bones in the soil, and of pointing to one's ancestors' graves to claim belongingness. Can we reasonably suppose that the White Rajahs are the only royal family where all reigning monarchs were buried outside the country they ruled? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not curious that the three White Rajahs were buried in England. They were Englishmen. It was never James Brooke's intention to keep Sarawak in his family forever. The philosophy was always that Sarawak would one day be returned to the native people once the country was politically and economically sound and when warring tribes were united. I think that day was nearing when WWII happened, and the Japanese destroyed any hope of a peaceful transition of Sarawak to its native people.

James Brooke was in ill health towards the end of his life and returned to England to live out what remained of his days at his home in Devon, England. He left Sarawak in the very capable hands of the future Rajah, Charles Brooke. Charles too retired to England towards the end of his life and died there. The third Rajah, Charles Vyner Brooke, sold Sarawak to the British government in 1946, and lived out the rest of his life in England. None of the three Rajahs died in Sarawak so there really was no transporting of bodies across the globe.

The Brookes' lives and deaths reflect what has always been true of their rule of Sarawak -- they were the temporary protectors of the land and the people.Eve8camp (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

George I of Great Britain was natively German and buried in Hanover.

"Exploitation"

Why are references to "exploitation" in quotes? I think there's no doubt that colonial businesses were exploiting people in other parts of the world, and quite happily doing so elsewhere in Borneo, as they continue to do today.Gymnophoria (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretender in the infobox

I don't understand why this category is applied to Jason Brooke. He's not pretending to be the Rajah and never has.

I think the category should probably be deleted, or expanded.

There were only 2 serious pretenders.

1) John Brooke Johnson Brooke - when he claimed to the British Gov in 1863 that he had been made Rajah (elevated from Rajah Muda in 1861) and James had become the Rajah Tua.

2) Anthony Brooke after Sarawak was ceded to Britain. MatSallehSesat (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Easy to read Dynasty Tree

What do you guys think about an easy to read tree? I saw this style used on another Royal family page.

I thought it was a good idea to go all the way to Jason, since he's so active in Sarawak with the Brooke Heritage trust and I think people would like to see a simple chart to figure out how he connects.

I've used Rajah Muda for Bertram - because although he was Tuan Muda up to 1946 - he won the right to use the title Rajah Muda through the courts in England in 1950 - and it's how Anthony was upgraded back up to Rajah Muda, 18 Oct 1950 when Bertram relinquished all rights in succession in favour of Anthony.

Dynasty

Thomas Brooke

Francis Johnson

Emma Brooke

James Brooke 1st White Rajah

John Brooke Johnson Brooke Rajah Muda

Charles Anthoni Johnson Brooke 2nd White Rajah

George Brooke

Esca Brooke-Daykin

Charles Vyner Brooke 3rd White Rajah

Bertram Brooke Rajah Muda

Anthony Brooke Rajah Muda

James Lionel Brooke

Jason Brooke

MatSallehSesat (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)