Talk:Royal charter

Merge?

Would it maybe be time to consider the proper relations and coordination between articles on Charter, Royal Charter, and Letters patent? --Johan Magnus 00:05, 11 November 2004 (UTC)

Means of incorporation?

I find the article unclear regarding whether the granting of a royal charter is itself a means of incorporation, or only the granting of a special status after incorporation. Perhaps someone suitably knowledgable can amended it The Angel of Islington 05:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

At least within the British tradition, a royal charter can indeed be used as a means of incorporation. 81.133.253.126 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong nation

A number of American (i.e. United States of America) universities are listed in the Canada section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.29.174 (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Most American colleges not by royal charter

Several of the universities listed under "United States of America" never held royal charters and should not be listed there. Perhaps someone else can confirm this, but I am pretty certain that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton never held royal charters in their colonial history; they were non-conformit institutions. The only two that I am sure had royal charters were Kings College (now, Columbia) and William & Mary, which retains its special links to the Crown.

With the exception of Columbia and W&M, these colleges certainly held charters, but they were colonial charters granted by the colonial government. But there were not royal charters in the usual process of petititon and grant from Privy Council.

Oldwykehamist 04:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)oldwykehamist

I can confirm that Harvard and Yale did not receive royal charters, but I believe all the other colleges listed DID receive royal charters. The only possible exception is Brown, then the College of Rhode Island, which I believe was chartered by the colony, not the king in parliament. The chief reason Harvard and Yale sought to avoid royal charters was that they tended to open the college up to royal scrutiny and regulation. Ibidid (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Harvard did not receive a Royal Charter, but rather from the General Court of the colony itself, per Harvard's website: http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/intro/index.html 12.150.185.195 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon further research with the Privy Council Office in London, none of these universities received Royal Charters. In fact, it appears that at best, they received Letters Patent from the reigning monarch. See Wikipedia article on Letters Patent, but it appears that they are a much more common form of grant, and not nearly as significant as a Royal Charter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.185.195 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit tangled: royal charters granted by the (British) Crown are in the form of letters patent; the one type of instrument is in essence a subset of the other. 81.133.253.126 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor do those possessing Royal Charters necessarily claim to continue to operate under their authority. William & Mary, at least, discontinued operations around 1882. The institution now using the name was founded and chartered later by the Commonwealth of Virginia and continues to operate under the authority of that grant from the General Assembly, not the Crown. Dartmothian (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The ship

The Royal Charter sank in the year 1851 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.61.166 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

American letters patent using charter language

Why would a colonial governor enhance his grant of letters patent with "charter" language if this might get him into trouble with the sovereign? For example, Governor John Wentworth's 1769 letters patent for Dartmouth College was "recorded in the book of Charters" of the colony of New Hampshire:

we have willed given granted constituted and ordained and by this our present Charter of our special grace certain knowledge & mere motion with the advice aforesaid DO for us our heirs and successors forever will give grant constitute & ordain that there shall be in the said DARTMOUTH COLLEGE from henceforth and forever a body politick consisting of Trustees of said Dartmouth College.

The "we" refers to Wentworth. --Greener08 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct title

The correct Title of this Article is Royal charter. Some of the Capitalizations in it need to be fixed. --Wetman (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Royal Charter and 'Royal' Prefix

On the Hong Kong and Ireland sections, the institutions listed are merely said of having the 'Royal' prefix. The Irish institutions concerned, such as the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, were granted Royal Charters. But in the case of Hong Kong, I am pretty sure that Police Force and the Royal Observatory were established by local legislation, and I guess the Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force was raised by either local legislation or imperial legislation (through order in council perhaps?)

The three clubs may have been granted charters, but the history of their websites didn't mention 'Royal Charters' at all. However, the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club's site did mentioned that they applied to the Admiralty 'for permission to call the Club "The Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club" and to fly the blue ensign with a distinctive mark on the flag. A warrant was granted by the Lords of the Admiralty on 15th May 1894.'[1]I can make sense of applying to the Admiralty to fly the blue ensign with a distinctive mark, but how about the Royal Prefix of the club and the charter?

And I suppose the granting of Royal Charter and the granting of 'Royal' prefix are two different things although both of them are royal Prerogative, I intuitively think the former is the power to grant charters of incorporation and the latter is the power to confer dignity and honours?Jsernest (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Letters patent

The correct term is "letters patent", in the plural, even when referring to a single document. The construct "a letter patent" is incorrect, as is "a letters patent." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

COI edit request

The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) does not feature on the list of UK companies.

At the Privy Council meeting held at Buckingham Palace on 15 October 2009 Her Majesty the Queen approved an Order instructing the Lord Chancellor to affix the Great Seal to the Institution's Charter.

As a result on 7 December 2009 the Institution was granted its Royal Charter and took the name of the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation - www.ciht.org.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.94.96 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Probably better to move all these large lists to a category or list article, then add it there. CorporateM (Talk) 17:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No updates in two months, closed as "not an improvement", which seems to be the closest reason.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Merely named Royal

"Royal...." does not imply a royal charter, and most organisations with royal charters are conversely not named "Royal...". The Gibraltar, Hong Kong and Ireland sections are full of items that are simply wrong.

These inappropriate items have been flagged as such in this talk page since 2008. However, there seems to be resistance to removing this inaccurate information. Mauls (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mauls: I've gone through and changed these where they could be identified. Canadian one are particularly tricky, as they institutions concerned sometimes claim to have received a "royal charter" granting them the royal prefix. Where there isn't a reliable third party source verifying that they actually received a royal charter I have removed them (this isn't a list article after all, so there is no requirement to aim for completeness). Robminchin (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Reorganisation 9f the page

I propose reorganising the page to be more about what royal charters are and do and less about listing bodies that may (or nay not) have been granted them. Much of what is effected by royal charters already has articles, so this would provide a summary and a link to the main page for, e.g., chartered status.

Along with this, I would rationalise the geographical section, which is almost entirely about charters granted by the British crown in different parts of the world. It therefore makes sense to divide this into charters from the British crown and other charters.

Any thoughts from other editors? Robminchin (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

History

The royal charter was solely responsible for the colonisation of Zimbabwe.Discuss. 77.246.53.130 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)