Talk:List of Australian organisations with royal patronage

Rationale for reversion on 13 Dec 2006
I couldn't find any other references to a "Chartered Institute of Teachers" (plus it was in the wrong place on the page anyway). DH85868993 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Corrections on 23 March 2007
Removed: Royal Blind Society (of NSW) - this organisation amalgamated with the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind in 2004 to become "Vision Australia".

Changed and moved to alphabetical position: Royal Launceston Show Society - the Royal Launceston Show is presented by the Royal National Agricultural & Pastoral Society of Tasmania, and I have not been able to verify the existence of a Royal Launceston Show Society.

Removed: Royal National Institute of the Blind: though a UK organisation of this name exists, I have been unable to verify the existence of an Australian organisation by this name.

Corrected: Royal United Service Institute of Victoria - added the 's' to "Services".

Note: I am aware of approximately 200 Australian organisations which currently use their Royal patronage (whether through permission to use the prefix "Royal" or through incorporation by Royal Charter) - there are approximately 25 more which have had Royal patronage in the past but which now either do not use it or have requested revocation. I will endeavour to update this list to reflect my research as the opportunity arises. Guran70 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Additions and corrections on 28 March 2007
I've added approximately 120 organisations to the list. These are all organisations which I can verify were individually granted permission to use the prefix "Royal" and are still operating. Some use a trading name which differs from the name for which permission to use the prefix was granted, and where this is the case I have indicated the trading name. In other cases the name has changed since the original grant, but "Royal" is still used, and in those cases I haven't bothered to indicate the former name or names. There are some special groups which should be explained:

Military Corps: the Australian Army is not the "Royal Australian Army" - permission to use the prefix "Royal" was granted individually to each corps listed. Furthermore, though some corps to which permission was granted have since changed name or disbanded, only those corps still operational are listed.

RSPCA: Each listed state and territory RSPCA branch holds individual permission to use the prefix "Royal".

Royal United Services Institute: Likewise, each listed state and territory branch holds individual permission to use the prefix. Note that the ACT and Northern Territory branches are not "Royal", as they do not have permission, hence they are not listed.

Royal Charters: incorporation by Royal Charter is a form of Royal Patronage, so I have included the nine existing Australian organisations which are incorporated this way in the list.

Removal of University of Sydney: I'm not quite sure why the University was listed - from inception, it was established by an Act of the NSW Parliament, and I can discover no overt evidence of particular Royal patronage. If it was listed by virtue of a member of the Royal family being a "patron" of the university I don't think that is sufficient for inclusion, as there are many organisations that would similarly qualify without having permission to use the prefix "Royal" or without being incorporated by Royal Charter. Happy for this to be further explained, though.

I have not included a handful of organisations which I suspect may operate currently but haven't been able to verify. Nor have I included the approximately 30 organisations which have had Royal Patronage but have disbanded.

Guran70 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with some of edits you have done is that you are creating links to articles that simply do not exist. It is all very well, and accurate, to list the RSPCA seven times for each state organisation if there are seven royal charters, but it means that there are seven links to seven pages that do not exist, and not one single link to the article on the RSPCA, which is very threadbare. Perhaps all these links should still exist, but redirect to the single RSPCA article? Additionally, the fact that some say "of South Australia, Inc." doesnt quite work, because the fact is that these links do not go to the repective article, despite the fact that one exists, because the "Inc." is part of the link. 121.45.80.171 14:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)