Talk:Letters patent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Royal Charter

How is the relation (in English language) between the concept of a (royal) Charter and a (royal) Letters patent? As far as my eyes can se, there is no references between these two articles. /Tuomas 13:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Royal Charter is one form of letters patent, generally for incorporating a group of individuals. Look at the Royal Charter of the BBC for an example. Pmadrid 21:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Confusion between a patent and a letters patent

Regarding this:

The earliest known Letters Patent were granted by Henry VI in 1449 to John of Utynam which gave him a 20-year monopoly for a method of making stained glass, required for the windows of Eton College.

there seems to be a confusion between patents and letters patent - letters patent are probably predating modern patents for invention. --Edcolins 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Google searches suggest that John of Utynam (a weird name, by the way, suspiciously close to the latin word utinam) really was granted letters patent giving him the monopoly specified, so there's no misuse of terminology or anything like that. BUT, yeah, 1449 is way too late to be the earliest known letters patent. I'm just removing it. Doops | talk 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. --Edcolins 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be productive to reiterate here for others not involved in the discussion (i.e. not you two above :D) that the modern usage of "patent" as something protecting a new discovery, ultimately derives from the usage in this article (as is described in the "History of patent law" article), and that its not uncommon to see legal texts/historical texts/etc referencing "a patent of George IV containing provisions for the erection of an orphanage in Sometown"... ( and other topics... you get the point.) It just happens so that a large number of such patents provided for monopolies over new discoveries. 202.89.152.148 (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Patents of invention (commonly called "patents") were granted by letters patent (under the great seal of England). However, this is merely the most popular use of the term. Historically, letters patent were used for many purposes. Originally patents of invention were patents of monopoly, giving the grantee a monopoly in a particular trade. Under the Statute of Monopolies 1623, this was restricted to inventors and for 14 years. Previously, the crown granted monopolies in other circumstances, but Elizabeth and Charles I both found it necessary to repeal a number of monoplies due to public opposition. I had not heard of John of Utinam, but his grant must have been in the nature of a patent of invention, and the fiorst of its kind by many years. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deed poll

If the article Deed poll is correct, then aren't letters patent (functionally) just deeds poll of the king, covering a lot of topics since the king is (notionally) in charge of everything? 118.90.23.25 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that technically you are correct. In medieval usage, letters patent were from the king to every one, in contrast to letters close, which were addressed to an individual. Nevertheless, in common parlance deeds poll are for change of name and letters patent are for inventions and appointments, though both have wider meanings. I would discourage any one even to think of merging them| Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

clarifying the differences among Proforma British Letters Patent

In Letters patent#Proforma British Letters Patent, I structured the text as a table to highlight some of the differences. There are additional commonalities that could be better indicated if someone is so inclined. 67.101.6.37 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(I've deleted from the end of your above post the repeated table visible in the article) Nice idea and good work, but I'm not entirely convinced it serves the stated purpose. Could you not simply have bolded the differing wording in each version? It's now very difficult to read. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

OR?

"It is not clear how the contents of letters patent became widely published before collection by the addressee,..." I'm not sure there is an adressee "know ye by these presents" etc.. And moreover the article says that LP were sent to the sheriffs, high sheriffs, mayors etc., as well as gazetted (pres. form the 17th C) All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

America's First Letters Patent... Surprised No One Has Posted It Yet...

Seems as if this article does need a little pick me up... guess these letters patent are hard to find. But this is right up my alley. (I think it started with my undergraduate education at William and Mary. ha.)

I'll help when I have time, but for now, someone should do a little word-crafting and put this one in at the top... it's grrrrreat.

I think this may also qualify as an example of a Royal Charter...

Ciao for now... (And no, I don't feel like doing any fancy HTML right now :-)

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/First_Charter_of_Virginia_1606

(Now, now. Don't get upset. Even though it's actually a primary resource, and we all know how they're not Wiki-credible, this one is the perfect exception to that rule, because it's being used as an example of the subject of the article; not as a reference to support any assertion.)

DrMatt Hogident (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Letters patent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130125030511/http://www.hereditarytitles.com/Page12.html to http://www.hereditarytitles.com/Page12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Would someone explain "Rot. Lit. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 129.", please?

I know asking for off-project help is a bit naughty but maybe it will lead to an improvement in the article? The Victoria History of the Counties of England has many footnotes that look like Rot. Lit. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 129.; clearly the authors assumed that any educated person should need no further explanation. For we arrivistes, would someone explain? The context is a market charter by letters patent from King John at Stony Stratford. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The reference is to Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londinensi asservati, edited by T. D. Hardy, published by the Record Commission in 1835, p. 129. Online (in a not terribly user-friendly form) at http://neolography.com/timelines/JohnItinerary.html . Further details at Patent roll, which is linked from this article, but perhaps not prominently enough: the focus here is on generic letters patent of all nations, the focus there more specifically on English letters patent. GrindtXX (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)