[gumby]

I don't know. While looking around to see if I could find my school's charter online I discovered that Harvard never had a royal charter, though at various times they sought one. On the other hand College of William and Mary got one (from the eponymous co-rulers) in 1693.

As my parallel comment noted, there are some notable omissions in that list, quite unsurprising given its thousand year scope.

[skissane]

Wikipedia’s article on Thomas Dudley, governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, says he issued one of Harvard’s charters, and provided land and funds for the founding of Roxbury Latin. Since as Governor he was technically the monarch’s representative, I could see why both Harvard and Roxbury might have elided the technical distinction between “chartered by the King’s official representative” (vice regal) and “chartered by the King personally” (regal)

> As my parallel comment noted, there are some notable omissions in that list, quite unsurprising given its thousand year scope.

The only "Royal Australian" body it has is the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI, to which my father belongs), which is the national professional body for chemistry. But, it is missing many other "Royal Australian” organisations, including all the “Royal Australian” medical professional colleges (e.g. the Royal Australian College of General Practice, to which belongs my mother). I know under Australian law, it is illegal to call yourself “Royal” without approval from Buckingham Palace. But, possibly, that approval isn’t technically considered a “royal charter”-since 1946, the Australian federal and state governments effectively control the use of “Royal”, the Australian government sends the paperwork to Buckingham Palace for the monarch’s signature, but the monarch will sign anything if the right person gives it to them. However, that’s out of the Privy Council’s jurisdiction (which is the UK only), so the Privy Council might not know about it. The RACI is on this list, because it was 1934, and that was before control over the use of the word “Royal” was transferred from the British government to the Australian ones, and hence the Privy Council would have processed the application. EDIT: One page on their website notes that getting permission to call yourself "Royal X" is technically a separate process from getting a royal charter, you can have one without the other

Another guess: the College of William and Mary got a letter from the eponymous monarchs approving its use of their names, but the Privy Council doesn’t technically consider that letter to be a “royal charter”, because it didn’t use the right magic code words to count as one

[gumby]

I assume the GG, being a viceroy, can sign these things on the king's behalf? But what do I know?

I did find it ironic that I moved from aus to a republic, only to attend a school with supposedly a royal charter.

> Another guess: ...but the Privy Council might not technically consider that letter to be a “royal charter”, because it didn’t use the right magic code words to count as one

If you're going to cast a magic spell you've gotta get it right.

[skissane]

> I assume the GG, being a viceroy, can sign these things on the king's behalf?

Apparently not. According to a 1946 edict of Buckingham Palace (whose text does not appear to be publicly available, although there are public documents referencing it), the procedure is (a) request is approved by Prime Minister (for national orgs) or state Premier (for state-based orgs)–in their sole individual discretion, (b) PM/Premier advises GG/Governor to submit request to Buckingham Palace, (c) the King/Queen signs it and returns it. Although theoretically either the GG/Governor or the monarch could veto the request, it is almost inconceivable they ever would. I think, theoretically, Buckingham Palace could delegate the power to sign them to GG/Governor, but they likely worry that not having the monarch sign it personally would deprive it of its magical properties. Also, in 1983, the federal government adopted a policy that the PM would no longer consider applications for the title "Royal" from national orgs, so now only state-based ones can get it. Any future PM could decide to change that, but in over 40 years nobody has. Even Tony Abbott, who was such a devout monarchist that he had to (briefly) resurrect knighthoods, couldn't be bothered.

> If you're going to cast a magic spell you've gotta get it right.

As I mentioned in a sibling comment, there is a notice on the Privy Council's website saying their list is not exhaustive, and please contact them to report any omissions. So, a few hours ago, I contacted them to query whether the College of William and Mary's omission is intentional or a mistake. I'll see what they say. It helps they have a copy of their charter on their website: https://scrc-kb.libraries.wm.edu/royal-charter