It isn’t a “weird translation” - “Free University” is a perfectly valid translation of Dutch “Vrije Universiteit”. You just have to understand the historical background, that the university was so named because it was free from control by State or Church, unlike other universities in the Netherlands at the time of its 19th century founding
As my parallel comment noted, there are some notable omissions in that list, quite unsurprising given its thousand year scope.
> 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
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.
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
Given that it was issued by the privy counsel it is interesting that it has some notable omissions (though how comprehensive can the records be over such a long period, anyway?). I thought at first it might have been limited to charters in the current UK, but it does have the Massachusetts Company (1629), though not Virginia's charter (1606). Has the East and West India Companies, but not the College of William and Mary (1693) -- there are images of that one on the web, though not the signature.
My school was also in the Massachusetts colony, the somewhat pompous Roxbury Latin, 1643, charter 1645 (the unfortunate Charles I). It's been more than 40 years since I clapped eyes on its charter - astonishing they haven't put it online. My memory that it was 1640 was corrected by a bit of web searching.
Really these things are archaic silly relics, like monarchies themselves.
> Please note that the attached list may not be exhaustive – please contact us if you believe any information is missing.
> When Tanenbaum advised him that the compiler was not free, and that only the university was free, Stallman decided to work on a different compiler.
Abraham Kuyper was a dissenter from the state church (Dutch Reformed), whom he believed had gone astray – after founding VU, he left the state church and founded his own conservative breakaway denomination (the Doleantie) – so although he did want VU to have a Reformed Protestant ethos, he also wanted it to not be controlled by any particular Protestant denomination. As such, the Vrije was meant to denote independence, not just from state control, but also independence from the church control
Somewhat ironically for someone who desired independence from state control, Kuyper later went on to control the state (as Prime Minister)
Also ironical that within the GKN, one aspect of his theology was imposed by the synod, leading to a schism - again people fleeing from church control. (And one schism further led to the church I grew up in.)
If you don't mind me asking, which church is that? Church schisms is just one of those topics that may seem very dry to most people, but I personally find fascinating