This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This sentence makes no sense:
The style was criticised as "quaint, and certainly not belonging to a century other than the 21st."
It's probably supposed to say, "certainly belonging to" but I don't have access to the original. MosheEmes ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
While the description of this instrument as a "royal decree" is indeed what is taught in NZ law schools, this description ignores the fact that Letters Patent are a well-established class of instruments, and also that using patents to erect vice-regal offices in the British Empire/Commonwealth is a standard non-eyebrow-raising move. However I see that there is a link to the main Letters Patent article later on. Perhaps stating somewhere that these Letters Patent are not an ad hoc creation may be useful. 101.113.148.66 ( talk) 12:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This sentence makes no sense:
The style was criticised as "quaint, and certainly not belonging to a century other than the 21st."
It's probably supposed to say, "certainly belonging to" but I don't have access to the original. MosheEmes ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
While the description of this instrument as a "royal decree" is indeed what is taught in NZ law schools, this description ignores the fact that Letters Patent are a well-established class of instruments, and also that using patents to erect vice-regal offices in the British Empire/Commonwealth is a standard non-eyebrow-raising move. However I see that there is a link to the main Letters Patent article later on. Perhaps stating somewhere that these Letters Patent are not an ad hoc creation may be useful. 101.113.148.66 ( talk) 12:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)