Prince Harry abandoned one of his British patronages & pearls are being clutched!

Embed from Getty Images

I honestly don’t keep up with which royal is the patron of whatever charity. Every time I’m writing up one of those stories, I have to look back at our previous coverage or research it on other sites. But I feel reasonably safe in saying that Prince Harry hasn’t done much work with one of his patronages in years. That patronage? Map Action, a charity (?) which gives data (?) to responders in humanitarian crises. I had no memory of Harry even working with Map Action, but he did events with the group in Norway and London in 2016, and he attended a gala-reception for the group in 2013. It… probably didn’t bode well for Harry’s involvement in Map Action that he hadn’t actually been involved or done an event with them since ‘16. But now it’s been formalized: Harry has dropped this patronage. Pearls are being clutched!

Prince Harry has quietly quit one of his charity ­patronages – despite vowing he would honour them after stepping back from royal life. The Duke of Sussex, 35, had a 12-year relationship with Oxfordshire-based Map Action, which gives data to responders in international humanitarian crises.

Map Action said: “The Duke is no longer a patron after we reached the end of a second five-year cycle of patronage midway through 2019. Map Action is grateful to have had him as royal patron for our formative years.”

But the charity did not explain why Harry remained on its website until earlier this month. And Map Action was still listed among 14 patronages on the Sussex Royal site he set up with wife Meghan.

A palace insider said: “It’ll be worrying for others hoping the Sussexes will not abandon their charities.”

[From The Daily Mirror]

One, Map Action sounds like the kind of thing William and Kate would be keen for, so perhaps the Future King and Queen should ride in and save the day? I mean, they are doing so much already, surely they can manage Harry’s schedule for Map Action, roughly one event every two years? Two, I mean, there’s really no way to justify it – it’s a sh-tty thing to do to leave your patronage. The only thing I’ll say in Harry’s favor is that it sounds like he still stayed “attached” to Map Action for a year after his five-year cycle ended just so he wouldn’t leave them all in the lurch. My guess is that the one year “extra” was his version of a graceful exit.

Besides, it’s not like Harry did such a sh-tty job that the charity is now closing. Which is what happened to the Duchess of Cambridge’s patronage with The Art Room, which has had to close down from lack of funding.

God, Harry looked crazy-hot at this 2016 Map Action event. He was just months away from pouring all of this ginger thunder onto a beautiful American actress!

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

32 Responses to “Prince Harry abandoned one of his British patronages & pearls are being clutched!”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. truthSF says:

    According to the article, they parted ways last year. And it’s just now making news?!🤔

    “A palace insider said: “It’ll be worrying for others hoping the Sussexes will not abandon their charities.”

    Oh sure! Dropping one patronage that you haven’t been involved with in over 4 years is worrying for other charities (that he and Meg continues to be highly active in) of being abandoned. Ok Willy!😒

    • AGreatDane says:

      After the good press from the Thomas the Tank Engine reading and the SmartWorks call, they had to find something they could make into a negative.

    • Ash says:

      it was listed on the sussexroyal website in jan 2020 though. i’m guessing he was quietly dropped/gracefully exited/whatever happened but it wasn’t updated on the charity site/kensington palace site and whoever made the sussex website just copied it from there.

  2. Ali says:

    This reminds me. Prince Andrew was listed as being a patron for this children’s charity on the official royal website.

    Once it has published he was an alleged rapist people contacted the charity in order for them to drop him. The charity came out to say they haven’t worked with him in years.

    Long story short I think there are a lot of charities associated with the royals that have no relationship with their patron.

    Glad Harry is trimming his portfolio and concentrating on his area of interest.

  3. Priscila Bezerra-Fischer says:

    It must be so good, to clutch pearls!

    Another sign Harry does not give a damn about the courtiers and the Rota and will do what feels right for him.

    Some partnerships work, others do not. This one sounds a Kate project tbh. or William- he has a degree in Geography, right?

    Willie should pick it and start leaking to the press how sloppy Harry is and how overworked he is now since his loser brother packed and left at the tender age of…36.

  4. Sofia says:

    The palace is concerned about patronages being dropped when some royals haven’t visited their patronages for years – including The Queen.

    • Seraphina says:

      Thank you Sophia, THIS EXACTLY!

      At least they know Harry is no longer patron and not to expect him, then to wait and wait and never have your patron visit.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      All the older royals have like 500+ patronages. They weren’t expected to do much for any of them. Especially the Queen. Charles is only really active with his own charity and visits his other patronages once in a blue moon. It’s only the younger royals who don’t have many patronages that are expected to be more involved by the organizations. William and Harry have both said that they don’t like the old way and that’s why they started their own foundation.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Anne has 300 which she visits once a year each.

      • Sofia says:

        Well Ainsley if you want a “younger royal” example – Kate has some patronages she hasn’t visited since 2017.

        She’s also quietly dropped one – The Scout Association. It’s no longer listed with the rest of her patronages on

  5. Nev says:

    Word. He does look especially handsome here. Swoon.

  6. Becks1 says:

    It sounds like his patronage was up for “renewal” anyway and if he knew he was going to step back as a royal, he probably decided to step back from this one anyway. Or, William wants it.

    • Lara says:

      From wikipedia, it states MapAction’s revenue is/was £1,131,359, and they’re funded by several government institutions, including “UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID), the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, USAID Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) and the German Federal Foreign Office (GFFO).”

      Seems they’re doing fine.

      • Yvette says:

        @Lara, thanks for printing this. My first thought when reading this is that it’s a patronage which involves some form of official British government involvment as it works with other nations. Hasn’t the Queen declared that Prince Harry is no longer an official working royal? I take it that means he wouldn’t officially be encouraged to be involved in charities representing the British government in any way. But that’s just me and I find this much a do about nothing.

    • bluemoonhorse says:

      Personally I would prefer they keep their patronages to a manageable number rather than a scatter gun approach. Or offer an umbrella organization that donates money to a group of charities related to their goals. JMO.

  7. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    Ooh – a squirrel! What are they trying to hide?
    Also – devastating news about Meghan’s court case. I’m praying hard for her, but this initial setback does not bode well…

    • Sofia says:

      @Andrew I know 🙁 Hopefully it’s a case of “They’ve won the battle but not the war”. Still pretty disappointed tbh. But hopefully she can still win her case.

      Also, I do hope you’re feeling better and continue to feel better

      • Ali says:

        @ANDREW’S NEMESIS there is nothing to worry about.

      • Olenna says:

        @Ali, agree. This is not devastating news. I recommend people read the ByLine Investigates breakdown of the decision to put things in better perspective.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Sofia Thank you so much for your kind enquiry. I’ve now got a streaming cold and am still exhausted – the effects of C-19 do seem to linger – but am alive, warm and surrounded by books. It could be worse.
        I hope you’re well? You and all your loved ones? Stay well, stay safe

      • PrincessK says:

        Andrews Nemesis…..keep well.

    • Lara says:

      @Andrew’s Nemesis
      Took a brief skim of the judge’s order and at first glance, from a US point of view, he raises some good points.

      Also, the judge is practically inviting Meghan’s lawyers to amend their claim: “Some of these conclusions are however without prejudice to the claimant’s right to come back with an application for permission to make amendments that apply to the applicable law and principles.” His analysis (again, from a US point of view) basically lays out a roadmap on how Meghan’s lawyers can remedy some of the portions which were struck out.

      Should her lawyers elect to amend her claim, with the right phrasing and taking the judge’s concerns into account, I think there’s a fair chance their application to amend would be granted.

      I of course defer to any UK attorneys and am interested to hear their take on the Approved Judgment.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Lara Thank you for this; much more measured than my response: lamentably, I auto-emoted rather than taking your logical approach…

      • ravynrobyn says:

        @ Andrew’s Nemesis-love the phrase
        “”auto-emoted”. MayI borrow it for my
        DBT (dialectical behavior therapy) group?
        When we finally get to start meeting in person again, SIGH.

        So glad to hear you’re warm & safe & cozy. How is your dad doing?

  8. Ginger says:

    This happens all the time with other royals but of course with Harry it is an issue.

    At least it didn’t close down due to lack of funds like the Art Room. Kate could have auctioned off one of her bracelets to keep it open but she didn’t . That is a major fail on Kate’s part. Major.

    A lot of royals have numerous patronage’s. I think the Queen has over 200. This isn’t new to part ways.

  9. Cava 11 says:

    MapAction actually sounds like an ideal patronage for former active-duty personnel especially someone who is partnered with someone who has done humanitarian aid work. They may have felt that royal support was not on-brand and not that useful for them if they changed their fundraising strategy or had changes in their team. We have no idea if they reached out to Harry’s team after the patronage was launched. Kind of a bummer but I think you have to measure H & M’s work holistically. They are still miles ahead of the Cambridges.

    • Guest says:

      With the exception of Prince Harry, I don’t think anyone in the RF has been involved with humanitarian aid work.. actually Anne did something with Save the Children not so long ago. Before anyone starts crying about my comment.. I mean real humanitarian aid relief, properly working on the ground, day after day, getting stuck in, really helping the affected areas and people, not shiny photo ops. Harry did humanitarian work in Nepal and it was wonderful to see him get involved with no pompous behaviour, just getting on with the work. It’s a shame he stopped. He could have carried on his mothers legacy like that and it would have outpaced William. Don’t know why he stopped his actual humanitarian engagements.

  10. Amy says:

    I am confused I thought the queen took away his patronage’s? How can he leave them if he isn’t suppose to work with them?

    Am I wrong on this?

    • Ginger says:

      She didn’t take their patronage’s. They still have them. She took his military appointments.

  11. Awkward symphony says:

    I’d direct you to R.palmer’s tweet saying he called the charity and the person didnt know about this meaning that it’s not true.
    I suspect that like the cambridges copyrightig harry’s headfit initiative they are making not so subtle moves to take over his charities WHICH HE PUBLICLY SAID HE’LL HONOUR.

  12. Amelie says:

    This is pretty common though with nonprofits is it not? I realize Harry wasn’t on the Board but the board of nonprofits change a lot year to year. Some are voted in and serve for a specific number of years or make a financial contribution to stay on the board and renew that contribution year to year depending on the nonprofit. Or at least from my limited experience working for a nonprofit for a year. Losing a major patron like Harry is probably not great but who knows what was going on at the nonprofit–maybe things were disorganized and not being run efficiently or they decided having Harry as a patron wasn’t to their benefit.

    In fact the nonprofit I used to work for lost their major patron who is fairly well known (not a royal but the equivalent) and had been supporting it for nearly two decades and donated millions of euros to this European institution. Based on my knowledge of what transpired before I left that nonprofit, I’m pretty sure it’s because of the way things were being run and the major patron got annoyed and decided to terminate the relationship.

  13. Alex says:

    Won’t somebody think of the MAPS!?