We always talk a lot about royal events, royal engagements, and royal charities. But what are the numbers? Where is the data to back up any of these discussions? Well, the Times of London did a lengthy (and paywalled) article about royal charity patronages and whether a royal acting as a “patron” had any real effect on fundraising or charitable income. The Times basically knocks down the idea that having a royal patron for one’s charity is actually helpful or good: “From the data available we suspect that the effect of royal patrons on charities’ revenue is small or zero… charities should not seek or retain royal patrons thinking that they will bring the charity money.” Caroline Fiennes did a lengthy Twitter thread explaining some of the data they gathered – you can see the whole thread here.
UK charities should not seek or retain Royal patrons expecting either many public events with them, nor an effect on revenue. We couldn’t find any effect of Royal patronages on charities’ revenues, despite multiple sophisticated statistical analyses.
We were surprised that three-quarters (74%) of UK charities which have Royal patrons did not get a single public engagement with them during 2019. Only 1% of charities which have #Royal patrons got more than one public engagement with them during 2019. Royals do far more public engagement w/ charities they set up than with pre-existing charities they take on. The latter (Prince’s Trust, the Duke of Ed Award, etc.) are 2% of their charity patronages, but get 36% of public engagements that they do w/ their patronee charities.
We found this pattern for both all charities in 2019, and the sample of charities we analysed for the three years 2016-2019. Charity patronages seem to matter to the Royals. 26% of the Royals’ public engagements during 2019 were with patronee charities. {So, taking public engagements as indicator of workload, they’re 1/4 of the Royals’ work. We could find no effect of that.}
The Royals seem to be patrons of 1187 registered UK charities. Of those, 1064 have one Royal patron, and 123 have multiple Royal patrons. Their patronage positions have various titles, incl. patron, honorary patron, president, honorary fellow, & in one case, Companion Rat. The data that the #Royalfamily publishes about its “charities and patronages” (its term) has many errors, duplications, omissions, and is hard to use. It took us six weeks to construct a defensible list. So these numbers are from Giving Evidence, not the Palace.
Charity patronages are very unevenly distributed. The Queen, Charles and Anne have 532 between them: by contrast, William has just 12, Kate 9 and Harry has 8. Re: effect on revenue, the complicated maths couldn’t find an effect.
Charities with patronages are disproportionately in London, the South East and South West of England – where the Royals’ main residences are. More deprived regions seem under-represented. Charities with patronages are concentrated in ‘#environment and animals’ and ‘culture and #sport’ – relatively uncontroversial causes. The sectors with fewest Royal patronages are #housing, #employment, social services, and #religion.
#charity #Royal
[From Caroline Fiennes’ Twitter]
I would suspect that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are responsible for throwing off a lot of the data! They are so lazy, they barely do anything for their charities and patronages, and they have so many schemes for financing and busy-work, it actually feels like their charities LOSE money, or that those charities would be better off without any royal patrons at all. I do think it’s interesting that British royals do the bulk of their charitable work with their own charities, the charities they set up themselves. I would enjoy seeing a deeper dive into Charles’ The Prince’s Trust, because it’s so big and he runs so many charitable initiatives through the trust. I feel like that might be skewing the data as well. But yeah. No big surprise, especially regarding the Cambridges.
Giving Evidence today publishes #research about Royal patronages of charities: what are they, which charities have them, and whether they help.
It's in today's @TheTimes (£).
Our findings include these (thread):https://t.co/MbFu2a6eHV#charity #Royal #royalfamily— Caroline Fiennes (@carolinefiennes) July 16, 2020
Photos courtesy of Backgrid, WENN, Kensington Palace and Avalon Red.
I want to see more – couldn’t they figure out who the “most valuable” royal is by looking at these numbers? Like, who has the largest net positive effect?
My money would be on Anne, as she does lots of events and doesn’t have her own charity that I know of.
Maybe this will give some of the organizations repped by some of the lazier royals (who maybe haven’t had a visit in EIGHT YEARS ahem) an excuse to get rid of Katie Keen and bring in, I don’t know, Idris Elba. Upgrade!
I doubt its Anne. Her work doesn’t get covered a lot (so wouldn’t lead to more donations etc) and a lot of her work that she does isn’t charity – its going to a factory opening, etc. (she does a lot of charity visits too, don’t get me wrong, it would be interesting to see a breakdown of her engagements – charity visits in general, compared to patronage visits, compared to other types of engagements.)
75% of these charities did not have a single visit from a royal in 2019. Even though they have a royal as a patron! For Charles and Anne and the Queen, who have lots and lots of patronages, you can give a small pass. But I bet Kate visited very few of her patronages.
Anne has the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and a lot of her is around that.
The article said they couldn’t work out the impact of individual royals because of low numbers. Some royals have so few patronages that they can’t draw defensible conclusions.
… Which says something in itself!
Why would it be Anne? She does busy nothing work. Sure she does the most “engagements” but ribbon cutting and cocktail parties do jack.
Doubt it’s Anne. She does a lot of bread and better engagements that don’t seem to have any impact, except maybe morale? My guess is Prince Charles.
Anne’s “bread and butter” engagements do not have a financial impact but I would argue that they a “great” morale impact on the local grassroots level. Many of Anne’s engagements are outside of greater London as stated in the November USA Vanity Fair profile article of The Princess Royal.
Anne does a lot for charities that is hardly ever reported. She has a huge position with Save the Children and travelled all over the world in support. As someone else said she does a massive amount for carers and she also does a lot for Riding for the Disabled. I know someone who takes part in this and Anne was up visiting the place five or so years back. She has also visited the Save the Children shop where I used to volunteer.
I would’ve thought Anne too, based on the number of her appearances- never realized how few of them were for charity (or rather- licensed charities).
I notice they didn’t count Meghan- her charities would have been the outliers that contradict the thesis!
Yeah, why would they leave out the Duchess of Sussex?
Prince Charles knows how to raise funds. What a pity he will not be able to hand over some of his ventures to Meghan who also knows how to network.
I believe Charles is going to hand over his Prince’s Trust to his cousin, David, Princess Margaret’s son. Both William and Harry refused to take it on.
Not possible! Kate is going to single handedly save the monarchy and all of the UK one button at a time, dontcha’ know?!?
L84TEA hahhaha yes of course! Siiiiingle handledlyyyyyy
Seriously, is this saying that they are useless? Oh boy, are they going to have to work now with this report. LOL …And Kate OMG, 9. Top CEO. Yeah.
To me this is saying that they are a tourist attraction if they can’t bring in dough for theirpatronages.
That’s why I don’t understand why W&K waste so much time plotting and trying to outdo whatever H&M are doing thousands of miles away. They have SUCH BIGGER problems sitting right in front of them that they should be concerned about.
The BRF has always let ego get in the way of the larger picture – and that has become quite noticeable at present.
None of the BRF has the “Diana” appeal. Therefore, just showing up for a “royal visit” or fundraiser is not “doing the work”.
I really wonder at times what exactly the D&D of Cambridge hope to achieve and if the view themselves as successful in achieving their charitable goals.
I was a teenager in the 80’s which was princess Diana’s golden age. She was extremely charismatic and well-liked by everybody. Any charitable event hosted or just attended by her pretty much assured the success of it. She was charity gold. It appears that the new generation of young royals don’t have the same appeal as she did. I love Harry and Meghan though and perhaps when the Coronavirus crisis is over they will claim Diana’s legacy.
IMHO, the only people (females) alive today who come close to having Diana, Princess of Wales type charisma are Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey,
Meghan had IT but they lost her…the world is her oyster now.
And then in 1992 or 1993 Diana officially announced she was giving most of her charities – over 100 – the dunt and staying with only five or so. This was a massive blow and showed the contradictory nature of the Princess’s personality.
What work are you referring to? Showing up for Royal visits is what the BRF do. Princes Trust and such aside, their charity work has never been about bringing in money for charities. They stand for tradition and stability. When someone is described as “in stable condition” by a doctor, they don’t mean that person is doing ok. They merely mean that their condition isn’t changing. The Royals aren’t for change. It’s why a visit to a British tea shop, a local fair and a charity all get the same amount of time and effort. It was about meeting people and being seen in public. It’s why they couldn’t embrace Diana or Meghan. They wanted to actually change things and weren’t afraid of controversy. The Queen didn’t even approve of Heads Together for W&K. It was going against her WWII stiff upper lip messaging. They are her representatives after all, so I can see her point even if Heads Together was the exact opposite of controversial. William and Harry claimed to want to change things with fewer patronages and a more hands on approach. William’s only managed fewer patronages with traditional visits. Which is the worst compromise between the two ideas.
“What work are you referring to? ”
I was referring to the “work” done by Diana and the Sussexes.
Diana wanted to “work” to raise money for charities which she easily did just by showing up because she was an expert at “Meet & Greet” which got check$ written for charity.
The Sussexes wanted to “work” to raise money for charity so they did what was needed-necessary for projects benefiting Hub, Smart Works, Invictus and Sentebale to be successful.
I think there has to be some criticism of Harry too here. He doesn’t exactly have a lot of patronages listed either. I realize he has done valuable work on his own so that offsets it to a point – but nonetheless his load re patronages wasn’t great either.
Regarding Diana – she was a terrible public speaker for years. She really had to put the work in to improve – which she did because she cared. Something that can’t be said for W & K.
For years we’ve been on here saying Harry was *strongly enouraged* to do less because his work ethic made William mad. I think that point has been proven time and again with WiliLeaks response to Harry and Meghan outpacing and outshining him. Harry’s outside projects were a way to use his unearned position for good, in a way that his abusive brother couldn’t control *because* they were done outside the royal fold.
Another proof that they are useless in every respect.
Exactly. What a scam. Get rid of it.
Yep
Right? I mean, is anyone really surprised by this?
Ha! I literally just finished reading that twitter thread when I saw that you had posted this story.
It really was fascinating in a “the royals are useless” kind of way. I like that she did mention it could have an impact on morale and such, which is hard to quantify, but I imagine being worried about funding impacts morale more than a visit from the royals, albeit in a negative fashion.
I also like that she pointed out they center their work on fairly benign, non controversial causes, and large parts of the country are left out of their patronages.
@Becks1, that is an interesting point – they do choose fairly broad mandates.
One of the things that impressed me the most about Meghan’s cookbook was how she identified a specific need and produced a tangible result that would generate money – that might be a model going forward, rather than garden parties etc.
I wrote on another thread – they focus their visits on the Home Counties. The CC used to have an option to display search results on a map but it never works properly now. ‘In development’ and has been for a long time. Just another way to deliberately hide data, but not fixing the map function.
The majority of the time, they do their bread-and-butter engagements in those Home Counties because that is where the support for the monarch is.
You would think that the lull of many normal activities during Covid 19 would have freed up a map updates time…
The staff/courtiers behind the CC have used it to hide data for years. I swear for most of 2018, HRH Duchess of Sussex wasn’t listed as one of the options on the list. You couldn’t find a listing of the work she was doing, because the courtiers 1) weren’t putting it in the CC and 2) passive-aggressively didn’t even list her as one of the royals in the calendar function.
@Nota – a few months ago (it feels like it was a month ago but in reality it was probably back in late 2019) I went back and tracked Meghan’s engagements thus far for the year and Kate’s. There were huge hunks of time where Meghan’s calendar was empty but we knew she was working – like there were no meetings listed related to Vogue, I think only the LAUNCH of the Smart Set was listed, nothing leading up to it, etc. Contrast that to Kate, who meets with Jason and it gets listed.
I remember at the time, when I brought this up, I was told that it was up to each royal to determine what got put on the CC (that also does not make Kate look good, btw, because it makes her seem like she’s so desperate for engagements that she puts meetings with her CEO on there), but now looking back I think its clear it was part of a passive aggressive campaign against M – maybe she was told some things didn’t count, or couldn’t go on, or maybe she was told the CC didn’t really matter, etc.
And honestly, the CC shouldn’t matter – the actual work matters – but considering its used to determine the “value” of each royal, based on number of engagements, then yes, it matters.
Becks1, my point was, she wasn’t even listed in the CC. Not that her engagements weren’t being added. *The courtiers didn’t even have her listed in the dropdown list of royals included in the CC*. Prince Michael of Kent was there, and he isn’t technically a working royal, but they didn’t even include HRH Duchess of Sussex on the damn list.
Not true. William and Kate are very London centred but Charles and Anne do a lot of engagements in my part of the world – north of Scotland. The Queen and Philip used to be here regularly in their heyday, the old Queen Mother, Princess Margaret. Even Andrew!
Billy and Kathy tend to have the largest part of their engagements relate to their own foundation, mostly because they count meetings at home with Jason.
If they examined how many fundraisers they attended for outside charities it is minimal.
‘Their patronage positions have various titles, incl. patron, honorary patron, president, honorary fellow, & in one case, Companion Rat.’
‘Companion Rat’ is how those of us in the know refer to Prince Andrew visiting his mom.
I am dying of curiosity about Companion Rat! Does anyone know which charity awards this designation? Zoological? Spelunking? The Ancient Order of Grain Saboteurs? This would be hilarious to have on a resume- I might have to donate.
I’ve commented below with the full details but they are a entertainment fraternity / charity, the Grand Order of Water Rats.
Thank you, Tia!
Not at all surprised by this conclusion. These charities do more for the royal family more than the royal family does for them. They’re probably better off getting celebrity patrons.
This is also why I prefer actual projects for charities as opposed to simple visits. Visits don’t seem to have any type of impact. Projects that can help charities become self sustainable are huge and the royals should do more of that.
THIS ^^
It’s extremely difficult to get and retain celebrity patrons who are famous enough to make a difference. They have an image to protect so they are often very limited in what they are willing to do. They also expect the charity to pay for all expenses, including first class travel. A royal, by contrast, just wants to show up once in awhile and cut a ribbon. Gives the charity an air of credibility without all the work of managing a celebrity. I see it as a win/win for the charity and the royal.
LOL. The reality? is charity is changing on how we donate. It’s not going to be ribbon cutting like Anne wants to do but the farm-food company Charles set up. Charities need ongoing income to run operations. That doesn’t come from a one-off of someone getting their photograph taken with the queen.
TAX THEM.
But how many royals are “famous enough to make a difference?” Seems to me like these charities should be aiming for the type of celebrity which would excite their client or donor base at the least cost to themselves. For an elder center, wouldn’t a decades-long soap opera actor be as or more exciting to their clients than Sophie? You don’t need to get Angelina Jolie or an Avenger. A game show host, a weather man, etc would be just as good, if not better. To raise money, just get some local bigwig’s wife to host. Less trouble and less expense than Emma Watson or Kate. And sure, you’ll get less coverage, but I bet the money is more reliable, as most of it will be coming from bigwig and his colleagues.
Someone like Ed Sheeran for a Norfolk based charity?
Yes, absolutely S808. As someone who has worked in nonprofit fundraising (in the US) for many years, this isn’t surprising at all. Royal patrons COULD do a lot of good if they would actively fund-raise/friend-raise for the charities they supposedly support. Otherwise if they are just being the “face” of an organization and aren’t really doing anything, they’re a net drain on the organization because the staff have to do a bunch of work to make these useless patrons look good.
I LOVE that they used a photo of the DoLittles – such snark from a proper legit newspaper. hahahahaha
I wonder if Top CEO and Willileaks will sue The Times over this? I want this journo to follow up with a piece of the finances of these royal foundations and ‘charities’?
Charities are nothing more than a PR opportunity for many members of the RF. One couple in particular who based on their foundations annual reports did not raise much money for the foundation last tax year.
@DU – Was there not an episode a few years ago where Kate was to appear and maybe “co-host” an EACH fundraiser but cancelled out at the very last minute. I think this last minute cancellation prompted EACH to reach out to one of their celebrity “patrons” to fill in for Karen Keen. I seem to remember that “Rose Who?” was some how involved in this episode. I also seem to remember that this fundraiser turned out rather successful.
@Bay – I don’t think Rose was involved in that episode (although maybe she was behind the scenes, but as I recall, that was prior to the rumors) – but it was EACH fundraising gala…..Natural History Museum? National Portrait Gallery? Kate pulled out at the last minute and Ed Sheeran (who also does a lot of work with EACH) stepped in. I’m not sure if he was already invited.
The location – which I cannot recall without googling – is significant because I think it was also one of Kate’s patronages. So it really could have been a 2 for 1 deal for her in terms of patronage work, and she didn’t show up.
@Beck1 – Yes, that was story. I would bet Ed Sheeran was invited because I believe (but could be wrong) that he grew up in Norfolk which is part or East Anglia.
Rose Who? is also a patron of EACH and often hosts events at her beautiful home for them. Not sure about her ‘co-hosting’ but she was def supposed to attend and maybe give a speech or something and when she pulled out at the last moment Ed was asked to step in. He has raised a LOT of money for EACH and other charities over the years – he often gives things to be auctioned etc..
Can’t remember why she pulled out – might have been another secret vacation with William.
I actually googled, lol. It was December 2016 (so about 6 months after the EACH fundraiser at Houghton Hall) – so depending on when the Rose Who affair started, if Rose was invited, that may have influenced Kate’s decision to drop out. There was no reason given for her absence, but it was fairly last minute.
Rose and Rocksavage did an EACH fundraiser dinner at their home in June 2016. W&K did nothing but show up, pose, and take credit. Dec 2016 EACH was having their first ever Gala to raise funds, at the Natural History Museum as Becks1 points out. Katie Keen refused to go. Two fancy events for the same charity twice in six months? OMG the CEO is exhausted, cannot possibly attend.
They called in Ed Sheeran to be a new celebrity patron and to be the host for the evening.
My friend who lives in Norfolk told me the Cholmondeleys are heavily involved in the community of East Anglia (Norfolk) at many different levels and are very well liked. I could be wrong but I think I read the Cholmondeleys are based at Houghton Hall (& Gardens Norfolk) rather than London which may explain why they are very involved in the local community.
@nota – I have also heard (cannot say where) that many people on the major EACH fundraising committee were upset that Karen & Kevin Keen attempt to take full credit for the success of very successful events. This may not be true as it is true idle gossip from the local pub.
@Becks1 – “if Rose was invited, that may have influenced Kate’s decision to drop out. There was no reason given for her absence, but it was fairly last minute”
This is not the way the true aristocratic Turnip Toff set behaves. There is now no wonder why the Toffs talked and spilled the beans for the Tatler article.
There was also the huge charity event at Kensington Palace one year, the Winter Whites Ball, where Kate was listed on the charity invite as attending. Then didn’t attend. Stans tried to convince us the charity had sent those invites out *without getting approval or confirmation she would attend*. LOL
@nota – No legitimate charity anywhere is going to put someone’s name on an invitation if they did not agree to attend and the $$$-donating public knows this. What were the Keens thinking?
I think that was the second time she ducked out on a huge KP event when she was expected to attend.
I do not understand why Kate ducks out of these events. Getting her hair and make-up done after shopping for a new dress plus wearing Royal Collection jewelry are her favorite things in the world to do. I would think that formal evening fundraisers are very much up her narrow alley way.
@bay – I think she ducks out because she doesn’t want to talk to people. At those kinds of events, you need to know who people are and you need to do a lot of small talk etc (I presume at any rate, I am not invited to such events, LOL). and I would imagine at these types of big fundraising events, Kate can’t just waltz in for 10 minutes and then waltz out. She would be expected to put in the time, like Anne or Charles do. I really think she is just that lazy. We have made numerous excuses for her over the years, even on this site, but I really think she is just lazy. She doesn’t attend these events because she doesn’t want to.
“(I presume at any rate, I am not invited to such events, LOL)”
@Becks1 – I have paid (bought a ticket) to go to these types of events when I lived in Atlanta. If looking for an enjoyable evening, one is much better off if one is not invited and does not attend.
I believe that Kate has been having issues far longer than anyone wants to admit. She has been known to appear at events on occasion heavily medicated and with a glassy look. The cancellations probably relate to anxiety or mental health issues that they are keeping secret, because despite making it one of their issues, admitting they need help is something only fragile people like Harry do. Kate’s excessive shopping of near identical clothing often borders on OCD and her inability to act calm and relaxed a decade into the job suggests a long term issue that has never been properly treated. The extreme thinness is probably another sign of whatever is going on too.
We know Diana suffered a lot in silence and without any help from the courtiers, who often made things worse. There is probably a similar thing happening to Kate, with the possible difference of Carole helping, which she certainly did after George was born and William just kind of wasn’t there.
The media coddling and infantilizing her is probably because they know what is really going on but they can’t say so they try to defend the poor skills and little work by pretending any effort she makes is great, despite that not objectively being the case.
Kate would probably get a lot more sympathy if she was more open about what’s going on with her, because right now the only explanation is that she’s lazy and that’s not going to work long term. There is still no excuse for her behaviour toward Meghan, but it’s clear she’s not properly functioning as an adult at this point and something is behind that.
This is wildly inappropriate and an incredibly gross thing to speculate about/accuse anyone of.
Nic919, her laziness and unprofessional behavior for the last ten years is the same as it was the 10 years proceeding the engagement and wedding. She’s lazy and she doesn’t care about the world around her. That doesn’t mean psychological disorder, it means she’s lazy and selfish and always has been.
@Nancy… so it’s gross to be ACCUSED of having a mental illness?
Thanks! as someone with multiple diagnosis’s what YOU just said is FAR MORE offensive.
@Nancy – no, it isn’t gross! Nic’s post was thoughtful and possibly gave Kate more charity than she deserves. I have anxiety and several family members have a number of diagnoses as well, and yes, random event cancellations and poor speechmaking can indeed be from legit anxiety. Whether or not Kate actually suffers from this, it’s incredibly important to not label such possibilities as “disgusting.”
@nic19 I agree with everything you said. I think the press do know about Kate’s issues, but they don’t report it most likely because KP will threaten them by revoking access if they do. I don’t think they give a sh*t about Kate mental well being one bit. They didn’t seem to care about Diana’s or meghans or any other celebrity like Britney 2007.
I don’t think kate will ever publically speak about her issues because she is one of those women who is determined to be seen as ‘perfect’. I think it’s more endearing to open up, especially if it helps another young suffer who is going through the same thing, but she won’t, she wants people to assume her extremely thin frame is ‘god given’ and by admitting to an ED would mean she actually took action and worked to be that thin. It’s like the hair extensions and Botox rumours, she wants people to believe she’s just ‘naturally perfect’ and spending time, money and effort takes away from that.
The major difference between Diana and Kate is that Diana wanted to open up about her problems, she wanted people to know she had an ED and that being a princess is hell.Kate lives her dream life through the media. She lives an ‘Instagram picture perfect’ life because her reality doesn’t live up to it. Her image is all she has, and these sugary puff pieces about how she’s top CEO, how William loves her so much and the greatest woman who existed is her fantasy life that she lives through the press.
Talking about mental health issues is not gross and using those terms stigmatizes the discussion putting it on a level more shameful than having cancer. It is pretty ignorant to make such comments. I stand by what I said earlier.
I have had friends and family members experience various mental health issues, and for some it required hospitalization in the psychiatric ward because there was a suicide attempt. There is no shame in discussing the common symptoms of various mental health illnesses like anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder etc. It is in discussing them that we learn how to help.
I’m guessing one of those charities nicknamed Wills the “Rat” and Kate the “Companion Rat.” And some outgoing head of development went back into the system and inserted the nicknames into the year-end report after his/her going away party. Said person is waking up this morning to a hell of a chuckle!
The Twitter thread is Fiennes basically coming up with creative ways to say that the Royals are absolutely worthless. Prepare for some major made-up dirt on Meghan to be thrown out there to distract from this.
This is the Grand Order of Water Rats and they are an entertainment fraternity / charity. It’s men only and the list of past members looks like people who did family viewing on Saturday nights when I was a child (white middle class, basically). They seem to be trying to update (although not to the extent of letting in women) looking at the current list. ‘Companion Rats’ are not in the entertainment business themselves but are usually prominent public figures. Charles, Philip and Prince Michael of Kent are Companion Rats.
They actually aren’t at all dodgy – they’ve just got a weird name.
This is why I love the British. Thank you for the information!
Finally some royal coverage I can get behind – it is time more and more journos research and publish things like this, showing how useless, incompetent the BRF is whilst sucking up way too much money and resources.
To include how they couldn’t use the data generated by the RF because it’s a mess (omissions, duplications, etc.) and had to compile it independently. What a farce the RF is shown to be. Again.
Yes, that really stood out to me, none of these people know what they’re doing. No wonder someone new to the RF who actually wanted to get things done struggled with them!
I mean, blatant racism aside, this was another reason why she struggled.
The BRF never did charity because they wanted to do good – they only started doing it because they were scared of getting the boot due to anti-German sentiment + the Russian revolution around the time of WWI. Now doing charity is a tradition as well as an argument for their existence/usefulness. William and Kate are complete throwbacks to the times when the royals didn’t have to do these things – but, alas, for them they do have to do this and I suspect that that can’t always expect to coast along as they’ve done for almost a decade.
If Bill & Cathy do not want to do charity work, well then okey-dokey. Nobody would miss them as their presence does not seem to make any positive difference for the charities concerned,
However, they need to get off their lazy duffs and do a minimum of six “bread & butter” engagements a weeks outside of the home counties and East Anglia. It is NOT THAT DIFFICULT or time consuming with all the support-of-state at their disposal.
@arthistorian – THIS! I recall reading that Queen Mary was quite instrumental in that shift…”we must justify our existence! Now!”
@Redgrl – Queen Mary once told an HRH niece when she began to complain about being out all day having to make charity visits: We are a member of the British Royal Family! We are never tired! WE LOVE HOSPITALS!
Part of the media attacks on Meghan by the Cambridges was to divert attention away from just how little they do. While that might work for a while, eventually eyes will be turned back to them. This article is just a tiny taste.
@ArtHistorian, exactly. The charitable endeavours are an attempt at endearing them to the public, in an effort to maintain the standard of living to which they’re accustomed. The luxury they’re afforded because of an accident of birth has to be justified in some way, and this is how they try it. It helps to obscure the larger, far more uncomfortably political questions regarding the monarchy, especially the function and authority of “the Crown” in British governance.
In 1914, the BRF not only had to survive through the First World War, they had to survive the post war socialist movements which claimed many of the monarchies and royal families in Europe. A part of weathering that was by demonstrating an open, public commitment to the people of Britain, by closing the gap between the distant monarchy and the public.
That’s not a model that’s working anymore, clearly. Things have, yet again, changed. The monarchy can’t distance itself from political issues any more. And I’m not just talking issues like racism or the Commonwealth. Brexit has changed a lot of the equations on the ground in Britain.
I think Northern Ireland and Scotland will likely attain, if not outright independence, at least a much greater devolution of power to their respective parliaments in the future. The whole issue with BoJo proroguing parliament and sh-t brought up the incredibly thorny issue of figuring out a written constitution for Britain, and I think that’s potentially on the cards as well. And that would involve having to sit down and define, on paper, the exact sort of role that the sovereign has.
I don’t know the full extent of the education William has had in matters like the constitution and whatnot. I wonder what sort of thought he’s given to this, and I’m going to guess that it hasn’t been a lot. He doesn’t strike me as someone who’s really up to date on the news that much tbh. But either he, or likely George, will have to deal with these issues in the future. And how they deal with it is going to be the deciding factor in whether or not the monarchy continues.
You’re right. The press is the fourth estate. This is the journalism we expect from a first world country, not the malicious rumour mongering attacks from reporters. They’re not even reporters because reporters just report facts. They are paid liars obsessed with royal kids and a biracial woman.
The BRF, RR and British public have made themsevles look like laughingstocks around the world, pathetic, immature and childish. All the other European rules have hadmuch more ‘controversial’ figures marry into their families – single mothers, glamour models, foreigners, etc. They were all accepted and defended by their respective families and given time to adjust. They did not have hundreds of thousands of salacious articles written against them nor were they they did not have hundreds of thousands of salacious articles written against them nor were they sold out for tittle tattle gossip and jealousy. The treatment of Megan has really tarnished lustre for many around the world. ESPECIALLY Commonwealth countries. I can’t see them lasting much longer without Elizabeth and once the older generation die.
So, to conclude, the royals are useless. It’s nice to have some actual numbers to back it up!
Time to ring in the Republic.
Royals are basically very expensive national symbols.
Why that emphasis on the Cambridge’s?! The sussexes were included and the figures still stand. They have as little effect as the rest of the family. Harry rarely visits his and Meghan only had a handful and yet only one got multiple visits last year and then it was for something she was launching I have it google the names of her others charities because it’s been so long since anything was done for them.
Meghan was only a FT working royal for less than 2 years, and was pregnant/on maternity leave for a good bit of that time. its not fair to say that it was “so long” since anything was done for them since Meghan didn’t announce her charities until January 2019 IIRC.
and during her two years she had the tours to the Pacific and Australia. Meghan did a ton of work for those racist idiots who Diana herself referred to as “that ****ing family”.
One of the big points is the difference between the charity work done by Kate vs. Meghan. As in, Meghan’s had measurable impact in a short amount of time. The Together Cookbook raised hundreds of thousands. The SmartWorks collection, ditto, clothed X number of job seekers in only six months. Kate has had 10 years to accomplish something and has done nothing but cause at least two of her patronages to close up shop or have to merge with another charity to keep running.
Harry’s work with Sentebale and Invictus Games isn’t counted in this analysis, because those are outside nonprofits out of control of the royal family. They don’t ‘count’ as royal work, they’re things he always did on his personal time.
She announced her patronages in January of 2019 and already launched a tangible project with one of them in the same year. In that same time frame she’s visited, at least once each of her other patronages, some even when she came back briefly to the UK. Let’s not forget she worked with the Hubb community kitchen within that same time frame. It’s as if you expect her to launch projects with all of them in just that one year when Kate has patronages she’s not even visited and done absolutely nothing for in almost a decade. And you’re asking why the emphasis on the Cambridges? If Meghan had taken on projects with all 4 patronages in those 18months, I bet you’ll accuse her of God knows what. She already has a record of one big launch per year and you still think she’s lazy like the others.
Megha has visited her patronage’s a number or times and she has only been patron for a year. Before she left the UK she also visited them all. She had a project with SmartWorks and was supposed to do something with Mayhew but the pandemic shut that down for now. She does her work. Harry has also raised a lot for WellChild over the years and does a lot for Walking with the Wounded.
Because they are future future king and queen consort, that’s why.
in all objectivity Meghan had some concrete projects to help her charities and I am sure she would have done more if she stayed. Can’t speak for the others because I am not following them like that. Anyway Monarchy is an outdated concept. I don’t understand why British people are allowing them to live on them like that.
‘I have it google the names of her others charities because it’s been so long since anything was done for them.’ Failed try.
I am always amused when Kate stans take valid criticism of Kate and try to blame Kate’s actions on Meghan. Or lie and say Meghan is doing the same thing Kate is doing. Like the fact one of Kate’s charities admitted TO HER she hadn’t contacted them in eight years. EIGHT.
It is similar to the Kate embiggening campaign in the last few months, where they try to make people think Kate has Meghan’s qualities.
iirc four Meghan patronages were announced in Jan 2019. She’s still working with them, despite the fact she has not been a working member of the royal family since January of this year. And therefore has absolutely no obligation to work with them at all. At least two of them, Mayhew and Royal Theatre, have gone on record about how she is actively working remotely with them.
if it were Kate she would’ve dropped them like hot potatoes, I doubt she would’ve even warned them. Then again would it make a difference and she doesn’t visit them anyway so they probably be happy they can do their own work without her trying to take credit for it. 🙄
“I have it google the names of her others charities because it’s been so long since anything was done for them” — LOL
How can anyone lie so publicly? the anonymity afforded by the internet is glorious right? I sometimes wonder if people would be making statements like yours if their real identity could be revealed! you didn’t have to google; Meghan has 4 patronages + the Hubb Community kitchen (probably my favorite project/work she has done as a royal).
She didn’t need to get familiar with the “royal” life to make impact. Less than 6 months after marrying Harry, we got the cookbook! no wonder Britain is broken………LOL
Not having a net revenue positive effect in some cases we’ve seen recently may actually have net negative consequences. The charities without royal patrons are not worse off. The article and thread also reveals that the patronages are geographically located in London near the royal residences, so easy commute. 🙄
Interesting analysis. wonder if it’s the fundraising dinners etc where having a royal patron makes the difference?
Anyway no wonder review is by group outside of the royal rota- you know the ones who claim to hold royals to account for the public with such gripping investigative pieces like why did Kate really cry.
On other hand you can see why the rota is so important as extension of the Firm’s PR wing. They know what to play down (eg Palace letters) and play up. Speaking of, I’ve seen commentary that the BBC initiative that Kate has been promoting is basically a version of a government scheme brought in by previous government that has been gutted by the current government. Typical of this Tory government.
A lot of charities spoke of impact of Sussexes visits or being featured on their old Instagram. The small Bristol charity where Meghan wrote on bananas said they got their first international donations& one baby charity was able to fund three new heart monitors after being mentioned on SussexRoyal led to donations. After Harry did a zoom with his patronage WellChild, they had donated £15k to them as part of fundraising around Archie’s birthday. After their visit to Homeboy industries they received at least $4k from fans interested in the visit. Seems like this direct impact is possibly an outlier.
“Anyway no wonder review is by group outside of the royal rota- you know the ones who claim to hold royals to account for the public with such gripping investigative pieces like why did Kate really cry.”
The royal rota is just a PR extension for the BRF. They lick and wipe up the BRF ass at the same time.
Love this observation @ABritGuest
“the BBC initiative that Kate has been promoting is basically a version of a government scheme brought in by previous government that has been gutted by the current government. Typical of this Tory government.”
Oooooh, this hits at so many of the things that are wrong with the these days, I honestly can’t even get into all of them. The Queen has chosen to put her eggs in BoJo’s basket because him and the Tories have always been the most aligned with her own personal politics.
I think William and Kate are pretty much along with the current govt for the ride. I get the vibes from William that he’s entirely willing to tow the govt line that one must depend upon themselves rather than ask for handouts, and that informs his approach to charity too. He’s dressed it up in posh language and all, but in essence, he seems like someone who fully believes that struggling communities around the UK must move away from govt dependence and look to charities and community based initiatives to support themselves.
And the same goes for Kate. People pretty much pointed out that it’s incredibly difficult for her to do something substantial with her early years work, because the largest factor in actually helping all of that is govt programs that invest in the well-being of children–programs which have since been cut or seen a decrease in govt funding under the Tories. Case in point with this BBC initiative as well.
I don’t want to be conspiratorial, but I don’t think it’s a conspiracy to think that a lot of the work that these two do are shaped by their staff. And many of their staff CVs have involved working for Tory politicians who campaigned for Brexit. Of course the aristocratic crowd is always going to lean towards the Tories, but there’s a difference between that and having members on your staff who shape your public platforms, especially since William and Kate don’t seem the type to really take initiative and have a vision for themselves of what they want to do, like Charles or Harry.
Well of course the lazy duo have no impact. Aside…. Hi Andrew!! We see you! Stand trial in USA for all the child rape you engaged in. Andrewwwwww….. we seee You……/.
I tried turning up to work for twenty minutes wearing an ugly dress with a blow dry and a crazed grin. Didn’t make them any money either.
LOL. Next time be sure to add buttons.
And be sure to spend 500-1500 per dress.
The fact that William and Kate don’t see every single one of their charities multiple times a year is disgraceful. They barely have any. Harry at least seems to see his. And Meghan, as we all know, had positive impacts with her cookbook and her Smartworks collection – both of which she was slammed for. I think Charles’ foundation does some good work and I have always liked that Camilla took on charities that the royals normally steer clear of – like ones that support rape victims. The Duke of Edinburgh program is fantastic and stretches way beyond the UK. Harry has set up some decent charities too. Overall, the fact that the Royals skew their charities to locations that are convenient to them and do not have way more social services charities is really appalling though. Again, what a loss Harry and Meghan are to them. Fools. I’m sure they will continue to do meaningful work around the world freed of their royal shackles though.
@SKF – I understand you argument and agree with it 100%. However, Social Service charities skate very close to being political. Political is something that the BRF is NOT suppose to do. The only British Royal who is seen to cross this line in the sand and continues to cross it is Charles. It must be noted that Charles has received much flack and blow-back in all sections of the British press for this type of involvement.
What I’m finding interesting is that all of this is being published after Harry/Meghan leave. You got the press slowly and subtlety shading Kate and William. These pictures and stories about Andrew and his craziness. William being hinted at being the real leaker against the Sussexes. You got stories about Charles and the letter about the Queen in Australian politics. I’m not saying it’s karma but something is going on and I’m feeling that the media is tightening the leash for some reason but why?
Isn’t it going to be that its actually the Queen/Charles and Anne who skew these numbers? If they have so many patronages they cannot realistically visit or do fundraising events for them frequently, and that means the net effect is brought down. That is not a defense of any of the others, it just seems the logical conclusion that what skews the data is those with more rather than less patronages and in particular the Queen who has a much busier schedule on non-charity stuff as well and therefore less time to devote to charities.
TBH, the only benefit that I can see the royals (any of them) bringing to a charity is (i) perhaps helping raise money by attending a fundraising dinner/event; and (ii) bringing awareness to causes (which is only relevant for those charities which have wider public awareness/lobbying as part of their mission statement).
All in all, another way the royal family is generally pretty ineffective. What I would be interested to see, though, is whether there is any comparative data as against a non-royal celebrity patron? Is it just that patrons generally don’t bring in as much funding or is it the royals specifically.
EDIT: sorry, not meant to be a response to you Bri! Just a general comment.
@sarah, while I agree that the numbers might be skewed by QEII, Charles, and Anne, the fact that William and Kate only have 21 patronages combined means that at least a few of their patronages should be able to have received some tangible benefits. With so few patronages, they should have time to concentrate on them right? I believe that was actually their excuse. That having fewer patronages meant that they would be able to do more for each one. I think there’s a reason the article only uses photos of the Cambridges, and it’s not because of their “popularity.”
Meghan showed these people a model that could actually create some sustained financial benefit for their patronages. In return “they” criticized and complained about her in trashy tabloids. Clowns.
So Anne is completely wrong. The royals have to reinvent the wheel to have tangible effects for their patronages.
Me thinks that’s why Meghan and Harry did things the way they did and removed themselves from the KP office and Heads Together Foundation. The finances and financial impact of all their patronages were getting murky. This action is more beneficial for their patronages. No wonder their patronages are impressed with them. And did Meghan do her own research and figured the same as these researchers and so proceeded to do things better?? If so, she’s amazing!
So, not only are Meghan’s charisma, brains and excellent public speaking a threat, the couple’s tangible fund-raising for Sentebale, Invictus etc. was really showing WK up!
Smart Works, Mayhew, and Hubb Community Kitchen would like a word.
A few outstanding Forces for Change recipients might want a word too.
As a British taxpayer this makes me so incredibly angry. The younger royals – yes, including Harry- should be ashamed.
It is only going to get worse as Future Charles III has no desire for Beatrice & Eugenie to work for the BRF even as part-time Royals.
It doesn’t have to though. The issue being brought up here isn’t just the work that the royals do (I agree with an above poster that the Queen, Anne and Charles having so many patronages does skew the numbers a bit in terms of annual visits, but Kate has 9 and didn’t visit each of them.)
Anyway, the main issue here is that there is no financial benefit to having a royal patron. And that does not have to be the case. The royals could do a great deal to help these organizations raise money. But they don’t. And I think that’s the issue. Even without H&M and without B&E as working royals, Kate and William could focus on their (few) patronages and help with fundraising events or financial campaign drives etc.
I feel like this article is a bit of warning shot* that the royals need to change how they operate, because the press isn’t willing to play along with the idea of how good they are for charity anymore.
*how many times over the past month or so have we said that? there have been several articles that feel like “warning shots” and it makes me think the reporters are circling around a bigger story like sharks.
Becks, I think it’s because the UK is in for an economic downturn with covid and brexit, so while people may not complain so loudly about the royals when things are okay, there are going to be some major questions when things are not.
There should be a four-alarm fire bell ringing through BP that they have got to smarten up and tighten everything immediately if they want to come out of this on the other side.
Legit question: what can the UK do?
I actually think even if the monarchy gets abolished, there is a financial impact on the royal family but they still have their own personal wealth right? And maybe more privacy? Less accountability? Easy.
They get to keep some of their states, a LOT of money they have been squirreling away and I bet many of their privileges, probably some of them will keep on living in palaces, just paying a symbolic rent, as they do now.
Remember that the queen’s private estate was caught doing some offshore investing, according to the Panama Papers. Some people were asking for the Queen’s finances to be more scrutinized.
Yes, the Queen still has enormous personal wealth and properties (Sandringham and Balmoral are owned personally by the monarch, for example.)
Sometimes I feel like for many of the royals – especially Will and Kate – their lives would be better if the monarchy was abolished. Less accountability, less work, less public pressure. They could hide out in Anmer or wherever and just live their posh lives.
but when you have been told your whole life that you are “more” than other people, that by birth, you are “special” – I can see William having a hard time adjusting to actually being normal Bill, rather than cosplaying being normal. People wouldn’t bow to him anymore. The children wouldn’t be regarded as national treasures. etc. I can see some having a hard time with that because their entire self worth is wrapped up in being royal.
“I can see William having a hard time adjusting to actually being normal Bill, rather than cosplaying being normal.”
Of course it would be difficult for Kevin Keen because the first two organization he would be be ask to leave (thrown out of) would be the Turnip Toffs and The Grand Order of Water Rats. Many more organizations would follow the lead of the Toffs & Rats.
Charles & Camilla would be fine. The Prince’s Trust, Charles’ live work, would carry on just as it will under the David Linley, Earl of Snowdon.
They would have their personal wealth, but who currently pays for the upkeep of the large properties that they personally own? Is the Queen able to use public funds for that? If so, then that would be a huge expense to take on personally. They would also have to pay for their own security. I’m sure there’s substantial amounts of money hidden away around the world, but when you then consider that they would have to fund themselves completely going forward, you have to think that they are content to keep things as is. They really have it good.
@Sid – I may be wrong but I think the upkeep on Sandringham and Balmoral are paid for privately by the Monarch. This private upkeep costs is why Philip worked so hard to make Sandringham self-supporting. I think this is also why QEII and Charles covered the renovation cost of Anmer Hall personally.
I may be wrong. Hopefully, someone has more info on this matter.
@Bay, thank you!
BTB, we have no proof that the estates are kept up with private funds. Nor are we allowed to see the millions upon millions in taxpayer funds that are spent securing those private estates when the royals decide to live there for months on end.
Simple example. William refused to live on base in Wales, where he’d be easy to secure. Too many people would have been able to track the fact that he was never there. Instead he rented a posh four bedroom farmhouse on a private estate. That farmhouse was secured with taxpayer funds including a million pound security door. No more information was available through Freedom of Info requests because it was considered a security issue.
All that just for one farmhouse on a private estate. And the estimated 1+ million in taxpayer funds used on security infrastructure upgrades at the Middletons new home.
Extrapolate how much taxpayer funding is used each year to secure Balmoral, Sandringham, Gatcomb Park, etc. How much the taxpayer pays every time Kate runs home to mummy and the area ambulance has to park at Midd Manor and not move. Not even to answer ambulance calls from local residents, because they’re required to sit at Midd Manor and see if Keen breaks a fingernail.
*IF* the monarchy was eliminated, many many laws would need to be passed to see how much the Windsors had grifted off the taxpayers for private estates for decades. And the monarch to monarch tax-free inheritance scheme would be eliminated.
I think the main question that gets lost in all of this kerfuffle about the BRF’s public facing role is the details of their constitutional position.
The monarch does not exist to do charitable work, period. The monarch has a specific constitutional role to play in the function of the British govt. All of the other stuff–the publicity, the charities, etc, all of that is primarily, in my opinion, extra. The housing, the civil list money that they receive through tax dollars, all of that goes towards the upkeep of a certain image of the monarchy, an image which used to be important, but has increasingly come under question.
You can theoretically keep the monarch as head of state, and strip them of their trappings, titles, and unearned state welfare cheque. But abolishing the monarchy is a bigger, much more stickier, question that would likely result in some really big challenges for the UK. They would have to reconfigure their govt structure entirely. “The crown” is also a legal entity with hundreds of years of history and precedent behind it, and that would all have to be re-examined and looked at.
There’s also the fact that England and Scotland function under different legal systems as well, and also the fact that constitutional law is different in Scotland vs England too. And that’s just the role of the sovereign within the UK. The crown is a legal entity across the Commonwealth. A lot of the First Nations treaties negotiated in Canada were not signed with the current Canadian govt, they were signed with the Crown. If the Crown is abolished, then where does it place the status of those treaties?
There are far reaching repercussions here, which is why I suspect that no one in the UK wants to touch this issue. I don’t think there will ever be a wholesale abolishment of the monarchy in any of our lifetimes. I think that, if anything, there will be a gradual set of constitutional changes that are put in place that slowly render different functions of the monarch’s constitutional role obsolete, as time goes by.
Bub, I hear you, but by what I read, Harry and his family are living quite modestly compared to other royals. Yes, I remember the brouhaha over Meghan’s apparel, but the press cannot know what was actually hers beforehand.
Other royals (senior, particularly) live in grandiose places, and eschew the limits, bringing their adult children to live over with them.
Are they worth it?
While I don’t agree with your inclusion of H&M (because I do think they are willing to put in the hard work), I agree that you should be outraged as a tax payer. I don’t understand how any Brits can get behind them at this point.
Why should Harry be ashamed? He and Meghan tried to work with Kate and William to build a foundation that would actually be effective. As thanks, Kate and William and their sycophants resisted and smeared them.
When Harry and Meghan recognized the toxicity of the system in which they were trapped, Harry tried to remove himself and Meghan from taxpayer funding (exempting security costs) and just do the work for free. In return, he and his wife were dragged through the mud and accused of being arrogant and insulting the queen. And Petty Betty stripped Harry of everything she possibly could.
And yet, all the way from the USA and Canada, they are reported to still be engaged with their patronages even as they try to help out local charities wherever they happen to be.
Especially Meghan, whose undeniable success at fundraising went completely unappreciated and instead landed her accusations of colluding with terrorists.
While I side eye Charles on just about everything, and his patronages probably don’t derive many benefits from his engagement, he has done something tangible through his Prince’s Trust.
It is William and Kate who don’t have anything to show the public to justify the exorbitant costs of their upkeep. They neglect their patronages to a shocking degree and they messed up the finances of their foundation and almost took down Meghan’s hard work to hide their failures.
I don’t know what more Harry could possibly do to divorce himself from the dysfunctional BRF before people stop lumping him in with the rest of them. The dude was delivering food in LA. He has stood up for BLM. He’s acknowledged systemic racism. He keeps on bringing it to a level only his mother has ever tried to do. He’s far from perfect but he’s making the effort to do better and be better with everything he’s got. And some people still think he should be ashamed of himself. SMH
Ashamed of what? William made sure he had less charities than even Kate. Nothing he could do.
Why on earth should Harry be ashamed? He is no longer a working member of the Royal Family.
Which begs the question, why would a charity bother with the rigmarole of involving a Royal?
And the bigger question of what is the point of having a Royal family.
The pictures of keen karen in this article are literally my morning KICK start! Just seeing those manical grins and hands flying everywhere just makes me so anxious!
Just look at her “interested” face, hilarious.
Which begs the question, why would a charity bother with the rigmarole of involving a Royal?
And the bigger question of what is the point of having a Royal family?
ETA: Question mark 🙂
Wow great to see this but I wish she highlighted the success of the sussexs in this department. Thanx to the squad H&M don’t even have to spear head a fundraiser anymore!!(I suspect this is why the camilla went on to host bloggers😏) Their supporters are very proactive and I hear Dani(whom) they called to thank her for ArchieDay fundraiser is planning another one for Meghan’s birthday.
The RF couldn’t even bother to host a virtual fundraiser or jump in on the successful NHS ones which shows how out of touch these people are or that they think its beneath them
Bread and Butter events, ribbon cutting, is for suckers. It’s a grip-and-grin shot for publicity to make the wealthy feel good about their name being on a plaque. I have nothing but contempt for a royal family that doesn’t pay their taxes and who lives like a parasite off the middle class and poor they drain dry.
I’m with you!
Yup they just want to feel important and make us believe they are needed. The Royals literally are needed for nothing (other than gossip). It makes no sense to take tax dollars and give it to the Royals so they can get all dressed up and take pics at charities. Just give the f*cking tax dollars straight to the charities !!!
We all know which royal beings in the most revenue for their charity. The thing about charity is that most people don’t want to part with their money and donate. So if they see a royal doing a visit somewhere doesn’t mean they are going to open their purse and give to that charity. The reason Meghan has had financial success with her work is that she actually offered a product for people to buy, use and enjoy. The cookbook, the smart set collection, they are things that Meghan fans want to buy and enjoy not just because Meghan was apart of it.
What about the cost-benefit? These Royals have to be protected and cost a lot to get there, all the show, etc. I like to see them, the clothes, etc., and I know politicians also get good money and do some of these type of engagements.
The press w ere complaining about Meghan for clothing choices costs, but overlooked the Overseas holidays for years, their costly reno, etc.
If you went by cost-benefit analysis, Anne would probably be the hands down winner because her “costs” are less than that of Charles and she does multiple public engagements in the same city on the same day.
*Footnote – I took QEII out of this because as Monarch her “costs” are higher due to being Head of State.
Surely minus all the Crown Estate funds that were illegally used to fix up Anne’s private residence when she got married. Somewhere between 5-10 million in today’s money. And the cost of all the security at Anne’s private estate, securing both Peter and Zara’s families too by default.
Edit: overlooked the over seas holidays and costly reno of the Keens, sorry did not check twice before sending.
Very glad for this data, it confirms what we already knew. If you think about it, what compels people to donate, usually if someone close to you struggles with this cause, or you are empathitec to the cause. I think having fancy wealthy front people, makes me feel compeled not to donate becuase I think to myself “where is this money really going?” or “the cause already has such big time supporters and attractions, they are already well taken care of, they dont need my help” and so I move to something that is more critical and less funded. And really are people that stupid to donate only to mimic a famous person?!
Remember when Kate visited the set of Downton Abbey twice? That show would’ve been a total flop without her. (sarcasm)
Dee you raise a good point. This report highlights that royals add no or minimal revenue to charities so the taxpayer is subsidizing their visits and high security, clothing, makeup, transportation costs with no net benefit. Net loss to society and neutral or at best slightly positive impact to the charity. But how many of the royals engagements are utter bull and just their hobbies??? Visiting TV sets and looking at textiles? Didn’t William ride a motorcycle once as an engagement? How are Brits okay with subsidizing these entitled wealthy arseholes so they can frolick about?
Kate visited the set for over two hours because she wanted too. Because she’s a fan and she used her ‘position’ to force them to let her visit.
Never mind that just a little bit earlier, Sophie had gone there to tour with a diplomat’s wife. But at least Sophie’s visit had more of an excuse.
This is great article for KP to explain why the Cambridge’s will be doing less appearances with charities. There is no value in associating with the charities therefore they can save costs. Also explains why Quinn left the royals to do charity work.
The Wales and Cambridge’s job is royal/military events and tours.
And that will blow up right in their faces.
If they admit that they don’t add anything of value to their charities, people will go “okay so what exactly is your purpose if not charity work?” which can then lead to “so why are we paying for you people?!?!” Royals justify their existence on two things: charity work and boosting the country morale. And if they stop doing one thing, justifying the other will be very hard.
“The Wales and Cambridge’s job is royal/military events and tours.”
Did not Karen Keen refuse to go to some annual St. Patrick’s Day Military event because she ‘did not want the military to expect her attendance each year’?
I hope I am not making this up but I really think I read somewhere that the above statement was her legitimate excuse, given with a straight face, for non-attendance.
The event was 115 years old, and for 115 years, a senior female member of the royal family attended to honour the Guards, and pet a beautiful dog. Kate informed them that she didn’t want them to expect her every year, as she couldn’t be tied down that way. This lazy cow is never going to have a legacy of anything, never mind a tradition that will endure 115 years or more. Her arrogance with the Irish Guard and her ignorance towards Meghan are the two reasons I despise her.
She took the day to get her roots done. There was no reason to miss it and she should have been shamed far more than she was for breaking that tradition.
And that ‘didn’t want to raise expectations’ was the third excuse. The first two excuses fed to the Rota were laughable and people protested, so they went with that third one.
And IIRC, that event had been regularly attended by Anne for several years at that point, and Kate kind of “took it” from Anne. I imagine Anne was really ticked that Kate broke the tradition just because she felt like it.
If William and Kate remain self-centered and lazy, I think this would be their strategy. Get anointed so as to enjoy the crown and status. Give lifelong aristocratic titles to others for favours.
Then abolish the monarchy, get paid to step down. Live on whatever estate belongs to them and the inheritance etc. Less scrutiny. More privacy. But they can still claim they are the special ones and the Middletons rejoice having produced a Queen Consort for a while. Kate gets her crown. Then retires and does her sunbathing, shopping etc.
Just give the tax dollars straight to the charities and boom no need for the Royals !
I work for The Prince’s Trust and happy to try and answer any questions people have.
Just to follow up from the article – The Prince’s Trust itself is a big charity, but doesn’t actually have a huge huge remit – it’s all about supporting young people to live, learn and earn. Or as how we market ourselves to young people – confidence, courses, careers. Last year 71,000 young people took part in PT programmes in the UK.
The Prince’s Trust itself is just UK – there is a Prince’s Trust Group, which comprises of The Trust (UK), Prince’s Trust subsidiaries in various (mosty commonwealth) countries like Canada, Barbados, Australia, and Prince’s Trust International, which basically helps the country-specific PT subsidiaries set up. All of these are part of the umbrella The Prince’s Trust Group, with the biggest part by far being the UK Trust.
The Prince of Wales Charitable Fund/Foundation and The Prince’s Foundation are both separate entities from The Prince’s Trust. The Prince’s Foundation covers heritage and built environment charities, and TPWCF is basically a traditional foundation – it gives out money to other charities, projects, and initiatives.
The Prince’s Trust isnt a trust in the classic legal sense – it doesnt hold money in trust for beneficiaries, although arguably the Enterprise Fund and Development Awards are a kind of version of that (they’re both grants given to young people). Most of what The Trust does is run education, enterprise, and employability programmes. So it really is a regular charity in that way, actually running its own activities rather than giving money out to others, like Trusts and Foundations usually do.
It’s actually weirdly complicated when you type it out like this – but I wouldnt have realised any of this until I started working there. I will give Charles some credit though – he shows up having read his briefings thoroughly and ready to do the work needed. He is also always so attentive to the young people he meets – you can tell he does actually care. Also his presence at a a key fundraising event for The Trust definitely drives income – some companies and a lot of philanthropists will give a big donation to The Trust to be in the same room as Charles at this event (and everything else that comes with the event, but the HRH attendance definitely draws more interest).
IMHO without the WORK of Prince Charles Dumfries House in Scotland would not have been saved and would not have developed all of the wonderful positive local projects now associated with it.
Thanks for taking the time to explain it, CJ. Really appreciate the information.
Yes, thank you. I had no idea of its scope. But even before this I’ve believed that Charles will make an excellent king, based on the work that all of you do there.
Thank you for laying this all out. I think we had someone here a year or so ago (it may have been you! lol) who also worked there and said similar things about Charles – that he shows up prepared and engages really well with all the people he meets.
The fundraising makes sense to me in terms of wanting to meet Prince Charles. I think for most “big wigs” there is probably more interest in meeting the future king of England (and paying for the privilege through the Princes Trust) than meeting Sophie and Edward. I can see the same being true for Kate and William to an extent, which is why I’m surprised they don’t attend more fundraising events.
Remember when Amal and George Clooney started showing up at royal events like the Sussex wedding and they showed up at a Prince’s Trust event a few weeks later, and then it was announced that there was an Amal Clooney scholarship or something similar. To me that is part of how royals can raise money. Amal and George got some fairly significant face time with Prince Charles, attended an event at Clarence House or BP (I cant remember which) and get the Clooney name associated with the trust, in exchange for what I assume was a significant donation. Someone at the time said that was about getting their son into Eton, and maybe it was, but that’s how the game is played.
Charles seems to get it. And I like the Prince’s Trust because I think it has a clear mission and there are tangible results and people who have benefited from it clearly feel loyal to it (like Idris Elba.) It would be nice to see the Cambridges come up with something similar but I am not holding my breath.
“The fundraising makes sense to me in terms of wanting to meet Prince Charles. I think for most “big wigs” there is probably more interest in meeting the future king of England (and paying for the privilege through the Princes Trust) than meeting Sophie and Edward.”
Diana, before her death, did the same thing especially in the USA (NYC & Miami). Tickets to charity “dos” allowing you to actually meet Diana, Princess of Wales stated at $10,000 a head and this was in the early 1990s. I know this price is correct as I actually know someone who tried to buy two $10,000 to a charity “do” in Miami. This person did not succeed because all the tickets were “gone” or so he was told. I believe the charity was some worldwide college fund.
Oh, no…they are pulling back the curtain for us to see that the BRF aren’t worth the amount of money spent on them. Whoops! While this won’t hurt QEII or Charles, William better watch out. The world is changing. The British peeps aren’t getting their ROI out of the Cambridges. We all know that if William becomes king, he & Kate won’t do half as much charity work as his predecessors. So what will be the point in keeping the RF around? W&K don’t increase morale, no matter what Kate is theme wearing.
The BRF has lost it’s brand if they have ever had it. I recall reading 10 years or more ago. BRF has little effect on tourism which for me is easy to believe. I travel to suit my own needs and purpose having no interest in the grifter’s in any country.
The biggest flag to me was how many of these pattonages are in the “culture and sport section”.
Apparently “The press sometimes reports the total figure, which is misleading. We found that fewer than half of their Patronages are with registered UK charities.”
“Prince Philip has patronage roles with 104 sporting or dining clubs, including more than 20 yacht clubs,………Princess Anne is patron of 16 sporting or dining clubs, and Prince Andrew had (as of November ’19) patronage positions with 30 private golf clubs or golfing societies.”
I get the importance of sports in wellness but THIRTY PRIVATE GOLF CLUBS. And fewer than half their overall pattonages are actual charities and they trick people into thinking this is work?!
Now who is irrelevant? Crickets from the Doolittle stans.
Oh, they’re probably on SM right now ripping the author to shreds over the negative assessment while discrediting her character and credentials.
Pathetic how the only real journalism we see on the royals come from the reporters NOT on the royal beat. Remember Richard Palmer Self-righteously boastin about holding the royals to account when “reporting” or more like gossipping about Meghan. Where are their in depth analyses about the Queen’s offshore investments, royal finances, or charititable impact like this article? What about the corruption and conflict of interest stories, history of and association with pedophilia (not just Andrew!)
Who objectively reported on the dynamics of the KP rift instead of serving as a mouthpiece for palace spin? A political journo. Who talked about William’s muzzling of the media over the affair? IPSO and BBC reporters. Meanwhile so called royal reporters are talking about Meghan’s hair and car or Kate’s dresses and how she’s finally stepping into her role. Give me a break
Palmer acted like they were covering Watergate and sadly asskisser royals wannabes did not bother questioning it, which was sad coming from one of the people who works for Maclean’s magazine in Canada, which used to have some substance anyway.
The problem with the RRs is that they don’t want to acknowledge that they are simply PR for the royals. They are not real journalists and never will be.
Someone needs to troll Palmer with this article to show him real journalism.
I’m genuinely surprised that The Times published this piece, I always thought it was a pro-monarchy paper.
Although I welcome the quality of this research, I’m very skeptical that The Times, a Rupert Murdoch newspaper, is the instigator of this story. My conspiracy theory remains that the (far)right wing establishment (pressbarons, Tory government, big business) is ready to turn the UK into a republic after QEII’s reign and the no deal Brexit. Like a constrictor snake they are coiling around their royal prey. I would not be surprised if Boris Johnson’s secret ambition is to be the first President of the UK🤔
I agree with you 2cents, I don’t know if this is the start of the paper’s republic movement or just some sort of warning to BP. Or we’re reading too much into this.
2cents and Blue36, I’m with you. The financial smash and grab and centralisation of power that is going on in the UK right now amazes me, and I can’t see Cummings being happy witn having the BRF and all their assets as outliers.
Rupert Murdoch has been a republican (anti-monarchist) since day one.
This is not surprising especially when Will and Kate only visit their patronages every few years! I actually think Meghan’s work is the exception because it’s so well thought out and she’s really involved.
This has been the case forever, long before The Cambridge’s were working royals. Royal patronage’s exist for the royals benefit, not the charities. Even with Diana, for every charity she gave a boost there were another dozen that saw no effect.
The royals simply aren’t influential in that way. The establishment just pretends they are because without that and the tourism myth there’s absolutely no reason why the monarchy should exist.
Absolutely on the button. All smoke and mirrors.
This is much like the thinking behind gala committees. Slap some names on the invitation* with the hopes that their name will attract that person’s friends or wannabes. As a general rule, only a few people on the committee actually work, it is mainly the organization’s staff. Some gala co-chairs only have to contribute $$$ and go to one meeting to ok certain things (food, decor, etc.), then there are others who are involved in everything — and of course there are those in between.
I think with the Royal Patronages, if the organization is going in with eyes open, they probably think it couldn’t hurt to have it, even if the Royals never do anything.
* I dealt with gala co-chair who said, “Oh just go ahead and put Jane Doe’s name on the invite. Don’t worry about it, she is a friend.” I nodded my head, and emailed the friend, who I knew, and she was, “No, don’t put my name on that.” (It was some sort of conflict of interest.) Next time gala co-chair saw me she said something snide about it.
If wealthy people would choose to give freely instead of using the big charity do as a “networking” thing, they could do without all the fuss and bother.
That will never happen in my lifetime.
What’s the name of the Warren Buffett idea in which the extreme wealthy pledge to leave large amounts to charity upon their demise? Buffett, Gates, Branson, etc.
I can’t think of what it is called. Anyway, a fine idea IMO. But, also make a huge donation now. Why wait? People are always going to be in need, donate now.
I am not wealthy, I am not “comfortable” but, I am not homeless or ill at this time, I give an amount every month to the Hospice house that cared for my beloved Brother. I will as long as I am able to.
As for Royals….I am sure that they bring a big amount of publicity to charities they support.
I think Diana did wonderful work and she did raise awareness. And, she used her title to great effect. PW, Harry and their wives should all be doing more. Btw, Andrew should be in jail.
Harry and Meghan have no requirement to ‘do more’ as they are not official working members of the royal family anymore. Any charity work they do moving forward is simply by choice.
Unless you have been living in a hole with no access to Internet, you do know that H&M are no longer working royals ? you don’t even have to follow the royals to know that!
Well the BRF didn’t even get into charity work because they wanted to, I got into it because their cousins were getting deposed left and right all over Europe and they didn’t want to be next. So, name change, Eddie puts the fear of God in his sons the way Victoria and Albert never did, and they start pretending to care about the lives of everyday Britons.
This is a really really interesting article. I’ve outlined some of my thoughts in the other comments, but I think the larger implications of this report are going to be really varied, depending on how the royal family chooses to navigate the future.
The Queen is not going to be around forever. And the royal family is dealing with a ton of challenges from different fronts. Everyone is focused on the publicity aspect of the royals, and that’s fair, but as I said in other comments, the monarchy doesn’t exist simply to be a public figure. The ruling monarch has a constitutional role, under the current system of govt that is in place in Britain. This role is somewhat ill-defined, mostly because Britain doesn’t have a written constitution that clearly outlines what powers the monarch, as head of state, actually has.
It’s arguable that you can really pare the monarchy’s functions down entirely, and only keep the current sovereign to serve as a head of state, to keep up with the constitutional mandates of their role. They wouldn’t get a public facing role, everyone else in their family would have to work for their own keep, and the monarch and their immediate family would be set up in a similar situation to the Prime Minister as far as the salary and housing situation is concerned.
But I don’t think that, a hundred years ago, this sort of idea was in anyone’s imagination. The purpose of a monarchy, even if it was to fulfill a ceremonial role, was the ceremony itself. They had to act like a monarchy, and they had to look like a monarchy, and that was an important part of being a monarchy in existence. But it was also expensive. And this expense and the ceremonial luxury was liable to provoke a revolutionary response from the public. So the question became, how do you navigate this situation and still come out with your head attached?
This prompted the invention of their roles as public figures in the way we see today. One facet of this was to create an image of themselves as charitable patrons who weren’t too full of themselves to mingle with the common people and do what they did (or at least act like they were doing the sort of work commoners did).
Other ways of justifying their continued existence was by functioning as roving, unofficial diplomats around the world, leveraging their soft power to help Britain’s public image, joining and completing military service of some kind to show that they were willing to put their life on the line for the country, rebranding the monarchy as something inherent and unique to British identity, etc.
But all of that is slowly starting to deteriorate as times go by. Priorities have shifted within the population of Britain. The monarchy doesn’t have the sort of cachet that it used to have in the public imagination. When the Queen came onto the throne, she was riding off the good will generated by the end of the war and the public’s perception of the monarchy’s role in that. When Charles got married, it was Diana who brought the breath of fresh air to revitalize their public image. Then, it was William and Harry, as they grew up and started to take on their own responsibilities.
But things are starting to falter again, and it doesn’t see like there’s any real saving grace on the horizon. The public is not satisfied with the sort of charitable work that the monarchy does anymore. It doesn’t grant them the same sort of public adulation, where they could do very little, and it was the fact that they showed up at all that mattered the most.
The Queen is getting older. Brexit and Covid 19 are an issue. Prince Andrew is calling into question the whole idea of the royal family being above the law. Charles, who is arguably the one member of the family who has the vision and drive to see some real changes, is getting lost in the public furor over all of these other issues. And William and Kate don’t have much of a real plan for how to navigate these changing times at all. And the only two people who really did offer an earnest example of the royal family’s efforts to meet with the changing times are no longer with them anymore.
It’s been a 100 years since 1914. We’re at yet another significant era of change in peoples’ lives. What will the BRF do to reorient their public facing role this time, and will they want to? And if they do, will other people find any value in that anymore? And if they can’t, what will they do then?
Excellent observation, one of the best comments I’ve ever read on Celebitchy.
The chariites is a selfpromotion and time for cosplay, nothing else. And even their charities are getting fed up with them like that zoom call where they confronted Kate about her last visit eight years ago, he didn’t look happy. People need to get things done, and these two are getting in the way playing dressup but not doing anything not even a thought. Bet these organizations wish Meghan was there.
Kate runs out of anything intelligent to say during these charity events. That’s perhaps why she cancels her commitments or hardly visits them. She would rather be branded as lazy than be exposed as a dimwit. She fears that she gets unmasked every time she goes to these events as a future queen that is shallow and has nothing between the ears.