King Charles is taking on 300 new charity patronages, while his heir… is not

Circa 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were pushed out of the UK and told that they were unnecessary and unneeded for the future of the monarchy. The Sussexes offered several options, including various half-in solutions which would have them retaining charitable and military patronages in the UK and basically working for the Firm for free. Those half-in options were rejected. As we now know, the Windsors’ plan was to destroy the Sussexes to the point where they divorced and Harry would come crawling back to take his “place” as the family’s scapegoat and workhorse. That obviously did not work out for the Windsors. The Sussexes’ absence also revealed just how thoroughly charisma-free and lazy that rest of Windsors are. Once QEII passed away, the whole institution has basically collapsed in less than two years. All this time, there’s been a list of a thousand charities, foundations and NGOs waiting to see if they’re going to get a new royal patron. It’s taken this long for those charities to be given an answer. And the answer is, in most cases, “lol no.” That’s not true – King Charles, a 75-year-old man with cancer, has now taken on 300 more charity patronages.

The King has taken on around 300 new charity affiliations following a major review of royal patronages. However, he was unable to prevent around 200 organisations losing their royal association amid a shortage of working royals.

A review of more than 1,000 patronages and presidencies held by the King and the Queen and those previously held by Queen Elizabeth II will result in one in five organisations receiving a letter in the coming days informing them that they have lost their royal links. Buckingham Palace sources insisted that they had retained as many affiliations as possible. The King, despite his age and ill health, has absorbed the vast majority of outstanding patronages, taking his total number to 669.

Of the 441 he held as the Prince of Wales, 367 have been retained either by him or another member of the Royal family, with 74 organisations losing out. The Queen, 76, has retained 91 of her 100 former associations and taken on 14 new ones.

Elizabeth II was patron of 492 organisations when she died in September 2022. Of those, the vast majority, 376, have been redistributed.

It is not yet known how many patronages the Prince and Princess of Wales have taken on to ease the burden. However, they have previously made clear that they would take a different approach to their roles, preferring to focus on a smaller number of key organisations and themes in order to create change. A royal aide was previously quoted as saying that the Princess, who like the King is currently undergoing treatment for cancer, might take on “one or two” new charities. Before the review, the Prince of Wales had 22 and his wife had 21. The couple also share the patronage of NHS Together and The Royal Foundation.

A royal source insisted that the process of “pruning” had been “very careful and very controlled” to ensure that no more patronages were lost than was absolutely necessary. The source added: “There had been a lot of speculation that with a smaller number of working members of the Royal family there would be a more wholesale relocation of patronages but rather than minimisation this is maximisation. We are retaining far more than had been expected.”

Palace aides are understood to have been surprised by the number of organisations that expressed an interest in maintaining a royal link, which influenced the decision-making process.

[From The Telegraph]

I’m sure many will respond with “FAFO, this is why they should have done everything they could to keep the Sussexes inside the tent.” But really think about it – even in some magical scenario where the Sussexes were working royals or part-time royals, the institution would still make a point of “snubbing” them and refusing to give them anything resembling a quality patronage. Charles would have assigned Harry the Exploding Diarrhea Trust and that would be it. Obviously, the most hilarious part of all of this is that the heir and his wife are still nowhere to be found. Even before Kate’s health issues, she was never taking on more patronages and more work. Please, of course not. Not when there are fake surveys and keen Early Years busy work to do. William is the biggest loser as well – the bulk of these patronages should be his, he should have AT LEAST 100 patronages as Prince of Wales, given that his father had more than three times as many as PoW. Oh well – the British taxpayer keeps spending more and more money on these clowns and they get less and less in return.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

68 Responses to “King Charles is taking on 300 new charity patronages, while his heir… is not”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. equality says:

    Especially at the end of her life, QE wasn’t visiting these charities. What’s so difficult about attaching your name to something? Kate has gotten away with only visiting some every few years. Why can’t all of them do the same?

  2. Chloe says:

    I get why the british media isn’t calling William out but why isn’t the British public more outraged about this? You guys are paying for him after all.

    • Eurydice says:

      Perhaps because the patronages don’t actually mean anything? With 669 patronages, how in the world will Charles be able to help any of them in a meaningful way? If he visits one every single day, it would take 2 years and what would he do? Stand around and say “Hmm, yes, good, ah, very interesting…”

      Even if William is speaking from a position of sheer laziness, he’s right that focusing on fewer patronages would have more impact. But maybe that’s the point – it’s just busy work to make the RF seem like they’re actually working.

      • Moniquep says:

        You just described perfectly exactly what being a ” working royal ” entails. And of course this is still way too much for the do nothing wailses.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        Agree. So in the end, it seems Will’s explanation for not doing them reveals that they aren’t important, which begs the question of the purpose of the royal family.

      • Couch Potato says:

        In some of the other monarchies (if not all) the charities have to be national (as in not local) or international for the RF to be patrons. Given the high number it sounds like they’re patrons for everything from The national gallery to the bellringers of Midsummer.

        It’s not about helping, it’s the bragging rights they care about. The UK still have a legitimate aristocracy who has a lot of influence. There’s still quite a few people with working class background who dreams about being on of them. Beckham is probably the best known of these. Their thought process is completely odd for us who haven’t grown up in a country with an aristocracy. And then there’s the majority in the UK who doesn’t care at all. They’re to busy trying to make ends meet.

      • olivia says:

        Came to say exactly that 100% correct that the patronages mean squat all. There has been no visible uptick on any charity from a patronage, the patronage doesn’t mean the firm pumps in money to them (of course of course).. It is busywork of fluffing air around and then allowing the royals to say they have acted x amount of WORK functions when they visit these places.
        It is all self serving, shallow and bad slight of hand.

      • Christine says:

        It’s an interesting strategy, to claim that you are going to take on fewer organizations for maximum impact, if you are William. I mean, Harry has actually done exactly that, but I’m certain he works harder than anyone in his family ever has, and William is no Harry. Surely someone is going to expect results, wouldn’t it have been in his best interest to shut up and “work” in the current model of “full-time royal.”?

    • MaryContrary says:

      Because no one pays attention to them IRL. The average person in Britain is concerned about their own lives. If they see a few photos of the Royal Family out and about they think-okay, they’re out there doing what they’ve always done. That’s really what William and Kate literally bank on: the apathy from the British public to their existence. He’s figured out that he can skate along as long as he keep doing the bare minimum as long as he has got the British press in his pocket.

    • Square2 says:

      “…but why isn’t the British public more outraged about this? You guys are paying for him after all.”

      The British government & RF has brainwashed their citizens into thinking that each of them only paid less than 1 pound each year to “support” the Royal Family. That calculation did not include the security & other cost spending on BRF, the actual price Britians pay is higher.

      H&M were naive back then thinking if they self-suported the rota & other BM would attack them less or not writing about them. Little did all of us knew that the BRF signed off for BM to attack the Sussex even more. I just hope Harry can get out of his blind spot: Not all the briefing & attacks of Sussex was from Camilla, a lot of them was from his father, brother, SIL& SIL’s family.

      From the 2020(?) article, it concluded the Royal Patronage did NOT help the said organization at all. It’s better to find a famous person who really care to champion for your organization.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        @Square2: I have been thinking about exactly this lately. When H&M went off on their own, they apparently (and logically) assumed that being gone and self supporting, they would be left in relative peace by the British media and the royal institution. Instead, the opposite has happened. They are the targets of even more vitriolic attacks than before, especially Meghan. It shows the desperation of the royals and their adjacents not to let the stars of the show make a graceful exit.

    • Scamuppet says:

      I don’t get it either. He’s a lazy, ambitionless idiot who believes he can breeze through life with his titles. And they’ll permit him to do it. Charles, despite the mistakes he’s made, is not lazy…but it appears that his oldest has not inherited his work ethic….he should be holding at least half of the number of patronages his father holds. That begs the question…who’s running the show over there? Willy simply refuses, and everyone’s okay with it?

  3. Josephine says:

    stop taking public money and return some of the billions you’ve hoarded. just how many charities can you pretend to care about without realizing that your family is a huge part of the problem.

  4. Brassy Rebel says:

    This whole royal patronage system makes little sense to me but the British charities seem to rely on it to prosper. One would hope that the organizations losing the royal imprimatur will make a stink about, but I doubt it. They will just suck it up and take the insult as they are expected to as obedient members of the British establishment. Isn’t there anyone with a backbone left on the sad, little isle? What would Churchill say?

    • Steph says:

      There have been reports that having a royal patron doesn’t actually help the organizations. It’s one of the reasons so many of Kate’s patronages have closed. All of this is just propping them off to stave off a rebellion.

    • olivia says:

      No direct line to show benefit in more donations of any way or sort. It is just busy work that allows the royals to claim they are doing work functions (and get paid for those as well).

    • bisynaptic says:

      Churchill was an ardent British royalist/ imperialist.

  5. Olivia says:

    You know what I think? Charles is already the age QEII was when he became a ‘silent regent’ in some capacity. So historically, Will should be doing a lot more, and have a lot more responsibility and power by now.

    I imagine there were many conversations about Charles stepping aside and passing on the crown to Will like the Danes and Spanish. But obviously, Charles and Camilla wouldn’t hear of it.

    I suspect Charles probably knew he was sick for some time but hid it from his family until after the coronation. So now that his illness is public and he needs Will to step up (while simultaneously refusing to give Will any silent regent power), Will is pissed off… let Charles lie in the bed he made for himself.

    I assume Edward and Sophie feel similarly.

    And that’s why Charles had to trot out Andrew and Fergie. They’re the only ones he has leverage over.

    That’s just my theory on the bizarre situation.

    • Tessa says:

      William would be disaster as regent. He would do the same thing he is doing now little to nothing. Charles was not incapacitated and managed to still do some work. William was. Never reined in by charles and his twenties he spent lots of time clubbing and vacationing.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      Very interesting theory Olivia. I can certainly see your point of how the king and his heir are letting each other lie in beds of their own making and are both so bitter and blind that they can’t see how detrimental these actions are to the crown as an institution.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      That would explain the reported tensions between Edward and Sophie and KC.

      As for Will, he didn’t do his job before this, so I’m not sure I buy that he is on strike over regency powers. though of course he isn’t averse to clinging to new excuses for his childish behavior. No work unless he gets all of the power!

      • Cadet VR says:

        Is there reported tension? I haven’t heard that.. Ed and Sophie rely on funding from the monarch to live. I can’t imagine they’re kicking up a fuss or preferring will to Charles.. Will is unpredictable and an unknown quantity.

      • Tuesday says:

        @cadet vr, there was tension over Ed and Sophie being elevated to Duke/Duch of Edinburgh, and although the media spent January and February begging Charles to get the Edinburghs out and about…there were articles about how the Edinburghs AND the York princesses were upset about not being asked/allowed to work for the crown while Charles and Kate are down.

    • Latine says:

      This is my take. I think Charles doesn’t want the competition just like Elizabeth was apparently leary of Charles. At one point William was very beloved and popular. Charles knew that William would get a shine off his mother’s legacy. I believe William is lazy and Charles wants to pick his itinerary so it doesn’t upstage his. Harry’s book said Charles-paraphrasing- monitored their public appearances.

  6. Jais says:

    I’m confused how they lost some patronages but also gained some. So did some of the old patronages go bust? Why would they get dropped while they also take on new ones? And yeah William has said he wants a different approach and to have less patronages but dang, 669 v 22 is eye-watering. At the same time, 669 seems excessive. If it’s just Charles putting his name to it, to help the patronage get recognized then that makes sense. But surely he can’t do an event with each patronage in a year. And surely William can do more than 22 events a year, or even more than 66 events, assuming he visited each patronage 3 times in a year.

    • Eurydice says:

      I can’t tell how many patronages there are. On the royal website, it says over 3,000. It looks like 1,000 were reviewed and if some were deleted and some added, then that’s still close to 3,000. I would think that many of those patronages never get a visit, or maybe once every several years. Maybe it’s enough to have the prestige of saying you have a royal patron and an actual visit isn’t necessary.

      • Jais says:

        Well, that’s the thing. If they want a royal patron just for the prestige of having one and don’t care as much about the visits, then there’s no reason for William not to put his name to more? But I’m sure the charities would all like visits also but maybe will just take what they can get.

      • rosa mwemaid says:

        I suspect that many of them just want the name of the headed notepaper.

      • Christine says:

        Yeah, the name on the letterhead for fundraising purposes is probably the only useful thing for these patronages.

    • Tuesday says:

      It also says they put out feelers to see what organizations still wanted a royal patron and prioritized those. It’s possible some of Camilla’s and Charles’ old organizations decided they don’t need a patron and were replaced.

  7. Lady Digby says:

    Why is nobody questioning FK not upping his game in 2024 to cover for the King while he was unable to carry out public duties and now, he is apparently not taking on his fair share of patronages to reflect his seniority? What is going to happen to the Kings patronages when Charles passes on, is Willy going to continue doing the absolute minimum? Why is no one apart from the republic movement asking whether William is fit for purpose? Yes we are all aware of the sensitivity around his wife’s medical problems but William is a fit and healthy heir of 41 so why is he doing CSO little? He needed to put the ground work in as Prince of Wales to build up competencies, stamina and networks to become an experienced leader. His essential role is to do the red boxes daily, turn up regularly and be a pleasant diplomat greeting and entertaining foreign leaders and publicly visiting charities, armed forces and first responders, NHS to thank them for their hard work. Doing 3 or 6 engagements twice a week isn’t going to cut it so Junior needs to give a head a wobble, knuckle down and start limbering up now!

    • Jais says:

      To answer your question, @lady digby, “is Willy going to continue doing the absolute minimum?” Yes. I think he’s been making that clear and the rota should be seriously worried rather than covering for him. But while his wife has cancer, he won’t be challenged.

    • Startup Spouse says:

      So what happens to the Rota when William becomes King and is nowhere to be found? With no access to M&H events and the next gen are likely still too young to throw under the bus, what will they cover? If I’m the Rota I’m very worried about my business model and would re-negotiate this invisible contract.

      • rosa mwemaid says:

        They can always make up stories about H and M, they do it all the time already. Plenty of people will swallow it as long as it isn’t nice.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      He will take all of the land and money and legal benefits and stolen art and jewels, but not do any of the work.

      The Zoom King and his AI Queen will “modernize” the monarchy by quiet quitting while cashing the paychecks.

      • Christine says:

        I don’t even think it’s quiet, at this point, they both have quit.

  8. Tessa says:

    William got away with driving harry out and his father just sat back and let him
    . They also knew Kate would be lazy signs were there with her being workshy pre marriage. What did Charles expect

    • Interested Gawker says:

      Charles played his part in that mess, he pulled their security and took H&M’s house away. They all applied pressure to get Harry so desperate he’d have to return. Charles expected Harry to fail and be forced back into being ‘maid of all work’ for the firm. I think Charles knew full well William is useless but had no idea how resourceful Harry and especially Meghan were.

      Charles, through RAVEC, only offers Harry sensible security on his own terms -denying it to H&M outright for their own endeavours and went as far to suggest that public wouldn’t care if H was harmed so not giving him security wasn’t a ‘big deal’.

      He was resentful of his parents and jealous of Diana, now Charles resents his sons. Now that he’s king I don’t think he cares about what happens after him.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        IG, Your comment is a great reminder of just who Charles is. William is just like his father, only more churlish and less willing to work.

        Charles only looked good in comparison to William, and maybe that’s by design. He approves of the layabout work shy son, but not of the son out there helping people and doing important things.

  9. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    What I found interesting about this redistribution of patronages is that studies have found that having a royal patron makes no difference to these charities whatsoever, the royal patrons don’t attract more donors, they don’t attract more state funding, they don’t even attract more public interaction with these charities, having a royal patron really means nothing except maybe to the royalists running the organization.

    I’m shocked but not surprised at what a horrible PoW William has turned out to be. I had read many defending his horrible work ethic as the DoC, saying that once he’s the PoW he’ll really ramp up his duties, take on more and basically make everyone proud but gosh, so far he’s done everything but that. I realize that this is wishful thinking but I hope that people/the press/the government opens their eyes and see how lazy and incompetent William truly is and do something/anything to right that ship cuz if they don’t he’ll drag them all down with him.

    • Tessa says:

      He could not even complete a course about the duch y. Charles just allowed the slacking off. The queen and Charles bowed to wills demands to be involved in air ambulance work and slacked off on that

    • Concern Fae says:

      What’s truly hilarious is that the whole system probably does need rethinking, but William is incapable of doing the thinking involved. He just takes the idea and slaps it on everything, whether it suits or not.

      Just like his father has done for decades with “downsizing the monarchy.” Even if that meant 80 year old cousins expected to suddenly earn their keep, or not keeping track of how many charities expected patrons versus how many Royals there would be in a decade’s time.

    • Eurydice says:

      It probably made a difference, once upon a time. George II was the first to be a patron back in the 1700’s and it was one organization. Victoria and Albert were patrons of the arts because they collected (or “collected”) art. It looks like it depended on the individual interest of the monarch of the times. How it ballooned into thousands of patronages that need to be assigned to a slew of royals, I don’t know. Maybe there’s an historian among us who knows how this happened.

      • Tuesday says:

        The royal patron system as we know it started after WWII, I thought? Or maybe the first one? Some forward thinking royal realized they needed to be seen to provide value to their subjects and that’s when they started being seen and believed.

      • Jais says:

        Am I wrong in remembering that Prince Phillip had something to do with the rebranding of the monarchy as public servants. Considering what happened with the Russian monarchy and the “greek monarchy”

  10. Amy Bee says:

    If the purpose of the Royal Family is to highlight charities then all the Queen’s and Philip’s (no mention of his patronages btw) should be distributed all of the family and none should be let go.

  11. Libra says:

    So this is what England is left with. The toxic tabloids and even more toxic and dangerous commenters hounded Harry and Meghan out with ” leave, you are not wanted here” amid full scale name calling with sexual and racial slurs directed at Meghan. So they left. Now you are threatening her with being publicly booed if she dared step foot in England and in the same breath asking why she could go to Nigeria and not choose England where she should appear an wave. Why is she snubbing us? How dare she treat us, her betters, this way. Be careful what you ask for.

    • Libra says:

      This is in reply to Tessa #8 above

    • rosa mwemaid says:

      My answer to being publicly booed was the last time the DE encouraged it at the Jubilee Meghan came here as the late Queen’s guest and to boo her was to insult the late Queen.

    • Jais says:

      Like Charles Camilla William and Kate haven’t been booed by anti-monarchists. More like Meghan doesn’t want to give the BM her presence to profit off of.

  12. Olivia says:

    I have the solution that serves everyone: as soon as Will becomes king, let him do what he wants (nothing), and in exchange, remove all public funds from the BRF. Win win.

    • Unblinkered says:

      W’s access to Duchy of Cornwall funds really should be severely restricted with immediate effect, simple best practice to reflect his greatly reduced work commitments v. the previous PoW’s (Charles’s) work commitments.

  13. T says:

    Let’s be honest. If Harry & Meghan stayed and they gave them the worst patronages, they would have turned it around and made them successful. Then the left over royals would take them away and convince the public the success was because of egg and mumbles.

    • Interested Gawker says:

      That’s the conundrum that makes all of this so ridiculous. The BRF relied on Harry carrying the heavier load on behalf of The Crown but doing that made him ‘the face’ of the BRF because of the higher profile they forced him to have. Once he got married to a spouse who aligned with his interests it was inevitable they would be popular but William and Charles didn’t see that as a credit to the family as a whole. They were jealous! Why on the one hand work him to death and then resent him when he performed? They even tried to leave so the rest of the family members could have their front pages in England to themselves but having Harry as the family scapegoat was too ingrained in them to give up wanting to use and abuse him and extend that same role to his wife and children.

  14. Mslove says:

    While I think WFH Peg is extremely lazy, I think he wants less patronages because he doesn’t like mixing with the peasants. A narcissist with a huge sense of entitlement as future king should be a concern for people, IMO.

  15. Tessa says:

    On the radio today someone talked about Charles work with what is now called the kings trust. Too bad some one did not ask why William did not take over the princes trust.

    • Unblinkered says:

      I’d like to know the answer to that too.

      • Barb Mill says:

        I believe the King did not trust Willy to do anything with it and I think Charles thinks that the Princes trust is his big legacy and truthfully it is one of the good things that Charles did do. If he left it to Willy to destroy it would ruin his legacy.

    • Paisley25 says:

      If I’m remembering right, it was reported years ago that neither William nor Harry wanted to take over the Prince’s Trust. I assume it was because it was aligned to Charles’s passions and not their own. Plus, I’d imagine Charles would be a total control freak about it.

      • equality says:

        Maybe partly questionable sources of funds? I couldn’t see PH wanting to go collect sacks of money from funny sources.

      • Magdalena says:

        It’s because the Prince’s Trust is actually The Prince of Wales Trust and its logo is actually The Prince of Wales feathers. It would therefore fall to the actually heir to take over but William was too lazy to do so. Harry had his own well-developed charities to take care of. It was never Harry’s duty to take over a job which was to be done by William, however much the powers that be would have wanted him to do so. And as equality said, there is also the degrees of shadiness surrounding the supposedly charitable trusts run by certain royals which would have made Harry run a mile.

    • Unblinkered says:

      Whatever the actual reason for W not taking over The Prince’s Trust/Prince of Wales Trust the press should now be asking why not.
      It did such good work, let’s see W step up and get involved – out and about five days a week please.

  16. Monlette says:

    I think most of the current crop of working royal are like that to be honest. Remember when Camilla lifted a little black girl’s arm by the sleeve? Anne complaining about tshirts filling landfills when touring a Tshirt factory? Kate has very few patronages but they include having VIP boxes at posh events like Wimbledon and the BAFTAS? When Andrew has his pulled there was a lot of country club nonsense in there like president of the tropical island golf society (I am making that up because I don’t remember exactly, but I am not that far off.)
    The only royal I see taking her duties seriously is Sophie and the press isn’t exactly treating her as a tastemaker.

  17. AC says:

    And the BM/RR are just psst off everyday. Blaming it on M somehow, and so upset that M won’t be coming to visit the UK. When they very much know who and what is the root cause of their ultimate demise.
    They’re not getting any sympathies from anyone and get what they deserve.

  18. bisynaptic says:

    Memo to royal source: “retaining” some fraction of what you had, before, isn’t “maximization”. 🙄

  19. Libra says:

    While recovering from an accident I had some enforced downtime. I started scrolling sites where I had never been just to pass the time. To m surprise, William is seen by many writers and commenters as a well educated and intelligent visionary who will redefine the monarchy and modernize it. Only on this site is it safe to point out the obvious about him. We are definitively in the minority here.

    • Tessa says:

      There are more calls for a republic. William is no visionary. He got a degree in geography. He has no original ideas. William could very well bring down the monarchy. His days as Diana’s son and the best hope for the monarchy are long gone. These writers might go in for flattery to get honors from William