‘Spare’ by Prince Harry

Ooops, didn’t proof read. Always a mistake, I meant many.

I think that’s what annsixty is saying, it’s so absolutely normal and routine that why does anyone get paid for saying it. My response to ann is that’s it’s because so man6 people are, for reasons I don’t understand, interested in what the royals do at home. I just don’t understand it at all. Who cares what little George, Charlotte, Archie, or Lily have for breakfast?

It all sounds pretty normal to me.Not sure why the press/podcast producers think it’s interesting though. Similar routines go on all over the world every morning.

I was just hoping she realised that everyone is not as privileged as she and her family are and this of course applies to all the RF.
But I don’t think they mostly go on to talk about it on a publis site.
And yes I think they are an irrelevance in todays society.
I am an older very moderate woman and I have surprised many of my friends with my outspoken views.

annsixty

Yesterday a part of one of Meghan’s podcast was printed in some newspapers.
She described their morning routine.
I wonder if she realised how it sounded to millions of families when she told of how they do it together and then she cooks breakfast for them.
Millions of people are racing round, dad probably already gone to work, mum shouting at the children to get out of bed and get down here while she is rushing round getting them ready for school and herself ready for a full days work.
Nice work if you can do it and then get paid for talking about it with some other over privileged woman.

And the rest of royal family?

www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1687574/queen-camilla-holiday-india-british-airways-flight

www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/mother-and-baby/20220812148021/prince-william-duchess-kate-morning-routine-three-children/

Are we really reduced to criticising a woman for telling us she has breakfast with her kids? Is that what we've come to?

annsixty

Yesterday a part of one of Meghan’s podcast was printed in some newspapers.
She described their morning routine.
I wonder if she realised how it sounded to millions of families when she told of how they do it together and then she cooks breakfast for them.
Millions of people are racing round, dad probably already gone to work, mum shouting at the children to get out of bed and get down here while she is rushing round getting them ready for school and herself ready for a full days work.
Nice work if you can do it and then get paid for talking about it with some other over privileged woman.

All the RF are irrelevant A waste of space and money

More like the mafia aren't they, more secret than the secret services, what do they want to hide, exempt from freedom of information act, unaccountable public body. Well they do have legislation they can vet to profit from over a thousand times. They can be exempted from laws that they don't like. Transparency laws anti racism

The Monarchy still profit from proceeds of colonialism passed down from monarch to monarch to this day.

Yesterday a part of one of Meghan’s podcast was printed in some newspapers.
She described their morning routine.
I wonder if she realised how it sounded to millions of families when she told of how they do it together and then she cooks breakfast for them.
Millions of people are racing round, dad probably already gone to work, mum shouting at the children to get out of bed and get down here while she is rushing round getting them ready for school and herself ready for a full days work.
Nice work if you can do it and then get paid for talking about it with some other over privileged woman.

'They f**k you up your Mum and Dad
They may not mean to
But they do
They fill you with the faults they had
The add some extra just for you'..

I always enjoyed this.

Harry is a grown man now, in his 40s.
Time to act like one.
Not likely though.

Funny isn't it we are entirely outside the organisation known as The Firm but we can find evidence that the shiny, happy, dedicated, charitable front they project for the public isn't entirely true. Makes you wonder what you would uncover if you were actually at the heart of things like Harry.

No. No I don't. I like it though 😉

Come come Grany and volver you don’t think Royalists want any actual scientific evidence to tarnish a rose coloured view of the RF do you?

Oh my.What a useful site!

Not just about Royals.

Thank you both of you. I don’t have time to read through, only glance, at the moment but I will later.

Here is link

giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

Our research was funded by the Belgian Red Cross, Flanders, which has a demonstrated commitment to producing high-quality evidence to inform decisions of operational entities, in the Red Cross network and beyond. Giving Evidence’s Director Caroline Fiennes is on a board of the Belgian Red Cross, Flanders.

We hope that our research enables more evidence-based decisions by patrons, donors and charities, and hence more effective help for their intended beneficiaries.

The link to Giving Evidence I posted a bit further up the thread ok

giving-evidence.com/

Is Giving Evidence a publication anyone can access?

Or do you mean she was giving evidence at some hearing?

I don’t know who she is, I’m afraid.

Can you elucidate a bit?

Giving Evidence Caroline Fiennes.

We had three research questions: what are Royal patronages; which charities have them; and what difference do they make?

Our research had to start by identifying which Royal is patron of which charities. This turned out to be vastly more complicated than one might imagine. The data published by the Royal family about patronages doesn’t distinguish between charities and other entities (cities, parts of the military, private sports clubs, etc.), and it is often inconsistent, incomplete, unclear, and wrong. The weblink on the Palace’s website for one of Prince Harry’s patronages went not to the charity but to a porn site. Prince Charles’ website has a list of his patronages. Buckingham Palace also publishes a list of his patronages. They’re not the same list. It took us six full weeks to construct a defensible list of which Royal is patron of what.

Royal charity patronages also raise a question of public expenditure. The Royal family costs the taxpayer – on the sole estimate we found which includes the cost of their security – £345m per year. If we take public engagements to indicate their workload, 26% of their work is for their patronee charities: equivalent to around £90m per year. If that produces no discernible benefit, it may not be good value for money. On the other hand, if Royals do help patronee charities, it is legitimate to question the process and criteria by which that publicly-funded benefit is distributed, which are currently not clear.

Oh, I DO wish we had a "like" button here!

The late Queen was patron of my county archaeological society, a registered educational charity. Queen Victoria was our first Royal patron and all her successors have followed on and we wait to see whether King Charles will also take up the role.

The sovereign, which ever one, plays little or no part in the society. We have her name on all our publications and on our stationary, and do not under estimate the importance of that. It means we can bat above our ranking. In return we get the occasional invitation to a garden party.

Various sovereigns have taken on the patronage of these small societies that are important in their locality, but have never been closely involved. They couldn't possibly, but we are very happy to have the sovereigns' name on our notepaper and provide the library at Windsor with a copy of our annual journal and feel that the deal is satisfactory all round.

A friend became an official Patron of a charitable organisation after she retired from many years as a volunteer. It involved a Direct Debit for regular and quite generous donations, as well as being invited to big events (which she can't always go to if they co-incide with a previous engagement).

Family members (a married couple) enjoyed the ballet performances they went to so much that they joined their list of Patrons. That means that they receive advance notice of any special performances, and a chance to get discounts on the best seats and on opening nights, and an invitation to some very posh fundraising events - which they have to buy tickets for, and where it is tacitly expected that they will spend freely on, for instance, buying wine at a wine-tasting. That also involved a direct debit for a regular donation.

Having a Royal Patron is probably a great financial advantage to a charity, whether they actually turn up or not. The charity may even prefer their money to their presence.

Royal Patronage covers a whole host of things though, like the By appointment on the tin Tate and Lyles 😬 so judging there is no benefits Royal Patronage would include whether it helps sales, wouldn’t it. That might skew the judgement of benefit.

Just out of interest did you analyse how many Royal visits were made in addition to those covered by Patronage for each member of the Royal Household?

The charity I was involved with wasn’t one with Patronage. I was amazed at how many people turned up to an event because of a Royal presence.

I always thought that Royal patronage meant that a member of the RF supported the work the charity was involved with, not that they would be visited by their Royal patron.

Joseanne

^Royals don't turn up 74% of times.^
What do you mean Grany? That they cry off at the last minute and let the charities down? Or do you just mean they can only say yes to a certain number as they have official engagements snd tours at home and abroad to fit in?
I believe they support over 600 charities so with just a handful of them "working" wouldnt they need to perform magic to be present every time.

Charities often seem to think that a Royal patron will visit them, or enable events at palaces which they can use to attract press coverage or donors. In fact, most UK charities with Royal patrons did not get a single public engagement with their Royal patron last year: 74% of them got none. Only 1% of charities with Royal patrons got more than one public engagement with them last year. {In this video, it transpires that Kate hasn’t visited one of her patronee charities for eight years.} Some got many more, but they are mainly charities set up by the Royals. We found that same pattern when we analysed a three year period, 2016-19. Charities set up by the Royals are 2% of the patronee charities but last year got 36% of the Royals’ public engagements with patronee charities. (Later, Prince William took over two patronages from the Queen and Prince Philip. One of those charities had had one official engagement from their Royal patron in the last ten years: the other had had none in ten years.

giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

What engagements the few they do and there are not many spread throughout the year. They actually do spend public money on their own pastimes and interests.