‘Spare’ by Prince Harry

Iam64

That made me smile, tickingbird, the very idea of you being DaisyAnne’s wingman 😂
Volver, is your aim to be deleted?

No it's not iam64. I've just noticed that I often have posts deleted when some particular posters are on a thread. Maybe it's just coincidence.

I remember tickingbird being called DaisyAnne’s ‘wingman’

I must be on the wrong/right threads then Volver. I’ve only ever seen one of your posts saying deleted. What did you do?

I think sometimes the idea is to get a whole thread deleted Iam64

The monarchy really is nothing more than a tax funded soap opera. Trivial and pointless.
@MirrorRoyal
Oct 30
Camilla was left feeling 'annoyed' at Princess Charlotte's behaviour during the Queen's funeral

The press make is seem so, I agree. But it really isn't, imho.

You were there to hear that? Or do you believe the Mirror Grany? Oh well.

Smileless2012

William 'phoning Harry to see if he and Meghan wanted to join him and Kate as they looked at the floral tributes to their GM is one example Summerlove.

Great - that’s one, from one side.

Who knows how it actually all went down though.

The monarchy is pointless can you tell me what the point of monarchy is?

RF are just lining their own pockets In public office for private gain. Kings Consent

You can tell by number of engagements, don't amount to much plenty of free time for their own passtimes.

Giving Evidence says that charities should not seek royal patronage thinking that it will help much.

I don’t think Royal Patronage counts for much in prestige or monetary gain. But Royal presence certainly does.

A Charity I’m involved in had 20 times more people through the gate than in previous years when it was known that a minor Royal would be there.

Definitely a money spinner🙂

The Soap star from a couple of years before tripled the gate. Odd isn’t it, the cult of celebrity.

Odd isn’t it, the cult of celebrity.
Strange, shallow world.

FannyCornforth

I remember tickingbird being called DaisyAnne’s ‘wingman’

Thank you Fanny. That saves me the trouble of trying to trawl through past threads.

Lathyrus

I don’t think Royal Patronage counts for much in prestige or monetary gain. But Royal presence certainly does.

A Charity I’m involved in had 20 times more people through the gate than in previous years when it was known that a minor Royal would be there.

Definitely a money spinner🙂

The Soap star from a couple of years before tripled the gate. Odd isn’t it, the cult of celebrity.

Well Charities don't benefit from royal patronage as Royals don't turn up 74% of times.

One of the most ymportant jobs of a Head of State is to keep PM in check a role all the Royal family together don't fulfill
Let's listen to the gossip instead.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.com/

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

Here is link

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