Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hundreds of charities to lose royal support  (Read 15852 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Crawler

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

Posts: 975





Ignore
« on: January 27, 2016, 08:35:02 PM »

http://www.express.co.uk/...charity-celebration-royal

THE Queen is to make royal support for charities the centrepiece of her 90th birthday celebrations but hundreds of worthy causes face losing the monarchy?s patronage in an overhaul planned by her successors.

In June the monarch, who next week marks 64 years on the throne, will celebrate her role as patron of more than 600 organisations at a street party in The Mall, where the charities will be controversially charged ?150 per ticket by the organiser, her grandson Peter Phillips.

Buckingham Palace will also celebrate the 60th anniversary of Prince Philip creating the Duke of Edinburgh?s Award this year and the 40th anniversary of Prince Charles setting up The Prince?s Trust.

Royal sources insist that the Queen?s milestone birthday in April this year will not see a dramatic reduction in her official role but she, like Philip, will review her support for some charitable causes.

?Some patronages are for a specific time period and so will not be renewed and there is a review of every patronage every five or 10 years,? one source said.

Philip has already shed many of his most time-consuming patronages but he and the Queen are still patrons of more than 1,300 organisations. It is when they are gone that a much wider shake-up of the Royal Family?s relationship with charities is expected.

Aides say there is unlikely to be a repeat of the aftermath of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret?s deaths in early 2002 when the Royal Family was reported to have divided up a list of their patronages on a card table and shared them out.

Charles?s plans for a pared-down monarchy and the desire of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry to focus on hands-on intensive work with a small group of charities instead of more mundane ribbon-cutting mean many of 3,000 voluntary organisations currently supported by the Firm are likely to lose their royal patrons in the coming years, sources have told the Daily Express.

Experts have warned that the loss of the royal seal of approval could put millions of pounds of revenue at stake for a voluntary sector whose controversial fundraising methods led to a highly critical report by MPs earlier this week.

The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee warned that charity bosses were on their last chance to put their house in order after concerns were raised over the hounding of poppy seller Olive Cooke, 92, and high-pressure methods used by several leading charities to squeeze donations out of the public.

Charles, 67, wants a more muscular, streamlined monarchy, focused on achieving concrete changes in society through a smaller group of working royals and, inevitably, a smaller number of organisations.

The core of that smaller group will be Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry - and his wife if he is married by then.

Much may depend on when Charles comes to the throne but, according to sources familiar with behind-the-scenes palace thinking, even the new King?s siblings, Anne, Andrew, and Edward may not have an official role for long under Charles.

His sons, William and Harry, and daughter-in-law Kate share Charles?s approach, working with a small number of charities through their Royal Foundation, which was set up in 2009 to focus on a small number of causes including supporting military families, vulnerable young people, and environmental causes.

A senior aide said at the time that one of the reasons they had set up the foundation was that they did not expect to have cousins and others supporting their royal duties so wanted to work with charities in a new way.

It is still not clear if they will even take on their father?s group of core charities, including The Prince?s Trust, founded 40 years ago this year.

Rob Cope, who spent eight years working for the Trust before becoming director of Remember A Charity, sounded a warning note for those who lose royal patronage.

He said: ?What royal patronages have always done is give that royal stamp of approval. Royal charities are generally better trusted than those without royal patrons because people know that they have been checked out properly.

?If it were the case that fewer charities were to be supported or have royal patrons, then obviously that is going to have an impact on the public?s trust.?

One source said of Harry:  ?He won?t take on anything unless he can make a real difference.?

William and Kate feel the same way and have avoided many of the more mundane tasks of monarchy. ?There?s a time and place for being an ornament as such, or shaking hands and being at an engagement and showing support in that way, but I think there?s an awful lot more from actually doing stuff,? William said when the foundation was created.

They may agree to put their names on the letterheads of some charities but royal sources say it is highly unlikely that they would be prepared to take on hundreds, meaning they only visited them perhaps once every 20 years. It is still not clear if they will even take on their father?s group of core charities, including The Prince?s Trust, when he becomes King.

Rob Cope, who spent eight years working for The Prince?s Trust before becoming director of Remember A Charity, warned that losing the patronage of members of the Royal Family would hit voluntary organisations hard.

?Charities have had a very difficult six months at least. They have come under greater scrutiny and trust is going to be the number one issue,? he said. ?What royal patronages have always done is give that royal stamp of approval. Royal charities are generally better trusted than those without royal patrons because people know that they have been checked out properly.?

He added: ?If it were the case that fewer charities were to be supported or have royal patrons, then obviously that is going to have an impact on the public?s trust in those organisations and their ability to fundraise.?
Logged
cordtx

Warned
Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1538

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 9607





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2016, 08:45:51 PM »

Do they really think we don't know in W&K's case , this just laziness and paranoia?
Logged
Crawler

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

Posts: 975





Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2016, 08:54:26 PM »

They all will be giving less for what they receive. It appears that Charles does support the laziness of his family. He is getting rid of the royals that do work and keeping the ones that don't.
Logged
cordtx

Warned
Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1538

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 9607





Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2016, 08:59:49 PM »

I can understand wanting to concentrate a bit. If they really will, like it seems Harry and Charles do.
I'd like to see Charles try and take Anne's patronages away, don't think it will go over well for him.
Logged
freethespoon

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3890

Offline Offline

Posts: 13912


Official TeaSpoon of Royal Dish. Aka TrollSpoon.




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2016, 09:01:06 PM »

If they want to work less, then pay them less.  The money saved can be used to prop up the charities they decide to dump.

Oh yesah, I forgot.  This lot gives no f*cks about fairness.  Just keep the good times rolling in.
Logged


You can call me TrollSpoon.
Crawler

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

Posts: 975





Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2016, 09:32:54 PM »

I can understand wanting to concentrate a bit. If they really will, like it seems Harry and Charles do.
I'd like to see Charles try and take Anne's patronages away, don't think it will go over well for him.

Harry could also be doing more than he does especially since he is no longer part of the military. I wonder how William will be a full time co-pilot, full time royal and full time Dad.
Logged
Crawler

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

Posts: 975





Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2016, 09:35:55 PM »

If they want to work less, then pay them less.  The money saved can be used to prop up the charities they decide to dump.

Oh yesah, I forgot.  This lot gives no f*cks about fairness.  Just keep the good times rolling in.

Yes I do not believe they will be devoting much time to a few "special charities" that is of interest to them. They are leaving out so many good charitable causes just so they can excuse their hiding out from the public for weeks or months at a time.
Logged
diamond

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 186

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 998





Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2016, 10:07:36 PM »

If they want to work less, then pay them less.  The money saved can be used to prop up the charities they decide to dump.

Oh yesah, I forgot.  This lot gives no f*cks about fairness.  Just keep the good times rolling in.












 Star  This lot of scroungers needs to be paid a lot less.  Spoonie you are so right the greed here is unbelievable, what function do they actually serve?
Logged
cordtx

Warned
Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1538

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 9607





Ignore
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2016, 10:30:49 PM »

If they want to work less, then pay them less.  The money saved can be used to prop up the charities they decide to dump.

Oh yesah, I forgot.  This lot gives no f*cks about fairness.  Just keep the good times rolling in.












 Star  This lot of scroungers needs to be paid a lot less.  Spoonie you are so right the greed here is unbelievable, what function do they actually serve?

None, and I think after HM dies, they should be abolished and I guarantee, UK won't have any deficits or hardships by not having them around. Just more money.
They are basically saying we aren't going to do as much when C is King. If they were smart, they would keep the big, visible royal bling show going and keep blinding everyone to how unimportant they are in day to day life and people wouldn't think to ask what they're needed for.
Logged
temi

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 935

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 2787





Ignore
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2016, 11:32:49 PM »

Anne, Edward and Sophie are huge assets to the BRF. Charles is an idiot if he downsizes them out of a role.
Logged
Princess BlueEyes

Warned
Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 760

Offline Offline

Posts: 3846





Ignore
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2016, 12:10:51 AM »

Anne, Edward and Sophie are huge assets to the BRF. Charles is an idiot if he downsizes them out of a role.

I hope that Charles' downsizing has little if anything to do with Anne, Edward and Sophie.  I hope that his meaning was that as the active members age and stop their patronages, that they will not be replaced.

Charles seems to be a thoughtful man and quite intelligent, lets hope that he foresees the repercussions of what any actions will have.
Logged

    
Noodlesza

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 518

Offline Offline

South Africa South Africa

Posts: 4058





Ignore
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2016, 06:23:06 AM »

What a slap in the face to the ones that do work and to the mundane ribbon cutting.
Logged

Keen!
MidnightDiamond

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 473

Offline Offline

Posts: 4515





Ignore
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2016, 07:12:37 AM »

To be honest I'd say his downsizing will be this. I'm using their current title, I can't even image W/K as Prince/ss of Wales

Strike will be the 'downsize/removed workers' & Maroon will be the working royals once Charles is King with his siblings retiring sometime after/whenever they want and not being replaced:
HM The Queen Elizabeth II
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
HRH The Prince of Wales
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
HRH The Duke of Cambridge
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge
HRH Prince Henry of Wales
HRH Princess Henry of Wales
HRH The Duke of York(he MIGHT be removed)
HRH The Earl of Wessex
HRH The Countess of Wessex
HRH The Princess Royal
HRH The Duke of Gloucester
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
HRH The Duke of Kent
HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent
Logged
rosella
Banned
Banned
Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 840

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3339





Ignore
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2016, 08:01:50 AM »

I can imagine Anne working till she drops, like her parents. I think Charles might still have to financially assist people like the Kents and the Gloucesters in their last years, even if they are retired off. The Duke of Gloucester gave up a career as an architect to help out with Royal duties and I don't think the Kents are very well off either.
Logged
ralf103

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1122

Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2492





Ignore
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2016, 09:05:22 PM »

I have been thinking about this since the article came out. Personally I think Charles would be wrong to reduce the RF to not include his siblings.

I can't see Anne for one going very quietly into 'forced retirement'.

I can see Charles may not encourage the sharing out of patronages like the current Queen did after the deaths of her mother and sister (according to Andrew, the roles were divided up whilst the family were staying at Sandringham) but could he stop any of his siblings of Sophie themselves accepting a patronage if asked to directly? Likewise, could Charles really do anything to stop any of them working for their existing patronages? He may stop funding them (IMO that would cause a media kerfuffle he could do without in the early days of his reign) but he can't stop them deciding to go out and support any charity they choose. I imagine Charles will inherit most if not all of the Queen's fortune as sovereign to sovereign inheritance is tax exempt, however, I'm equally sure the Queen will leave strict instructions for Charles to provide for the rest of the family if he is getting all the money. Thus even if he refuses to provide extra funding he can't stop Anne or Sophie or Edward getting in their car and visiting a charity, attending an event etc.

Now, it would not surprise me if in Charles' reign we see preparations made to prepare for his siblings to slip away from the scene in William's reign as they will then be so far removed from the sovereign. But I can't see the moment Charles become King  his siblings being given the boot.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: