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 ... 359 360 [361]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Kate - news and photos III  (Read 1111431 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Kitty

Warned
Mini Member
***

Reputation: 37

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 393





Ignore
« Reply #5400 on: December 06, 2019, 07:36:28 AM »

Three visits in 23 years is not a huge number of visits. How about a visit every so many months?

Given the number of charities the royals support - around 4000 in total a visit ever few months would mean 4 a year and that would mean 16,000 visits along with all the other duties.

It isn't feasible at all.

The Queen hardly ever visited any of her charities and that applies to all of them.

Camilla has 90 charities but she doesn't visit all of them every year. Charles has around 400 charities and again they don't get a visit every year. Edward has around 200 but the vast majority of his engagements are to do with only one - Duke of Edinburgh's Awards.

Wonderful summary.

Personally I take issue with the younger generations claim that they'd have only a handful of charities so they could be "more involved"...whatever that means.  I don't really feel like they're any more involved than the royals that have boat loads of charities...or at least involved on a level that provides solid justification.

If we're honest with ourselves there's almost zero need for 4,000 some odd charities to have a royal patron.  Sticking with a more modest amount (say under 50 plus military stuff) for the average royal would work...visiting once to twice a year or as needed by the charity in question.  Of course for the monarch there's another set of charities that have had the monarch as patron for several monarchs in a row...or the Queen whether regent or consort...that's slightly different.

As royals either retire, die, or are fired it's a good time to evaluate the need and effectiveness of having a royal patron for each affected charity...and which working royal would be a good fit.  It's my opinion that as the BRF reduces it's official working members we will see a dramatic change to the number of patronages...but hopefully with the "more involved" to back up the change.  Non working royals, just like nobles or celebs, are welcome to support however many charities they want with their own time.
I hope it won't be an excuse to not work more.
Logged
LarLa

Small Member
****

Reputation: 100

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 413





Ignore
« Reply #5401 on: December 06, 2019, 12:57:07 PM »

I read somewhere from someone in the charity sector that a visit from a royal takes a lot of resources away from the day to day business. Most like to use the royal patrons name mostly for fundraising.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 647

Offline Offline

Posts: 2747





Ignore
« Reply #5402 on: December 06, 2019, 01:02:33 PM »

I wonder what the effectiveness of a “name only” royal patron is vs no royal patron. 

It’s a very good point that at the end of the day the level of involvement is up to the charity....but I still get stuck on the “fewer to be more involved” thing.  Perhaps it was just youthful ignorance.
Logged
Duchess of Verona

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 655

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2178





Ignore
« Reply #5403 on: December 06, 2019, 02:31:20 PM »

Charities do not have to have a royal patron. If they have one, even one who doesn't visit, they must feel that it is worthwhile to have the royal's name connected to their charity. If the charity isn't seeing any benefit they wouldn't keep the royal or ask for a replacement when one dies.

Sometimes they may simply put their name to a fundraising event e.g. write a letter in support. That doesn't get into the CC as an engagement though.

I do think that in 20 years time the working royals will be doing only around 1000 engagements in total per year rather than the nearly 3500+ they do now.
There will be no option if Charles gets that 'slimmed down monarchy' he's been pushing for. Frankly, It's going to take more than one person to pick up the Princess Royal's duties. She's a workhorse.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 359 360 [361]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: