One of the wildest things about King Charles’s reign is that he insists on all of this simultaneously: a slimmed-down and very old monarchy; significantly fewer patronages, charities and royal events; and most importantly, the same amount of money, if not more money, from the Sovereign Grant. QEII used to support a large coterie of working royals and extended family from the Sovereign Grant. Nowadays, it’s just Princess Anne, the Edinburghs and the Kents. When Charles became king, people begged him to start passing out QEII and Prince Philip’s hundreds of royal patronages to the remaining slimmed-down royals. He refused for the most part, taking nine months to even make a handful of changes to the military patronages. That being said, I didn’t know it was this bad:
Eighteen months after the death of the Queen, most of her 600-plus charities are still without a patron. They include the Royal Academy, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Physicians, London Zoo, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the RSPCA, RSPB, MCC, RADA, the Royal Academy of Music and the Royal Philharmonic Society.
Smaller outfits like the Jersey Cattle Society and the Queen Victoria Clergy Fund aren’t losing any sleep but the failure to renew royal patronages has irked the big beasts.
Again, I’m sure Charles would say: this is what I meant by slimmed-down monarchy. Fewer royals doing fewer events with fewer patronages, but we still get the same taxpayer funding! And don’t forget all of the castles, palaces, mansions and forts! Anyway, even before Charles was diagnosed with cancer, it was bonkers that Buckingham Palace was content to do nothing or slow-walk the transfer of some of these major patronages. What’s even funnier is that in the “sliding doors” version where Prince Harry & Meghan were still in the UK, the story would be “the Sussexes are not important enough to take on these patronages, we want them for ourselves!”
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.
-
- Britain’s King Charles and Queen Camilla greet people after attending the Easter Matins Service at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, Britain March 31, 2024.,Image: 861379469, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: Hollie Adams / Avalon
-
- Britain’s King Charles and Queen Camilla greet people after attending the Easter Matins Service at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, Britain March 31, 2024.,Image: 861379510, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: Hollie Adams / Avalon
-
- King Charles III attends the Easter Mattins Service at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, UK – 31 Mar 2024,Image: 861382722, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: James Shaw/Shutterstock / Avalon
-
- King Charles III and Queen Camilla attend the Easter Mattins Service at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, UK – 31 Mar 2024,Image: 861382733, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: James Shaw/Shutterstock / Avalon
-
- The Royal Family attend the Easter Mattins Service at Windsor Castle Featuring: King Charles III, Queen Camilla Where: Windsor, United Kingdom When: 31 Mar 2024 Credit: Cover Images
-
- Easter Mattins Service at St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle in Berkshire. Featuring: King Charles III Where: Windsor, United Kingdom When: 31 Mar 2024 Credit: PA Images/INSTARimages **NORTH AMERICA RIGHTS ONLY**
-
- Easter Mattins Service at St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle in Berkshire. Featuring: King Charles and Queen Camilla Where: Windsor, United Kingdom When: 31 Mar 2024 Credit: PA Images/INSTARimages **NORTH AMERICA RIGHTS ONLY**
-
- Easter Mattins Service at St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle in Berkshire. Featuring: King Charles and Queen Camilla Where: Windsor, United Kingdom When: 31 Mar 2024 Credit: PA Images/INSTARimages **NORTH AMERICA RIGHTS ONLY**
At 90 plus and not getting out as much, what was QE doing for any of these patronages anyway? Do the organizations think that just having a picture of a royal on their website or saying they have a royal patron is useful? They should go and find a celeb or somebody with an interest in actually contributing to the organization.
British CB-er here! Honestly, that’s exactly what these organisations think. I worked for a charity in the 2010s, and they had a royal patron (one of QE2’s cousins, I think) and at this stage, the patron was in her 90s. She didn’t go to any charity events and barely even made contact with the charity once a year, but the charity had her name at the bottom of every letter and email sent, every report submitted and on every bit of publicity. It’s a big thing for many charitable organisations in the UK, whatever their size. (Not saying it’s right for 2024, but hopefully gives you some background!)
Does having a royal name attached to the charity actually help it, Lala? In that case, would it then be possible to keep the queen’s name on it even though she’s passed away?
I came here to say the same Lala, it’s just a name really. However, it’s a little shocking Charles hasn’t provided a new name for the patrons yet, what’s he waiting for??
Hmm ML, that’s a good question – in some parts of the UK, having a royal patron is an historic mark of “approval” for charities and their trustees etc, and some parts of the public would see it that way too. However, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case for the younger generations nowadays, either when they’re donating to or working with a charity.
Re: the Queen, I believe the royal patrons have to be living but there could be an argument for a “previous patron” type note, but I’m not sure of the precedent of that.
Another thing over here are the “Royal Warrants” – so the monarch gives their “seal of approval” to various brands that they use within their estates. The Queen had lots – think Twinings, Waitrose, Cadbury, Heinz, Coca-Cola. But none of them have been updated to Charles’, and he hasn’t made any of his own. Again, it’s something quite historic, but there are smaller artisan brands who do somewhat rely on the warrant for marketing etc, and they’ve been left in limbo, it seems!
ETA add, @alpinewitch, totally agree! I don’t know what the hold up is, and knowing how long these things take to do over here 🤣 I can’t understand the delay either!
Perhaps these folks will realize they do just fine without some inbred show pony showing up every so often to cut a ribbon or unveil a plaque. Perhaps it will advance the downfall of the monarchy.
Ah… if only! People don’t seem to notice at all…
I agree. Why pay these people so much money and get less work. Any other business would fire you for being none productive.
If it’s all about bringing attention to pull in potential donors, particularly the deep-pocket donors, I would think the small organizations ‘need’ these royal patrons more than the ‘big beasts’ as the DM calls them.
Agreed. Just look at what Meghan has done for Mayhew and Hubb.
It’s interesting how the family cares sooo much about the monarchy and the duty, etc. yet is driving it into the ground. Idiots. I’d be so livid if I were a British taxpayer and had to support these clowns.
This. I don’t care what this family does with patronages so long as it gets off the public dole. A family with this level of wealth (unearned, to boot) continuing to take money from the public truly shows how little they care about the people.
Wake up, abolish the monarchy.
Easier said than done. The House of Commons is full of royalists, the House of Lords is unelected, how do you abolish the monarchy? I wish there was a party running with a manifesto only with abolition….
Brain fart: This is an excellent way to raise money for several royal estates. Maybe KC or someone close to him took a look at where the taxpayer moneY went with more members and more charities and figured out that this could deposIst more suitcases-worth in KC’s off-shore accounts. He’s not dolling out his mother’s patronages and charities on purpose.
I’m reading Tom Bower’s “The Rebel King” at the moment, and my God, Charles is such a pampered fool.
He set up so many charities that they started to contradict or cannibalise each other, or he’d forget he already had a charity to address a particular issue, and set up a new one.
😳
That’s not how it works. Just like the Duchy of Cornwall there’s a board which oversees the funding and they put out a report. 130+ pages of one.
https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2023-06/Sovereign%20Grant%20Report%202022-23.pdf
Thanks, BQM. Then this is just unwillingness, laziness or dimwittedness on KC’s part for dilly dallying on reallocating the patrons.
Another interesting angle from the Fail. Their frustration at not spilling the royal tea is palpable at this point.
Until and unless the UK is ready to talk about fattened-up-funding for a slimmed-down monarchy, this is pointless. Royal patrons are historically, quantifiably useless to their patronages, so this is a non-issue. The royals’ taxpayer funds, however, would certainly do more good in the hands of those patronages than the palace.
Someone should quote Maya Angelou to these pattonage-less charities: When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. Many nations have charities without this “royal patronages” stuff. GB should try it.
State-sanctioned grifters
The inability for a great majority of Britain to see past the facade, and realise this is all a rort never ceases to amaze me.
I am hoping for the day the BRF reaches the saturation point with the subjects of England, the country is facing some serious problems and the true Royalists are mainly in their geriatric years so anything is possible. The royals are looking like ancient ruins in a new world they have lost whatever mystique they had.
It’s already clear to many. What these charities mean is that they want a royal stamp of approval, which in money terms means their fees/membership is to be sought after… look at the line of famous patronages, it has academies and organisations that ask for a lot more money (to enter or be part of) than others.
Its interesting that upon death, everything is inherited from monarch to monarch except their patronages. C-Rex obviously isn’t going to transfer any more and doesn’t see the danger in his failure to do so. He has his favorites and it looks like these patronages are on their own, which is the best thing for them. One of the worst things for the monarchy will be for these orgs to realize that they don’t need royal patrons, and to see that they’re actually doing much better without them.
It’s weird to me that Charles and William don’t get that patronages and doing “work” is actually about keeping the monarchy alive, rather than service to others. Organizations can get along fine without a royal patron, but the royals can’t exist without the public believing in them.
That’s why I don’t buy the royal institution as a firm. A firm is accountable to people, at the very least its shareholders. The royals, in practice, are accountable to no one, so long as the inertia around them persists. The institution is about propping up the petty desires of the monarch and the heir, post Elizabeth. Doesn’t matter if they do the job well or not at all. Ir’s too difficult to overhaul the system, and the royals know that. So what we see now is what we’re going to get under Kings Charles and William (esp William). The actions of these royals are not the actions of an institution with any sense of accountability. Divine something something.
Some of them, particularly those who lost the Sussexes must be quite angry given all their success and the energy they put, now a lot in the US, on charitable endeavors. This could have been done in the UK, as Harry shows with his remaining UK patronages. Lack of vision and pettiness will bring down the monarchy.
“What’s even funnier is that in the “sliding doors” version where Prince Harry & Meghan were still in the UK, the story would be “the Sussexes are not important enough to take on these patronages, we want them for ourselves!””
Spot on. But I also think that this shows that besides deaths and state visits, the Palace has no plan in place for the future. It’s like they thought the Queen was going to live forever and they were caught flat-footed when Harry left the Royal Family. I think the Palace believed that he and his second wife would take on the bulk of the patronages left by the Queen and Phillip. With Harry gone, there’s nobody to take up the slack. Perhaps, they’re also waiting for an opportunity for Andrew to become a working royal again.
It’s been 4 years – plenty of time to figure out how to replace Harry.
Seriously. And it was pretty obvious at the time The Queen hadn’t long in the world.
@Eurydice: I think the Royal Family still believes that Harry will return to the royal fold some day.
*sigh* How amazing it would be to have special access to the Royal Academy and RADA! I’d be banging on Charles’s door until he gave the patronages to me.
And there in is the kicker. We have worn royalist coloured spectacles in the UK for much to long. I took the Queen’s shilling and served with pride, but, even if I were younger and able bodied I wouldn’t pick up a weapon to support this selfish bunch. Because that’s what they are, bloody selfish in every sense of the word. When Harry and Megan were here they tripped them up at every turn, just because their selfish bloated egos wouldn’t and couldn’t accept that Harry and Megan were hard working and popular. They didn’t just write letters or turn up empty handed. They asked the charities what they needed and what Harry and Megan could do to help them achieve it. Even now, both of them are still in contact with charities they helped here and Harry still has well child and is world wide ambassador for Scotties little soldiers. Charlie’s slimmed down monarchy is looking positively starved, which is amazing considering the amount they cost us tax payers every bloomin year
He has cancer. He ain’t got time to think about transfers, when it’s not money, jewels, or security for own child
*sideeye*
At this point, Charles might be thinking, “This isn’t going to be my problem much longer. I’ll just throw these on the ever-growing pile of things for William to deal with when his time comes.” It’s probably coming from some combination of avoidance, resignation, lack of consideration for William’s future burden, and lack of compassion for the patronages and those that they serve. That last item is the only issue that feels truly tragic in all of this.
I was wondering over these past couple of weeks-the royals housing or palaces=do they have asbestos in the floors, walls, ceilings,etc-Since cancer has struck Kate and the King-they have lived a long time in these surroundings and over time cancer can occur-a meat plant built in the 30’s or 40’s was shut down because a lot of the employees tested positive for asbestos-some had higher amounts than others.
As far as we know Kensington Palace and Anmer hall and I think Adelaide cottage have undergone major refurbishments in the last 2 decades so Asbestos would have been checked for and mitigated, as for the other palaces hopefully they have some records of when things were refurbished so they could carry out the necessary inspections, but from the title of this article Charles seems to have dropped the ball and might not be taking care of his vat estate which includes buildings, he has been either rehabbing Camilla’s image or trying to destroy his son.. also if you consider his on paid him back for the refurbishments to frogmore.