More Alleged Dodgy Donations

[antelopevalley]

It appears that Prince Charles is happy to enable and encourage donations from anyone to his charities. Million in a suitcase or carrier bags? No problems. From Osama Bin Laden's family? No problem. From someone with ties to Putin? No problem. From someone seeking an honour through a donation? No problem.
This man is going to be our King.

"Prince Charles met a Russian oligarch with links to Vladimir Putin the same year his charity accepted a £300,000 donation from the businessman. The Prince’s Foundation received the cash from a charity run by Moshe Kantor in 2020, despite the billionaire having been named on a ‘Putin list’ released by the US Treasury in 2018.
Mr Kantor, who lives in a £31million mansion in Hampstead, north London, was sanctioned by the UK in April after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But the Moscow-born oligarch had already spent years forging ties with Putin, while funnelling more than £15.5million into British institutions, including a £ 3 million pledge to the Prince’s Foundation.
The revelations have sparked fresh concerns over Charles’s dealings with controversial donors after reports that he ‘brokered’ a donation from the family of Osama Bin Laden – which Clarence House has denied."

archive.ph/2022.08.07-035759/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11086315/Prince-Charles-charity-took-300-000-donation-Russian-oligarch-links-Vladimir-Putin.html#selection-1395.0-1403.217

I admit I used to be a republican for many, many years

Me too, Purple, me too.

I don't get the issue with Bin Laden's family, they haven't done anything wrong have they? Lots of families have a wrong un in the family, doesn't mean they should all be shunned.

Glad to see I'm not alone.

As to the queen's defence of Andrew- maybe she believes him. The whole thing has been a shit show and the money involved casts shade over the facts. I don't know what to believe and I don't even like Andrew.

I am old now and realise that you can disapprove of an institution without hating the real people involved.

The monarchy is useful when foreign dignitaries visit and they can be spared Carrie Johnson's execrable taste in home decor.

The royal family at least do something for the money as opposed to the tax dodging idle rich.

That may not be the only reason why they exist. Some of these charities and foundations keep a very high proportion of donated funds for 'operational' costs. The official narrative is exactly that. The unofficial narrative is the story of the Cintons (they are not the only ones).

There is also an argument that the existence of charities and foundations absolves governments from responsibility for the issues involved.

The monarchy is useful when foreign dignitaries visit and they can be spared Carrie Johnson's execrable taste in home decor

The royal family at least do something for the money as opposed to the tax dodging idle rich

Sorry, but your first para made me laugh, a lot! You are so right! 😂

But as for your second para, what do they do? What, I don't really know because we could function as a Society quite easily without them.

If we want to talk charities, you have to read this.

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

It's about royal patronages and how much they help a Charity. Or not.
It is not an opinion piece because it's a massive piece of research with a database with 3 million entries. Every charity in England and Wales; every item in every set of financial statements it had reported in each of the last 25 years.

Bottom line, apart from a feelgood factor, no, royal patronages do not help in the slightest.

So my question about what they actually do is quite relevant in all of this.

Every time you post that link Roussette I point out that it is demonstrably poorly researched, with a howling error on the opening page you link to, which shows it most definitely has a bias. You keep linking to it, and I’ll keep pointing it out… 😀

(The error in question is when it says: “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.}”

Firstly, that specific allegation was one heavily peddled on pro-Sussex websites. Even if you didn’t know this, the citation given in the apparently “not an opinion piece” is from “Designerzcentral” (that well known trustworthy publication…not!) and is expressly based on a Sussex squad tweet.

Secondly, it’s completely inaccurate - Kate had not visited that specific branch of her charity for 8 years, but she had had many enagagements with the charity’s many other branches, and has hosted fundraising engagements for them elsewhere in that period.

Thirdly, the author is openly anti-Royal, but doesn’t declare this bias anywhere.

So, if people are interested in reading it, they can make up their own mind about its value. (And given you have been scathing about the Tom Bower book because you consider it’s based on malicious gossip I’m genuinely surprised you keep linking to this).

I won't stop linking to it, whether you like it or not Serenster

I would rather take a heavily researched article than a trashy book that, in the author's own words, is designed to bring down Meghan. You talk of bias... that book reeks of it.

Forget the Kate bit then, and look at all the rest. The videos, the graphs, the database with millions of entries. You are dismissing the whole article and it's research because of one paragraph about Kate, that you consider is wrong. The article is not about Kate. It's about royal patronages in general.

I will keep linking it thanks, and no doubt you will follow me round correcting me as normal, because you never stop. There's no need to be surprised by me linking this piece of research, it is quite legitimate, or maybe you just don't like databases.

I hope some posters on here actually read it.

You are dismissing the whole article and it's research because of one paragraph… that you consider is wrong.

This is your attitude to Tom Bower’s heavily researched book too, of course, though. The author of the study also has a clear agenda in completing her work here, in this case it’s just one you agree with.

Of course I don’t expect you to stop linking to it, but as ever on this site I generally like to point out to less entrenched readers that plenty of things posted as fact by people (on all sides, I add) don’t really stand up to analysis.

@Serenster the focus of 'giving evidence' is in getting value for money for many different charities and donors and backing that up with facts. They do not focus on the royals exclusively .

From their website :

In short, we found that charities should not seek or retain Royal patronages expecting that they will help much.
74% of charities with Royal patrons did not get any public engagements with them last year. We could not find any evidence that Royal patrons increase a charity’s revenue (there were no other outcomes that we could analyse), nor that Royalty increases generosity more broadly. Giving Evidence takes no view on the value of the Royal family generally. The findings are summarised in this Twitter thread.

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

As royal support has fallen , so the number of royal patronages has increased .
Coincidence ?
How much of the 7 million William's Earthshot spent went on that dull ceremony - a ceremony that was PR for William and Kate ?

Do royals support charities or do the charities support the royals ?

So.... what you are saying, let me get this right. There is one para about Kate that is incorrect.

Because of that the whole article, with the database with 3million entries on charities over 25 years is incorrect too - because of that one bit about Kate. There is a lot of research and analysis in that article and you just dismiss it because you have found a tiny bit hat is wrong . Rightio.

The author of the study also has a clear agenda in completing her work here, in this case it’s just one you agree with

Yes, she has. And hasn't she worked hard and diligently completing that work.

Of course I don’t expect you to stop linking to it, but as ever on this site I generally like to point out to less entrenched readers that plenty of things posted as fact by people (on all sides, I add) don’t really stand up to analysis

We've already established that you have dismissed a database of 3 million entries because of one small paragraph about Kate that is wrong, do give over with the 'not standing up to analysis' nonsense. It does.

Yes, you do 'like to point out'. I know your purpose on here is to endlessly correct posters with your hugely long posts, as opposed to offering new information.

I am happy with that link. It is a massively researched project that stands up to scrutiny. Let the readers decide, shall we?

Yes, you do 'like to point out'. I know your purpose on here is to endlessly correct posters with your hugely long posts, as opposed to offering new information.

I’ll post what I want, thanks. I’m not interested in you policing me.

There is absolutely no way on this earth Serenster I could police you. It would never happen in a million years, totally impossible. Me saying that isn't 'policing' you, it was an observation

We've already established that you have dismissed a database of 3 million entries because of one small paragraph about Kate that is wrong, do give over with the 'not standing up to analysis' nonsense. It does.

I am no statistician, but I note that just from the opening summary, the page states:

We could not split out the effect of individual Royals because the numbers are too small. For example, at the time of our analysis, Prince Harry had eight charity patronages, Kate had nine, Prince William had 12: sets that size are just too small to analyse.

So, this work of over 3 million entities tells us expressly it has nothing at all to say about the model of charity patronage that the younger royals are moving to - there as been talk for a while that they are moving away from the model of hundreds of charity patronages that the Queen’s generation adopted. So no-one can claim it sows no benefit from their work.

(Better split this up since I post long posts…)

The line about Kate is not untrue. She was called out by the CEO on her zoom call. That is fact. That she decided to not visit this particular branch, I don't know why.

Caroline Fiennes is not a Sussex supporter, and as someone pointed out, she was just doing her job as she usually analyses everyone.

@Serenster you sound pathetic trying to garner support by linking H&M to this, which has nothing to do with them.

Not only are the royals not useful for anyone, they also don't bring in any tourism above the likes of British Library etc.
According to the circular, William's hectic schedule also involves him watching football and going to the cinema to watch Top Gun (those are his May/June engagements) which look busy, but really are not. The rest of the time it looks like this.

As for teh model that is does address, it points out:

The UK Royal family has 2862 patronages, of which under half (1187) are with UK registered charities. Most charity patronees (1067) have a single Royal patron… The charity patronages are very unevenly spread: half of the single-patronage patronee charities have Prince Charles, Princess Anne or the Queen who have 532 between them.

Given this, the comment I quoted above (Only 1% of charities with Royal patrons got more than one public engagement with them last year) isn’t exactly a killer point - the royal family model has self-evidently historically been based entirely on spreading their net as wide as possible, not deep. The work doesn’t consider this however.

And, further, the introduction states:

Charities cite various benefits of Royal patronages e.g., on staff morale, on beneficiaries. We do not deny these. But we are trying to do science, so needed reliable and comparable data about the large number of charities that we needed to analyse. The sole such data are revenue, so we used that.

So they completely ignore the evidence from charities themselves about how they benefit from royal patronages. “Oh, we can’t do an evidence-based analysis on that”. Of course they could - surveys, interviews, counter factual, considering comparator organisations. But they have made a deliberate choice not to.

You obviously find it very persuasive. Others may not.

Serenster you sound pathetic trying to garner support by linking H&M to this, which has nothing to do with them.

Nota, literally all I did was click on the link the author used as evidence for her statement….

Yes I saw that number @Serenster .
It also highlights how little work the royals actually do - match that list to the court circular ( bearing in mind a quick phone call is carefully logged as 'work' ).
We are constantly bombarded with royal PR telling us how hard they ' work'
Only a fool would believe it

I am no statistician
Really? You surprise me! 🤓😅

You do seem to know better than someone who has poured over this and collated information for months/possibly years.
The Twitter thread that was linked had some interesting graphs

Those diary entries are shocking. It's an empty diary more or less
A video call and a day trip to Clitheroe! Honestly, why isn't William working full time visiting these charities, helping fund raise, anything. A phone call is tiddly squat
If one parent wants to be with the kids, ok,. (even though they have a nanny) but between them they should have a full diary working nonstop all week

I don't know about all the charities or what the royals get up to day to day but I do hope the DofE Award and the Princes Trust continue. I know teenagers who have benefited from both of them, family and friends' children.

Prince William's Earthshot Awards also seem very positive to me. Maybe it would be better to concentrate on a few things they can really engage with that will benefit a wide variety of people rather than just put their name to loads.

I do seem to remember Princess Anne used to do alot for her charities, it might have changed as she's in her 70s now I think so she might be slowing down.

TLDR:
The royals get more ( PR ) from the charities than the charities get from the royals .

Me too. Really hope both of those can continue is some form

Why wouldn't they continue ?
The royals have nothing to do with the running of those organisations .

The Duke of E admitted as such

Sophie and Edward are heavily involved with the D of E work.