Endgame Part 7

[Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar]

Continuing a civilised discussion, with a few laughs along the way, trying to stay within the topic, please. Thank you to all the lovely contributors who make this a pleasure and an education.

Previous thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4968930-endgame-part-6?page=39&reply=132539427

Near catastrophic sock chase?

We know who caused that

@ArcaneWireless @JaneJeffer
😂

Ohhh my goooodddd!! It all makes sense now!!!! I'm totally bugging!!!

Not sure to be fair, generally you do that to stop anyone else using the brand on anything. So you cover everything. But yes they may have been considering coming up wit their own version of the duchy of Cornwall.

I don’t think that’s right either.

😂😂😂

Profits from Duchy food products were donated to charity. I think that Waitrose donating some of the profits was also part of the deal.

I've just googled

The Waitrose partnership started back in 2010 (after the Duchy brand made a loss in 2008/09). It's still however wholly owned by the PoW's charitable fund, and continued after the creation of the partnership to donate all profits to charity. I've not found anything that says they've stopped doing that

Profits from Duchy food products were donated to charity. I think that Waitrose donating some of the profits was also part of the deal.

Any profits went to Chuck's own charity not the broader sector and no doubt that remains the case for any profits Waitrose makes but in any case nothing was donated to charity in the years preceding the deal due to the losses the brand was making :

Who stands to gain most from Waitrose Duchy deal? | News | The Grocer

Isn’t the Highgrove shop still a thing? Tea towels and teacups and scarves with his stamp on them - that sort of thing. I think I remember seeing some highgrove alcohol for sale on there too. Maybe not.

Chuck's own charity makes grants to a range of causes in the broader sector Grantmaking - King Charles III Charitable Fund (kccf.org.uk)

The Duchy proceeds will have only gone there until the accession - or at least that's what I assume as they were a duchy initiative not a personal one. As it says the Charles-specific charity started in 1979, presumably the PoW version changed name and some/all assets rolled over in to the new one

Is there a new PoW charity? Or Duchy brand profits going the W&C's Royal Foundation now?

"Any profits went to Chuck's own charity not the broader sector and no doubt that remains the case for any profits".

And so what if they did? What are you implying - that somehow KC personally benefits from this?

The PoW Charitable Foundation is not some shady organisation. KC can't just ring them up and ask them for money to be paid to his personal bank account.

Day-to-day, he will have zero involvement in the running of the Foundation - there is a board of Trustees overseeing things, plus a team of employees who do the actual work.

During the last financial year, the PoWCF gave grants to 214 charitable institutions. Which to me sounds like they went to "the broader sector".

The way these things work is that all the profit made in a year by a trading subsidiary of a charity, is donated to the charity. If the trading subsidiary doesn't make a profit in a year, then they have nothing to donate, it's as simple as that, and so it's really not difficult to understand why "in any case nothing was donated to charity in the years preceding the deal due to the losses the brand was making". 🤷‍♀️

You might disagree with the concept of the Rpyal Family, but really, here you are trying to find issues that simply don't exist.

Exactly @RockaLock, 'Chuck's own charity' is regulated by the Charity Commission in the same way as any other charity

Yes, its in Tetbury.

I see another executive at Archewell has quit.

'Chuck's own charity' is regulated by the Charity Commission in the same way as any other charity

Mmmm. Yes.

I don't suppose he's taking carrier bags full of cash from the Waitrose tills after the last furore.

The issue I have with royal charity 'work' is the way it's puffed as something that makes them useful when they're not. Especially when there seem to be so many questions swirling round so many of these things.

What exactly do you think is dodgy about 'Chuck's own charity'?

Have you reported your concerns to the Charity Commission?

What exactly do you think is dodgy about 'Chuck's own charity'?

Can't help you I'm afraid as I haven't said that.

And why call him 'Chuck'? I am not a 'royalist' but silly nicknames (Hazza, Megain etc) are just a way of avoiding making genuine criticisms. There are plenty of reasons to critique an inherited Head of State, and also reasons to not want a constitutional change.

You posted that at 10.27

@CathyorClaire your comment at 10.27 was

Any profits went to Chuck's own charity not the broader sector and no doubt that remains the case for any profits Waitrose makes but in any case nothing was donated to charity in the years preceding the deal due to the losses the brand was making :

Nope. Still not seeing it.

As a PP said, what exactly do you think is dodgy about the PoWCF? Because your comment here certainly implies that's what you think.

As for not liking the "puffing up" of the Royals' due to their charity work.

We get it, you don't approve of the Royal Family. And that's fine. But at the end of the day, that's millions of pounds raised annually by charities associated with them, that might not pull in those types of donations without a royal connection.

And no, those donations wouldn't necessarily be made anyway, or made to different charities, if the royal connection didn't exist. They might, but they might not.