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

What aren't you seeing, exactly? It seems that you are posting here with an agenda, but without having any idea of how charitable foundations actually work.

Meh.

Can't help it if people are reading things that aren't there but crack on.

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.

It's been shown that having a royal association/patron makes no difference to charitable income so no 'might not' about it.

Where has it been shown @CathyorClaire ? I'm just wondering why people are keen to have a Royal Patron if that is the case.

Also, comments such as 'I don't suppose he's taking carrier bags full of cash from the Waitrose tills after the last furore.' just belittle your point of view.

Your comment was Any profits went to Chuck's own charity not the broader sector as if this meant it went into his pocket personally.

However, as shown, the income to 'Chuck's own charity' was distributed to 214 organisations in the fields of:

• Environment
• Countryside
• Social Inclusion
• Health and Wellbeing
• Heritage and Conservation
• Education

This seems to encompass a good chunk of the broader sector?

It doesn't seem to be any different in the way Foundations such as e.g. Jack Petchey or Esmee Fairbairn work?

What are your views on those Foundations?

Or (US based) Bill and Melinda Gates?

Do they do nothing for the 'broader sector'?

I am wondering the same thing @ajandjjmum . As Countess of Wessex , Sophie became patron of a small local charity I have connections to . Donations increased . Publicity increased . She is still very involved too.

However, as shown, the income to 'Chuck's own charity' was distributed to 214 organisations

This relates to the current position.

Can you provide a link to the charitable distributions made prior to the Waitrose deal?

Oh come on. In that case, because my comprehension skills are clearly lacking, please explain to me what you mean by this:

"'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.'

Where has it been shown @CathyorClaire ?

UK charities should not seek Royal patrons expecting them to help much, new research shows - Alliance magazine

The info since 2019 is available online:
Accounts and annual returns, THE PRINCE OF WALES'S CHARITABLE FOUNDATION - 1127255, Register of Charities - The Charity Commission

Prior to that is wasn't routinely uploaded by the Charity Commission - in line with other charities - so you would need to access it in person.

Or possibly they could send it to you by request. Not sure. But the info would be held by the Charity Commission

I was a charity trustee back in the 1990s and early 2000s - this info was required on an annual basis back then, and would have been required by Chuck's own charity as well as any other. In those days it was paper based

How can any of these posters be taken seriously when they are using immature nicknames as "chuck".

Yes it’s absolutely pathetic.

Agreed

OK, I can see that you don't want to believe that the PWCF raising millions of pounds, and then distributing millions of pounds to hundreds of charities, could possibly be a Good Thing, and so I will bow out of this conversation.

I think it's a noble tradition.

Where would we have been without Brenda and Keith?

It's a bit teenage isn't it? Look at me, I'm so radical I'm referring to Charles as Chuck. Because that's the height of satire... and political commentary...

There are plenty of valid points against an inherited Head of State, and plenty against changing the status quo. But silly and disparaging nicknames don't make any sensible argument on either side

I think it's a noble tradition.

Where would we have been without Brenda and Keith?

😁

I'd forgotten Brenda but you'll have to run Keith's real moniker by me.

Maybe we can all agree to go with Fred and Gladys for the king and queen? ☕

Brenda = HMQEII
Keith= HRH TDoEd
Brian= HRH PoW, now KCIII
Cheryl = Diana, PoW (this one was genius, IMO)

My late father's name for HMQEII was Old Scowler, and whenever Pss Margaret was on the news he would holler OFFICIALLY A DWARF at the telly/radio.

Charming

Brenda = HMQEII
Keith= HRH TDoEd
Brian= HRH PoW, now KCIII
Cheryl = Diana, PoW (this one was genius, IMO)

Ah, thanks.

The only one I'd heard was Brenda (apparently aka 'Cabbage' which I also like)

Think they're from Private Eye?

I have to admit I find all the cliched nicknames like Chuck, Meagain, the Daily Fail, KKate, all reeeeeally cringe 😳 (and in the case of the last one I find it kind of offensive) can we maybe agree all to stick to the substantive criticism & not name call??

Oh so tiresome and predictable. Do you think every time someone writes "Daily Fail" they're being original?

I think posters write that to let other posters know they are far too cool / superior/ whatever to read the Daily Mail . Amazing given so many people quote from it as they just happened to come across an article !