The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #501  
Old 03-07-2013, 09:41 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,450
YEs she was, it was supposed to be Jan/Feb but there have been no announcements.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #502  
Old 03-07-2013, 09:43 PM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
YEs she was, it was supposed to be Jan/Feb but there have been no announcements.
Maybe she's waiting until after the baby is born??? Although that's a long time. Maybe this month or next??
__________________

__________________
  #503  
Old 03-07-2013, 09:44 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
To be honest, I dont think that they do calculate the benefit - in order to do that, you'd have to be able to calculate the negative - ie what would be the result if a royal hadn't done it.

The only charity to mention it is EACH but I dont think they put a number on it, but they seem very approachable so you could ask.
To calculate the negative you simply just have to look at how the charity or organization is doing before the royal visits, then how much they've improved (or not improved).

Thus, say charity X takes in on average $1000 a month normally, then a member of the BRF does an engagement with them, and afterwards X takes in $2000 a month on average. Then we can say that X is making $1000 more a month, and has doubled their income.

We can't really do that simply because these organizations aren't releasing statements saying how much they made prior to the visit or how much they've made since the visit. We can say that the visits are typically beneficial (be it from a member of the BRF or another public figure) simply because it raises awareness.
__________________
  #504  
Old 03-07-2013, 09:48 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
To calculate the negative you simply just have to look at how the charity or organization is doing before the royal visits, then how much they've improved (or not improved).

Thus, say charity X takes in on average $1000 a month normally, then a member of the BRF does an engagement with them, and afterwards X takes in $2000 a month on average. Then we can say that X is making $1000 more a month, and has doubled their income.

We can't really do that simply because these organizations aren't releasing statements saying how much they made prior to the visit or how much they've made since the visit. We can say that the visits are typically beneficial (be it from a member of the BRF or another public figure) simply because it raises awareness.
And I think that is all anyone can do.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #505  
Old 03-07-2013, 11:50 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,839
Royal Reporter (Victoria Murphy) had said in her articles recently that Catherine's new charities will be announced soon and William's military future will also be announced soon. I'm guessing this month or next. The Cambridge's like announcing things on or near their wedding anniversary.
__________________
  #506  
Old 03-08-2013, 04:09 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
To calculate the negative you simply just have to look at how the charity or organization is doing before the royal visits, then how much they've improved (or not improved).

Thus, say charity X takes in on average $1000 a month normally, then a member of the BRF does an engagement with them, and afterwards X takes in $2000 a month on average. Then we can say that X is making $1000 more a month, and has doubled their income.

We can't really do that simply because these organizations aren't releasing statements saying how much they made prior to the visit or how much they've made since the visit. We can say that the visits are typically beneficial (be it from a member of the BRF or another public figure) simply because it raises awareness.
Exactly Ish. It is simple enough. I expect that if the sums turned out to be quite profitable (due to a visit) they would be published and the RF would use them. Because they are not readily mentioned I expect it is what you say and the exercise is down to raising awareness (not actually profitable in a monetary sense). Although, it could be argued that in Kate's case the awareness is more on her appearance and clothing. Aren't the fashion houses happy?
__________________
  #507  
Old 03-08-2013, 04:18 AM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post

Exactly Ish. It is simple enough. I expect that if the sums turned out to be quite profitable (due to a visit) they would be published and the RF would use them. Because they are not readily mentioned I expect it is what you say and the exercise is down to raising awareness (not actually profitable in a monetary sense). Although, it could be argued that in Kate's case the awareness is more on her appearance and clothing. Aren't the fashion houses happy?
EACH has stated that Kate's patronage has been enormously beneficial. I remember that their fundraiser bracelets sold out because of her. And I don't believe the Royal Family is in the business of using donation figures to sell themselves to the public.

Also it shouldn't be hard to figure out that big donors will give a lot for the chance to be at a function with members of the royal family. I have no doubt whatsoever that these patronages are quite valuable to the organizations. The 100 Women in Hedge Funds sponsorship of Action on Addiction happened because of Kate. That's going to be huge for that organization.
__________________
  #508  
Old 03-08-2013, 05:22 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHHermione View Post
EACH has stated that Kate's patronage has been enormously beneficial. I remember that their fundraiser bracelets sold out because of her. And I don't believe the Royal Family is in the business of using donation figures to sell themselves to the public.

Also it shouldn't be hard to figure out that big donors will give a lot for the chance to be at a function with members of the royal family. I have no doubt whatsoever that these patronages are quite valuable to the organizations. The 100 Women in Hedge Funds sponsorship of Action on Addiction happened because of Kate. That's going to be huge for that organization.
I guess I am a figures girl Hermione. I need more than "enormously beneficial" or "bracelets sold out" without the numbers to back it up. The downfall of being in business I suppose. The issue with fundraising events is that although the rich will indeed pay to see the royals, the event can be so expensive to run that the profit margins can be low or worse, the event runs at a loss. It can take not-for-profit organisations years of running the same event before it turns a profit!

At the end of the day, if the English are happy with the way things are with the royals (costs, etc.), that is good enough. It is they who pay, it is their RF. So long as my tax money does not go to them, I am happy!
__________________
  #509  
Old 03-08-2013, 05:29 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Royal Reporter (Victoria Murphy) had said in her articles recently that Catherine's new charities will be announced soon and William's military future will also be announced soon. I'm guessing this month or next. The Cambridge's like announcing things on or near their wedding anniversary.
Soon was the first two weeks in January, then February and there has been no mention since. I doubt an "announcement" will ever arrive.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #510  
Old 03-08-2013, 09:18 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,839
In some cases, some of the royal correspondents already know due to their palace briefings. I guess it's all about timing.
__________________
  #511  
Old 03-08-2013, 09:33 AM
cinrit's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Deep South, United States
Posts: 381
Don't registered charities in the U.K. have to issue annual reports? If so, it would be easy to determine from reading those. I would assume if they do issue the reports, they'd be available to anyone.
__________________
  #512  
Old 03-08-2013, 12:44 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
I guess I am a figures girl Hermione. I need more than "enormously beneficial" or "bracelets sold out" without the numbers to back it up. The downfall of being in business I suppose. The issue with fundraising events is that although the rich will indeed pay to see the royals, the event can be so expensive to run that the profit margins can be low or worse, the event runs at a loss. It can take not-for-profit organisations years of running the same event before it turns a profit!

At the end of the day, if the English are happy with the way things are with the royals (costs, etc.), that is good enough. It is they who pay, it is their RF. So long as my tax money does not go to them, I am happy!
Then why not contact EACH to ask them how many bracelets they sold before Kate was involved with them and how many were sold afterwards?

Trying to boil the value of the royals and their activities in charity down to a single number is patently absurd. It's just not possible. We cannot guess how much EACH would've raised last year if Kate were not involved with them. Forecasting such things is incredibly difficult at the best of times, let alone in the middle of economic crisis. We also can't put a number on the increased awareness as a result of the huge publicity their connection with Kate is worth. If EACH had to buy the space in the newspapers, TV or the internet that Kate's patronage gets them for nothing, it would cost many millions. Those numbers also wouldn't include the boost to the morale of staff and fundraisers, for whom having a member of the RF acknowledge the debt of gratitude we all owe them, is of enormous value.

One number we do have is in the difference Kate has made for the royals' own charities:

Quote:
The Foundation of Prince William and Prince Harry, now renamed The Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, raised £4.8 million in 2011, compared with just £629,000 in 2010, before the Duke and Duchess announced their engagement.
'Kate effect' boosts Princes' charity by £4.2m - Telegraph

The BBC has looked in to the benefits to charities in having a royal patron:

Quote:
After much consideration, the Duchess of Cambridge has announced details of four charities of which she has chosen to become patron. But what does it mean to a charity to get a royal patron?

The practice of members of the Royal Family lending their names to organisations through formal patronages is thought to have been around for about three centuries.

According to the British Monarchy, the first recorded patronage was George II's involvement with the Society of Antiquaries, sometime in the 18th century.

But in recent years, the prevalence of patronages, particularly among charities, seems to have got more prolific. Take the Queen, who has accepted more than 600 patronages, and the Duke of Edinburgh, who has accumulated 700.

The Prince of Wales, for his part, has clocked up the title of patron or president of more than 400 organisations and set up the Prince's Trust.
So how beneficial is it for charities to have a royal figurehead?

The National Osteoporosis Society's Siobhan Hallmark says the charity has been "enormously fortunate" to have had Camilla, now the Duchess of Cornwall, as its president since 2001 because she has "worked tirelessly to raise awareness. Having watched her own mother suffer the painful and debilitating fractures caused by osteoporosis, she knows only too well the devastating effects of fragility fractures," she says.

Rob Cope, director of Remember A Charity, agrees that royal patrons are incredibly hard working and their status helps charities - who are vying for public money and media attention - raise their head above the parapet.

He thinks royals frequently have more credibility than celebrities, and are able to reach different demographics such as older generations.

Then there is the small factor of their connections, which can boost the bottom line.

"Whether it is engagements, events or theatres attendances, the royals draw in other well-connected donors and celebrities. There is no doubt that royals drive millions and millions of pounds to the charity sector every year," he says.

Stephen Cook, the editor of Third Sector, a voluntary and not-for-profit sector magazine, says the value of royal patronage is unproven, but he cannot imagine that any charity would turn down a royal patron, certainly from a fund-raising point of view.

"It offers charities the opportunity to have event receptions at Buckingham Palace or Clarence House, which is very attractive, and they are often overflowing with high-profile attendees. In some cases it gives wealthy supporters of a charity an opportunity to meet the royal patron - that can be part of the pull, especially for supporters and donors," he says.

Mr Cook concedes there is always the possibility some people, such as republicans, might be put off charities by a royal patron, but he believes they would be well outnumbered in Britain.

And he says some alliances are not always seen in a positive light. "When Prince Andrew went through a tough time with the media, it was bound to have an effect to some extent on his attractiveness as a patron. When the Duchess of York was all over the tabloids the Motor Neurone Disease Association considered breaking with her," he says.

But Mr Cook says, in general, charities connected to the Royal Family are viewed as more trustworthy by the public because people think they will have done their due diligence.

In fact, he says research in the 2010 edition of the Charity Brand Index suggests that charities with the word royal in their headline - such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Royal British Legion - are a "supercharged version of the royal patron" because they scored most highly on the trust index.

Prof Cathy Pharoah, co-director of the centre for giving and philanthropy at Cass Business School at City University, London, agrees that royal patronage changes the public perception of a charity. "It's an endorsement that their work is reputable and high quality," she says, adding that royal patrons are highly sought-after.

Another benefit is royals have increasingly got involved with new charities or causes that struggle to attract mainstream attention, she says.
"The Princess of Wales championed Aids, which was a bit of a taboo, and landmines, which was a lesser-known cause, while William and Kate's charitable gift fund had little-known charities and focused on young people, children in care and carers and bullying."

There is also evidence to suggest royal patronage can lead to a growth in public support, she argues. She cites the Charity Market Monitor, which studies the annual finances of the top 500 charities. It showed the fund-raised income of the top services/ex-services charities from the public grew by a real 6.2% in 2009-10, compared with an average fall of -1.1%. Prof Pharoah says: "The support of the royal princes for services and ex-services charities has been hugely important. Those areas were very much seen as a legacy of the past, but they've brought a new awareness to it and made it a more immediate cause.

"It was like when William and Kate chose charitable causes as part of their wedding celebrations, they chimed in with the mood of the moment."
BBC News - Why do charities want a royal patron?
__________________
  #513  
Old 03-08-2013, 02:48 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,839
__________________
  #514  
Old 03-09-2013, 04:18 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 561
EIIR, thank you for your extensive post. No real number crunching there, just suggestions of it and "generalisms". However, as I previously stated:

"At the end of the day, if the English are happy with the way things are with the royals (costs, etc.), that is good enough. It is they who pay, it is their RF. So long as my tax money does not go to them, I am happy!"
__________________
  #515  
Old 03-09-2013, 01:11 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
William and Harry's foundation was boosted by the tune of £4.2million in the first year that Kate became a part of it. That's a number. The polo event that the Royal Foundation's American arm held in LA which William and Kate attended, made £1million in profit for the Foundation. That's also a number.

It's simply not possible to try and isolate Kate's financial impact on EACH or Action on Addiction etc. Governance of charitable organisations is pretty good in the UK. If a charity was losing money as a result of having a royal patron, the relationship would end, it's as simple as that. Were there not an overall benefit to charities in having royal patrons, then the demand for royal patronage would not be so high.

Oh, and by the way, it's not just English taxpayers who pay for the RF. Us Northern Irish, as well as the Scots and the Welsh also fund the activities of the RF and are happy to do so.
__________________
  #516  
Old 03-09-2013, 01:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
Oh, and by the way, it's not just English taxpayers who pay for the RF. Us Northern Irish, as well as the Scots and the Welsh also fund the activities of the RF and are happy to do so.
And of course we also fund official residences in London and the countryside for various members of the government, not just the PM.
__________________
  #517  
Old 03-09-2013, 02:07 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
William and Harry's foundation was boosted by the tune of £4.2million in the first year that Kate became a part of it. That's a number. The polo event that the Royal Foundation's American arm held in LA which William and Kate attended, made £1million in profit for the Foundation. That's also a number.

It's simply not possible to try and isolate Kate's financial impact on EACH or Action on Addiction etc. Governance of charitable organisations is pretty good in the UK. If a charity was losing money as a result of having a royal patron, the relationship would end, it's as simple as that. Were there not an overall benefit to charities in having royal patrons, then the demand for royal patronage would not be so high.

Oh, and by the way, it's not just English taxpayers who pay for the RF. Us Northern Irish, as well as the Scots and the Welsh also fund the activities of the RF and are happy to do so.
It's actually vice versa. The RF at one point in history gave up their personal estate which had provided their private income from which they built their palaces, supported their households, gave grands etc. in exchange for a funding through parliamental control. But - they never got as much back as the "Crown Estate" brought in revenues. So instead of building new Royal residences or buying new jewels, parintings etc. , the income from the "Crown Estate" has been used to support "Chequers" and other governmental residences and buying art for the offices of the government. (Plus of course a lot on the revenue is used to support British citizens who are not taxpayers).

Which is okay, of course, but I wish this never-ending lament about "the taxpayer pays for the RF" would stop when it is in fact the other way round. In other countries, when the monarchy ended, the former reigning families could keep their "Crown estate", only the Royal palaces who were bought with the official apanage became public property....
__________________
  #518  
Old 03-10-2013, 12:27 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,839
Videos: Full Coverage-
ROYAL: Duchess of Cambridge visit to Grimsby: Havelock Academy tour and departure:
ROYAL: Duchess of Cambridge visit to Grimsby: Have | Standard View | Archive Footage | ITN Source

Duchess of Cambridge visit to Grimsby: Visit to National Fishing Heritage centre:
ROYAL: Duchess of Cambridge visit to Grimsby: Visi | Standard View | Archive Footage | ITN Source
__________________
  #519  
Old 03-13-2013, 11:32 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,839
__________________
  #520  
Old 03-13-2013, 01:03 PM
julliette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 2,027
From twitter:
georgia ‏@georgiabebb_ (This girl is from East Carlton)
Just saw Kate Middleton and I was on tv ahahah

beaclifford ‏@bea_clifford1
Kate middleton's in corby!! And so's the belgium tv people

Any idea idea of what she can be doing in Corby?
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge current events 5: 1 March 2013 - 31 December 2013 Warren Current Events Archive 923 01-01-2014 12:16 PM
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Current Events Thread 2: 1 December 2011 - 1 April 2012 Zonk Current Events Archive 887 04-03-2012 10:16 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman poland prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]