The Duchess of Edinburgh's Charities and Patronages - Page 2

bbb · #21 11-26-2008, 03:16 PM

this seems an odd development, the wording hits me.... "losing" as opposed to "giving up". i wonder what's behind this, i like sophie i hope she's happy with the changes and not hurt.

Lakshmi · #22 11-26-2008, 03:27 PM

Losing 28 patronages overnight?... Whatever reason it is strange. Let's see if we get more details of what really happened...

Mermaid1962 · #23 11-26-2008, 08:03 PM

I agree with you totally. Lady Louise seems to be able to "navigate" quite well on the times when we've seen her walking with her parents; and so if she's impaired visually, it can't be to the point that she can't see to balance and get around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue

From the very little we see of her she seems ok. I have wondered if she is not blind, when the blind Infanta was very small it would have been very hard to notice, at least in the photos.
I believe they just want to keep her out of the fuss that usually goes on around royal children and in that they would be very wise.

**Zonk** · #24 11-26-2008, 08:16 PM

Maybe some of the lost patronages will be reassigned to other members of the BRF.

Claire · #25 11-26-2008, 10:11 PM

I used the word loosing as they literally just were not there on the website - no further implications meant.
Surely it is a mistake as she is doing engagments for these charities still and I would think that she ot the charties would mention it at these enagements.

I am afriad that we have to wait on Buckingham Palace or the press. I have contacted the webmaster (and you are welcome to as well) to find out if it is just a computer mistake. If it isn't then I am certain some sort of statement or reason will be coming from Buckingham Palace

Elspeth · #26 11-26-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire

You'll notice that I amended the original post. The Healing Foundation and St. Mary Wrestwood Trust for Children is still listed. So there are 26 charities removed.

I've edited the thread title to read 26.

CATS · #27 11-27-2008, 12:56 AM

She still has 39, so with 2 children now, and Lady Louise possibly in school. I can see why she would to give up some. I looked at the website and have different set up.

RubyPrincess168 · #28 11-27-2008, 01:05 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if she scaled back to spend more time with her kids. It would seem a little offensive to take them away from her and give them to another memeber of the royal family though. Any chance it has something to do with budgets or the economy?

Menarue · #29 11-27-2008, 02:34 AM

Poor Sophie, that was far too many for a young mother to have. Even for someone without such small children it was too much. If she has asked to be relieved of some then good for her.

Warren · #30 11-27-2008, 07:01 AM

I've changed the thread title to "Sophie: 26 Patronages and Charities disappear from Royal website" to reflect the situation as we currently understand it.

muriel · #31 11-27-2008, 09:00 AM

Wonder who in the royal famly moght take up those patronages?

ada · #32 11-27-2008, 09:11 PM

I like Sophie a lot, but if she wants to be in touch with the real world and have people genuinely admire her, then her maternity leave and part-time work are over.

Mermaid1962 · #33 11-27-2008, 09:33 PM

I'm going to withhold judgement until we know more about what's going on behind the scenes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ada

I like Sophie a lot, but if she wants to be in touch with the real world and have people genuinely admire her, then her maternity leave and part-time work are over.

Winnie · #34 11-27-2008, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ada

I like Sophie a lot, but if she wants to be in touch with the real world and have people genuinely admire her, then her maternity leave and part-time work are over.

There could be a real serious reason for all this -- one that we may never find out for a long time -- so I have to just sit and wait for the official notification. I am sure that it was not done lightly.

Mermaid1962 · #35 11-28-2008, 12:54 AM

Exactly. Sophie's always been a hard worker at whatever she does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winnie

There could be a real serious reason for all this -- one that we may never find out for a long time -- so I have to just sit and wait for the official notification. I am sure that it was not done lightly.

Claire · #36 11-28-2008, 12:50 PM

Okay I still haven't received any word with Buckingham Palace so I still believe it is a glitch. Reason - there is a spelling mistake right on top of the page, it might just be something with the datebase. But I did ask around and here might be some other solutions.

Sophie might be changing the direction of her efforts. All royals have specific fields that they target. Sophie's is specifically children and people with disabilities. It is possibly that she is simply moving in another direction.

All charities are actually checked on a routine bases to see if they meet strict regulations for royals to be associted with them. For example the must use a certain percentage of their income on charities and per minimum on admin. It is possible that Sophie's charities are still been checked out. This could be true of the smaller ones but I would think that the Girlguides would have all the right boxes ticked.
Many people don't know that in order to have a royal patron you need to apply directly to BP and then they decided which royal would best suit your needs and requirements. Sometimes they simply pass you by. It all comes down to matching the right royal with charity, somewhere where the royal can feel they can actually make a difference and where the charities times and efforts are not wasted.
All charity acception and rejections are approved by the palace. Many people don't realise that if Edward and Sophie wanted to leave the country or go on holliday in Bath they must get approval from the Palace. The matter also extends to the cancellation of engagements and even the making of them. SO if the website is right, than the Queen has been consulted and approved of the removal of those charities. Apparently shuffles of charities are not uncommon, in the late 1989 there was a large one it is just to ensure the people get the most out the royal family.
Other option - currently there is a bill at Westminister about the pay increases of the royal family, which of course get reinbursed by the Queen. It should be noted that Sophie has never been included in the list. When she married Edward, he received the pay increased as was already aggreed upon. So Edward has always been paid, Sophie works for free. (Although we can say that Edward is sharing) This may be a way to streamline and economise the royals.

But lets wait and see - personally I think that it is a mistake. Sophie would never give up Vision 2020 without one very good reason, you must remember that she was only president of Girlguides, the Queen been the patron.

Claire · #37 12-18-2008, 12:06 PM

It has been a while now and although the website has not been corrected. I am pretty certain that it is a computer mistake. Sophie will be undertaken engagements on behalf of Girlguides UK and the Greater London Fund for the Blind in the new year, both charities are no longer on the list.

Parrothead · #38 12-18-2008, 01:03 PM

According to the BRF Web site, a new site is in the works:

Thursday, 12th February 2009

The Queen will give a reception at Buckingham Palace to mark the launch of the new Monarchy Website.

This could explain what has happened with the CofW's patronages/charities.

Claire · #39 02-12-2009, 01:59 PM

All of Sophie's charities and patronages are BACK. And it is so nice to see them again on the royal website. Really sloppy that it has been wrong so long and they had to wait to switch to a new one to fix it. But still so glad they are back :)

Mermaid1962 · #40 02-12-2009, 02:19 PM

Yes, good news indeed! Thank you for keeping us "in the loop", Claire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire

All of Sophie's charities and patronages are BACK. And it is so nice to see them again on the royal website. Really sloppy that it has been wrong so long and they had to wait to switch to a new one to fix it. But still so glad they are back :)