The Charities of the Duchess of Cambridge

[Lady Adams]

^^ Neither has the fact that she has HG, in some quarters.  There are still those who don't believe she has it.  Would her speaking publicly about it convince them?

Cindy

Remember this March, when Sophie had tears when she spoke about her gratitude for the hospital who saved her life and Louise's? In my opinion, personal experiences shine through when doing events that person cares about. My suggestion is that Kate do an event or patronage that works with maternity care, not as a way of "proving" she has HG, but rarher as a way of recognizing there are still many dangers to expectant mothers and unborn babies-- and not everyone has the resources Kate does. That kind of empathy-- which Sophie showed-- is one of great wisdom: showing that out of your suffering, you can do a lot of good.

[TLLK]

If Kate suffers from HG, I'm surprised she didn't do anything after her last pregnancy to draw attention to it. A PSA or fundraiser, or spotlight on NHS would have been a wonderful way to acknowledge other women aren't as fortunate as her (ie can't take off work without losing their salary, don't get private doctors, etc). 

HG isn't a chronic illness.  It happens to about 2% of pregnant women.  I'm not sure how highlighting it could be of benefit to women who are already pregnant or trying to get pregnant. 

Cindy

I have to agree Cindy. Bringing attention to an issue that affects a wider section of the population would be more practical IMO>  TBH  I believe it would be like asking Sophie to highlight ectopic pregnancies which is fortunately not that common. Kate and William are already involved with child/parent bereavement which would include those parents who loose a child through miscarriage.  Now if a member of the BRF were to highlight issues that were a little more common to expectant mothers and their developing children ie: gestational diabetes, need for good nutrition and folic acid supplements etc..I could see that would be an excellent program to promote :thumbsup:

[TLLK]

A picture of her retching would do, in a royal duty that is.

TMI!!!! :eyes: :o I'll skip that photo. :nod:

[TLLK]

Excellent points amabel! :thumbsup:

[Lady Adams]

If Kate suffers from HG, I'm surprised she didn't do anything after her last pregnancy to draw attention to it. A PSA or fundraiser, or spotlight on NHS would have been a wonderful way to acknowledge other women aren't as fortunate as her (ie can't take off work without losing their salary, don't get private doctors, etc). 

HG isn't a chronic illness.  It happens to about 2% of pregnant women.  I'm not sure how highlighting it could be of benefit to women who are already pregnant or trying to get pregnant. 

Cindy

I have to agree Cindy. Bringing attention to an issue that affects a wider section of the population would be more practical IMO>  TBH  I believe it would be like asking Sophie to highlight ectopic pregnancies which is fortunately not that common. Kate and William are already involved with child/parent bereavement which would include those parents who loose a child through miscarriage.  Now if a member of the BRF were to highlight issues that were a little more common to expectant mothers and their developing children ie: gestational diabetes, need for good nutrition and folic acid supplements etc..I could see that would be an excellent program to promote :thumbsup:

@TLLK  did you miss my post about Kate supporting the NHS or other maternity charities? I wrote about it upthread here. I wasn't suggesting she focus all on HG, but using her personal experience with two difficult pregnancies could make for an impactful patronage.

[HistoryGirl]

^^ Neither has the fact that she has HG, in some quarters.  There are still those who don't believe she has it.  Would her speaking publicly about it convince them?

Cindy

Remember this March, when Sophie had tears when she spoke about her gratitude for the hospital who saved her life and Louise's? In my opinion, personal experiences shine through when doing events that person cares about. My suggestion is that Kate do an event or patronage that works with maternity care, not as a way of "proving" she has HG, but rarher as a way of recognizing there are still many dangers to expectant mothers and unborn babies-- and not everyone has the resources Kate does. That kind of empathy-- which Sophie showed-- is one of great wisdom: showing that out of your suffering, you can do a lot of good.

Totally agree. Idk why the idea of bringing awareness to maternity issues would be negative if they included more than HG. The fact that suggesting a level of empathy or interest from Kate other than something having to do with shopping for clothes for her and George is thought of as "too much" speaks volumes. I guess it is too much to ask for someone to have any level of concern other than wifely duties from someone that has no interest in helping.

And before the criticisms come of me saying that "wifely" duties aren't important, I'll say that it's not that at all considering my own mother is a homemaker after she married...but then again my mom worked prior to that as well. It's about the fact that someone with a full time nanny and a husband that supposedly works would have time on her hands and it would be nice if she actually had more of an initiative in other areas that didnt have to do with public duties. And before the other criticism comes in that she has HG and she is physically bound to a bed, let me just say that this was a critique I had even before she was pregnant.

[Macrobug]

whoa.  Before we throw Kate under the bus and praise Sophie for her show of empathy, lets remember that Sophie was invited to open the neonatal unit 10 years after the fact.  Sophie isn't raising awareness for the medical issues she went through.  She is acknowledging the wonderful work that the hospital did.  All very worthy activities.  But she hasn't been campaigning relentlessly.  It has been only one year since George was born.  For all we know, something is in the works for Kate and HG awareness.  Maybe not.  But maybe we should give her the same time gap that was displayed by Sophie.

BTW none of this is criticism towards Sophie.  I think she is great.  I think is was wonderful that she opened the unit.  And I think that the emotion she showed at the opening was truly heartfelt.

I just don't think it is fair to use this event to try to paint Kate in a bad light considering it is so different. 

I do think that supporting  maternal and child health is a great idea for Kate in the future.  And supporting NHS.

[Lady Adams]

^Macro, I don't think anyone is throwing Kate under the bus. What I am and have been suggesting is that she get involved in a maternal care charity or the NHS. It is clearly something that she identifies with, and it would be good to see her give back in a personal way.

If pointing out ways to expand Kate's role, and praising other Royals as examples, is "throwing Kate under the bus," .... that is disapointing.

I must quibble with your statement though, on a second point:  it did not, in fact, take Sophie ten years to get involved: she has been patron of the Royal Hospital of London, Leed's Children's Hospital, and Toronoto General Hospital for quite some time. She is also an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists.

[cinrit]

Idk why the idea of bringing awareness to maternity issues would be negative if they included more than HG. 

Just a mention that no one has said bringing awareness to maternity issues would be a negative thing.

Cindy

[Macrobug]

LA thanks for the list.  I wondered if she was but didn't know. I am not surprised because Sophie is all kinds of wonderful.

But was she involved with all of that within the first 3 years of marriage?  I am willing to give Kate time before comparing her to others who have been around a lot longer.  Lets compare Kate to what the others were doing at year 3 of royal life.

[Lady Adams]

^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.

Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).

It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?

[Canuck]

Sophie is indeed pretty great, and she's associated with a variety of maternal health initiatives (including one related to infant mortality and low birth weight, and as others have mentioned several hospitals and the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists). 

Kate may get involved with similar causes over time, as Sophie did.  Or it might be decided that maternal health is an issue that "belongs" to Sophie, and Kate will focus elsewhere.  The BRF does try to spread its patronages around, and there are particular issues that tend to be associated with a particular Royal.  Sophie has shown a real interest in maternal and children's health, and I would not be surprised if Kate largely stays away from that area (with the exception of her hospice work) as a result.

[TLLK]

If Kate suffers from HG, I'm surprised she didn't do anything after her last pregnancy to draw attention to it. A PSA or fundraiser, or spotlight on NHS would have been a wonderful way to acknowledge other women aren't as fortunate as her (ie can't take off work without losing their salary, don't get private doctors, etc). 

HG isn't a chronic illness.  It happens to about 2% of pregnant women.  I'm not sure how highlighting it could be of benefit to women who are already pregnant or trying to get pregnant. 

Cindy

I have to agree Cindy. Bringing attention to an issue that affects a wider section of the population would be more practical IMO>  TBH  I believe it would be like asking Sophie to highlight ectopic pregnancies which is fortunately not that common. Kate and William are already involved with child/parent bereavement which would include those parents who loose a child through miscarriage.  Now if a member of the BRF were to highlight issues that were a little more common to expectant mothers and their developing children ie: gestational diabetes, need for good nutrition and folic acid supplements etc..I could see that would be an excellent program to promote :thumbsup:

@TLLK  did you miss my post about Kate supporting the NHS or other maternity charities? I wrote about it upthread here. I wasn't suggesting she focus all on HG, but using her personal experience with two difficult pregnancies could make for an impactful patronage.

:blush: Oh my yes I did.

[Macrobug]

LA.  We are obviously not on the same page.  Compare Kate, if you wish.  But at the same time frames.  It is unfair to take, for example,  Anne now and compare Kate.  Or even Camilla now.  Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.   

But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different.  Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles. 

[TLLK]

^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.

Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).

It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?

I know question was for Macrobug, but I would compare Kate in her current role as wife of the heir-to-the-heir to the siblings of a crown prince/princess or part of the wider group of siblings,cousins, etc...spouses in large families ie: Jordan. Close to the throne but not there yet. IMHO Rania in the years prior to becoming Crown Princess of Jordan would be a good comparison match for expectations.  Each had a spouse in the military/civil service who does part time royal work. While Uncle Hassan was the official CP from the time that Abdullah was in elementary school to just before King Hussein's death, who knows what was truly going to happen. The late King Hussein could have chosen any one of his sons to replace his brother, but he chose the eldest who had been the previous title holder. IMO he saw the potential in this team.

[TLLK]

LA.  We are obviously not on the same page.  Compare Kate, if you wish.  But at the same time frames.  It is unfair to take, for example,  Anne now and compare Kate.  Or even Camilla now.  Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.   

But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different.  Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles. 

I don't see anything really changing for awhile unless Charles' reign begins or his father is incapacitated/deceased and William is called up to the Major Leagues. Until then it is QEII's reign and if she wants the work done by her children/their spouses then so be it.

[Canuck]

I think you're right that it's hard to compare any two individuals.  Kate, for example, is going to give birth to two children in her first four years as a senior Royal (and is ill for at least a month or two at the beginning of each pregnancy); she's also stepping into the most high-profile "wife" role in the BRF, with Diana (and all of the trouble too many engagements too soon caused there) as her immediate predecessor.  Her first few years are very different than Camilla's (who didn't have the children issue, but did have PR reasons to tread a very careful path) and Sophie's (who worked for the first three, and got caught in a big scandal in relation to that, and who had one ectopic pregnancy and gave birth to one child in that same period).    Camilla and Sophie (and Diana and Fergie) married full-time Royals; Will was in the RAF the first two years of their marriage and is now returning to a public service job.

People can of course have their own views on what Kate should be doing.  But IMO, it's been handled pretty well so far.  I look to 2012 (the only full year on record, since she married in partway through 2011 and was out for a big chunk of 2013 with George's birth and immediately after), when she did about 120 engagements -- that seems like a good number to me when Will is not yet full-time and there are a lot of senior Royals sharing the duties.  She obviously does much less when pregnant or on maternity leave, but giving birth to and raising the next generation of Royals is part of the job as well, and one that I think the BRF is happy to have her concentrate on right now. 

I think she'll spend the next few years at about the 100-120 level, and will increase her duties when HM/DoE have to cut back/Will becomes a full-time Royal/the children are a bit older (which I think is likely to coincide, and is what the family is planning for).  In the meantime, I think she'll continue to be deployed for foreign tours, and will focus on her current patronages and gradually adding new ones at a rate where she can be reasonably involved with each.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 10:15:43 PM

To add to my prediction on her work numbers:  Kate is currently at 78 engagements for the year, and by my count would have been over 90 by the end of this week had she not had to cancel several scheduled appearances (potentially including the Malta trip) because of her HG.  Without the pregnancy, then, she would certainly have topped 100.  Again, the 100-120 range is what I think we'll see in her non-pregnancy/maternity leave years until Will becomes a full-time Royal, and I think that's a pretty good area for her to be aiming for.

[KaTerina Montague]

^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.

Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).

It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?

I agree with the entire post. Sophie was a pt royal because she was a full time career woman. It s3ems everyone in the RF has more work ethic than Kate, exept perhaps Camilla who did nothing during her first marriage. But every time Kate is compared to others the excuse is, you can't compare her to Mary because she is next in line to be Queen, you can't compare her to Sophie because she is the wife of the sQueen's son, can't compare her to Letizia, Masako, Raina, of Mette Marit the working mother who also went to school.

[Lady Adams]

^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.

Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).

It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?

I know question was for Macrobug, but I would compare Kate in her current role as wife of the heir-to-the-heir to the siblings of a crown prince/princess or part of the wider group of siblings,cousins, etc...spouses in large families ie: Jordan. Close to the throne but not there yet. IMHO Rania in the years prior to becoming Crown Princess of Jordan would be a good comparison match for expectations.  Each had a spouse in the military/civil service who does part time royal work. While Uncle Hassan was the official CP from the time that Abdullah was in elementary school to just before King Hussein's death, who knows what was truly going to happen. The late King Hussein could have chosen any one of his sons to replace his brother, but he chose the eldest who had been the previous title holder. IMO he saw the potential in this team.

I see the point you're making, @TLLK, but Rania-- nor the Jordanian public, never expected her to be Queen. How would it be appropriate to compare early Rania's work with Kate's?

[wannable]

^^ Neither has the fact that she has HG, in some quarters.  There are still those who don't believe she has it.  Would her speaking publicly about it convince them?

Cindy

Remember this March, when Sophie had tears when she spoke about her gratitude for the hospital who saved her life and Louise's? In my opinion, personal experiences shine through when doing events that person cares about. My suggestion is that Kate do an event or patronage that works with maternity care, not as a way of "proving" she has HG, but rarher as a way of recognizing there are still many dangers to expectant mothers and unborn babies-- and not everyone has the resources Kate does. That kind of empathy-- which Sophie showed-- is one of great wisdom: showing that out of your suffering, you can do a lot of good.

Sophie raised the issue 6 years after
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 11:01:30 PM

^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.

Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).

It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?

Sophie is a secretary grad, Kate is university grad. Sophie played being a PR, which companies did it only because she was royal, connections they thought she can give them access to the royal firm. Didn't happen, failed miserably, leaving 1.7 million debt to her MIL. Kate hasn't done none of that. The 90K comes from The combined salary HM pays to both Edward and Sophie.

Kate work with Jigsaw and Part Pieces, a little charity dipping with Starlight foundation didn't cause any scandal as Sophie did. Kate didn't leave a wake of debts to be paid by Her FIL. Much less her own family.

Kate is third generation of working royals, there isn't any other monarchy with three generations of working royals. Then there's the money issue, people still want to delete, no money no royal duties.  We keep on touching this point, people still think they can just pass the gasoline bill and operations to Charles or the Queen, whom control the money's, just like that.

[sandy]

I think you're right that it's hard to compare any two individuals.  Kate, for example, is going to give birth to two children in her first four years as a senior Royal (and is ill for at least a month or two at the beginning of each pregnancy); she's also stepping into the most high-profile "wife" role in the BRF, with Diana (and all of the trouble too many engagements too soon caused there) as her immediate predecessor.  Her first few years are very different than Camilla's (who didn't have the children issue, but did have PR reasons to tread a very careful path) and Sophie's (who worked for the first three, and got caught in a big scandal in relation to that, and who had one ectopic pregnancy and gave birth to one child in that same period).    Camilla and Sophie (and Diana and Fergie) married full-time Royals; Will was in the RAF the first two years of their marriage and is now returning to a public service job.

People can of course have their own views on what Kate should be doing.  But IMO, it's been handled pretty well so far.  I look to 2012 (the only full year on record, since she married in partway through 2011 and was out for a big chunk of 2013 with George's birth and immediately after), when she did about 120 engagements -- that seems like a good number to me when Will is not yet full-time and there are a lot of senior Royals sharing the duties.  She obviously does much less when pregnant or on maternity leave, but giving birth to and raising the next generation of Royals is part of the job as well, and one that I think the BRF is happy to have her concentrate on right now. 

I think she'll spend the next few years at about the 100-120 level, and will increase her duties when HM/DoE have to cut back/Will becomes a full-time Royal/the children are a bit older (which I think is likely to coincide, and is what the family is planning for).  In the meantime, I think she'll continue to be deployed for foreign tours, and will focus on her current patronages and gradually adding new ones at a rate where she can be reasonably involved with each.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 10:15:43 PM

To add to my prediction on her work numbers:  Kate is currently at 78 engagements for the year, and by my count would have been over 90 by the end of this week had she not had to cancel several scheduled appearances (potentially including the Malta trip) because of her HG.  Without the pregnancy, then, she would certainly have topped 100.  Again, the 100-120 range is what I think we'll see in her non-pregnancy/maternity leave years until Will becomes a full-time Royal, and I think that's a pretty good area for her to be aiming for.

Diana had a work ethic. Kate does not. That is the difference. Work was not the main problem for Diana. For obvious reasons. She enjoyed working and got satisfaction out her work.

Kate gets by on excuses and she does less than part time work.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 11:47:27 PM

LA.  We are obviously not on the same page.  Compare Kate, if you wish.  But at the same time frames.  It is unfair to take, for example,  Anne now and compare Kate.  Or even Camilla now.  Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.   

But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different.  Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles. 

I don't see anything really changing for awhile unless Charles' reign begins or his father is incapacitated/deceased and William is called up to the Major Leagues. Until then it is QEII's reign and if she wants the work done by her children/their spouses then so be it.

Even then...Will may put his foot down and want to have another transitional year to find himself. William should be in the Major Leagues now instead of playing at being normal.

[TLLK]

^Macro, Sophie worked full-time at her PR firm during her first three years of marriage before becoming a full-time royal.

Also, Sophie is not a future Queen Consort, nor is she receiving a home from the taxpayer free of rent (the Wessexes pay 90,000/year for their home, Bagshot Park).

It seems I cannot compare Kate to anyone: not other European Crown Princesses because Kate is the wife if the heir-to-the-heir, and now other women in the BRF are, by your standard, not viable for comparison. @Macrobug, Who do you think is most appropriate to compare Kate's charity work to?

I know question was for Macrobug, but I would compare Kate in her current role as wife of the heir-to-the-heir to the siblings of a crown prince/princess or part of the wider group of siblings,cousins, etc...spouses in large families ie: Jordan. Close to the throne but not there yet. IMHO Rania in the years prior to becoming Crown Princess of Jordan would be a good comparison match for expectations.  Each had a spouse in the military/civil service who does part time royal work. While Uncle Hassan was the official CP from the time that Abdullah was in elementary school to just before King Hussein's death, who knows what was truly going to happen. The late King Hussein could have chosen any one of his sons to replace his brother, but he chose the eldest who had been the previous title holder. IMO he saw the potential in this team.

I see the point you're making, @TLLK, but Rania-- nor the Jordanian public, never expected her to be Queen. How would it be appropriate to compare early Rania's work with Kate's?

Each was involved with charity work like most members of the BRF and JRF. Rania might not have been receiving as much media coverage at the time especially before the onset of social media, however she would have likely been seen at Ramadan evening dinners (iftars?) that many JRF members are hosts of or especially invited guests. Neither was considered "full time" by their respective courts IMHO as it was/is the reign of someone they were not married to at the time. When they were not on royal duties, they cared for their children though each had help. On a side note each had a London residence.

[Lady Adams]

^^I'd like to push back a bit on the argument of comparing Kate to Rania a bit, if you'll indulge me, @TLLK.  :flower: So often, I've heard from people that we can't compare Kate to other Crown Princesses, because that is not Kate's current position. It seems odd then, that you would be okay comparing her with someone who-- at the pre-Queen days was seen as more of a, say, Beatrice than anyone of the BRF-- was never expected to becoming Queen Consort.

:hmm:

There are very different expectations of royals, even in their early days, if they will be Queen or King someday, than if they are on the outskirts of the royal family, which Rania was until the completely unexpected, deathbed decision of the King to change his Crown Prince.

[Lady Adams]

LA.  We are obviously not on the same page.  Compare Kate, if you wish.  But at the same time frames.  It is unfair to take, for example,  Anne now and compare Kate.  Or even Camilla now.  Lets look at where they were at when they were 3 years into royal life, then compare.   

But then again maybe we can't do it because every situation and woman is different.  Maybe it is completely unfair to all of them to do a comparison when they all have different roles.

I'm confused, @Macrobug. I'm happy to agree to disagree, but in this case, I did compare the same timeframe: in Sophie's first three years, she was working full-time (just not for the Firm).

Comparison is bound to happen. We are all compared to our sisters, mothers-in-law and colleagues.

[Lady Adams]

To add to my prediction on her work numbers:  Kate is currently at 78 engagements for the year, and by my count would have been over 90 by the end of this week had she not had to cancel several scheduled appearances (potentially including the Malta trip) because of her HG.  Without the pregnancy, then, she would certainly have topped 100.  Again, the 100-120 range is what I think we'll see in her non-pregnancy/maternity leave years until Will becomes a full-time Royal, and I think that's a pretty good area for her to be aiming for.

I think it's really hard to rely on numbers from the Court Circular or the thread here. Will each single event or thing Harry attended at the Invictus Game be counted? That would put this week alone over 100 events for him. Meanwhile, Kate's departure from Heathrow-- with no public component-- is counted. It's very subjective, and I would like to remind posters that these numbers are far from factual data points.

Sophie is indeed pretty great, and she's associated with a variety of maternal health initiatives (including one related to infant mortality and low birth weight, and as others have mentioned several hospitals and the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists). 

Kate may get involved with similar causes over time, as Sophie did.  Or it might be decided that maternal health is an issue that "belongs" to Sophie, and Kate will focus elsewhere.  The BRF does try to spread its patronages around, and there are particular issues that tend to be associated with a particular Royal.  Sophie has shown a real interest in maternal and childre n's health, and I would not be surprised if Kate largely stays away from that area (with the exception of her hospice work) as a result.

I see your point, but-- off hand-- with that same logic, Prince Charles should have all the "hospice" charities, as he is Patron of George Thomas Hospice Care, Hospice at Home West Cumbria, Les Bourgs Hospice, St Luke's Hospice, Sue Ryder Care, Leckhampton Hospice, The Cotswold Care Hospice, The Weldmar Hospicecare Trust, Ty Hafan: The Children's Hospice in Wales, and President of The Prince of Wales Hospice.