Sophie loses 28 Patronages

Claire · November 26, 2008, 05:47:10 PM

According the Official Buckingham Palace Website the Countess of Wessex has lost about 28 patronages and charities, I have been unable to find out if this is a mistake. These charities include Girl Guide UK and Vision: 2020.

Here is the list.

Central School for Ballet
CHASE Hosptial Care for Children
The Craft Guild for Chefs
DELTA (Deaf Education through Learning and Talking)
Disability Initiative
Friend of Southwark Cathedral
Friend of the Royal London Hospital
Gifts Direct
Girl Guides UK
Greater London Fund for the Blind
Halle Concert Society
Healing Foundation
John Grooms (closed)
The Meningitis Trust
Moor House School
National Autistic Society
New Haven Trust
Peckham Settlement
Royal Bath and West of England Society
Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists
Royal Windsor Horse Show Ball
Royal National Institute for Deaf People
Royal School for Deaf Children, Margate
St Mary's Wrestwood Children Trust
Sunderland AFC Foundation
Tomorrow People.
The Trust for Sick Children in Wales
Vison 2020: The right to sight

I sincerly hope that that this is a mistake. They would be really stupid taken Sophie off charities that she has worked on for years

brittanylala · November 26, 2008, 06:39:35 PM

Wow....I wonder why? Maybe she's feeling the pressure of raising young children and wants to be there with them more often?

lurker · November 26, 2008, 06:42:36 PM

Will someone else pic the charities up or will they lose their royal patron altogether?

Claire · November 26, 2008, 06:44:32 PM

So far, Buckingham Palace hasn't confirm anything. They have just been removed from her list.
Just don't know.

serene grace · November 26, 2008, 06:57:56 PM

I wonder if William, Princess Beatrice, Eugnie and possibly Pr. Harry are going to pick up some of these.
I feel bad for Sophie. I loved seeing her with the children at those Patronages and Charity events, she seemed so natural.

What if there is an engagement coming and these are being loosened up for someone else to take on.......hhhmmmmmmmmm? No, I don't believe that one myself.
William's do bride would get different charities, wouldn't she?

Claire · November 26, 2008, 07:13:46 PM

Only two of these charities of major concerns - Girl Guides UK and Vision 2020.
The others are simple charites that were given to Sophie are the senior royal didn't wasnt them in the first place.
I expect Beatrice to get Girl Guides. But still taken away the biggest two of Sophie's charities is not fair on her and the work she has done for them.
Still this might still be a mistake on the website.

serene grace · November 26, 2008, 07:21:52 PM

I hope it's a mistake. Sophie's been wonderful on her Royal outings. She was great for Girl Guides, but maybe Beatrice or Eugenie will take on something like that now. Still, I hope it's a mistake.
Perhaps it's simply cost-cutting, maybe the RF wants to cut out some money spent.

Claire · November 26, 2008, 07:34:28 PM

I need to change the headline - Sophie looses 26 charities. Healing Foundation and St. Mary's Wrestwood Fund for Children are still by her.

wannable · November 26, 2008, 07:51:03 PM

Bea and Eugene are starting Uni and Gap year, those are too many charities to give out to them, not even the 2nd and 3rd in line had that many at the age of the York girls.

Perhaps the credit crunch and no activity as of late ? SG's theory might enter too. I wish there was an available explanation, just whamming 26 charities out of the map is MAJOR.

serene grace · November 26, 2008, 07:54:19 PM

I wonder if it's a matter of money spent in travel, lodging if she needs it, security, plane fare, etc....
Still I hope all these charities weren't taken away completely. Wow, what would she have left in the way of Patronages?

Claire · November 26, 2008, 07:56:17 PM

I don't know you don't cut charitable work when you need to save money. You stop your stupid grandchildren from rolling in night clubs, dressing in designer and going on holls constantly. The Queen could easily cut a garden party here and there.

wannable · November 26, 2008, 08:01:28 PM

Prince William is the President of the Scouts :shifty:

You know where I'm getting to :D

But, it might have merged (girls and boys), although why not say so...

The Queen is still the Patron ;)

Rasta Watermelon · November 26, 2008, 09:19:41 PM

Thats a real shame because the Wessex's I really like along with Prince Harry. There must be a reason surely?

Has she lost them or has given up some of them?

Maybe she wants to spend more time with her children? Lady Louise must be starting school very soon, maybe she wants to be there for her during her early years at school?

wannable · November 27, 2008, 01:12:39 AM

I think those charities will be passed on to younger royals.

Rasta Watermelon · November 27, 2008, 01:54:00 AM

Actually I'd be very intrested to hear if any other Royals lose some of their charities which they are patrons of over the next year or so. I'm wondering if Sophie has lost some of these charities she is a patron of because the economy? I'm wondering if some of these charities recieve government funding?

I know here in South Australia that the state government have cut funding to such charities over here that are for those who have disabilities, because of the economy in the past.

But like Wannabe says it could be some of these may get past onto the younger royals too.

Monika · November 27, 2008, 01:55:43 AM

But if this is true, why now and not during her second pregnancy or when she was out of the limelight after her son was born..?

Monika · November 27, 2008, 01:58:25 AM

Quote from: Rasta Watermelon on November 27, 2008, 01:54:00 AM
Actually I'd be very intrested to hear if any other Royals lose some of their charities which they are patrons of over the next year or so. I'm wondering if Sophie has lost some of these charities she is a patron of because the economy? I'm wondering if some of these charities recieve government funding?

I know here in South Australia that the state government have cut funding to such charities over here that are for those who have disabilities, because of the economy in the past.

But like Wannabe says it could be some of these may get past onto the younger royals too.

But what would the funding have to do with it? I don't understand. Wouldn't they want/need a royal patron even more during tough economic times?

wannable · November 27, 2008, 01:59:38 AM

There are 4 young perfectly fit royals whom may help out and boost the Monarchy with those charities that where whipped out of Sophie (where is the link, I would like to see the proof), HM would be thrilled - specially with the recession (I obviously really liked the Telegraph article) and I really really hope that W&H and B&E do not blow it.

OT, recessions may last years...

Rasta Watermelon · November 27, 2008, 02:00:42 AM

If it does have something to do with the Government then the RF may not of known about it when she was expecting her second child. I do think there are times when the government do things without the RF knowledge.

Monika, a lot of charities do recieve government funding to help run them. Money for research, money to run a school for those who are deaf, autistic etc for equipment teachers and carers for those who need it. And sometimes these sort of things are the first to go if there are cut backs in money which usually happen when the economy is tight. These charities because of the cuts then have to make cuts themselves and they may not be able to provide the service they set out for people anymore.

It could be Sophie has been cut from these charities because there is nothing they need her for, if there has been government cuts.

Monika · November 27, 2008, 02:07:17 AM

Oh I realize that RW, I just wonder what it would have to do with her no longer being a patron since she isn't paid for her time. That's the angle I'm questioning...

Claire · November 27, 2008, 03:02:29 AM

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.

serene grace · November 27, 2008, 06:01:25 AM

Thank you Claire. Hope we get some news.

Fabulous Fake · November 28, 2008, 09:30:43 AM

I reckoned this would have got a mention somewhere in the press but google throws up nothing.
Its all rather strange. :hmm:

Claire · November 28, 2008, 05:12:20 PM

Yep I believe so myself, but considering the Indian bombing they would not have issued any statement, but then why take them off the website?

serene grace · November 28, 2008, 05:46:11 PM

perhaps the Queen's lastest statement is why the Patronages were removed or taken away

The TELEGRAPH-
The Daily Telegraph can disclose that Downing Street is increasingly looking to the Queen as head of state to lead the country through the bleak economic times.

The Queen's own diary of engagements has already been discreetly tailored to ensure that she meets more people involved in the caring professions and helping the victims of the most serious economic downturn in decades.
-----------
The TELEGRAPH
Writing in today's Daily Telegraph, columnist Mary Riddell explains that the Queen is planning to be a figurehead in the financial crisis.

"The changes will be largely presentational," she writes. " It has been decided that the princes should stick to military careers rather than glossy, fund-raising events.

'This is not the right time for ribbon-cutting,' I am told."
--------