#British royals are pretty much useless at raising money for charity: study

While the British royal family is no longer involved in lawmaking, many consider their brand as a boon to any organization or campaign — namely in the field of charity work, where royals are thought to have the biggest influence. Turns out, they’re really not much help there, either.

Royal patrons — that is, anyone with a royal title who aligns themselves with a particular cause — do very little to increase the funds or profile of a nonprofit organization, according to a new study by Giving Evidence, a think tank devoted to analyzing effective charitable efforts.

“An oft-cited component or benefit of Royal patronages is that the Royal visits the charity, attends its events, and/or hosts events for it in Royal palaces or castles,” the report reads. “Our analysis suggests that charities should not seek Royal patronages expecting many public engagements with their Royal patron.”

Giving Evidence, led by author and advocate Caroline Fiennes, found that 74% of the 1,187 UK-based charities that boast a royal patron were ghosted by said royalty last year, not appearing in a single “public engagement” on behalf of the organization.

Researchers point out that some royals were heavily involved in their patronage, such as the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, who made 62 national and 52 international engagements last year. Prince Charles, however, had done 94 in past five years with the Prince’s Trust, but zero with Plant Heritage, another of his patronages.

Furthermore, their report made clear that royals clearly favor charities they founded themselves, which make up only 2% of their overall charitable associations, over adopted campaigns. Nevertheless, 36% of all engagements went to their personal projects.

The report concludes that “charities should not seek or retain Royal patrons thinking that they will bring the charity money” as they promise a “small to zero” effect on charities’ revenue.

However, they clarified that their assessment was taken based on the limited statistics that are available, and found “the Palace’s data to be inconsistent, incomplete, imprecise, hard to use, and sometimes wrong.” For example, at one point during their research, palace documents sent them to a pornographic website rather than a charity.

Fiennes warns individual donors not to rely on the royal allegiances when choosing where to give. They found instead that royals may tend to choose patronages based on history and proximity, rather than the demonstrated efficacy of the organization.

“Donors sometimes think if a charity has a royal patronage, it is somehow of a better quality than their peers. We did not find any evidence to suggest that,” says Fiennes, according to Daily Mail.