Prince Andrew has found himself at the center of another royal controversy—this time involving his former charitable work. A newly released study has cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of his royal patronages, revealing that many of the charities he once supported financially flourished after his departure.
The report, conducted by philanthropic research group Giving Evidence, looked into how 35 charities performed financially after the Duke of York stepped down from royal duties in 2019. This followed his now-infamous Newsnight interview regarding his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, which prompted his withdrawal from public life and the loss of 64 patronage roles.
The findings? Prince Andrew’s involvement didn’t seem to make much of a difference. In fact, “we find no evidence that Prince Andrew’s patronage of charities helped the charities in terms of revenue: there was no discernible decline in their revenue when his patronage ended,” the report concluded.
Researchers Caroline Fiennes, founder of Giving Evidence, and Dr. Clemens Jarnach, a data scientist and political sociologist, co-authored the study.
They compared financial data from Andrew’s former charities with similar organisations and used rigorous analysis to detect any significant trends. The outcome pointed to a rather surprising reality—the prince’s royal support had, at best, a negligible effect.
Some charities even saw dramatic improvements after parting ways with the Duke. The Fly Navy Heritage Trust, for example, enjoyed a remarkable 346% jump in revenue. Children North East saw a 56% rise, while Yorkshire Air Ambulance experienced a 47% boost.
That said, not every organisation came out ahead. The Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust and City Gateway suffered notable declines of 68%, showing that the impact wasn’t entirely one-directional.
Despite Andrew holding the title of Duke of York, only two of the analysed charities were actually based in Yorkshire, highlighting a broader, national mix of causes—mostly across social services, education, culture, and sport.
Caroline Fiennes explained the bigger picture to The Times, saying: “We investigated whether anything happened to the revenue of his patronee charities before and after the patronage ended, which did not also happen to all other charities … It didn’t.”
The study also calls into question the traditional value of royal patronage. According to the authors, organisations might be “wasting their time in seeking, securing and/or servicing a royal patron” if fundraising is their primary goal.
This isn’t the first time the influence of royal ties on charity revenue has been put under the microscope. In 2020, Giving Evidence released a report showing a similar pattern among other royals’ charitable connections.
Despite these patronages making up more than a quarter of senior royals’ engagements in 2019, the financial gains for supported organisations appeared minimal.
While the researchers did acknowledge that royal backing could offer other advantages—like boosting media visibility or internal morale—such effects were impossible to measure accurately due to inconsistent reporting across the charity sector.