Now, a study by the philanthropic analysis organisation Giving Evidence has shown there has generally been no negative impact on the charities and that his royal patronage was not demonstrably helpful to the charities when he was in post.<\/p>\n
Compiling data from 35 organisations, the study found that about half of Andrew\u2019s former charities saw a rise in profits following his departure.<\/p>\n
It concludes: \u201cWe find no evidence that Prince Andrew\u2019s<\/a> patronage of charities helped the charities in terms of revenue: there was no discernible decline in their revenue when his patronage ended.\u201d<\/p>\n Not only that, but his impact on the charities when he was officially supporting them appeared to be negligible. The study found \u201cno convincing evidence that Prince Andrew\u2019s patronage increased charities\u2019 revenue\u201d and \u201cthere was no discernible effect of his stepping back\u201d.<\/p>\n \u2022 Prince of Wales exempting charities from rent is a good start<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n Prince Andrew\u2019s Charity Patronages: Analysis of the Effects on the Charities, by Caroline Fiennes, founder of Giving Evidence, and Dr Clemens Jarnach, a data scientist and political sociologist, looked at the change in revenue in the accounts of the duke\u2019s charities before and after he stepped down and compared it with the change in revenue at comparable charities over the same period.<\/p>\n Analysis found that \u201csocial services\u201d was the sector that had the greatest number of Prince Andrew\u2019s patronages, then education, followed by culture and sport. <\/p>\n The study looked exclusively at UK-registered charities where the duke was patron. Andrew\u2019s Pitch@Palace initiative was not included in the research.<\/p>\n \u2022 Virginia Giuffre\u2019s death could reveal size of Prince Andrew\u2019s payout<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n Charities that had another royal patron when Prince Andrew stood down or which received another royal patron following his departure were excluded from the study.<\/p>\n The report concluded that \u201ccharities which want revenue may be wasting their time in seeking, securing and\/or servicing a royal patron\u201d.<\/p>\n Fiennes, who specialises in providing advice to philanthropists about where best to donate, said: \u201cOur analysis included 35 patronee charities: some had to be excluded because the patronage had started too recently, and so on. Oddly, given that Prince Andrew is Duke of York, only two were in Yorkshire, and none at all were in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.<\/p>\n The Yorkshire Air Ambulance benefited from a 47 per cent increase in income after losing Prince Andrew\u2019s patronage<\/p>\n ALAMY<\/p>\n \u201cWe 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. Those latter serve as a control group. <\/p>\n \u201cIt didn\u2019t. We ran six linear regression difference-in-differences analyses, none of which could detect any effect of Prince Andrew\u2019s patronage on the charities\u2019 revenue.\u201d<\/p>\n The Fly Navy Heritage Trust had a rise in revenue of 346 per cent after Andrew\u2019s departure, while Children North East had an increase of 56 per cent and Yorkshire Air Ambulance\u2019s income climbed by 47 per cent. On the other side of the coin, income at both the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust and City Gateway decreased by 68 per cent.<\/p>\n Previous research by Giving Evidence found that the effect was not limited to Prince Andrew, as a similar pattern was detected with other royal charities.<\/p>\n The latest report concluded that \u201ccharities which want revenue may be wasting their time in seeking, securing and\/or servicing a royal patron\u201d.<\/p>\n![\"Yorkshire](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/\/b041a32c-b723-4651-8bb7-f4d843894691.jpg\")
<\/p>\n