How does one go about removing a royal charter?

[pennyturner]

A discussion in our house at the moment:
If nobody thinks that the RSPCA should still bear the title 'Royal', what is the mechanism by which it can be challenged and removed?

 

[Shay]

The Privy council (on behalf of the monarch) grants Royal Charters. They can in theory also remove them - although rarely. There was a big media debate aback in 2012/2013 on the possible removal of the Royal Charter from the BBC and / or the incorporation of a press watchdog under that charter. A Charter can be lost if the terms of that charter are not met (each one is unique and has specific provisions.) A Royal Charter can also be challenged through the Judicial review process - or at least the decision to grant one can. I can't find any precedent for revoking anything long standing. Because the possession of the charter alters the legal status of the body to a corporate entity I suspect the revocation would be impossibly complex in today's regulated society.

I have always wondered how organisations on occasion including the RSPCA get away with the political actions they do and still retain their charitable status however?!

 

[cobgoblin]

Australia seems to be trying to do it.http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/ne...a-of-royal-title/story-fnkfnspy-1227379684275

 

[SO1]

Royal Charters are granted by Privy Council. I work for a charity which has a Royal Charter.

The RSPCA's Royal Patron is the Queen, therefore I would expect it to be very difficult to get the Royal Charter removed unless it the Charity had either a disagreement with the Royal Family or they had their charitable status removed by the charity commission.

Charities can be political in the sense that they can support policies and campaign for changes in law, for example many charities supported the recent changes in law related to fly grazing. Charities can say for example that they support a campaign to change a law and they can lobby for change they can also let supporters know what each political party's stance is on the that law is but they can't say the prefer one party over another.

For example say with the hunting ban a charity could say they support the ban on hunting and can list all the political parties different policies or views on hunting so their supporters know what the different parties think, they can also lobby MP's to enact change but what they cant do is openly state that they support a particular party because of their policies. So for example they could not say we support the Labour party because they back the hunting ban. There are also times when charities cant lobby for example when the MP's all stand down prior to a general election.

A lot of charities do a great deal of lobbying and work closely with MP's but this about trying to persuade them to change or enact individual laws related to the charitable work they do. For example a cancer charity may lobby MP's and government for more money to be invested in cancer research, or more doctors and nurses etc

 

[JillA]

RSPCA, unbelievably for a charity that relies on public donation, has no mechanism for feedback or querying their decisions. If they did they would be able to defend such decisions or let us all know the background, but clearly they prefer not to. The problem with removing their royal charter or charitable status is the vacuum that would be created. Imperfect as they are, in lots of cases they are better than nothing.
We should be lobbying them to provide a means to feedback to them, but without such a means, how do you do that?
I wrote to Ann Widdicombe, as one of their trustees, at the time of the Spindles Farm outrage, because I couldn't find any other way to speak to them but never even got and acknowledgement, never mind a reply

 

[SO1]

They do have a complaints policy and you can make a complaint to them see website for information on how to complain.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/contactus

RSPCA, unbelievably for a charity that relies on public donation, has no mechanism for feedback or querying their decisions. If they did they would be able to defend such decisions or let us all know the background, but clearly they prefer not to. The problem with removing their royal charter or charitable status is the vacuum that would be created. Imperfect as they are, in lots of cases they are better than nothing.
We should be lobbying them to provide a means to feedback to them, but without such a means, how do you do that?
I wrote to Ann Widdicombe, as one of their trustees, at the time of the Spindles Farm outrage, because I couldn't find any other way to speak to them but never even got and acknowledgement, never mind a reply