...so what exactly is "service and duty"?

[ServiceAndDuty]

After countless threads on the royal family, I feel nobody goes into full detail of what the royal family do apart from the same phrase "service and duty".

I genuinely would like to be enlightened on what this "service and duty" is, not including showing up to events and waving, watching tennis and rugby matches, opening places, having an expensive wedding sometimes etc.

I feel nobody has really answered in detail what it is.

I am open to being educated if I'm missing something.

Some of us don't eat animals full stop. And manage to do so without private chefs.
Some people are flexiterian and only eat meat occasionally for the planet or moral reasons.
A lot of.people go for higher welfare animal products even though we don't have endless money for banquets.
And the royals don't live entirely on hunted meat, so no, they don't get an animal cruelty pass imo.

Incidentally, I'd recommend Jimll paint it masterpiece of King Eats Swan

Er no .... she didn't retire ever. She carried on with public engagements until she dropped basically.

Duty- fulfilling a legal or moral obligation. Service, helping or doing work for someone else.

Well said.

As queen she had to represent everyone and not offend any group. Obviously this meant keeping her opinions to herself.

I don't think being in poverty has anything to do with feeling reassured by the Queen. The Queen obviously had a wide fan base. In fact it seems the Royals give great pleasure to those they meet and raise the profile of otherwise obscure causes.

Doing what you have to do, instead of what you want to do.

By all accounts the late Queen would’ve loved to have bred racehorses, or been at home in the country with dogs and children. Instead, she spent 70 years schlepping up and down the country, and around the world, meeting dignitaries, representing the country, reading state papers, trying to promote good values of peace, tolerance and democracy, serving as Head of the Church of England, counselling politicians and trying to keep people united and feeling a sense of belonging.

All from the age of 25, until she died.

If you don’t understand what a huge thing that is, and that it really isn’t all parties, tiaras and ribbon cutting, then all I can say is you clearly haven’t been paying attention.

The monarchy didn't cause the poverty, and to think it does ignores the issues in our society.

Intangibles are what our society is built on. If you were only interested in what you can measure with a value then your version of the country isnt a place id want to live. RIP the arts for a start

You can measure the contribution of the arts and it frequently is measured.

You seem to have covered the extent of it in your post OP.

That just proves it isn't work though doesn't it. 96 year olds can't work. The queen was being waited on hand and foot. If it was too much she wouldn't have done it.

They're not giving you a clear answer because it's not really all that onerous, at least not more so than what most people, but to admit that spoils the mystique for them. To admit that might make them need to question what the point of the monarchy actually is. I work a 16 hour day, only half of which I'm probably renumerated for and even then, not well, but I do it for those in my care out of love and service to them, like a lot of other people in the public sector, most of whom go unthanked and unacknowledged - but that's ok, we don't do it for that either.
Yes she worked until 96 but I think that was because she enjoyed what she did. No one made her. I suspect it kept her going.

None if which is service and duty.

For me, it’s about prioritising “the job” before yourself. So, things like never expressing a political opinion though you’re itching to, because your job is to reinforce parliamentary democracy or being gracious to foreign leaders you despise, because your job is to smooth diplomatic relationships.

Yes because none of us prioritise what we have to do than what we want to do or have to put our job or others first.

Honestly ro you hear yourselves.

I think if I were rich, I'd happily jack in a job where I'd be expected to make nice with people responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of people, have to always look perfect, deal with loons that thought I was a lizard/magic/the devil/their best friend, have every thing I, my family, distant cousins and my staff do criticised at length in public and live quite happily on the dosh my parents left me. I certainly wouldn't want to be doing it thirty odd years after most people my age had retired from jobs they chose and weren't stuck doing, as they could always get a different job.

You wouldn't be able to jack it in and remain rich though.
They don't have any earning power obviously.

Yes because none of us prioritise what we have to do than what we want to do or have to put our job or others first

Well, no one else in the royal family seems to be able to manage it, so it’s presumably not as easy as you’d prefer to think.

How is that a point is their favour? Mos people in normal families are hard working, lazy is not an option.
The fact that only one member of the family has a work ethic is appalling, especially when that work is not exactly taxing. Hence the ridiculous arguments like how hard it is to meet new people.or eat different food.
I imagine the reason she held on so long was because she knew Charles would likely fuck it up, or not protect the family from scandal.

I thought we were talking about the definition of service and duty in the context of the Queen, not whether or not we are ‘in favour’ of the monarchy.

But I see we weren’t.

The Greek "royals" seem to be doing alright, decades after the end of the monarchy.

Don't be silly, people are reworking the meaning of the words and contorting them beyond measure.

Service and duty to most people mean doing something that actually means something, makes a difference and takes some form of self sacrifice.

The queen meeting people and socialising in her nineties does not fit this definition. My great grandad, who actually is now disabled because of the level of service and duty he gave, would kill to have social engagements all the time. He is very lonely. He is fact got very down during the funeral because he didn't have telly to keep him company. He'd consider the queen's activities a perk, not a burden, as many elderly people who don't have the luxury of families who don't work and endless social engagements.

So maybe you consider the level of what the queen did to be service and duty. I mean technically yes, she was doing something. I just wouldn't call it service and duty in the same way that the elderly women who run church toddler groups show service and duty.
I imagine the queen was relieved to have the distraction of something to do this last year. Lots of elderly people don't have that luxury.

I think possibly the most distasteful part of using those words to describe royal activities, is that they're the same as those used in praise of military personnel and decorated veterans.

They'd never have to earn a single penny. The interest off their millions would do them nicely.