...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.

@HotDogKetchup is getting her history confused . . .

The success of the Commonwealth is of course a towering achievement. @EdithWeston Another meaningless phrase that was oft-repeated yesterday! What exactly is the Commonwealth known for (apart from a pared-down Olympic games)?

You are following in a MN tradition of basically not reading up on stuff but just asking a daft question! Even if you're young, there's been loads of stuff on the broadcast media recently about the Queen.

For royals, it means:

Whether you like it or not, carrying out a role you didn't choose and may not be very well-suited to (shy, socially inept, perhaps insecure about your appearance etc). You will be scrutinised to hell and back in everything you do and often misunderstood and misinterpreted. You will have no come-back to criticism.

You will go and open things, make speeches, chat to endless folk, both people like me and you and state dignitaries. You must not put a foot wrong, forget names, or anything else. You must smile, look engaged and never show tiredness, boredom or irritation. Poor old Charles did that this week and got roasted for it. No-one will make any allowances for you as a human being, for sure.

I'm the sort of person who gets exhausted at too much social activity, but as a royal I might have several tasks of this sort each day.

You can't just go to the cinema, theatre etc when you want - ever.

It's a life-sentence.

I think it's an important role, when done well, as the last monarch. Soft power is hugely, hugely important in international relations...but to appreciate that, you need to read up in detail - esp the visit to Ireland in 2011, for example.

Also, there was a lovely thread on here yesterday sneering at the 'ugliness' of several members of the RF. Charming! Luckily, it was directed at the men (none of whom are ugly by any standard, whatever 'ugly' means). Thank Christ it wasn't about the women - that would never have been allowed.

But what's the job?

But the government can do that...

The piece of purple link was good and surely answered your question?

@ExHack Reasonable question. The cop-out answer is that you’d have to ask the organisations in question. I guess most would say publicity for their activities and probably about how thrilled they personally were to meet them. But it’s certainly debatable as to what the benefit is.

Whether you like it or not, carrying out a role you didn't choose and may not be very well-suited to (shy, socially inept, perhaps insecure about your appearance etc).

But you will have a small army of people whose job it is to ,are sure you look as good as is humanly possible.

William worked in the RAF.

State visits mean being hosted by the Head of State. That’s the monarch, not the government.

Sorry her Uncle, but the sentiment remains that he didn’t want the job so was able to abdicate. So it’s not true that they have no choice.

www.nationalworld.com/news/people/queen-her-majesty-job-royal-duties-role-platinum-jubilee-queen-elizabeth-ii-3711662?amp

Totally agree with this. I cannot imagine a worse lifestyle. The constant knowledge that everything you do will be scrutinised. Not even everything you do, but also everything that can be plausibly made up about you will get pages and pages of news coverage.
Yes, they have extraordinary wealth and privilege, but there are many other freedoms they have to live without. When my mum died, I spent a week on the sofa. No one expected me to trail around the country, giving speeches with the cameras of the world upon me.
It must be so weird to question every new friendship and relationship too. I can confidently say anyone who chooses to spend time with me is not after wealth or fame and is not going to be telling all in the tabloids next week. They can’t safely assume the same.

Thank you to @LadyHarmby for responding to my question. It is looking to me like the "value" of the Royal Family comes down to (a) celebrity influence, which may benefit those causes they choose to be involved with; and (b) upholding the class system for the benefit of those who are near the top of it.

Anything else to add?

And how have the ordinary people of Commonwealth member states benefitted directly from it. Many members such as India and Jamaica are still hugely unequal societies.

He did want the job, he wanted to do it with the wife of his choice at his side. But this was impossible, so he decided he wanted Wallis more than he wanted to be king.

I agree with the OP. What exactly do they do? People talk about hardworking royals but what does that really look like?

Yes they do these huge trips that take them away from home but they're still just shaking hands and going to dinners.

@LadyHarmby

Is that supposed to be an example of a hard day's work ?

You know Dumfries House is his house too, right?

Yes so he was able to make that choice. He was not forced to be King against his will. There was a choice. That was my point. Harry has walked away.

I’m a republican myself, but it’s a hard job — do you spend several hours a day reading parliamentary business, dictating and writing letters, signing paperwork, and being briefed on diplomatic news and the schedule for the day’s and week’s events as well as memorising the details of the main people you’ll be meeting or telephoning that day? Every day with few days off all your life?

It’s not that dissimilar to the working duties of, say, a politician or ambassador, a CEO of a charity, a head of state in any other country, or anyone who is the nominal head of business in a major state or public institution. Do you know what a CEO in business or a charity does? Or people working in the civil or diplomatic service, for example?

Disagree with constitutional monarchy all you like — there are plenty of reasons not to agree with it. But pretending that it isn’t a bloody hard job with long hours and pretty much no time off is just childish.

I saw Charles and Camilla at a theatre once (a few years before they were married). They were clearly attempting to be as low profile as possible, sitting in circle seats with a few security staff nearby, rather than a box or anything. People gave them a round of applause as they left the circle at the interval. It’s a theatre interval - you’re either going for a drink or a wee! It looked excruciatingly uncomfortable for them to have that unwanted attention.

As someone who lives in Windsor I am not anti monarchy. I am extremely anti the fact it seems to be used as a 'look how amazing we do pageantry etc ' and cover up the fact that there are so many issues in the UK unless you are wealthy or old with housing paid for and good pensions. I think service and duty is basically just an overarching term for the list of 'commitments' that comes with monarchy . The town wasn't full of people 'paying respects ' it was full of people having a day out , taking selfies and sat on castle walls eating chips .

The comment about upholding the class system is an interesting one. I used to think like that and was very much a republican however the House of Lords have stopped some pretty stupid crap from the Commons getting into law. The fact that H of L are theoretically apolitical is a very good thing.

You only have to see what happened with Brexit to realise giving ordinary people a vote about something of which they know nothing is really not a good idea . . ..

I guess service and duty means that you have to think about more than just what you want to do even if you have the money and time to do it.

compare the royals to some rich family who have inherited wealth. They can choose what they want to wear or do and who to invite to dinner. Royals have some restrictions - some would say many restrictions. Some people say celebrities have mental health issues due to abuse on social media etc. royals have some of that.

Harry and William may or may not have wanted to walk behind their mum’s coffin and have their every moment photographed. Same with Louis and Charlotte. Royals probably didn’t like the press taking pictures of them over their teenage years or dissecting who they dated. King Charles may or may not have wanted to walk 1.5hrs through London or greet lots of dignitaries and make speeches after his mum has died (whether you think it is a useful thing or not, many people did turn out to watch etc).

I think what you are saying OP is that compared to the positives they have, the royals don’t have to do that much. The key is who you compare them to. Compare them to some of the rich list people in U.K. or compare them to the average or poor person? But then what if you compare the poor person in U.K. to someone in a war zone or developing country?

Exactly what I was thinking as I watched the funeral. I know it was a state funeral but there was literally nothing, nothing about anything she has achieved in her role.