Is there really that much of a difference between "charity and philanthropy" v "public duty"?

[Funfacts99]

For the record I lean towards Republicanism but in general I am on the fence about this specific, current H & M debacle. On the one hand, I think it must be very difficult to join the RF as an outsider. On the other hand, I can see the merit in the argument that you are either totally in, or totally out.

However, as has been stated, is there really that much of a difference between so-called "public duty" and "charity and philanthropy" in reality? The Queen and Prince Charles undoubtedly put in the work visiting hospitals, village halls, and scout huts across the country. But at the same time, their land and estates make huge profits and generate a lot of income.

Therefore it could be argued that the RF's charitable work is backed by private income too. So what's the difference (apart from practical logistics related to H & M's location, but they have already said they would be willing to travel) between doing charitable work supported by income that you generate yourself by deals with Netflix etc, and doing charitable works backed by income generated from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall's land and estates (which, if I have understood it correctly) is private, not public money?

Ach well, just me then

I think the big philanthropists are often unsung in UK, but if you look to the UsS, there are many and they are easy to name.

The difference is between what someone like Bill Gates does - for his money is his to give, rather than being partly or wholly tied up in the insititution of head of state.

And of course 'public duties' is depiction that from philanthropy. Cutting ribbons in cottage hospitals, meeting community groups, walking round new factories etc is happening all the time, but usually unreported. As is the stuff like the Red Boxes and audiences for ambassadors

meditrina I take your point about soft diplomacy (more important than most people recognise) and the fact that UK benefactors are largely unsung, but my point (probably not very well expressed) was that the royal family do have a lot of private income as well as public income. So they are in effect being hypocritical in preventing H&M from doing something that they do themselves? Or have I got this wrong? (Brit abroad so not up to date with matters royal!)

I'm with Megan and Harry on this one, if you volunteer your doing a public service, helping members if the public and supporting them. Public service isn't reserved for the Royal family or those with titles.

I agree Cyclingmad the only thing I don't like is when work and public service is mixed together eg when Harry solicited the head of Disney for voiceover work for M during the Lion King première. I thought that was pretty poor tbh. On the other hand, Prince Charles and the Queen are also making money from their position while doing charity work given that they both have income coming in from the Duchy estates.

I think they’re muddling a few different concepts. The royal family are civil servants and abide by eg the Nolan principles. I don’t see how you can do that while setting yourselves up as influencers / commentators / advocates.

In terms of philanthropy, they can’t be philanthropists as they neither have any of their own money to give away nor do they now have a platform where lots of other people give them money to give away (as far as I’m aware).

Am genuinely baffled by what the “service” they claim to have undertaken is over the last year - but tbh I don’t really care. I can totally see that it’s impossible to be doing Netflix / podcasting deals and be a senior royal tho - just the impression of constant grift will be so damaging.

The minor royals arguably do the same thing but I suspect they’ve always known to stay on the right side of the line - an endorsement here, a job that relies on their contact book there. I guess megz and haz are the first time the royals have gone full throttle at monetising being royal (fergie aside and she was cast out so I guess they let it slide).

Stealth banana that's a very good point about the Nolan principles.

Jane Garvey was saying on her podcast the other day that she agrees with the last person who has spoken on this issue and I feel the same way. I'm with M & H in terms of modernisation, trying to do things in a different way, having a more global perspective. Managed well! I think that could have worked well for the UK too. On the other hand, they don't look as though

oops they don't look as though they are likely to follow palace protocol. And as mentioned being influencers and commentators doesn't sit well with the charity work, or does it nowadays? A lot of charity work in the US seems to benefit the "donator" as well. Not sure that would suit the UK model though.

Reportedly one of the reasons H&M feel aggrieved is because they think they are being treated differently from other members of the RF.

In one press statement they cited earning a living whilst carrying out Royal duties was not without precedent.

If you remember in their break away statement what they said was they were stepping down as "senior" royals, not stepping away from being royal.

It's true that other members of the RF have earned whilst still being royal.

B&E, Zara and Philip by way of example.

However there are some pretty fundamental differences.

Earning tens of thousands for flogging milk or a car company or getting a job at Sotheby's is not on par with signing $100m deals with Netflix.

A deal designed to provide content to a large audience that would influence people in line with H&M's political, aspirational and cultural beliefs.

H&M don't just want to earn a living, they want to be global icons/movers and shakers. That's fair enough but it simply isn't compatible with being "in" the RF.

Also bear in mind his cousins do not receive money from the sovereign grant, Duchy of Cornwall or get security provided by the state (H&M wanted to retain the latter 2 losing only the relatively minor grant).

The other distinction is simply who Harry is. Saying he isn't a "senior" royal doesn't really cut it.

His cousins aren't "senior" because of their relative proximity to the line of succession.

Harry is the grandson of the monarch but unlike his cousins will become the son and then brother of the King.

His actions (and that of his wife) have far greater implications to the crown than anyone else outside of C&C plus W&C and their children.

The only way to protect the Crown from any fallout if H&M want to go their own way on a global stage is to have a firm line of separation between them and "working" royals.

As for "service is universal" wtf does that even mean?

I'm sure they believe they will do good works and highlight worthy causes but fundamentally they will benefit hugely from it.

It's not the same as someone like Bill Gates who earned his fortune and then became a philanthropist.

They want to appear philanthropic whilst building a fortune.

I honest don't mind them wanting to break free, nor earn their own money but I can't help feel they've been somewhat naive in their expectations and demands - even at times sounding pretty petulant (eg their latest statement).

Overall I think they could have achieved the same outcome as they have with less drama/upset and a lot more goodwill had they acted differently.

To be fair the Queen didn't need to make that statement saying public service. How do civil servants in the UK feel hearing that? I am one of them and it smacks in the face abit. What I do in my job is a public service, but I can't say it is because I'm not royal.

I think the Royal family need to modernise far more. Its dont think it fits in with the world today at all.

Basically “service” for the Royal Family is performing duties they don’t much like, be that opening a community centre in Castleford on a Thursday in February or attending the Royal Variety Performance (in a documentary Prince Charles was groaning about the latter!).

I think philanthropy and chosen charities/patronage’s are different in that they are presumably one’s pet projects and not a tedious obligation.

Grrrr - rogue apostrophe in patronages. Predictive text is so annoying.

Totally agree with your last para DeRigueurMortis. And I wondered too about the "service is universal" comment. As I understand it, M worked with the youth empowerment nonprofit One Young World, the UN's Women’s Political Participation and Leadership initiative, and the humanitarian organization World Vision, all before she was involved with H, so maybe that comment was a reference to that?

Bill Gates though; I know he is focused largely on his humanitarian activities now but he is still earning about 200 million a year in dividends from Microsoft shares isn't he?

Cyclingmad yes I agree that the RF's statement is coming from a rather insular perspective.

Yes that's a very good point IrmaFayLear. It should be all about the "end users" rather than the "patrons".

The community centre in Castleford type of thing is important grass roots work; the back bone boring stuff.

It's a shame really because I think H & M could have done a lot of good in the UK for youth work, BAME community projects and commonwealth focused activities, and brought a fresher, less stuffy vibe to it all.

I think there's an element of control and accountability at the root of it.

The RF should seem even handed, not playing favourites, and generally take advice on what they should and should not be doing. Adding a special interest charity as part of their work is one thing. Only working for special interests is another. Between them there should be a wide range of cover, rather than a series of specialisms.

Also, the chosen work shouldn't be about what makes the royal look good.

@IrmaFayLear

Basically “service” for the Royal Family is performing duties they don’t much like, be that opening a community centre in Castleford on a Thursday in February or attending the Royal Variety Performance (in a documentary Prince Charles was groaning about the latter!).

I think philanthropy and chosen charities/patronage’s are different in that they are presumably one’s pet projects and not a tedious obligation.

Yes, this is it exactly.

H and M are still going to be involved with their own stuff like the Invictus Games and Smartworks but they don’t get to be Royal Patrons anymore because they decided not to be working royals.

I think the likes of B&E, Zara & Peter are quietly earning a living and helping out their charities while mindful of not drawing undue attention to themselves, ie they are by and large happy with their lives.

Harry and Meghan OTOH clearly want to be at least as high profile as the senior members of the RF. The patronages and military positions are a key part of establishing that profile until such time as their foundation has international recognition. As it is relatively new and doesn't have a visible track record of achievements this must make the decision to remove their privileges both personally and financially difficult.

The need to create sufficient wealth to be big players on the world stage runs the risk of cheapening their own brand and that of the RF. They could quietly make meaningful contributions to their favoured charities with their current resources and time but I don't think that is what really drives them

Bill Gates is an interesting one, he isn’t leaving his vast fortune to his children I believe, so the opposite concept to aristocracy/royalty. I’m not a republican but if the future of the royal family involves royalty living abroad and using their royal status to line their own pockets and persue their own charity endeavours, I think it’s time to abolish the monarchy once the Queen goes. All titles gone and the beautiful houses given back to the country.

Yes , while it's not a bad thing to support charitable causes in which you have a special interest (presumably you do the job better if you are knowledgeable about a certain area or are enthusiastic about it) it shouldn't be about exclusively picking and choosing. Although overall I imagine choices are made continually about which causes to support and which to drop.

Gah, I am flip flopping all over the place here.

We all serve in some sense.

The queen does not serve for free- it is her job and one she accepted and is very very well paid for - a life of absolute luxury. I doubt if Prince Andrew has less than £70 million kicking around - for just being born. Meghan and Harry will have £100 million and more already -for lecturing people how to live or moaning about the difficulties they faced.
They are all out to make a living - the difference is either the people pay through tax, or their own choice.
Either way - they win.
The only service they provide is to themselves.

I don’t know if it is true that William is furious with Harry for his ‘disrespect’ etc I think they wanted better weather, and not to have the confines of people saying you can’t do this - as it’s not in the RF image etc
But that comes with its own pit falls- they have to pay with their own money for security etc and control their image. The media and society can be very fickle.

I personally don’t want to watch anything on Netflix etc that they produce as they don’t have any knowledge or anything to teach me, but the same is true for going to listen to William and Kate give a speech - I wouldn’t want to do that either.

The amount of money they all have is just not on and needs to revert to the state but I’m a republician through and through.

OK those most recent posts have swung me towards the RF's pov (despite leaning towards Republicanism). All of you make very good points.

Hathertonhariden I think all of those minor royals you mention have had their moments and difficulties reconciling earning money and royal duties so I'm not sure I would describe them as happy with their lot exactly, but I see what you are saying about the scale of H&M's ambition.

And it's absolutelytrue that they are playing on their royal connections to build their "brand".

However quietly (or not) H lives though, I am not sure he would ever be able to completely shake his royal connections even if he wanted to, especially when William becomes king, so maybe they have decided to run with it?

Ahh Canitbemagic I agree with you too! You have posted what I was trying to say, but much better!

That's it , isn't it....I've been asking entirely the wrong question. It's not whether one or the other is right, it's that both models are faulty.

I just think its appalling they are all family yet being royal gets in the way. So what if H&M want some additional freedoms since its really unlikely H will be King. Let them go and do it why Pollok down upon it. Is William not happy because he can't do that? Who knows? I just think its all ludicrous really. They r so worried about the reputation of the royal family when literally who actually really cares? I don't. There is literally nothing in my entire life I can say oh wow what the royal family did is amazing.

I'm with IrmaFay one is duty/obligation what your job or position requires whether or not you have interest, knowledge or love for the 'event'. The other is choosing to be involved in something that promotes what matters to you. Both can help others but the starting point is not the same.

Is William not happy because he can't do that?

William could abdicate if he wanted to. I realise that would cause a huge uproar, but he technically could. If Charles lives to the sort of age his parents have reached, by the time the throne passed to William, his son George would be old enough to become King.