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?

I have never come across an organisation with so many 'sources'. It's quite laughable.

I guess Dan Wooton was telling the truth for once.

twitter.com/_mrswanted/status/1228770371156967425

[quote Mummy195]I have never come across an organisation with so many 'sources'. It's quite laughable.

I guess Dan Wooton was telling the truth for once.

twitter.com/_mrswanted/status/1228770371156967425[/quote]
That must go both ways though?

That must go both ways though?

Yes it's interesting that comments from a tabloid journalist become credible when they reflect your POV.

It's worth noting in that clip that the comments from DW are spliced in front of a BBC segment to make them look related.

It's not clear in what context DW is saying these things. He's reading off a piece a paper which might indicate he's quoting someone else's comments rather expressing his own experience - it's certainly a "cropped" segment that might be misleading (would need to see the original).

I would be interested to know if employees of the Royal Household can go to an industrial tribunal. If bullying complaints were not dealt with, can former employees claim constructive dismissal? In any other employ, they could. I’m also wondering if the complaints from former staff has surfaced now due to a time deadline for a tribunal. Keeping complaints within is a better strategy but this might not be possible even if a gagging agreement is in force.,

As I said on the most recent thread, things have become so polarised that there is no point in even talking about most of these points. A couple of things I did think worth mentioning though (maybe I'm a masochist, who knows, ).

Firstly the timing of the Oprah interview. This was entirely in the control of the Duchess - in the interview she talks about how she wanted to do so before the wedding but wasn't allowed, and Oprah has now said she said "yes, let's go" after her summary judgment application was successful. No-one has forced a pregnant women into this situation, she chose it. She (and her highly paid PR advisers) must have known that this would be seen as unlikely to be complimentary of the Royal family, and that there would be competing PR and press pushbacks on it. She and her advisers will also know very well that her doing it while pregnant immediately gives them an angle on how awful the competing PR pushes are, doing that to pregnant women. What monsters they must be! etc etc. It's basically positioned herself for the best possible push back, and I very much doubt that was unintentional. That kind of strategic advice is exactly what you pay big money to your advisers for.

And secondly, the jewellery story. This puzzles me a bit, because obviously the Royal Family (and not just ours, all the other ones as well) have vaults full of fabulous gifts from Middle Eastern regimes. It's one of the problems of being the head of state - the Queen doesn't get a choice in meeting the rulers of foreign countries or accepting their gifts. That's literally her job - if the UK government has a relationship with a foreign country (and oil-producing, weapons-buying rich Middle East states - you bet we do!) then their lavish gifts have to be politely accepted. These days, what tends to happen is that their (generally pretty ostentatious) gifts are publicly worn once as a diplomatic acknowledgement, then disappear into the vaults. There's been a bit of a sliding scale however, as the Queen received some lovely diamond necklaces back in the 70s and 80s when they were less problematic regimes, and they have been well-worn by the Queen, Sophie and Diana.

So, Meghan's earrings. As an official wedding gift on behalf of the Saudi Crown Prince, they had to be accepted. Diplomacy means they probably should be seen to be worn publicly - but then the giver becomes implicated in a state-sponsored murder. Here's where it gets a bit murkier. I assume Meghan must have known they were a wedding gift, because there will have been an official thank you for them that presumably came from her office. Also, they are undeniably pretty, and she seems to have genuinely liked them, as she wore them twice in quick succession. Does their provenance make them problematic? It was known (and widely reported) that the Crown Prince was involved in the Khashoggi murder in the fortnight before she first wore them. And the team that briefed the press on what she was wearing that night deliberately obscured the provenance, saying only "they were borrowed". The aide who gave that briefing told the Times journalist Valentine Low that they were definitely told the earrings had been borrowed from a commercial jewellery house, hence why they were vague about it. So, someone knew they probably shouldn't be worn, but decided to go ahead and to just obscure where they were from. Was it Meghan? Of course we don't know. She did wear them twice though, without the same briefing being given to the press both times (and there was a lot more press coverage about the muder by the time of the second wearing).

There are people saying she was advised not to wear them. But “what Meghan wants” came into play and she wore them. I think the complaint is three fold. She wouldn’t take advice. She knew, by the time she wore them, of the difficulties surrounding the giver. Staff lied to protect her.

Now she’s turned on them because she wants to make her own decisions.

Why is the RF accepting gifts from dictators?

Is it a gift to the state or is it a personal gift?

If it is the former, it should be a part of our tax payer assets, something the government can sell on our behalf or display in a government collection.

If it is private, it is shameful that they accept this although I guess Saudi monarchs and UK monarchs stick up for each other

Incorrect.
I posted this elsewhere.

Sometimes it pays to look at other sources than the DM.

The crown prince gave the earrings to the Queen during a 3-day visit to London in March 2018. MeghanMarkle has never met MBS & was not present at the diplomatic lunch where the earrings were gifted.
They were property of the Crown jewels & owned by the Queen, who loaned them out for Meghan's use...the CIA concluded that the crown prince was involved in the killing two days after Meghan last wore the earrings

Sorry, my post was to PPercy, not you Sprining

Yes, the earrings were given to the Queen directly, as a wedding gift for Meghan (she has never met the Saudi Crown Prince) when he and the Queen met a few weeks before the wedding. There may well have been other gifts handed over at the time he visited the Queen, we don't know (the palace declares all gifts in their official register each year, but doesn't identify the donor). Their exact status once that is done is unclear - we don't know enough about how these things work in the place to know what having a state wedding gift of an expensive pair of earrings really means in practice.

As for why the Queen accepts gifts from dictators, as I said, that is literally her job as Head of State. She serves the interests of the British state and has no choice in the matter. If the British government wants to foster trade relations with a dictator and invites them for a state visit the Queen will have to dress up, make nice, receive them at one of the palaces and exchange gifts with them. She has no choice in the matter. She can probably send back an unsolicited gift from King Jong-Un - but she'd still have to check with the Foreign Minister before she did so.

All gifts given like this belong to the state (the Queen holds them "for the Crown"), not the individual.

As for the timeline, Khashoggi was murdered on 2 October.

The Washington Post reported on 10 October that U.S. intelligence intercepted communications of Saudi officials discussing a plan ordered by the Crown Prince Bin Salman, to capture Khashoggi. There was considerable media coverage from that date about the Crown Prince's possible involvement in the murder.

Meghan wore the earrings for the first time on 23 October.

I don’t understand why didn’t UK return the earrings then? Why is it ok to meet for the Queen to cozy up and meet for lunch and accept gifts? Isn't that the real message being sent to the Saudis that they can get away with literal murder. And Still be welcomed by our RF?

Because returning them would have caused a diplomatic incident

But wearing them seems to be causing an incident too

Yes, but they can just leave them quietly sitting in the vaults, unseen.

Like Sophie didn't do?

She was quite happy wearing the diamond necklaces gifted to her from despots. Photos are out there.

There's a gulf between a gift from a State from the Middle East who may not meet your personal sniff test, Rousette, and one who is considered to be directly involved in an international political murder.

It was Bahrain actually

When they had an appalling human rights record. At the time there was military law imposed and protestors were tortured...

So really not my 'personal sniff test' whatever that is

Hypocrisy. We are friends and have lunch with despots and accept gifts on behalf of the country (and keep they within a royal collection that nether you or I or any other citizen has access to) But we cannot let them see daylight and be revealed to joe public, on whose behalf we have accepted them.

Britain still had diplomatic relations with Bahrain though, throughout.

Anyway, what I imagine they won't try to do again is wear them while trying to conceal where they came from.

The monarchy can only exist if we don’t examine it closely. Once you do, try to make sense if it, it becomes indefensible and irrational.

A bit like religion really

I agree.

By the way Rousette, I can see coverage of Sophie controversially receiving the jewels from Bahrain in 2012 (I note she was there on an official visit, which means it was at the request of the Foreign Office, and they most definitely know about Middle Eastern gift-giving customs and that she could expect to receive something, so she was kind of in a no-win situation there), but no details of her ever wearing them. Could you share them, if you have them?

It's on a DM link I think.

Would prefer not to spend my evening googling if it's OK with you.

(Cue you saying... aha... you can't prove it then!)

Fair enough! I have also been googling and found the following summary of the wider context to this particular issue. In August 2012 David Cameron had had the King of Bahrain to Downing Street and pressed him to make the necessary reforms to ensure that the abuses seen in Bahrain were never repeated

www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/24/david-cameron-bahrain-king-talks

The King also visited the Queen at Buckingham Palace, where the message was presumably underscored. This meeting caused protests

The Wessex's December 2012 visit to the country (at the William Hague's, the then Foreign Ministers request) was part of this attempt to encourage Bahrain towards reform. The British Embassy hosted the Wessexes while there. They also visited the Royal Navy base in Bahrain.

Exchanging of gifts is standard operating procedure during any official visit, even with representatives further down the ladder like Sophie, and the Foreign Office absolutely know this. So - given these were all delicate discussions to forward the Foreign Office agendas Sophie is just doing her job here.