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?

Why. Any they exchange gifts like English biscuits and tea vs Arabic coffee and dates.

Why does it have to expensive jewellery? And if we do need to accept jewellery, why don’t we sell it and fund women shelters , as a penance for turning a blind eye towards how they treat women?
Honestly, it is cringeworthy to have foreign rulers giving jewellery to women. It is quite an intimate act.

Thanks for context Serenster

Yes, agree Spining.

I bet we don't know even 10% of what jewels are held in safes by the Crown. It will be worth millions.
It's really obscene isn't it...
The public can't even go and look at all this loot

Middle Eastern rulers like to give lavish gifts of jewellery because they can, I suspect? You'd have to ask them. They do it to everyone - Nancy Reagan was given a set once too, that she had to accept. All the European Queens have their own stash too. It keeps the luxury jewel businesses in customers, I guess?

Also, by the way, the Daily Mail has a 2012 headline that I think you must have seen, from its wording, Rousette? " Sophie's gems from despots: Countess faces questions after accepting lavish jewellery gifts from bloody Bahrain". I cannot find any evidence at all, even on specialist Royal jewellery sites, that she's ever been seen wearing either anything from Bahrain, or even anything unidentified since.

The Saudis also gave gifts to the Obamas. But as NBC notes “By law, most gifts to U.S. officials must be turned over to the government and the jewelry has already been sent to the National Archives.”

If we had the same rules here, we wouldn't have the problem of Royals wearing the jewellery because they wouldn’t have a chance to keep them in the first place.

I saw what I thought was photos, but who knows.

I'm averse to clicking on DM links!

@Roussette

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

I don’t think your dates are correct. Can you share the non-DM links that show this, please?

@Roussette

I saw what I thought was photos, but who knows. I'm averse to clicking on DM links!

There is a photo of Sophie wearing a diamond and aquamarine necklace in that 2012 article, but that's just a stock photo, and she's had the necklace for nearly 15 years. It comes from a jeweller in Tunbridge Wells (no despots there, so far as I know )

No I read it somewhere and without going through all my history for the last couple of days, which will take me ages, I can't. It was a link on Twitter, not someone's opinion, but a newsfeed. And my twitter feed moves very quickly.

You go and look if you like. To back up your story of course.

Gosh Serenster you must spend a lot of time doing your homework!

She doesn’t have that many necklaces and this is a pretty recognisable one!

@Roussette

I posted this on another thread. You've been quite manipulative in your version of "earringate".

Yes it's true that the CIA and only announced that after investigations that MS was directly "involved" well after the jewellery was worn but it was international news it was suspected well prior to that.

My post on another thread:

---

From The Telegraph:

"All jewellery gifted from one royal to another – such as the earrings from bin Salman – becomes official property of the Queen. It is believed that these were gifted to Meghan from the Saudi royal and chosen for her royal tour – but everyone knew where they came from, and it is understood she was warned against wearing them as their provenance might raise concerns."

She first wore them 3 weeks after the murder and again a month later. At both of these times the international press had run stories alleging world leaders suspected MBS involvement.

3 days before the dinner she attended the Saudi Govt had admitted involvement in the killing.

Prior to all this in 2016 M had been photographed with a leading Saudi women's rights activist at the One Young World summit so was presumably well aware of the dubious human rights record of the Saudi Govt - especially towards women.

On that basis alone I would have thought she might have been concerned about wearing them.

Lawyers representing H&M have not denied that they were aware of the provenance of the earnings.

I saw it.

Manipulative? Lol