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?

Lookingforward Totally agree.

I just don't call what they do 'public service' as such. Well... if it is... it is easy public service, hardly hard work, risking their lives to save others....
frontline NHS, police, fire crew
That will entail exhausting night shifts, huge pressure, and at times exhaustion.
What the RF does is a world away from that... or from my definition of public service.
What they do is more celebrity culture with endless protocols, traditions and history.

*Public services are what the government provides through funding schools, hospitals etc.

Public servants are people employed by the government to carry out policies, eg, civil services

Building and running a hospital can be a public service. It is a stretch to say cutting a ribbon is a public service. Moreover anyone can cut a ribbon (Countries which don’t have monarchies miraculously find people who can cut ribbons. Moreover they don’t make it a cult activity with an insider handshake and if you don’t do it, you are banned from the cult 😃)

*You're conflating both different terms and ignoring the context.

The Queen referred to "a life of public service".

That's what's under discussion here. What a life of public service means in the context of that statement.

If a false parallel to draw an equivalence with Government provided public "services" and "civil servants".

Just because the terms are similar it's not a "gotcha" in any regard.

Nobody is saying that only the RF can provide a public service.

The difference is what that public service entails as a member of the RF and it isn't confined to "cutting ribbons".

*And the constraints, well they seem to be mostly self imposed by some archaic insider norms. I don’t think the government tells Kate or meghan what to wear and what to call their kids. If this is royal protocol, it is a made up game which is actually not required for any of the so called services they provide.

*I agree that some of the constraints are self imposed and archaic (wearing tights, nude nail varnish spring to mind as particularly bizarre) and I suspect as younger generations get the "top" job we will see a great number of changes in "traditions" such as this.

It doesn't however change the fact that the most significant constraints are not the result of outdated protocol - freedom of expression being an obvious example.

The only thing the non-queen royals are required to do, is be neutral and not break the law and that in it self doesn’t not constitute public service, it is simply a requirement

That's not really true is it.

If all senior royals "just" did was not break the law and be neutral we'd be a republic in a month.

They have a wide range of engagements (often planned years in advance) and duties they are directed by the Govt to deliver.

They key difference in what public service means in the context of providing it as a member of the RF is that is both defined and imposed by the Government not the person. It's a form of subjugation to duty largely outside their control.

If you don't see the work of the RF as a public service then you're in the company of a lot of republicans who'd agree with you and you're entitled to that view.

But by the same token disagreeing that the RF provide a public service doesn't equate to proof that H&M will - we've certainly not seen any evidence to date to suggest that their plans are primarily guided by anything other than self interest.

@Lookingforwardto2021

And they are all compensated generously by us the tax payer. So no selflessness there.

The money they get from the civil list is not to reward them for their work but to fund it.

In stepping back to the question posed on this thread what's the difference between philanthropy/good works and public service it's worth mentioning (again) the Nolan principles which all senior royals are expected to adhere to.

Full list here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2

One of the most significant in the context of this discussion is:

"Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships."

This simply isn't compatible with touting for voice over work at a premiere or signing a deal with Netflix.

H&M don't want to live within the Nolan constraints (as they made clear with their break away statement). That's fine but you can't have your cake and eat it.

The big problem they’ve got is insincerity. I don’t think anyone would have blamed them for wanting a quiet life. Indeed if they’d rescinded titles and disappeared, the press would probably leave them alone. That’s not what’s happened though. It feels like they want the glitzy PR moments, the cash and the security but not the grunt work. They’ve been tone deaf with some of their actions and press releases. Like others, I reckon they could have found an accommodation within the RF. if Meghan had stayed, she could have been a complete mega star. There will be interest in them for a while but in 3-5 years, will anyone really want them turning up to open things? What is their role and purpose? Where will their foundation get its cash? Will anyone actually give a shit?

Have you guys had a look at how this Archwell business is set up. Basically you have different division branches, ie Netflix, the audio division, etc. Then you have the "Archewell Foundation" within the business. But it is basically a business. I see the "foundation" more as the marketing and PR department which helps raise the profile they want to have - to keep the business coming.

Nothing to do with philanthropy. They want to do charity and skim it to pay for the lifestyle. In the name of. Nice business model. It is all a muddle.

As for the OP's question, of course there is a difference. Behind the 'public duty' point, is the monarchy, which is part of the UK system. The Queen gets the limelight, but also because of what she represents not who she is.

Can't keep the freebies paid by the UK tax payer if you don't play for the team (and by team I mean, the institution the Queen represents). You can forgive Meghan for not getting the point, and American actress and all, but you can't forgive the Prince. He should know better.

Besides all, terrible PR management so far! They won't get far in the charitable world on this side of the pond. Imagine the liability, who would like to take the chance and associate themselves with them - if you don't even know what the headlines will be tomorrow.

And who does those headlines I wonder?

Yes, our vile gutter press.

@Roussette

And who does those headlines I wonder?

Yes, our vile gutter press.

oh hello @Roussette. No, it is them. Just look at their response to the Palace announcement. The press does not need to write anything about it! job done by them. The press (and all of us) are just watching it happen. Terrible PR. Either they are being ill advised or completely lost it. They have doubled down and they keep digging.

the Press never stop writing horrible headlines, not them!

I read both the Palace statement and their response, let's just say, I don't blame them for their response at all. They should've softened it at the end but apart from that twas fine.
But then I'm not Nicholas Witchell who nearly had apoplexy about it but he's always been a spluttering fool. The RF despise him

@Roussette

the Press never stop writing horrible headlines, not them!

I read both the Palace statement and their response, let's just say, I don't blame them for their response at all. They should've softened it at the end but apart from that twas fine.
But then I'm not Nicholas Witchell who nearly had apoplexy about it but he's always been a spluttering fool. The RF despise him

Yes the press can be awful. I don't think this is a matter of dispute.

Yet as another poster on another thread put it, they do seem to like tugging on the tigers tail.

If ever the phase "the best revenge is a life lived well" was apt for anyone it's them.

They've got a fabulous new home, a new baby on the way and are financially secure thanks to the Netflix deal.

When I see their press releases my reaction isn't one of outrage that they've stuck their fingers up at the RF yet again, but rather one of bemusement as to why they think that does them any favours.

The comment about service in that statement didn't need softening, it simply served no purpose wrt their best interests being there.

Like it or not the lives they want are simply not compatible with public service in the context of how the RF operate under the Nolan principles.

It's not mean to acknowledge this. It's not anti H&M to point out their version of "service" is very different to that of both royal public service and its constraints and philanthropy.

If you want to avoid horrible headlines it's best not to feed the troll especially never mind inviting them a Michelin star tasting menu in the form of an Oprah interview - especially in the context that every royal whose previously done such an interview has found it backfired or subsequently regretted it.

DeRigueurMortis.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-
Great link.

@Lookingforwardto2021

According to posters on this thread and the RF, service is when

• You are mega rich and don’t need to earn a living
• Preferably mega rich living of the tax payer so there isn’t a ‘conflict of interest’ (Let’s ignore that all that wealth is invested somewhere with lots of vested interests to keep it multiplying)
• you don’t enjoy doing charity, so it is a ‘service’
• you are royalty so you are inherently superior and waving to the plebs is a ‘service’

Agree with this and I’d add:

• the service you do is of very limited value to those who receive the service and requires no real skills.

Lunar that post was in contradiction to what most posters of the thread have actually said.

No-one has suggested service is confined to royalty or being rich, nor is not liking what you do a criteria (along with anything else on that list).

Your view that the value of said service and the qualifications (or lack of) are limited is however one you're entitled to hold.

Indeed how do you measure the "value" of the royal family?

This article may be of interest:

 Brand Finance estimates the capital value of the UK Monarchy as a business at £67.5bn
 Monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy in 2017 is £1.766bn
 Annual cost per head is less than £4.50 a year, equal to just over 1p a day

https://brandfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/1/brandfinanceemonarchypresssrelease.pdf

Note:

Brand Finance is the world’s leading brand and business valuation consultancy, with offices in over 20 countries. We provide clarity to marketers, brand managers and investors by quantifying the financial value of brands.

This article is worth a read (written after the breakaway announcement).

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/meghan-markle-prince-harry-net-worth-brand-royal-family-money-a9281736.html%3famp

Of particular interest at this point in time:

"The first thing, according to Jones, is the need to “re-align” themselves with the royal family - despite announcing their intended separation.
This is because the connection will be “paramount to ensuring their own brand’s success".
“Meghan's celebrity past certainly plays a role, but it is Prince Harry as a member of the royal family who is the driver of their financial future,” Jones told us.
The couple must also avoid tying their brand to anything that cheapens who they are, which means avoiding tell-all book deals or negative interviews about the royal family."

DeRigeur Good measured post of yours in response to mine.

I do think they're their own worst enemies at times but quite frankly, so are most of the RF at times.

The Nolan principles apply to everyone who holds a public office, eg, MPs, civil servants etc.

They have to declare their assets and where they are re held, for example, so there is no potential conflict of interest.

I wasn’t aware that the RF was bound by the Nolan principle. Do we know exactly what their assets are and where these are held? And who holds the RF to account if they violate the Nolan principles? Are there regular committee hearings where the queen and other RF are hauled in to be questioned on this, if there are concerns, eg, Andrew, Charles memos?

I’ve lived my life equally between the US and UK. And I get where H&M are coming from.

I don’t think the royalists realise quite how parochial and feudal their mentality towards the RF is. It is something they have grown up on, fed by DM and the like. And think it is somehow normal. For example, that the grotesque wealth that the RF have accumulated is actually them doing us plebs a favour. Their unaccountability is a public service. Their rubbing shoulders with dictators and dodgy head of states is vital ‘soft’ (Ie unaccountable and self serving) diplomacy

I'm not particularly fond of H&M but I was gobsmacked by the palace's statement about service and how petty it was. Surely the pandemic has shown us that someone washing hospital linen has a vital role to play. The possibility to serve is universal and I don't think people really feel that attached to the weird public service that the royals do anyway. I also think removing Harry's military titles wasn't the best idea given Prince Andrew has kept his and he is no longer a senior working royal as he's in disgrace! But yeah the whole family seem super out of touch, the whole world is in crisis and it's got for tat about the family biz and deals with Netflix over proper organising.

I think it's more about 'Brand Monarchy' than 'Public Service'. They felt that H&M going off-piste was damaging Brand Monarchy, so better to let them go. They seem to be blind as to how much protecting Prince Andrew has damaged their brand though.

@cyclingmad

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.

I generally avoid all things "royal" as I have little interest in any of them. But I had a very similar reaction to seeing that statement - I found it patronising and, frankly, offensive. Having to visit a few places and wave a lot or speak to people, in return for a life of privilege and a large chunk of money and estate at the public expense is not really, in my view, "public service". The statement made it sound like it was an onerous duty to live in privilege in return for private transport and a opening some community centres! I think we could all volunteer for a job like that, couldn't we?

I spent my life working for agencies like Medicin San Frontieres and UNHCR. It was bloody hard work and sometimes soul destroying. That said, I chose it and I loved it. It was employment yes, but it was also, by any definition, public service. There's lots of other public service too. There's going into hospitals every single day to work during a pandemic - whether you are a doctor, a nurse or a cleaner for starters.

I'm not particularly interested in the life choices of Harry and Meghan; but then I am not interested in the life choices of Elizabeth Windsor either. But making out that one is somehow better than everyone else for inheriting the hardship of immense wealth, the public purse, and doing some visits and a televised broadcast or two - that is really offensive. What started out as a rather nasty swipe at the grandchildren has ended up as an offensive dig at people who really did choose a life of public service, and without any of the massive benefits that all the royals have.

BigGreen yes. I agree. I found it petty in these days and times which is why I said I don't blame H&M for their response. But I also think them saying 'we can all live a life of service, service is universal' is not a dig at the Queen but directed more to the general public. (But those that dislike H&M won't see it like that). The RF don't have a monopoly on public service. Millions of others do it without their path being eased beyond anything we can imagine.

@Moondust001
Great post and hats off to you for your really admirable public service.

So many do public service without us hearing about it.

Surely the difference is much more simple .

Everyone can serve others,but they get to choose their causes, they get to have some choice in how to do this. They get to do the things they want and raise the profile of both themselves in turn.

Public service as described by the Queen means that you serve the public. You can have favourite causes but essentially you go where you are told when you are told. If that is a sewage works in a less attractive part of the country on a wet Wednesday that’s what you do.

You may have no interest in the preservation of the lesser spotted worm but you rock up at the opening of their new building in the sand dunes in the rain because they have requested a visit and it will get them some local headlines and it will make the volunteers feel good. You turn up to innumerable awards ceremonies and memorials and anniversaries . You hold lunches and dinners for people you neither like nor respect because your job is to promote British interests abroad and improve trade links. You make the visits allocated to you by the engagements office.

I would like to see a republic but I am not yet sure what type or how we achieve this.However I work in the charity sector and over the years have been involved in several royal visits and I have to say I don’t know how they do it. It must be mind numbingly boring. They don’t even get to go to the loo without being accompanied for security reasons. I was tempted to offer to help one out of the loo window so they could escape!

What I will say is that in all three cases I was pleasantly surprised by how well briefed they were, how engaged, in one case involving older people the royal made sure that they met and spoke to every single older person and wrote afterwards to the one person who was ill on the day . The residents spoke of nothing else for about a month. In another they were able to talk about recent events in the area of research knowledgeably and with seeming interest. Where they are patrons they are expected to turn up to meetings etc, Princess Anne is famously well briefed and takes a day to day interest in her charities including the well being of the staff.

These were not large, fashionable or even well known causes, there were no cameras other than local newspaper or our own PR . In one case the royal visit enabled us to hold a reception which raised the profile and definitely helped us in terms of attracting funding in another it was lovely to see how much the volunteers enjoyed the visit, sometimes volunteering is a thankless task and a thank you from someone royal makes a difference and feels like a public thank you. Even if your head tells you this is silly and the chattering classes in places like mumsnet sneer. The royals provide a little bit of colour and public recognition and they are very good at it, in a republic I am not sure who would fulfill this role .

What I will say is that in all three cases I was pleasantly surprised by how well briefed they were

So they bloody well should be! They are given all the facts they need to know, they don't have to do the donkey work, they jolly well should read and inwardly digest what is handed to them on a plate.

Of course people love a Royal visit, it's what we've been brought up to love, but there is no getting away from the fact their path is eased doing all this.
I agree about volunteering being a thankless task, I am still doing it now with a different org, but I was ten years very heavily involved volunteering with one Charity and giving as many hours as a part time job at one point, let alone the mental toll. Maybe I did public service too... hmmm will have to think on that one...

To be clear I am not saying one is better than the other, I am only saying that they are different.

What the Queen is saying is that ‘public service’ is incompatible with the commercial high profile life of H and M . It’s quite possible their more ‘ universal service’ will make a greater difference to the world but public service in the way the a Queen sees it is different you are in effect a civil servant and therefore the life they have chosen is incompatible.

They are right service is universal, I am off to. Trustees meeting this morning but if I wanted to give this up I could resign.

I agree about volunteering being a thankless task, I am still doing it now with a different org, but I was ten years very heavily involved volunteering with one Charity and giving as many hours as a part time job at one point, let alone the mental toll. Maybe I did public service too... hmmm will have to think on that one...

No that’s volunteering , public service is when you are paid to serve just like being a member of the armed forces or a civil servant or a doctor or ... a working member of the royal family .