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?

That's me got it wrong then!

And very convoluted it is then with the RF and their 'public service' , not paid a salary, not accountable but hugely recompensed in all sorts of ways to do what they do.

Do those who want to disband the Royal Family think that we, the tax-payers would benefit financially? I'm not sure that would be the case. We could confiscate Windsor Castle and Buck Palace, but Balmoral, Sandringham belong to them. Unless the intention is to have a revolution in style and strip them of all they own. How much would a President cost? Or do we elevate the P.M.?

@didofido

Do those who want to disband the Royal Family think that we, the tax-payers would benefit financially? I'm not sure that would be the case. We could confiscate Windsor Castle and Buck Palace, but Balmoral, Sandringham belong to them. Unless the intention is to have a revolution in style and strip them of all they own. How much would a President cost? Or do we elevate the P.M.?

It's a good question and one I've never seen a particularly feasible answer to.

I'd also point to the independent study I posted a link to upthread that values the monarchy as a brand and it's annual benefit to to the U.K. economy.

The figures are quite remarkable and in the context of what we contribute as taxpayers to fund the RF it seems an incredible rate of return.

That's not to say that I don't think the monarchy is over due some modernisation and additional scrutiny.

A pp asked the question re: who states that the Nolan principles apply to working royals and who polices this? (I paraphrase but that's the gist).

The answer is the Queen expects senior royals (those that receive tax payer funds) to abide by them. There's no legal obligation for them to do so and I think there should be.

In the same vein policing adherence and censure of any violation is solely within the remit of the Palace and that's troublesome to say the least.

Again as I posted upthread where is the scrutiny of how Andrew managed to build an alleged fortune of £80m on the back of doing private deals through opportunities gained by being a U.K. trade ambassador?

So whilst I'm not a republican (largely because I can't see an alternative that's in the wider best interests of the country rather than allegiance to the RF itself) I'm also not blind to the failings of the current system.

@didofido

Do those who want to disband the Royal Family think that we, the tax-payers would benefit financially? I'm not sure that would be the case. We could confiscate Windsor Castle and Buck Palace, but Balmoral, Sandringham belong to them. Unless the intention is to have a revolution in style and strip them of all they own. How much would a President cost? Or do we elevate the P.M.?

I don't think anyone has suggested that there would be financial benefit for taxpayers. Personally speaking, that isn't a consideration; and neither is what we replace them with or if we replace them at all. They have no function in government beyond the ceremonial, so abolishes them would change absolutely nothing - we need neither a President or an "elevated" PM. Although I can think of several methods of elevating the current PM that I would be in favour of.

Other countries do perfectly well either without a monarchy, or with a "private monarchy" - i.e. they can keep as many titles as they want but they are nothing more than private citizens. And most if not all of their money making estate for tourism would continue with or without their presence. People who visit to see Buckingham Palace (or wherever) and buy tacky souvenirs and tours will still do so if the Queen is packed off elsewhere. People pay for the history and the idea - not the actual person.

But in the end, for me it is not financial. It is about the fact that in the 21st century hereditary position and privilege is well past its sell by date.

“But in the end, for me it is not financial. It is about the fact that in the 21st century hereditary position and privilege is well past its sell by date.”

Yes, yes and yes 😃

@Lookingforwardto2021

“But in the end, for me it is not financial. It is about the fact that in the 21st century hereditary position and privilege is well past its sell by date.”

Yes, yes and yes 😃

I get your point, but I do love an historical anachronism

Well we've had one question answered....

Harry knows exactly what public service and duty is.

From his interview with James Corden re: The Crown.

"But it's loosely based on the truth. Of course it's not strictly accurate, but ... it gives you a rough idea about what that lifestyle, what the pressures of putting duty and service above family and everything else, what can come from that."

Harry knows the RF definition of that.

It is different from how most people in the modern world define duty and public service (hint -it is not getting 16 residences and huge tax payer monies to cut ribbons)

If you ask an average person, they would say a fireman performs duty and public service, as they put their lives at risk. Or hospital workers in a pandemic who risk their lives for their fellowmen.

The RF has a sense of entitlement and justifying their tax payer subsidies under the guise of ‘duty’ does not cut mustard for a modern mind

I know the thread was about comparing the RF and H&M definition of “life of service” rather than an employed public servant, a foster parent or a lifeboat volunteer, but I can’t help feeling that PH likes to think he can change the world with podcasts and baby hats, but the majority of their activities seem to be self serving above all else.

It’s easy to volunteer for some warm and fuzzy stuff and talk about service when you don’t need a job, live in a mansion and don’t even empty your own dishwasher. They think people want to hear about kindness and the environment, but unfortunately it is the dirt-dishing on the royals that keeps the media interested. I even suspect there may be something in the Netflix contract which means he has to speak positively about the crown, despite the upset it has caused his relatives.

I’m sure very many rich celebrities do good deeds and charity work but don’t claim to live a life of service. I’m disappointed as I deeply sympathised with him living a life of rules and scrutiny he didn’t choose, a child who buried his mum in front of the global press. I definitely didn’t blame him for opting for a different life, but if the aim is living the life of a billionaire without the obligation and intrusion of royalty, at least he should own it and not pretend to be mother Theresa.

@Rupertbeartrousers

I know the thread was about comparing the RF and H&M definition of “life of service” rather than an employed public servant, a foster parent or a lifeboat volunteer, but I can’t help feeling that PH likes to think he can change the world with podcasts and baby hats, but the majority of their activities seem to be self serving above all else.

It’s easy to volunteer for some warm and fuzzy stuff and talk about service when you don’t need a job, live in a mansion and don’t even empty your own dishwasher. They think people want to hear about kindness and the environment, but unfortunately it is the dirt-dishing on the royals that keeps the media interested. I even suspect there may be something in the Netflix contract which means he has to speak positively about the crown, despite the upset it has caused his relatives.

I’m sure very many rich celebrities do good deeds and charity work but don’t claim to live a life of service. I’m disappointed as I deeply sympathised with him living a life of rules and scrutiny he didn’t choose, a child who buried his mum in front of the global press. I definitely didn’t blame him for opting for a different life, but if the aim is living the life of a billionaire without the obligation and intrusion of royalty, at least he should own it and not pretend to be mother Theresa.

I fully agree with your point of view.

Let’s face it, the relevance of the Royal Family is rapidly fading. Many are clinging on to the idea for dear life but if we as a nation are honest with ourselves, it’s a relic of an ancient past. Very few people care.

I read the going ons and public statements and think it’s all a fantasy world that so far removed from the real world. They are playing dress-up whilst the rest of us get on with real life.

@Rupertbeartrousers

I know the thread was about comparing the RF and H&M definition of “life of service” rather than an employed public servant, a foster parent or a lifeboat volunteer, but I can’t help feeling that PH likes to think he can change the world with podcasts and baby hats, but the majority of their activities seem to be self serving above all else.

It’s easy to volunteer for some warm and fuzzy stuff and talk about service when you don’t need a job, live in a mansion and don’t even empty your own dishwasher. They think people want to hear about kindness and the environment, but unfortunately it is the dirt-dishing on the royals that keeps the media interested. I even suspect there may be something in the Netflix contract which means he has to speak positively about the crown, despite the upset it has caused his relatives.

I’m sure very many rich celebrities do good deeds and charity work but don’t claim to live a life of service. I’m disappointed as I deeply sympathised with him living a life of rules and scrutiny he didn’t choose, a child who buried his mum in front of the global press. I definitely didn’t blame him for opting for a different life, but if the aim is living the life of a billionaire without the obligation and intrusion of royalty, at least he should own it and not pretend to be mother Theresa.

I’m sure very many rich celebrities do good deeds and charity work but don’t claim to live a life of service.

This.

When Harry says, 'My life is always going to be about public service' in that interview with James Corden, I find myself thinking of the cartoon that appeared shortly after Harry and Meghan decamped to Canada...

@Rupertbeartrousers

I know the thread was about comparing the RF and H&M definition of “life of service” rather than an employed public servant, a foster parent or a lifeboat volunteer, but I can’t help feeling that PH likes to think he can change the world with podcasts and baby hats, but the majority of their activities seem to be self serving above all else.

It’s easy to volunteer for some warm and fuzzy stuff and talk about service when you don’t need a job, live in a mansion and don’t even empty your own dishwasher. They think people want to hear about kindness and the environment, but unfortunately it is the dirt-dishing on the royals that keeps the media interested. I even suspect there may be something in the Netflix contract which means he has to speak positively about the crown, despite the upset it has caused his relatives.

I’m sure very many rich celebrities do good deeds and charity work but don’t claim to live a life of service. I’m disappointed as I deeply sympathised with him living a life of rules and scrutiny he didn’t choose, a child who buried his mum in front of the global press. I definitely didn’t blame him for opting for a different life, but if the aim is living the life of a billionaire without the obligation and intrusion of royalty, at least he should own it and not pretend to be mother Theresa.

Absolutely agree. ‘Unsurvivable’ is not living a life of extreme luxury and privilege, with several house a you haven’t paid for, staff for every whim and designer clothes. They clearly haven’t learned much from their charity work about real hardship and suffering.

Well, @GoLightlyontheEarth, with that attitude you probably think the princesses in Dubai whole ant to escape are just whiners

I hardly think their situations are in any way comparable.

@Peaseblossom22

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 .

Great post.

Even WIlliam and Kate have had royal visits in my area which have only been in the local papers.

@Lookingforwardto2021

Well, *@GoLightlyontheEarth*, with that attitude you probably think the princesses in Dubai whole ant to escape are just whiners

I think there is a slight difference between their situations.

Who are we to judge? I’m sure there are women in UAE who think the princesses should have followed he example of other princesses and kept their head down and continued i a golden cage. We get it though and understand wealth does not compensate for abuse.

If Mm says the situation was horrible for her, well let’s just give her the respect and be happy that she found her own way out

@Lookingforwardto2021

Who are we to judge? I’m sure there are women in UAE who think the princesses should have followed he example of other princesses and kept their head down and continued i a golden cage. We get it though and understand wealth does not compensate for abuse.

If Mm says the situation was horrible for her, well let’s just give her the respect and be happy that she found her own way out

Oh I thought you meant Harry was in a prison. Anyway it is a completely different situation. I doubt the princess in the UAE had such japes; joined the army, shagged around, got naked in Vegas, had a few serious relationships, etc, before settling down and locking herself in a prison, do you? Hardly the same situation.

I do agree that being royal is somewhat of a gilded cage though, and suspect that maybe Harry didn't quite explain to Meghan the reality of the life they would lead in the UK. Who knows? Did the money and luxury make up for the intrusion and constant speculation? tbh I think the monarchy is a sinking ship, and they probably got out at just the right time. Stilll got the money and luxury anyway.

I think both Harry and Meghan have a tendency toward hyperbole in the statements they make. But then again Harry has such a deep mistrust of the UK media, that press attacks on he and Meghan, maybe did feel 'unsurviveable.'

“tbh I think the monarchy is a sinking ship, and they probably got out at just the right time.“

I agree

Btw, probably the male RF in UAE can get into japes.

Different and higher standards for women members of the RF. I imagine they are given relative freedom to buy fancy clothes and indulge in hobbies and have palaces or at least big houses to live in (all the things the pp mentioned) respect from the wider society as long as they follow the rules and live within their golden cage. The minute they want out and want to live in their own terms they are horrifically treated.

I think none of us should judge, everyone deserves a life of freedom and on their own terms.

I think many Middle Eastern/Arab women aren’t sympathetic to her because most of them don’t have total freedom. Cultural and religious norms are very strict and they don’t have the wealth and privilege to sugar coat it. Many of my husband’s female relatives do not leave the house for days.

I agree. And we have freedom, to say what we want, share what we want and live our lives that’s ay we want to.

So why grudge H&M that freedom? Wealth and privilege can sugar coat the golden cage. As can words like “royal service” (such as trotting our your child for public consumption on demand) . But it is still a cage.

@Lookingforwardto2021

I agree. And we have freedom, to say what we want, share what we want and live our lives that’s ay we want to.

So why grudge H&M that freedom? Wealth and privilege can sugar coat the golden cage. As can words like “royal service” (such as trotting our your child for public consumption on demand) . But it is still a cage.

Yes it is, but M willingly embraced that life. She was a mature woman with life experience. She had been married and divorced previously. She wasn’t an ingenue who hardly knew her husband. I accept that the reality of life May have been harder than anticipated. If they wanted to leave they could have done so with grace and good manners, not to say gratitude for the free houses and wedding they had enjoyed. Instead they continue to court attention and complain at every opportunity, whilst continuing to live a life of immense privilege which they don't work for.

@GoLightlyontheEarth Meghan surely has the human right to change her mind and walk away from it especially if it is bad for her mental health.

Was she supposed to suffer and put up with this type of life regardless? Why? For what purpose? To be a sport for trolls?

The Royal Family had some currency in the Commonwealth but after the debacle with H&M the RF is not only irrelevant here it is also irrelevant to the Commonwealth.

The whole thing looks increasingly silly in a modern society. Like an ancient relic of oppressive systems.