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?

She has the absolute right to walk away , as does he, but I wish to god they would shut up and stop bleating about it . They have a young family , a beautiful house in one of the most beautiful spots in California , they have practically no responsibilities and huge wealth , just go away and enjoy it .

What they do not have the right to do is breach the privacy of the rest of his family. Having experienced the U.K. press up front why stir up a hornets nest that could unleash a whole lot more horror on both themselves and the remaining members of their family. I would have thought if they really cared about the Queen , PP , the Wales’ and Cambridge’s they would want to protect them from any more fall out from their decision. But no, every time things go quiet out they go and poke the nest again.

But nothing. You do not need to listen and if the British press ignored them then you would not hear their bleating. The British press has made millions with their nonsense stories and click bait.

This constant attack and n them is boring and blatantly unfair given the questionable behaviour by others of that family and the fact that H&M are crucified for things many in the RF have done or us doing.

It’s all nonsense. Let’s all get on with our lives and stop harassing others for their choices. Ignore them and your life will be more peaceful. They don’t know you exist so ignore them.

@Peaseblossom22

She has the absolute right to walk away , as does he, but I wish to god they would shut up and stop bleating about it . They have a young family , a beautiful house in one of the most beautiful spots in California , they have practically no responsibilities and huge wealth , just go away and enjoy it .

What they do not have the right to do is breach the privacy of the rest of his family. Having experienced the U.K. press up front why stir up a hornets nest that could unleash a whole lot more horror on both themselves and the remaining members of their family. I would have thought if they really cared about the Queen , PP , the Wales’ and Cambridge’s they would want to protect them from any more fall out from their decision. But no, every time things go quiet out they go and poke the nest again.

Yes, this is the problem. Just go away and be quiet for the love of God. Stop moaning and whining and go off and live your life. What’s more, stop embarrassing your family .

I think there is subtle difference between public duty and charity and philanthropy, though it can overlap.

I believe that once the Queen is gone, that should be it. The country should become a republic. If the Royal Family preemptively say this before she passes, it might set Harry free of his obligations and duties to do whatever philanthropic work he wants with Meghan or any associates and they will not feel constrained by expectations. William, Catherine and their kids, Charles and Camilla, and the other minor royals can continue with their charity work, public speeches and/or whatever else they do and live their private lives. They presumably also have private income that they can live on.

I think Balmoral and Sandringham belongs to the Royal Family so they can keep that. Whatever truly belongs to the Royal Family, they should get keep and when it comes to tiaras and crowns, and jewels then that can be decided be between the government and the Royal Family.

Prince Andrew can face whatever charges he needs and clear his name or face trial for any crimes committed. The Royal Family might have taken his words at face value and presume that he’s innocent. Who knows? He just might be innocent but given the people Epstein associates with, that’s highly unlikely...but Epstein had public friends/associates and private friends/associates and I think Maxwell might have a clue regarding Andrew’s actions.

H&M have every right to talk. They have a big platform and a lot of good to do. All the British press cares about is gossip and slagging H&M. Officially H&M's time finishes with the RF end of March.

So far, it's clear that Archewell is more than just talk. Even the audio was a platform for people to talk and be heard by a lot more ppl than they would have otherwise. Had to read about it's Central Kitchen from Bloomberg, the Texas roof was not widely reported either. I'm guessing we will never hear anything about Loveland foundation, cause you know, black ppl are treated like dirt by the DM. And the UCLA, CHT and CCARE projects are clearly about stopping online hate, so ditto for those.

I see snarky descriptions being used about them like moaning, Archwell being described as a veneer. All these complaints about H&M timing regarding the interview and PP health. No one questioned HMQE 'timing' while chirpily unveiling a statue, lecturing us on Corona, issuing, a rather insulting statement to public servants, a statement that was not even needed considering the exit extension actually ends at the end of March. But bring on a slew of panelists to moan about the Oprah interview.

My take on it is that Harry is now like Ludovicus, the central figure in this old drawing by Thackeray. The ‘magic’ happens when he puts on the robes of royalty and becomes Ludovicus Rex/Prince Harry. As plain old Ludovicus/Harry, he does not have a duty of public service, in the particular sense the Queen meant it in her statement. The duty is attached to the robes of royalty, which he has taken off (sort of!).

Of course, Harry and Meghan can still be of service in the more general sense of the word and engage in philanthropic pursuits. And I actually believe they could even have maintained some working links with the monarchy, had it not looked as if they were intent on making a personal fortune out of that connection.

When Jimmy Carter left office, he pledged that he would not make money out of being an ex-president. He eschewed the lucrative after dinner speeches circuit and chose to live in a modest bungalow in relative obscurity. Along with his wife Rosalynn, he set up the not-for-profit Carter Centre to do good works around the world.

This could easily have been a template for Harry and Meghan’s post-royal life, that would have allowed some sort of connection to continue. They might have been able to keep some of their patronages if they had followed in those saintly footsteps.

But they chose the Tony and Cherie Blair luxe and bucks commercial model instead.

So I think the Queen was in a difficult position.

Just imagine you and your family have spent years trying to rebrand yourself as hardworking, civic-minded, charitable custodians of a nation’s heritage after many centuries of sequestering land, wealth accumulation out of dodgy ventures, entitled behaviour and general shenanigans, only for a certain faction within the family to go rogue and look like they are taking up some of the old ways very publicly.

The Royals might still be covert money-grubbers - I’m pretty sure they are - but, from their perspective, it’s destabilising to be associated with what they would classify as overt money-grubbing. It might make people question the whole notion of privilege and institutional inequity that underpins royalty.

He called it the Carter Centre. Everyone knew it was from him. Cant really get away from his presidency connections unless he changed the name

And making money from doing productions is not 'money grubbing', it's work.

I don’t have any problem with the Sussexes playing the cards available to them and talking to Oprah, it’s been predicted for literally months now that they’d do a tell-all with her. My main issue with it is that they will doubtless use it to perpetuate the re-write of their history that they’ve been spreading since this time last year. It’s instructive to go and see what they themselves told us about their position at the time, rather than now one year on (all quotes below are from the Sussexxes own pre-prepared statements on their website, which they released on 8 January 2020).

In January 2020, when the couple first made their public announcement on their website, they definitely weren’t suggesting they were leaving their Royal roles. Rather, they announced that they had "made the choice to transition into a new working model”. Why did they want to do this? As they made clear, they don’t "benefit from their charitable and cause driven work” because "under the current structure and financing arrangements, they are prohibited from earning any income in any form”. The Sussexes however "value the ability to earn a professional income, which in the current structure they are prohibited from doing”. And so this is why they have chosen a new approach - it will "enable them to continue to carry out their duties for Her Majesty The Queen, while having the future financial autonomy to work externally”.

There’s no mention that their current public position is unsurvivable. Far from it. In fact, they intend to proudly maximise the Queen’s legacy "by supporting their patronages and carrying out works for The Monarchy within the UK or abroad, as called upon".

Their plan, clearly set out in their own words, was give up receive "funding through the Sovereign Grant, thereby making them members of the Royal Family with financial independence” (the Sovereign Grant provided 5% of their funding needs, the other 95% coming from Prince Charles). Their intention therefore was to still be bankrolled by Prince Charles, but no longer be subject to the Nolan rules, which prohibit them from benefitting financially from their position. This, they described, would "carve out a progressive new role within this institution” while they "continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, and all relevant parties”.

This remained their position for a couple of weeks, until the Royal family made it very clear that this was not actual possible, and they had to choose to either be wholly in (and bound by the rules) or wholly out (and free from them). They went for the latter, as they obviously wanted the ability to earn money. Prince Harry made their position perfectly clear at his January speech at a Sentabale event: "Our hope was to continue serving the Queen, the Commonwealth, and my military associations, but without public funding. Unfortunately, that wasn’t possible”.

It was then, and only then, that their narrative changed, to the toxic media and palace environment being “unsurvivable” and stepping back being their “ only option". It would have been perfectly survivable it seems, if they been able have the best of both worlds, as they actually wanted: the cachet of being Royal and the freedom to make as much money as they wanted because of it. They really don’t want to think of that now, though. And that’s why I side-eye this interview - they will doubtless make it clear that they are speaking their truth, as they like to phrase it. But I am pretty sure they won’t.

Interesting thread- thanks for starting it. Another Brit abroad here and also work as a funder in philanthropy (foundation director - sadly not my own money). Firstly, I can broadly understand Harry's desire to step back from the Royal family and live a more "normal" life - as someone said, who wants to be the next Princess Margaret? Once the Queen dies, and Charles potentially not long after, it will be all about William, Kate and their children. He wasn't going to get the good gigs in terms of public engagement so it made sense for him to maybe think about his option. I also agree with pp that the royal family needs slimming down and I think this is reasonably likely to happen once the crown passes over.

However, at the same time, I'm not sure the private income thing was thought through that well. From what I can see, their main way to make money will be through effectively selling "their story" of the split because they are really not that interesting or talented beyond being ex-members of the Royal family (she's a good actress but there are lots of those). People will be watching the Netflix and Oprah show hoping they're gonna spill the beans on the Royals (with a side of "little boy lost" from Harry and some "I didn't know he was a prince" from Meghan) and I'm sure they won't be disappointed. However, that's a one trick pony and even if they get 100 million, that's not a huge pot in philanthropy terms (some of the big foundations will spend that annually). Also, dishing dirt on your family for cash is not really compatible with being a serious and respected philanthropist, most of whom are intensely private. The other problem they will have as philanthropists is they are effectively "pass throughs"- they don't have their own money - they need to raise it - so they need to consider what those donors want and groom their own public profile accordingly. Bill Gates doesn't need to worry- he can do whatever he likes and that helps him be more impactful because his business is completely separate from his philanthropy- no-one buys a Windows 360 package thinking "great- I'm helping cure Malaria and actually BG seems a nice bloke who really loves kids and animals".

Anyway, long way of saying, problem with M&H is that while they allegedly crave independence and privacy , their financial independence depends on continually banging on about being royal in a very public way. It's unsurprising that they're drawing heavy fire.

I honestly think Harry'd have been better off staying in the military.

There is no re-writing of any history here.

They set out what they wanted to do with the half in - which most royals actually have, less we forget. They had to go back to the drawing board since they were refused.

Ofcourse, by being half in, the situation would have been a more tolerable, they would have had half their lives to themselves and been able to at least some of the time make their own decisions. The toxic media narrative has never ever changed right from the time H issued a statement when they were still dating, to when MM said she thought the media would be fair, up until that exit speech at Sentebale to now.

The palace shot themselves on the foot, because if they had not been so petty about the half in model just as they allow everyone else, then H&M would by rule not be allowed to talk to Oprah or anyone about what was actually happening within the firm.

Despite what the media say about HMQE, my suspicion is that she was in support of the half in model actually, and was stopped by the firm/bureaucrats. And I believe these are the ones who made life hell for the couple. I do not think the 'family' ie. HMQE, PP, PC, C etc. have anything against H&M - though I am still puzzled by Sophie and Kate's demeanour during the cw event last year.

Which other senior, working Royals have the half in model then Mummy195?

Most royals should have their own job and income. In fact, instead of moaning, we should be encouraging them to have their own jobs.

The issue seems to be that H&M are successful and have high profile jobs. We would prefer if they bumbled along in some half arsed job. We can be such a nation of underachievers!

Muumy195 there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that the Queen was in support of the half in/half out model - where did you read that?

@Insert1x20p

Netflix statement was that they would make programmes supporting women and other groups etc. Nothing about selling their story. The Oprah and James interviews have nothin to do with Netflix. Also their Spotify has nothing to do with Royals.

As someone who works for the organisation you say, you surely know that you need not be a billionaire for philanthropic work to begin with. Scott Harrison's model is based on a lot of philanthropist. They don't have to touch their own funds, the donor's contribution goes 100% to what they donated to.

But they have no experience in either of these fields , the only reason Netflix and Spotify are paying the sort of money they are is because if their names and the royal connections and you do them a disservice by denying this. Much better that everyone is honest and good luck to them I completely understand and sympathise with them wanting to make their own way.

There are no working royals who are half in half out on that model. There are members of the royal family who work , but they are not working royals although they may occasionally represent the Queen and get an allowance for that. Examples would be the York daughters , Peter and Zara Phillips , the Duke of Gloucester who is an architect, Earl of Snowden with Linley furniture.

Both Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Prince Alexander Of Denmark have stepped away from royal life in the last two years without fuss or drama . The latter has taken up a full time career ( I think in banking) the former has moved to the US with her American husband both have been praised for the dignified way in which they have achieved this .

In the UK, the Duchess of Kent withdrew from royal duties, without fanfare, and became a music teacher. She later quietly took on a few royal duties again. I think there is some room for flexibility if you play the game right.

Also, if other people were already operating in this way there would have been no need for them to emphasise that they were carving out a progressive new role.

HRH Princes Eugenie is the Royal patron of the Scoliosis Association UK, The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital and Tates Youth. She is also the patron of Coronet Theatre, the European School of Osteopathy, the Tate Young Patrons and he Elephant Family, of which her uncle and aunt, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, are joint presidents

HRH Princess Beatrice is the Royal patron of Helen Arkel, Oscars Book Prize and Broomwood African Education Foundation. Her other patronages include York Musical Society, York Theatre Royal, Edinburgh Children Hospital Charity, English National Ballet School,
Society,

For Peter Philips it's Habitat for Humanity and West Island Palliative Care Residence.

Zara's patronages are about horses and spinal cord.

"Prince Michael occasionally represents the Queen at some functions in Commonwealth realms outside the United Kingdom. Otherwise, he manages his own consultancy business and undertakes various commercial work around the world. He has also presented some television documentaries on the royal families of Europe”

And we all know his wife writes some kind of Mills and Boon / Royal novels, all under the HRH title.

Helping the queen with Royal work, having patronages, and making your own money . That is Half in half out. Its the definition of it.

There was fanfare and fuss from the media.

All they did was put out a statement, which their supporters would have read and know not to wonder what is going on and that would have been the end of that.

These are all roles they have because of their own personal interests though Mummy195 (Princess Eugenie for example had surgery for scoliosis) and because the charities like to have well known people as their public faces. In the same way that celebrities like Carol Vorderman and Joanna Lumley also gave these roles. They are not Royal patronages. They are akin to Megan’s Smartworks and Dog Rescue charities that retains positions with: I.e. not indicative of any Royal role. None of the people you mention have ever received any funding from the public purse to carry out a role as a working royal (and Prince Michael is 49th in the line of succession so not exactly senior).

But MM has experience in the media field. She studied it and was/is an actress. Loads of actors go into production. You reveal your bias here when you say they have no experience.

Did their RF background play a role? Of course it did. But that’s the way it is, but they are not cashing in on RF by selling undue influence or arms or underage girls or anything sordid. Just interviewing people and telling their stories. Harmless stuff and could possible help some.

Those are ROYAL patronages as I have stated.

You can google it.

At one point they were even on PA's page, which I cannot find now.

I believe the Kents only 'resigned' recently, but they had security etc. paid for at some point.

They are also using their HRH

But they hold those patronage’s in their personal capacity in the same way that Harry is president of the Invictus Games and Meghan retains her patronage of the Mayhew.

The patronage’s like the Helen Arkle etc are the result of the charity asking the individual to be their patron, not the patronage being in the gift of the Queen as the National Theatre is for example. Harry and Meghan are perfectly free to continue to do this as well but they are not paid generally.

The only exception in your list is the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital who specifically requested Eugenie's involvement because of her history with the hospital.

Prince Michael is in the same situation as I detailed in my previous post, he receives an allowance when he represents the Queen but he is only able to do this where she requests it, he has no ability to request duties or specify as H and M wanted to be able to do.