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?

Also, according to wikipedia, Prince Michael has represented the Queen five times in 60 or so years - three state funerals, one coronation and one independence celebration. Funerals it's easy to see why he may have been asked to help out and represent the Queen, as they obviously happen without notice, and royal's diaries are booked up many months in advance (Prince Charles had to postpone his wedding to Camilla to fly to Rome to attend Pope John Paul II's funeral!). This does not make him a senior working royal though.

Yet Prince and Princess Michael of Kent had years and years of paying nothing on a 5 bedroomed Kensington palace apartment until the Public Accunts Committee forced their hand, after an enquiry.
Up until then the Queen paid the £10,000 a month, in other words the taxpayer.

Nice work if you can get it... 5 gigs in 60 years and a free apartment, even though he has his own consultancy business. It seems to me the RF only cough up if they are forced to
There is so so much we don't know about the RF.

Prince Michael's father (the Queen's uncle) died when he was seven weeks old, and his widowed mother was perennially cash-strapped afterwards. His brother and sister were both working royals who gave the young Queen a lot of support in the 1950s and 1960s. Meanwhile Prince Michael had a 38-year army career. He only started his consultancy business after his retirement. All of this is well-known, not secret. I suppose it' s not inconceivable that the Queen decided to support her youngest cousin in recognition of the early death of his father and the support given by his siblings? You'll have to ask her. Given she then later took on paying a market rate for their apartment from her own resources it certainly seems a possibility, though.

I think part of the Kent issue has been left over from George VI obviously because their mother was left a widow with three young children ( Prince Michael was only 4 weeks old when his mother was widowed ) aged under five , when the Duke of Kent who was George’s younger brother died in 1942 . He was a Royal Duke so like Harry he had no inherited land etc and so their upkeep was taken on by the King and later the Queen , I suspect it was a difficult subject especially as Marie Christine is somewhat formidable and so it was just left .

Sorry cross posted there

I do t understand why the Queen and her family are funded by taxpayers and why there isn’t public scrutiny and a public decision making process.

Why on earth is the monarchy run like a family firm when it represents UK. It should be run like any other public institution with job descriptions, transparent performance metrics, hiring, firing, public accountability etc. Not up to some secret process answerable to one person

Also adding the the Kent’s mother, Princess Marina, was also a relative of Prince Phillip’s, so quite possibly he later also felt some respondents to her children.

There is public scrutiny via the public accounts committee . Given the structure of our unwritten constitution and the role of the monarch as the apolitical executive who exactly should fire her. She is also the Supreme Head of the Church of England as well. The whole point is that she is independent of the legislature and the judiciary.

That's an interesting ne Looking. Yes why?

There really is no transparency at all, and in these days and times with t'internet, it is a lot more difficult to do a cover up!
For instance, the Queen influencing the laws to hide her private wealth. That happened decades ago but came to light recently. I read a big article on it. Very murky indeed and we really don't know half of it.

“Prince and Princess Michael of Kent had years and years of paying nothing on a 5 bedroomed Kensington palace apartment until the Public Accunts Committee forced their hand, after an enquiry.“

Did they have to pay arrears and did the Q receive reprimand for this? It seems like a misuse of public funds and nepotism.

I’m sure we all have relatives who could do with a leg up, but if we used our public position and public funds to benefit them, that would be nepotism and quite rightly, a case for public scrutiny (and many of us would be dismissed for this type of behaviour)

Exactly @Roussette
All of them HRH.

I also find it rich that ppl go on about H&M's royal connection. Do they actually think these royals would have these patronages without the RF link? Really?

As for H&M making a lot of money, if the rest of the RF were business savvy, they would also be multimillionaires. If Princess Michael, writing as HRH, were as talented or wrote in the same league as JK Rowling, James Peterson, she would have gone ahead and made her millions (well, she probably is a millionaire). Peter's corona tests that cost a fortune would have made him a nice packet, and millions too if corona went on for longer. Zara opening races overseas, other racers do not get invited so much, then there is the clothes too. Don't know how much they make, but I bet it';s a lot. All by being royals.

Beatrice's little stints in acting, Selfridges, the Foreign Office, FT, Sony pics. Most graduates only dream of .
I'm sure, she and her sister made partner / manager at an age when most of their uni cohorts were still dreaming about those positions.

@Peaseblossom22

There is public scrutiny via the public accounts committee . Given the structure of our unwritten constitution and the role of the monarch as the apolitical executive who exactly should fire her. She is also the Supreme Head of the Church of England as well. The whole point is that she is independent of the legislature and the judiciary.

She sees free of any scrutiny then. A law unto herself. Very democratic indeed

Did they have to pay arrears and did the Q receive reprimand for this?

I don't think so. I remember it at the time and anything I've looked at doesn't say that.
Certainly no arrears, no idea on a reprimand!

Given that the state didn’t want to pay for any upkeep and would probably have been unable to let the flat on the open market there is an argument that they were better off having someone rather than no one there . Parts of KP are very shabby

Perhaps the discounted rate for upkeep could have been given to staff members who would benefit from living in close proximity to work if they want, rather than just plain nepotism ?

It was Diana's apartment I believe, so probably not shabby like we know shabby

No Diana lived in apartments 8 and 9 , the Kent’s live in apartment 10 which is much more modest and is on the other side of the palace

@Peaseblossom22

Given that the state didn’t want to pay for any upkeep and would probably have been unable to let the flat on the open market there is an argument that they were better off having someone rather than no one there . Parts of KP are very shabby

Oh, so the Q was practically doing public service here. Part of a RF life of service is to invite your friends and family to partake of taxpayer largesse. Because, you know, nobody else’s would take on the hardship of living in a palace 🤣🤣🤣

Pease
You are completely right.
The report said Diana lived there and it insinuated it was hers.
It was, however, a 5 bedroomed apartment with a going rent of £120,000 ten years ago.

And how do you know so much about their living arrangements anyway? Are you part of the RF team? Available to post 24/7 on MN as part of a ‘life of service’. Such a hardship 😃

Part of a RF life of service is to invite your friends and family to partake of taxpayer largesse. Because, you know, nobody else’s would take on the hardship of living in a palace

Bit like Frogmore Cottage which was rundown. Oh but hang on... H&M paid the £3M removation bill !

Well said @Roussette

No it’s publicly available information , I am also a bit of a history buff and watched a programme about the Royal Palaces last summerAlso if you live in West London KP is in the middle of Kensington gardens it’s a well known landmark.

Jeepers I think it’s all a bit ridiculous too I’m just adding information , my back is bad today so I’ve been doing a bit of mumsnetting to pass the time . I couldn’t care less about it all really it’s just a bit of fun

Oh poor you. I get a bad back sometimes, and it hurts so much! Take care