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?

Take care @Peaseblossom22

I have chronic back problems, I am always wondering why my body has forsaken me like this, so I feel double my age. lol

@Roussette

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 !

I don’t know if they definitely did. It was all left very vague. I wouldn’t be surprised it Charles coughed up.

If they did, it was also not exactly of their own free will either. To shut up all the people who wouldn't stop going on about it, I imagine!

They definitely did do according to two or three places I read!

As if the DM would let H&M get away without paying.

So now they're at fault for paying not gratefully enough?

They paid.

Unlike the Kents who had to be forced after a Public Accounts Committee enquiry

The irrational hatred that many in Britain have of H&M is so so embarrassing. It makes us look like small-minded backward people. The reasons given for criticisms are so obviously ridiculous and bias that externally people are left with no other conclusion than we are bigots. This is made worse by the collective silence over Prince Andrew.

History will look back on this and the conclusion won’t be kind to Britain. I know many Commonwealth citizens who think that Britain’s treatment of H&M is a strong message to them that their face does not fit and therefore they are rejecting the RF.

Recently Barbados set out its intention to drop the Queen as its head of state. Once everyone has dealt with Covid and once the Queen say leaves us, there will be clear moves by many Commonwealth countries to form closer ties with other nations and leave the idea of monarchy behind. In any case the remaining RF are very, very dull and uninspiring. Furthermore, who wants their daughter or son to aspire to be a princess or prince sitting in a cage whose sole purpose is to perform for an intrusive public? It’s all nonsense.

*once the Queen leaves us (ie dies).

The irrational hatred that many in Britain have of H&M is so so embarrassing. It makes us look like small-minded backward people. The reasons given for criticisms are so obviously ridiculous and bias that externally people are left with no other conclusion than we are bigots. This is made worse by the collective silence over Prince Andrew

I so so agree with this. It is embarrassing. My american friends are so puzzled and confused and all I can do is reassure them it's not how I feel. I remember when it was announced they were marrying and we were in Miami and we had a drink celebrating, it was so lovely. Now it's just shameful, because whatever anyone says they have been driven out for very many convoluted reasons.

@mummy195

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.

Scott Harrison (assuming we're talking about the same one- Charity Water) is a pass through funder, or rather Charity Water is - i.e exactly what I said M&H would be, so I'm not sure what the contradiction is. The 100% donation model is total smoke and mirrors btw - the individual donor's money raised online is restricted to projects but the institutional donors' isn't - CW's 2019 numbers show 33m of CW's own operating expenses vs. 56 m of project spend so 37% overheads. No funder/ charity has no overheads and unfortunately the "100% direct to projects" marketing claim really perpetuates this myth. However, SH is actually a case in point - Charity Water has been successful because SH sells his own story really effectively- it's a classic "enlightenment" narrative that's very powerful. In the early days, people were effectively investing in that story which is not compatible with wanting a lot of personal privacy and being out of the spotlight. And SH is fortuitously passionate about a cause that tonnes of other people engage with - water is notoriously donor friendly- simple to understand, uncontroversial, immediate impact (donate money, well dug- v few donors bother to ask if the well's still there 5 years later or the LT impact on groundwater).

So my point isn't that pass through funding isn't a legitimate model - it is and for single issue causes where the projects are small scale and fragmented it can be highly effective BUT to kick start your own requires a public profile at the outset that isn't required if you don't need to raise money from third party donors (i.e. BG, HP, Azim Premji etc). Also, you're restricted on cause by what people want to support and it helps to be single issue, which they're not.

I stand corrected re. Netflix re subject matter - however, I'd still argue that Netflix are likely to require a certain profile/ involvement to ensure those documentaries fly because otherwise why not just make the documentaries themselves? It's not like M&H have a lot of production experience. I fear they are out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Would be interesting to compare the annual cost of the RF with the annual cost of the U.S. presidential family.
Anyone know?

The US president is elected and has a full time job running the country. The RF are not in any way comparable. If anything, we can compare the costs of having a Prime Minister with the US president (although the two systems are different). And indeed Johnson is trying to have the coats of refurbishing 10 Downing Street along the lines of the White House. And both PM and US president receive a salary

We don’t need a ceremonial head of state. So if we do away with the RF we don’t have to replace them with anything.

Perhaps it would be better to compare with the German president or Irish president

I think they would have to be replaced with something/someone. A P.M. has a full time job, and a ceremonial Head of State can do the "soft power", meet&greet stuff.

I feel anyway that if there was an election for president, and Elizabeth stood she'd win hands down. Maybe not Charles though.....

They don’t have a simply ceremonial ‘soft power’ role the US, and they just fine. People have actual power and they earn it through qualifications and experience and get paid for their role.

What the US has is a Vice President, who can do a lot of operational stuff in running the government as well the meet and greet if needed

One needs a monarchy to yield soft power? Let me scan across the globe and see if that’s true. Er, nope it isn’t.

So baried deep down in the news today.......................

MoS lost their silly little we will appeal stance. They have been ordered to pay 450 000 in the interim.

Not too sure what that means, they took pains to tell us that the loser pays the winner's legal bills. Well, at the time, they were pushing the narrative that MM will lose and have to pay for both her own lawyers and theirs. Not much talk of that now.

ANL have a right to seek permission to appeal directly from the Court of Appeal, Mummy195, and indeed have announced they will, so they haven't actually lost yet (it's not at all unusual for the first instance judge to not grant permission to appeal, and the normal route then is to ask the upper court directly).

@Coolandclamy

One needs a monarchy to yield soft power? Let me scan across the globe and see if that’s true. Er, nope it isn’t.

Didn't say it was actually needed, but it does seem to work extremely well. Even horrible Trump was overawed

If / when we became a Republic we would still have Buckingham Palace etc to impress foreign dignitaries with. Agree that HM is untouchable but once she's gone the remaining royals are far less inspirational.
We have Labour to thank for exempting the RF from the FOI act so to all extent they have carte blanche to do as they please financially.

Didofido I think you’ll find people just go along with the play to avoid embarrassing the UK but seriously apart from being a curiosity to the rest of the world because of fairytale stories, the monarchy is increasingly becoming a relic, irrelevant to modern life.

A great tourist attraction but irrelevant otherwise.

@Serenster the RF or BP are literally hastening the demise of this institution with their relentless hounding of MM.

Who on earth is advising them that the majority of people in and out of Britain will look favourably on what they are doing? The hypocrisy in the attacks is too comical.

We all can agree all people are entitled to their voice and their story -including the staff who left the Sussex’s employment during their time at the palace. The story is as much about the suits at BP protecting Meghan from bullying claims and BP not doing enough to protect their staff - and the looking at latter must be a good thing. Nobody should be exposed to workplace bullying and feel that they have no recourse to due processes

It will be interesting to see what Charlotte and Louis lives will be like. On normal protocol they shouldn't even be HRHs.

@SallyLockheart shouldn’t the policy be applied uniformly and transparently? I wonder whether BP has investigated bully and harassment in respect of other royals some of whom are well known for their explosive outbursts against staff and some who have been even caught on camera swearing and berating staff.

Is the there something different about M that suddenly makes them dust off this policy and apply it? Oh and why wasn’t it applied when M was being nicknamed and ridiculed by these members of staff.

BP has misjudged this one. It’s time for this abusive institution that is out of touch to be debated and it’s future decided on by the people.