All the focus on H & M - where's the outrage against Andrew? (Season 2)

[Samcro]

Thread 2 of what is an interesting topic.

My question was when did he say that ? A link would be helpful .
TIA

Yes. Particularly when he seems to have been recently occupied with a lot of royal events, all including significant hand shaking!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14646835/amp/prince-william-patronage-project.html

Thank you, @stillclueless . That's very different, isn't it? I think it's far better to get involved with projects, it does suggest being more pro active. I also agree with him noting that it's better to have action than talk. I've never been a particular fan of his, but this is definitely more positive.

I think Beatrice and Eugenie will be do more as time goes on

You may be right, @BigWillyLittleTodger, but given the examples they've had from their parents and their own inclination to focus on their middle east interests the RF could be inviting yet more embarrassment if they do

Ah so he wants to do more relevant work then! Not quite the same as doing nothing is it ?

Yes, and it sounds really positive and definitely a move forward.

Whenever I question the need for the RF, people always talk about the popularity of their public acknowledgment of “ordinary people”. So surely cutting down the hand shaking is a risky strategy?

Have you read the article @stillclueless attached? It's actually quite illuminating. I would have thought like you, but this really does explain that it's now about projects which involve people and being less passive, so that's a good thing.

I’d like to be able to read the Times article-it might have marginally more facts and marginally less fawning. But I don’t want to read enough to pay for it!

I only read this because it was attached by a poster. I didn't know of it before.

I suppose it depends on whose hands they're shaking CurlewKate?

The sort who dress head to toe in union flags and rush to be present at events will probably support them no matter what, and for the rest being seen to do something useful might even be more effective - though for the more thoughtful that might depend on actually doing something beyond a few photo ops

'which I assume is only Earthshot'

@Tomatotater you might find it helpful to have a look at the Royal Foundation website.
https://royalfoundation.com

It talks about the projects the Prince and Princess of Wales are involved with, which seem to have specific goals and timelines.

The King also has to give royal assent to every bill and sign off on various appointments. He isn't a Head of State like the President of the US but neither is his role purely ceremonial. He needs some staff for his constitutional role.

Overall though I don't think we need as many working royals in the age of social media and 24 hour news. I know Charles talked about slimming down but I think the transition from a 1950s model where the late Queen had to be seen (in person) to be believed to modern times when we can see the King on our phones, is going to take time to achieve. It doesn't take as many men in grey suits for a start and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. The monarchy is slow to change which is a strength but can also be a weakness.

It’s funny how in particular republicans seem to know the inner workings of a monarchy/Head of State to the point of giving a quota of how many staff they do or don’t need, as if any of us have a clue on here.

Yes but what I was saying was that at the moment apparently there are 8 working Royals. If William wants to focus on projects, we don't need that many. He doesn't need to draft in cousins. I would argue that it only needs to be him, Kate and George and potential spouse. Get rid of titles for anyone but the heirs children. Only the Head of State has an official role, and it's not really of much consequence, as he has to ( rightly) do what he's told by Parliament.

I wasn't clear. I meant the main working Royals . Of course, each of them have plenty of staff!

Yes, I agree. It only needs to be him and Kate, and the children when old enough. I think it would be only right to keep on Anne, Sophie and Edward because of their loyalty and hard work, until such time as they wish to retire.

So William just wants to concentrate on his pet projects. I do assume once he is king he will have to do more than that.

Yes. One would assume being Head of State would come with additional responsibilities.

That’s not what the ‘sources’ who talked to the Times for the original article indicated at all.

Its saying that these sources believe William wants to use a different strategy to the current way Royal patronages have operated.

Instead of accumulating a random 600 Royal patronages and then poppping up in person once every couple of years to cut a ribbon or unveil a plaque, he wants to maximize his time and influence to create needed solutions for different areas.

This should be welcomed by all the Republicans who are always saying there’s no benefit to charities and organizations for simply having a royal patron.

William’s method right now as Prince of Wales seems to be to focus on a particular area - fundraise and bring in investors and experts to tackle a project, then make it self sustaining and hand the benefits over to the communities to manage for themselves.

This should be welcomed by all the Republicans who are always saying there’s no benefit to charities and organizations for simply having a royal patron.

Yep. Given they don't visit their charities except a chosen few, and a Royal visiting doesn't result in more donations.

However... (there has to be a 'but' doesn't there) I hope that concentrating on 'big projects' isn't an excuse to do less than he is doing, and he really does give it his all.

👏👏👏

😂

It seems a little odd though to be tearing up one of what we've always been assured is a principal royal raison d'être in favour of 'big visions'.

If we're now to believe patronages aren't valuable why have the royals pushed their involvement so hard?

Interestingly ES doesn't yet seem to have broken through as a big player on the eco scene despite its high profile and wealthy backers and in some cases attracts mild criticism from knowledgeable names in the sector for its model:

https://archive.ph/AIg5V

The author has previously described it as a 'publicity campaign'.

Given the levels of spending involved in promoting a comparatively small prize fund operating in a crowded market I wonder if he's right?