re. meaningful roles as alluded to by @Letmeoutodhere . One of the ways in which the modern monarchy has established itself in relation to “the people“, I believe, is through general charity and voluntarywork. In the absence of a military or a religious role. Princess Anne is obviously a stalwart example here. In my local area, in Dorset, she visited a voluntary eco lookout body, Im not even a monarchist especially but it was nice to hear about it (after the fact!)
However, when charity work becomes just another arm of public relations, you are really in a bind and a fix. Eg. How could Sarah Ferguson be a patron of a charity that she hasn’t even had anything to do with for years. How can Prince Harry be a primary patron of an African charity, when he hasn’t visited for over five years? Or, Invictus, where there are questions over expenses, and PR e.g. using video for a Netflix documentary without permission.
The charities themselves, of course, get a royal patron. But how worthy is that in reality?
I believe there are lots of very rich people who give a lot of money to charity, completely or nearly completely anonymously. I believe Bill Gates has given a lot of money to research on malaria, for example. It really is awful when the Royal family or celebrities in general use charity as a PR exercise, unconscionable.
Edited