British Royal Family Engagements 2017

[jacqui24]

I think there has to be a balance at some point between quality and quantity. You can't just look at numbers, but you also do have to look at numbers.

Also, Harry is just slightly behind Sophie and his stepmother. I think he's about 9 behind Sophie, and less than 30 behind Camilla, so I wouldn't say his numbers are that bad.

 

[Dman]

Bitter much ?
So basically you're saying that the other "old royals" are just doing random and boring stuff all the year but the most interesting duties are made by the younger royals.
I wonder how the Princess Royal, the Prince of Wales ,and all the organizations they represent will react to this "not-at-all-biased" theory.

I'm not worried by the relatively low number of engagements from the younger generation. After all it's increasing each year and as pointed out they are just beginning they full time royal life. So more to come from this bunch.

Plus we must acknowledge the more than honourable numbers of engagements of the Duchess of Cornwall and the Countess of Wessex, two relatively "new" members of the BRF who embraced their royal duties with passion (and yes Sophie had to raise 2 children too).

These numbers are the proof that the Monarchy is not all about highly publicised causes and events and celebrity style fundraisings from fashionable leading figures, it's a day to day work in the heart of the communty spririt of the whole country, from film premieres in London to some country fair in Yorkshire. Monarchy is not THAT glamorous and superficial, it's above all useful for the UK. And with the "value for money" sill firm in the taxpayer's mind, these numbers show that a whole dedicated team is in charge and working hard. And that's good news.

Who’s bitter and for what?

I’m saying that numbers are just numbers. A full summary of a persons work throughout the year is a better evaluation of the royals roles and duties.

All the royals work hard on their various charitable, honorary military appointments and ceremonial duties and oversea royal tours. Putting that all down to a bunch of numbers don’t give you the true essence of all the hard work they do. It’s why the work is disregarded at the end of the year.

 

[loonytick]

I think people would understand if the numbers aren’t so drastic. That’s the issue here. It’s not that they aren’t doing as much, but the fact that it’s so far below.

It would be interesting to see if there were some way of measuring impact. For all the disparity in number of events and tasks, if there were some number reflecting the number of people who were aware of each royal's activities through the year, I suspect the younger royals would more than give Anne and Charles a run for their money.

I say that not to disparage the "older royals," but to point out that both styles of royal work are effective, albeit in different ways.

 

[jacqui24]

It would be interesting to see if there were some way of measuring impact. For all the disparity in number of events and tasks, if there were some number reflecting the number of people who were aware of each royal's activities through the year, I suspect the younger royals would more than give Anne and Charles a run for their money.

I say that not to disparage the "older royals," but to point out that both styles of royal work are effective, albeit in different ways.

Look, I think the Cambridges and Harry do get really good coverage for the work they do when they do it. Anne and others get far less attention during the year. If this is the one point in the year where they take a hit compared to the older royals, so be it.

 

[Nico]

Look, I think the Cambridges and Harry do get really good coverage for the work they do when they do it. Anne and others get far less attention during the year. If this is the one point in the year where they take a hit compared to the older royals, so be it.

As it has always been. In the 50's and the 60's Margaret or Princess Alexandra were the "it girls" of the BRF, then Charles and Anne were the "exciting youngs" of the 70's, Diana and and Sarah were the "breath of fresh air" of the 90's.
Each generation welcomes some newbies, and the medias are naturally far more interested in them than the "old guard".
But this old guard is obviously still very much active and the new generation still learning. Continuity is the key for the BRF.

 

[Dman]

I think there should be an official reflection of the work and activities senior members of the royal family carry out throughout the year. Not in numbers, but a full summary.

Perhaps there could be a programme called A Year with the Royal Family; where the royals official duties and activities are properly highlighted for that year.

Numbers have little meaning, but the full visual of the years work is what’s impressive.

 

[Zaira]

Sorry, but numbers matter. These are people who have immense privilege and wealth funded by money that would otherwise not be their own. Simply doing away with numbers and doing "snap shots" of their events doesn't tell us much either. The media covers their events, bt having a YE understanding of what those numbers look like is important.

I am pleased to see Harry finally break 200, but even he could be doing much more. I certainly hope he breaks into 300 in 2018.

Certainly, Kate's numbers are pathetic even taking into account her pregnancy. It is not as if she was working a lot before her pregnancy was announced. I can see her numbers going down in the fall, but she was barely doing much before her pregnancy, as usual.

William's show a steady increase in the fall, but he always works more in the fall. Hopefully with him now out of the ambulance he will really rev up in 2018.

The younger royals need to do both the quality and time intensive engagements a la Invictus or HT, and also the bread and butter country fair engagements too. They can't only do one of those categories.

It is IMO wrong to say that the likes of Anne who post huge engagement numbers do not also do quality work. Certainly Charles, who I am no great fan of, does some incredible quality work and still manages to also do many more engagements of the more run of the mill royal type.

 

[Dman]

The numbers only matter if you like counting and comparing numbers. Just looking at numbers at the end of the year have a way of diminishing the quality and passion the family pour into their work with their patronages and other duties.

No one isn’t saying that the older royals high number of engagements are meaningless.

I’m just saying that boiling down their work and duties to a couple of numbers isn’t right. A proper summary of the royals various roles, duties and other commitments, tell the whole story of their very busy year. You can’t get that in a couple of numbers. Of course other people’s numbers will be higher than the next. Others have more patronages, ceremonial roles, and organizations than the other. That’s just natural.

Charles and Anne had decades to build up their increased engagement numbers. Folks online want the young royals to match that in a year’s time. Impossible!

More patronages and other roles and duties that’s handed down to the younger royals will naturally increase their numbers. Since numbers are the only thing that matter to some folks at the end of the year.

 

[Nico]

I think there should be an official reflection of the work and activities senior members of the royal family carry out throughout the year. Not in numbers, but a full summary.

Perhaps there could be a programme called A Year with the Royal Family; where the royals official duties and activities are properly highlighted for that year.

Numbers have little meaning, but the full visual of the years work is what’s impressive.

I do remember some publication called "a Royal year" with a lot of pictures and trivia about the BRF. ...

 

[AdmirerUS]

It would be interesting to see if there were some way of measuring impact. For all the disparity in number of events and tasks, if there were some number reflecting the number of people who were aware of each royal's activities through the year, I suspect the younger royals would more than give Anne and Charles a run for their money.

I say that not to disparage the "older royals," but to point out that both styles of royal work are effective, albeit in different ways.

Well, an indirect measure could be popularity polling. Also, polling on general support for the monarchy. Sadly, a lot of those polls are really flawed in their design.

I personally believe that the grey men (and women) watch this. Every now and then Anne or someone visits "Upper Puddleston" and some nice forum member posts a link to the local newspaper coverage which never fails to mention "the last time a royal family member visited was Royal X, YY years ago.

When one of the Royals does a day of visits to a specific area, and racks up 5 engagements to more in a day, you will often see them at the "Grand opening" of something that actually opened an odd year ago. But, they gather these visits to the hinterlands into the bundles. And some events wait to be bundled. This manages cost and time for the royals. Btw the are important.

So I tend to believe that the Upper Puddleston area gets a visit both when there is a bundle of notable things to do AND the local poll numbers are fluctuating. Or the local complaint letters are rising.

And apologies to any actual Upper Puddleston that may exist. I am sure it is a lovely place that I would enjoy visiting a great deal! I am a lover of hinterlands.

 

[tommy100]

Admirer has hit the nail on the head IMO. Remember the Queen says she has "to be seen to be believed" or so it is claimed by a respected journalist with exclusive access. And I think in many ways she is right. Yes times change and now thanks to social media Prince this or Princess that can be seen on all their visits through the press and through twitter/instagram/facebook in a way that they couldn't 30 years ago when people only read the national and local newspapers. Now everything is online so visiting a mental health seminar in London is just as likely to be seen by someone in Scotland as it is someone in London.

I think that explains a little why the older royals still go out and about more, it was they had to do years ago. Some modernisers may feel this is less true now. However, personally, I think if people don't feel they have that "personal" connection with the RF who are willing to trek out of London to visit them in their town in the North East or North West of England, the valleys of Wales or Highlands of Scotland then people start to ask, why do we have them? They are the Royal Family of the UK (and indeed other countries) so they have to be seen to visit it and be the royals for everyone. What concerns me a little is that these days there seems to be an effort to push the younger royals as promoting a specific cause and promoting the UK overseas, they are both good but equally it mustn't be forgotten that the UK population need to feel a connection to their Royal Family too.

I guess, a middle ground of both approaches is what the monarchy will need to stay relevant and popular to to ensure it has a long future.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think just measuring the number of engagements isn't useful unless the impact of those engagements is also measured. How many attendees are at the engagements? How much money is raised? Are these grip-and-grin appearances, or are they giving speeches? I would think the focus should be on real impact the royals have on the causes they have adopted.

The only measure we have are the listings in the CC.

That tells us what they did - sometimes it is a 'meet and greet' and sometimes more.

The impact isn't measured in any public way at all.

Number of attendees is hard to gauge as there can be thousands there (or even 100,000s with something like Trooping the Colour).

The amount raised would have to be in the accounts of the charities but not every engagement is related to a charity e.g. someone might visit a school or hospital - how do you measure the impact of simply having a sick child meet a royal?

The CC has been around since the days of George III and is the only official account we have of the official lives of the royals.

If you want to find out the impact you need to do more research and go way beyond the CC.

I will also assume that you won't be reading any of my analysis as it goes up over the next week as it won't tell you anything you want to know anyway.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes, the Cambridge’s are now full time senior royals. The palaces never use the term “full time” it’s a media term.

The problem is the focus is on numbers, but not on the quality of the young royals work. High numbers sounds impressive, but the quality of the young royals work is much more important.

How it their work 'much more important?'

How many more people have their helped in the past year than Charles or Anne? Figures needed please.

How much more have they actually achieved by doing the same sort of things that Charles and Anne have been doing but way fewer engagements.

Instead of the end of the year’s numbers being put out, a full quality summary of the senior royals official engagements should be published. The spotlight be should be put on their charitable and military involvement and not on a “end of year” numbers. Numbers don’t give you any meaning.

You do realise that there is no 'official' count anyway.

Mr O'Donovan has been doing this as a hobby since the early 1980s and when he leaves us there may be someone to take it over and maybe not.

You do realise that there are a number of engagements that are undertaken that have no charitable or military involvement e.g. there have been many visits to schools or other places with no charity or patronage etc involved.

E.g. The Duke of Gloucester in one day (31st October):

His Royal Highness this morning visited Carrs of Sheffield Limited, Troy House, 2 Holbrook Avenue, Holbrook Industrial Estate.

The Duke of Gloucester this afternoon opened the new Headquarters of Westfield Health, 60 Charter Row, Sheffield.

His Royal Highness afterwards visited Chapmans Agricultural, Club Mill Road, Sheffield.

The Duke of Gloucester later visited Linbrooke Training Centre, Unit 11A, Provincial Park, Nether Lane, Sheffield.

None of these are charity or military connected but still worthwhile engagements for those people who were at each event and had a chance to meet with the Duke of Gloucester. To me these four engagements were just as valuable as The Earl of Wessex on the same day:

The Earl of Wessex, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, The Duke of Edinburgh's International Award Foundation, today carried out engagements in Prague, the Czech Republic.

His Royal Highness this morning attended an International Council Meeting at the Hotel International Prague.

The Earl of Wessex this afternoon attended a Reception for young people who have achieved the Gold Standard in The Duke of Edinburgh's International Award at the Senate of the Parliament.

His Royal Highness this evening attended an International Council Dinner at Hergetova Cihelna.

which include engagements related to the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards of which he is not Patron.

You may have some more information when I do my full analysis over the next week but I have not kept a record of the number of engagements that were charity/military related compared to not - but there are many in the later case.

 

[Dman]

How it their work 'much more important?'

How many more people have their helped in the past year than Charles or Anne? Figures needed please.

How much more have they actually achieved by doing the same sort of things that Charles and Anne have been doing but way fewer engagements.





You do realise that there is no 'official' count anyway.

Mr O'Donovan has been doing this as a hobby since the early 1980s and when he leaves us there may be someone to take it over and maybe not.

You do realise that there are a number of engagements that are undertaken that have no charitable or military involvement e.g. there have been many visits to schools or other places with no charity or patronage etc involved.

You may have some more information when I do my full analysis over the next week but I have not kept a record of the number of engagements that were charity/military related compared to not - but there are many in the later case.

I think the work members of the British royal family do is very important. They work tirelessly on various engagements, charities, and other organizations throughout the year. Including palace and other ceremonial duties. Boiling all this down to just a bunch of numbers at the end of the year really don’t do their work any justice, IMO.

I prefer a full summary of the work His Royal Highness or Her Royal Highness did throughout the year, than a total of numbers. I think numbers just diminishes the focus of their work.

It’s not rocket science to know some numbers will be higher than others because some have more roles, duties and obligations than others in the family.

Painting the picture that the older royals are much more dedicated to the work of the monarchy than the younger royals is an unfair assessment.

All the working senior members of the royal family do their bit to extend the reach of the Monarch throughout the UK and Commonwealth. You can’t get the true essence of that in a set of numbers at the end of the year.

 

[tommy100]

Princess Anne herself talked about, or was asked about his, in one of those documentaries about the RF.

around the 20.50 mark

She points out measuring the benefit of the royal input is really for those organisations that are visited.

 

[Dman]

I think documentaries like this is brilliant, because it help highlight the work the royal family do and the functions of the palaces. The behind the scenes look is part of a good way of getting it out there on how much work it takes to make the “Firm” happen. A list of numbers can’t give you this.

 

[VictoriaB]

Is someone with access to the Times able to post the entire table? The DM article just mentions the numbers of some of the RF (Edward for example doesn’t get a look in but usually has quite high figures).

Thanks in advance.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I am pleased to see Harry finally break 200, but even he could be doing much more. I certainly hope he breaks into 300 in 2018.

Certainly, Kate's numbers are pathetic even taking into account her pregnancy. It is not as if she was working a lot before her pregnancy was announced. I can see her numbers going down in the fall, but she was barely doing much before her pregnancy, as usual.

William's show a steady increase in the fall, but he always works more in the fall. Hopefully with him now out of the ambulance he will really rev up in 2018.

Harry has been courting Meghan this past 18 months. I think his numbers will pick up now that he has found a partner. I'm willing to give some leeway to him, nurturing a long distance relationship was time consuming, but vitally important.

Kate's numbers were never, ever going to be more than William's. Neither she nor the royal family wanted a repeat of Di-mania.

When William and Kate married, William was still full time military with the Search and Rescue Force and lived in Wales. The main reason he left the military was because the service was going to be privatized and no longer a part of the Royal Air Force.

The year William left the SAR, Princess Alexandra, the Duke of Kent, and Prince Philip all had had serious illnesses. My belief has always been that William was on standby, waiting to be called up if needed. I think that is why so little information was shared about what the Cambridges were going to do-the fact was--no one knew for sure. Certainly no one was going to say it they didn't recover or were incapacitated William was waiting to be available. But all three of them recovered and continued their royal duties, there was no need for William to step up, nor were there funds for him to be more active. This is when he took the part time job with EAAA.

It is no coincidence that William leaving EAAA coincided with Philip's retirement. Now that Prince Philip has retired, William is needed. He has upped his engagements since leaving EAAA and his grandfather's retirement.

Kate's pregnancy has and will continue to affect her schedule for the near future.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think the work members of the British royal family do is very important. They work tirelessly on various engagements, charities, and other organizations throughout the year. Including palace and other ceremonial duties. Boiling all this down to just a bunch of numbers at the end of the year really don’t do their work any justice, IMO.

I prefer a full summary of the work His Royal Highness or Her Royal Highness did throughout the year, than a total of numbers. I think numbers just diminishes the focus of their work.

It’s not rocket science to know some numbers will be higher than others because some have more roles, duties and obligations than others in the family.

Painting the picture that the older royals are much more dedicated to the work of the monarchy than the younger royals is an unfair assessment.

All the working senior members of the royal family do their bit to extend the reach of the Monarch throughout the UK and Commonwealth. You can’t get the true essence of that in a set of numbers at the end of the year.

Could you please actually answer the questions I asked?

You made a huge claim that the work of the younger royals is 'much more important' so now back it up with actual evidence please.

To remind you of the questions I asked they are repeated here - simple approach - please use 'quote' and write your answer to each one

1. How it their work 'much more important?'

2. How many more people have their helped in the past year than Charles or Anne? Figures needed please.

3 .How much more have they actually achieved by doing the same sort of things that Charles and Anne have been doing but way fewer engagements?

 

[TLLK]

Harry has been courting Meghan this past 18 months. I think his numbers will pick up now that he has found a partner. I'm willing to give some leeway to him, nurturing a long distance relationship was time consuming, but vitally important.

Kate's numbers were never, ever going to be more than William's. Neither she nor the royal family wanted a repeat of Di-mania.

When William and Kate married, William was still full time military with the Search and Rescue Force and lived in Wales. The main reason he left the military was because the service was going to be privatized and no longer a part of the Royal Air Force.

The year William left the SAR, Princess Alexandra, the Duke of Kent, and Prince Philip all had had serious illnesses. My belief has always been that William was on standby, waiting to be called up if needed. I think that is why so little information was shared about what the Cambridges were going to do-the fact was--no one knew for sure. Certainly no one was going to say it they didn't recover or were incapacitated William was waiting to be available. But all three of them recovered and continued their royal duties, there was no need for William to step up, nor were there funds for him to be more active. This is when he took the part time job with EAAA.

It is no coincidence that William leaving EAAA coincided with Philip's retirement. Now that Prince Philip has retired, William is needed. He has upped his engagements since leaving EAAA and his grandfather's retirement.

Kate's pregnancy has and will continue to affect her schedule for the near future.

I agree with everything that you have said and I've always thought that the year that Phillip, Edward Kent and Alexandra were ill did require William to "be waiting in the wings."

Now regarding "Di-Mania" I agree that the BRF will not want a return to those years. The new in-laws seem to be of the understanding that they are there as "supporters" to their royal spouse. Also I've always thought that it is a shame that we don't have access to the Mr. O'Donovan's tally for the years that she was active. It seems to me that she and Camilla do roughly the same number of engagements, though both have had years in which they were busier due to overseas tours. I'm assuming that Diana was behind QEII and Anne in engagements' tally??

 

[Dman]

Could you please actually answer the questions I asked?

You made a huge claim that the work of the younger royals is 'much more important' so now back it up with actual evidence please.

To remind you of the questions I asked they are repeated here - simple approach - please use 'quote' and write your answer to each one

1. How it their work 'much more important?'

2. How many more people have their helped in the past year than Charles or Anne? Figures needed please.

3 .How much more have they actually achieved by doing the same sort of things that Charles and Anne have been doing but way fewer engagements?

1. I never said, “the younger royals work are way more important.” I said the royal family’s work as a whole is more important than the end of year numbers.

2. All members of the royal family help, the royal firm and their charitable and organization interest, in their own way.

3. The number of engagements is not that important. The importance should be placed on the actual work the family do for their various patronages, honorary military appointments, foundations, regional tours, oversea tours and ceremonial duties.

Iluvbertie, engagement numbers between the senior royals are going to vary. Why? Because some members of the royal family have more obligations and roles than the other.

Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie, took on more work after The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret died. The younger royals were in still in school at the time. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh gave them even more duties to handle. Of course their numbers of engagements will be higher than William, Catherine and Harry’s. Only now The Queen and Prince Philip is handing duties down to the younger generation of the family.

Folks in the media and online shouldn’t use the “end of year” official engagement numbers as some sort of competition or belittle the work that the royal family do over others.

If folks focused more on the work and impact and, less on the wardrobe and cost, folks would see how much work the royal family do.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie, took on more work after The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret died. The younger royals were in still in school at the time. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh gave them even more duties to handle. Of course their numbers of engagements will be higher than William, Catherine and Harry’s. Only now The Queen and Prince Philip is handing duties down to the younger generation of the family.

I think this is an excellent point. The part I bolded is important--if the younger members dove in and took on too many new things, how in the world could they then take on the duties The Queen, Prince Philip, and before long others, give up? It is simply not feasible. The oldest generation of the family weren't ready to give things up until just recently.

 

[royal-blue]

I don't think that the overall number of engagements carried out by the whole family is what is important. In my opinion there are still far too many royals doing official engagements. Not that there are three (soon to be four) full time royals from the younger generation, I see absolutely no reason why the Queen's cousins can't be retired and pensioned off. Regardless of how many decades they may have served the monarch, the majority of people have probably never even heard of them. Charles's vision of a smaller royal family should be put in place now.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I don't think that the overall number of engagements carried out by the whole family is what is important. In my opinion there are still far too many royals doing official engagements. Not that there are three (soon to be four) full time royals from the younger generation, I see absolutely no reason why the Queen's cousins can't be retired and pensioned off. Regardless of how many decades they may have served the monarch, the majority of people have probably never even heard of them. Charles's vision of a smaller royal family should be put in place now.

That would be incredibly rude and hurtful--and poor thanks for a lifetime of service.

"sorry Duke of Kent, you're old now and nobody knows who you are anyway, move aside for your cousin's young grandson who is known worldwide."

No, just no.

 

[Dman]

I think this is an excellent point. The part I bolded is important--if the younger members dove in and took on too many new things, how in the world could they then take on the duties The Queen, Prince Philip, and before long others, give up? It is simply not feasible. The oldest generation of the family weren't ready to give things up until just recently.

Every December we go through this. Who’s doing more than who? Who’s more dedicated and who’s more lazy? Too much focused on numbers and not on the work itself.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I also think many are focused on the short term and not the long term. There is an evolution to this, a process that goes through steps but many are in a hurry to speed things along.

 

[Osipi]

Another way of looking at "by the numbers" rather than the actual work done is to take the example Iluvbertie posted about the Duke of Gloucester and how many engagements racked up in one day (or time slot). Then, put it alongside Harry's Invictus games and how many of those appearances made it into the Court Circular (from where the numbers come from).

Harry has his appearances listed in the Court Circular for when he was at the actual Invictus games in Toronto. What isn't listed is all the time spent planning, promoting and the meetings to pull everything together for the success of the games themselves. Anne may have 4 or 5 events listed for one day but with something like the work for conservation and the campaign against ivory that William does, meeting with the President of China and discussing the issue may make it into the Court Circular whereas the behind the scenes things that William is involved with in making things happen doesn't.

So, all in all, the numbers really don't prove that someone works harder or longer or the level of involvement. It shows a counting of official events by the British royal family.

So, I like to think that each royal has their own niche and importance in the work that they do. None of them are better than the other or do more or should "step up" more. The "Firm" is a team. Its not a competition.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Another way of looking at "by the numbers" rather than the actual work done is to take the example Iluvbertie posted about the Duke of Gloucester and how many engagements racked up in one day (or time slot). Then, put it alongside Harry's Invictus games and how many of those appearances made it into the Court Circular (from where the numbers come from).

So, all in all, the numbers really don't prove that someone works harder or longer or the level of involvement. It shows a counting of official events by the British royal family.

So, I like to think that each royal has their own niche and importance in the work that they do. None of them are better than the other or do more or should "step up" more. The "Firm" is a team. Its not a competition.

Very well put, I agree. Numbers are not everything and it is not/should not be a competition but those number are used to bash certain royals.

 

[Iluvbertie]

1. I never said, “the younger royals work are way more important.” I said the royal family’s work as a whole is more important than the end of year numbers.

Your exact words from your own post:

[The problem is the focus is on numbers, but not on the quality of the young royals work. High numbers sounds impressive, but the quality of the young royals work is much more important./B]

Clearly you are saying that the work of the young royals is much more important than that of the older royals.

2. All members of the royal family help, the royal firm and their charitable and organization interest, in their own way.

Still haven't answered the question as I asked for facts and figures - not opinions. Evidence rather than opinions.

3. The number of engagements is not that important. The importance should be placed on the actual work the family do for their various patronages, honorary military appointments, foundations, regional tours, oversea tours and ceremonial duties.

Still haven't answered the question I notice. HOW much more have they achieved than the older royals?

All you do is quote platitudes based on opinion with no facts to back up your assertions.

Iluvbertie, engagement numbers between the senior royals are going to vary. Why? Because some members of the royal family have more obligations and roles than the other.

Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie, took on more work after The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret died. The younger royals were in still in school at the time. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh gave them even more duties to handle. Of course their numbers of engagements will be higher than William, Catherine and Harry’s. Only now The Queen and Prince Philip is handing duties down to the younger generation of the family.

Folks in the media and online shouldn’t use the “end of year” official engagement numbers as some sort of competition or belittle the work that the royal family do over others.

If folks focused more on the work and impact and, less on the wardrobe and cost, folks would see how much work the royal family do.

The only information the BRF gives out is the CC so the only way to judge their work is via some form of counting and analysis.

You will shortly - as in the next week - see a lot of analysis as I put up my analysis:

Count
Days worked
Missing days from the online CC
Types of engagements in total and by royal
Charities and Organisations in total and by royal
Number of overseas engagements per royal
Percentage of the total done by each royal and by age ranges and those over retirement age (who do over two-thirds of all the engagements)

It will take quite some time to put this all up but it is coming.

One thing we are not told is how long engagements last although those I have attended - other than Trooping and Garter - have been around 30 - 40 minutes unless there was food involved in which case they might stretch to 90 minutes or so. My brother went to one with Prince Andrew earlier this year when he was there for over three hours but when he went to one with Diana in the 80s she was there for less than 30 minutes, even though the event itself lasted for nearly four hours. That one received pages and pages of coverage from all sorts of people that went on for days - making it look like she had done 7 - 8 engagements when it was really only one while Andrew didn't get any coverage at all, despite how much he does.

The only thing the press are interested in are the clothes and how much they cost. They have an agenda - and it isn't one that sees a real long term future for the BRF (remember that a lot of the British media are owned by Murdoch who is an avowed republican) so he is pushing his agenda and that is to play up the cost of the clothes they wear, the places they visit etc - not the good they do. It is all about a slow destruction of support for the BRF overall and a rapid decline in support for Charles leading to an eventual republic within the next generation or two.

Using these figures are only one way to do it, especially showing how lazy the young royals - particularly Harry - are. Harry has been unemployed now for 2.5 years and does very little. His figures are inflated because this year the CC decided to count every single event at the Invictus Games as a separate event whereas normally with events like this they say 'attended the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games' but they know they need to pad Harrys' figures - compared to William who only worked for half a year (my figures don't count the separate sports as separate events so there will be a difference there)

 

[VictoriaB]

There are some comments that suggest only some people do behind the scenes work. Firstly by its very nature we don’t know how involved people are behind the scenes. Secondly, that argument can be made for others - Charles and his Prince’s Trust, Andrew and his Pitch at the Palace, Edward and Sophie and the DofE Award. Last year when Sophie cycled from Edinburgh to London should the time spent training for and planning the ride have been included in her numbers? It’s just not possible to include all the various possibilities.

Is it fair that Beatrice and Eugenie, who are HRHs, get no credit for performing duties similar to those their cousins do? - a point Iluvbertie has raised many times over the years. Or that Tim performs a similar role to that performed by other (female) consorts but gets no inclusion (I presume) in Mr O’Donovan’s list and when he performs a duty on his own (eg for the Cth War Graves Commission) he gets no recognition at all.

It has been suggested that the quality of the visit should be considered. That is difficult to measure. As Iluvbertie mentions, we don’t know how long each visit lasts. How do you measure the impact of Kate visiting a children’s hospital to meet cancer sufferers and compare it with Anne visiting a young offenders institute. How do you measure the impact of a visit to Finland made by William and compare it with the impact of a visit to the Middle East made by Charles and Camilla. The long term effect of these visits may be enormous but not immediately apparent.

Many of the Queen’s engagements involve meeting ambassadors or foreign leaders. As these involve Britain’s diplomatic relationships in uncertain times are they less important than the Heads Together campaign because they are shorter and garner little, if any, media coverage.

I’m not sure there are answers but measuring numbers, measuring qualitative data, popularity polls and column inches are all imperfect measuring tools. What matters is that they all (inc Beatrice & Eugenie, Tim and the Michaels of Kent) contribute to the work of the Royal Family.