Annual Engagements by Members of the Royal Family 2011-2013


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no reason for the discussion and the less knowledgable British people believe the BRF all leech off the taxpayer.

I hate that the British believe the Royal family cost a lot of money and drain the tax funds. I am sure it was said that the Royal family cost something miniscule like 62p a year. That's nothing in comparison to what we put into taxes to keep the Prime Minister and his security.

The tax payers pay for their security but not all of them have full time security. Only Queen, Charles, Camilla, Philip, William, Harry, Catherine, Anne, Andrew and Edward do. Sophie etc. only have it when they are on duty.

I have no problem paying for the monarchy as they bring a lot of tourism to Britain, and it gives our countries so much wonderful history. But of course the less educated among us don't agree with that.
 
Last edited:
There is no reason for the discussion and the less knowledgable British people believe the BRF all leech off the taxpayer.

Which is ironic seeing as most of the less knowledgable British people are likely to leach off the British tax payer themselves!
 
I have to agree with you. Some also othink Republic are cheaper but that not exactly true. Last Year the President and his family cost U.S Taxpayers 1.4 Billion Dollars. The Royal Family only cost 58 Million. Difference with The President and First Lady ha they go on a 800,000 Dollars Vacation to Spain and a 450,000 Dollars Vacation to Africa the Taxpayers are life to pay for it... That why the U.S in such a debt. And the Election is a huge load of Money last year (5.8 Billion)
Your comments and comparisons are ignorant at best. Get the facts straight first.
 
For the past 2 years, the royals carrying out the most engagements are the Queen's children. The number of engagements (O'Donovan's version)
corresponds to the birth order.

Prince Charles
Princess Anne
Prince Andrew
Prince Edward

The Queen is now 87 her 2 eldest children are senior citizens.

I agree that William and Harry (when they put aside their private careers) should at least perform as much or more than Prince Phillip but Kate as the wife should NEVER be expected to do more royal duties than her royal spouse. The fact that last year she outperformed William should be enough to quiet the anti-Kate faction but the silly comparison continues.
 
Do you really think the president is Cheap?

No head of state, President or Monarch is cheap. However until you show us any proof that Obama's holidays are the reason the USA is in debt, it'd keep this discussion to yourself or start it in a more appropriate thread.
 
Interesting that the British Monarchy website didn't put up the 16th until after the 17th (maybe they read this forum and read my post that it wasn't up because it is now for the 16th).
 
Weekly update to 16th May

After a bit of a delay - thanks to the British Monarch website - here is this weeks' tally. Two more family members have now hit 'the ton' to borrow a cricketing expression (or reached 100 for those who don't watch or understand this greatest of games) with Charles making his double ton for the year. (PS Congrats to the English cricket team for their win over NZ inside 4 days - but the Ashes will see a different result later this year)

HM The Queen - 112 (98 - up 14)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 80 (72 - up 8)
HRH The Prince of Wales - 210 (191 - up 19)
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 92 (89 - up 3)
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 13 (13 - no change)
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 24 (24 - no change)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 29 (16 - up 13)
HRH The Duke of York - 103 (99 - up 4)
HRH Princess Beatrice of York - 1 (1 - no change)
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 0 (0 - no change)
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 92 (84 - up 8)
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 77 (73 - up 4)
HRH The Princess Royal - 175 (172 - up 3)
Vice-Admiral Tim Lawrence - 11 (11 - no change)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 73 (66 - up 7)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 34 (31 - up 3)
HRH The Duke of Kent - 81 (81 - no change)
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 0 (0 - no change)
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 1 (1 - no change)
HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 1 (1 - no change)
HRH Princess Alexandra - 0 (0 - no change)

Order from most downwards - the 'league table' if you like. I refuse to calculate how people are moving up or down that list. I do move people around who have moved up or down but I am not putting in how many places they are moving - although usually it is only one place in either direction.

HRH The Prince of Wales - 210
HRH The Princess Royal - 175
HM The Queen – 112
HRH The Duke of York - 103
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 92
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 92
HRH The Duke of Kent - 81
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 80
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 77
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 73
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 34
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 29
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 24
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 13
Vice-Admiral Tim Lawrence - 11
HRH Princess Beatrice of York – 1
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 1
HRH Princess Michael of Kent -1
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 0
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 0
HRH Princess Alexandra - 0

Year to date total - 1209 (1123 - up 86)

78.7% of those engagements being carried out by The Queen, her children and their spouses.
The main line (The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry) has done 46.3%.
15.8% of all engagements are being done by those over 85.
22.6% done by those 70 and above
71.0% are being done by those over 60.
48.3% were done by those in their 60s.
9.3% have been done by The Queen.
17.4% were done by Charles.
7.6% were done by Camilla

Days on which official engagements were undertaken to 16th May

HM The Queen - 41
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 44
HRH The Prince of Wales - 65
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 43
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 7
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 15
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 12
HRH The Duke of York - 38
HRH Princess Beatrice of York - 1
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 42
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 38
HRH The Princess Royal - 69
Commander Tim Lawrence - 10
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 45
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 23
HRH The Duke of Kent - 36
HRH Prince Michael of Kent - 1
HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 1

Eugenie, Katherine and Alexandra are still to do anything official this year.
 
I can't help wondering if people are really thrilled to see a minor royal making an appearance?

I mean, I would be excited to see one of the senior royals, like the Queen or the POW, but I really wouldn't care about seeing Sophie Wessex or the Duchess of Gloucester.

(I don't mean to sound critical, but it wouldn't interest me much; I can't help but wonder how many other people feel the same way?
Does it truly pay to have all these royals at various events?)
 
Quite honestly it hasn't really got anything to do with anyone as to how many or how few engagements are carried out by members of the royal family. I'm not sure I remember when we deemed it our place to consider the appropriate level of engagements for the wife of a grandson of a monarch?
The Queen is happy with the work her family carry out, the Government is happy with the work the royal family carry out and if it's good enough for them, it should jolly well be good enough for the rest of us!
Personally, I think it would be marvellous if Catherine stayed completely away from public duties until WIlliam becomes heir - now THAT would cause comment!
 
Given the fact that people actually do go to see these 'minor' royals and that people do like to say they have seen a 'royal' and to have a 'royal' open things etc then it is clear that they are useful and it does The Queen feels that it is worthwhile to pay for her relatives to do these appearances - and it is The Queen who foots the bill.

They wouldn't be asked to do them if no-one thought it was worthwhile.

There are people on this board and other boards who basically only report on the doings of Sophie for instance - she has quite a following - and considering how little Kate does someone has to fly the flag for the under 50s royal women and she is the only other one.
 
To be fair, the comparison between Sophie and Kate isn't really accurate. Sophie worked when she first became a Royal and still managed to do 100 odd engagements a year. She quit her job/was forced to give up in 2002 to support the Queen in her Jubilee year and was pregnant in 2003. Since then she has worked less because of Louise and James, but she still worked more than Catherine did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(I don't mean to sound critical, but it wouldn't interest me much; I can't help but wonder how many other people feel the same way?
Does it truly pay to have all these royals at various events?)

They help make the monarchy more accessable to people throughout the kingdom. If you live in a small town or village in Lincolnshire or Cumbria or Cromarty you might not get the P of W or the Princess Royal to come to open your new community centre or meeting of the local St John Ambulance Brigade but you might get one of the minor royals to do so, so I expect the locals do get excited and welcome the visit.
 
Harry numbers are up because he went on a foreign tour with multiple events in the same day. Because of the baby, the Cambridges aren't doing any tours this year. We also don't know what got postponed when Kate was sick. She probably has done more event days then William and Harry. She went to Grisby and the scout camp in the Lake District, the school in Manchester, the hospice, the NPG, addiction center in London plus the Scotland trip with wills.

Until William leaves the military, Kate's focus is on him and baby c. Once Charles becomes King, they both have to become full time royals. Let them enjoy each other and their kids when they are little before they are sent to school. William and Kate will be doing engagements for the rest of their lives. The time they spent is wales as newlyweds will be a basis for their happy family life.
 
Quite honestly I do believe that HM and the DoE prefer to have their children working for the BRF for as long as they can. It seems that once Charles ascends to the throne, his own family will move to the forefront of the BRF and his siblings will move into a secondary role. They'll likely continue to carry on some engagements on their brother's behalf, but they will no longer be the children of the ruling monarch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Working is a loose word here. It is getting up every day to earn a living and doing whatever it is the job requires. Cutting a ribbon or shaking hands or a photo op here and there is not working. None of these people need to work to "earn" a living. None of them fear losing their "jobs". It is a pastime. Yes, it can be less than pleasant, but they don't have to do it and they do not depend on wages. That is what work is. The nonsense by the , I shan't use the word, about the President, is ridiculous. He works everyday, every hour. He is on the "real" frontlines" He, really, makes decisions.
 
Obviously some are confuse by what I posted and Misinterpreted it wrongly then what I meant. I will delete my posts now.
 
Working is a loose word here. It is getting up every day to earn a living and doing whatever it is the job requires. Cutting a ribbon or shaking hands or a photo op here and there is not working. None of these people need to work to "earn" a living. None of them fear losing their "jobs". It is a pastime. Yes, it can be less than pleasant, but they don't have to do it and they do not depend on wages. That is what work is. The nonsense by the , I shan't use the word, about the President, is ridiculous. He works everyday, every hour. He is on the "real" frontlines" He, really, makes decisions.

So basically you are saying if one has independent means no matter what you do it cannot be work because you are not dependent on it in order to live. I cannot say I am in agreement with your theory of work.
I have a friend who is a university professor. He has written books and academic articles just like his fellow professors. He teaches classes like other professors, marks exams like other professors and mentors students like other professors. He also is a member of one of the nations wealthiest families and has never needed to worry about where the next meal will come from. Using your theory of work what he does would not qualify as work because he is wealthy but the same work would qualify for his peers because they might need the income to put food on their tables. He has a brother who runs the family foundation and its philanthropy. He goes to his office most days of the week to evaluate various projects, donations, requests etc. He probably considers that work but under your theory because he does not need money to support himself this is just a pass time and apparently of little or no value. For that matter, using your theory the presidency would not qualify as work for several of your presidents because many of them came from wealthy families or became wealthy before becoming president so they did not need the income from the presidency so it must also have been just a pass time for them,
 
I too disagee about what 'work' is. 'Work' to me is anything you do that isn't for pleasure - there is a reason it is called 'housework' for instance - you don't get paid for it but it generally isn't pleasurable and so is 'work'.

For the royals to properly prepare for any engagement does take preparation such as being briefed about the cause and the people to be met, preparing a speech, even getting the clothes right for the occasion. We know for instance that the Queen prefers to live in the country and wear country clothes but getting dressed up in her finery is part of her job and so she does that and she also knows that people like her to look nice so she does that as well.
 
They help make the monarchy more accessable to people throughout the kingdom. If you live in a small town or village in Lincolnshire or Cumbria or Cromarty you might not get the P of W or the Princess Royal to come to open your new community centre or meeting of the local St John Ambulance Brigade but you might get one of the minor royals to do so, so I expect the locals do get excited and welcome the visit.


Yes, but the fun of seeing a royal is to tell other people about it!
If I were to see Sophie or the Duchess of Gloucester and mention it to most of my friends, I know I'd get a blank stare.

But I suppose it's different in the UK and people there are familiar with all the royals.
 
More people know who Sophie is than you think. Not the younger generation maybe, but a lot of people my mother's age (50+) know who Sophie is because as Edward's girlfriend (and a Diana look-a-like) she was quite famous, and if you say "the bald one's wife" they know who she is. When she had Louise and nearly died the public knew who she was because it was all over the news. Sophie is not Catherine famous, but she's more famous than the Duchess of Gloucester. I hate to call her "famous", but they are celebrities in a way, so it's an associated term.

I have to say, I would be thrilled to meet any Royalty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Weekly update to 23rd May

A fairly busy week as is to be expected at this time of the year when the summer events start up and so the royals are out and about and often in large numbers at events e.g. the Garden Party had 8 royals attend and the Chelsea Flower Show was also attended by many of the family. Beatrice was mentioned for the second time this year in attending the Flower Show and Edward has reached his 'ton' while Philip and Camilla at closing in on that figure.

A note about the type of engagements that The Queen does - often it is listed in the CC as 'The Queen received xxxx, Ambassordor from yyy' and then 'The Queen received aaa, Ambassordor from zzz' and again 'The Queen received jjjj, Ambassordor from kkkk'. In my count that is three different engagements particularly as when there are multiple people being received it is written as 'The Queen received ddddd, eeeee, ffffff, gggggg'. She will sometimes have a list of 5 or so individual 'receiveds' and then one group 'received'.

HM The Queen - 133 (112 - up 21)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 98 (80 - up 18)
HRH The Prince of Wales - 226 (210 - up 16)
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 96 (92 - up 4)
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 15 (13 - up 2)
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 25 (24 - up 1)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 31 (29 - up 2)
HRH The Duke of York - 131 (103 - up 28)
HRH Princess Beatrice of York - 2 (1 - up 1)
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 0 (0 - no change)
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 101 (92 - up 9)
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 79 (77 - up 2)
HRH The Princess Royal - 181 (175 - up 6)
Vice-Admiral Tim Lawrence - 11 (11 - no change)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 76 (73 - up 3)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 37 (34 - up 3)
HRH The Duke of Kent - 86 (81 - up 5)
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 0 (0 - no change)
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 1 (1 - no change)
HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 1 (1 - no change)
HRH Princess Alexandra - 0 (0 - no change)

Order from most downwards - the 'league table' if you like. I refuse to calculate how people are moving up or down that list. I do move people around who have moved up or down but I am not putting in how many places they are moving - although usually it is only one place in either direction.

HRH The Prince of Wales - 226
HRH The Princess Royal - 181
HM The Queen – 133
HRH The Duke of York - 131
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 101
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 98
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 96
HRH The Duke of Kent - 86
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 79
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 76
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 37
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 31
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 25
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 15
Vice-Admiral Tim Lawrence - 11
HRH Princess Beatrice of York – 2
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 1
HRH Princess Michael of Kent -1
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 0
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 0
HRH Princess Alexandra - 0

Year to date total - 1330 (1209 - up 121)

79.3% of those engagements being carried out by The Queen, her children and their spouses.
The main line (The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry) has done 46.9%.
17.3% of all engagements are being done by those over 85.
23.8% done by those 70 and above
70.3% are being done by those over 60.
46.3% were done by those in their 60s.
10% have been done by The Queen.
16.9% were done by Charles.
7.2% were done by Camilla

Days on which official engagements were undertaken to 23rd May

HM The Queen - 46
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 50
HRH The Prince of Wales - 70
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 46
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 9
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 16
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 13
HRH The Duke of York - 45
HRH Princess Beatrice of York - 2
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 46
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 39
HRH The Princess Royal - 71
Commander Tim Lawrence - 10
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 48
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 36
HRH The Duke of Kent - 39
HRH Prince Michael of Kent - 1
HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 1

Eugenie, Katherine and Alexandra are still to do anything official this year.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone actually have Diana’s numbers for each year?

The numbers I have do not support the easing of Kate.

The full year for each of the woman except Sarah. Does anyone have Sarah numbers?

1982 Diana - 78
2012 Kate - 111
2000 Sophie - 129
2006 Camilla - 222

You can make excuses for all the women but again each circumstance is different.

Diana was pregnant nearly ½ the year and a new mother.
Kate was stationed in Wales with her husband who is only a part time royal & in the 1st trimester of her pregnancy.
Sophie was operating her own business and married to 5th in line.
Camilla was nearly 60, the age most people retire, and planning her daughter’s wedding while taking care of an elderly parent who died.

If you want to compare Kate to Diana. Wait until end of this year to see if she performs more than 78 engagement. 2013 for Kate will be similar to Diana's 1982.
 
Last edited:
It isn't reasonable to compare Diana to Kate at this stage as by Diana's second wedding anniversary, in 1983 - just past for Kate - she was already a mother with a young child while Kate is still to have that first child.

That means that Kate had time to build up some engagements before getting pregnant that Diana didn't have the chance to do as she fell pregnant so soon after the marriage.

A fairer comparison can be made at the 5th anniversary - by which time both ladies should have had two years of expecting babies and three years not pregnant - although Kate will still have the situation of not working much in the first year when she wasn't pregnant - that is telling.

A comparison at 10 years will be telling as by then Diana had one child already off her hands and at boarding school and the other almost at that point and so was freer to do many more engagements. The rumours I have heard are that Kate and William don't plan on sending their offspring to boarding school so Kate will need to be based in one home during the school year and has already been reported as saying 'no overseas tours during the school year' or without the children (tabloid report I know but still out there)
 
The Princess Royal is a work horse for The Firm and deserves much credit.
 
I only brought it up because of the constant inaccurate assumption that Kate was eased into royal duties because of what happened to Diana.

The numbers to not support this & again I stated an accurate comparison would be for 1982 vs 2013. (Diana was pregant 1/2 the year & Kate is pregnant for 1/2 the year.)

I for one have always stated each woman is different. (But if people are going to compare they should try to compare the closest years/circumstances.)
 
Last edited:
Just a note about the figures Queen Camilla is using for Kate - they are mine while the figures for Diana are Mr O'Donovan's so to be fair we should compare his figures with his figures as we do count things differently.

According to his figures last year Kate did 111 engagements not 78 - and many of those were in the overseas tour and Jubilee which Diana didn't have in to build up her figures. 40 of Kate's engagements last year were for the Jubilee and on her overseas tour with another 14 to do with the Olympic and Paralympic Games meaning that about 50% of her engagements were to do with events that were focused around special situations and not things that happen more regularly.

I am no Diana supporter but I don't think Kate has done anywhere near as many as Diana apart from the fact that she did a 10 day tour and had a major Jubilee to add engagements to her figures while Diana never had that sort of year as she didn't experience being the wife of a royal in a Jubilee year. Take off the tour and Jubilee figures and Kate drops rather drastically below Diana. Comparing this year to Diana's first year is also unfair as that was Diana's first year while this is Kate's third year.
 
Last edited:
The other difference would be that Diana was the wife of HRH The Prince of Wales, heir to the throne and a full time royal based in the capital while Catherine is only married to the Queens grandson, a fulltime SAR officer based in Wales and only undertaking part time royal duties. We have known from the beginning that Catherine would not be a fulltime working royal so the comparisons serve no purpose.
 
Last edited:
IIRC a few years ago, ie during late 2000s, Princess Anne consistently topped the royal engagements list (not sure though). But now she is always lagging behind her brother..Any remote chances that this shift to second position is deliberate?
Even when she was on top I knew Charles worked no less, as his causes need more brainstorming, behind-the-scene work and even lobbying..
 
Anne is doing about the same that she has always done.

Charles has been picking up engagements from his parents as they have stepped back - Philip from a high around 800 to about 300 or less now.

Charles has been close behind the others but it was never good publicity for the press to show him in a good light during the 80s and 90s when he had to be pulled down to boost others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom