The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #381  
Old 03-01-2013, 07:23 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
One of the things I love doing is seeing reports of royals doing things and then finding that that isn't in the CC but something on which there was no press coverage is in the CC e.g. earlier this year Charles gave a speech - not in CC but there was coverage of the speech but Anne's attendance at the same event wasn't given any coverage but she got a mention in the CC.
Thank you for taking the time. It certainly adds up over a year.

With the above, did you credit both C & A even though only Anne was in the Court Circular?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 03-01-2013, 08:22 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
No - I only credit what the CC says.

That is why Beatrice and Eugenie are still on 0 even though they went to Germany at the request of the government for two days - but The Queen didn't regard those engagements as official so no credit for them - the same with their attendance at the opening of the cancer unit this past week. Had that been Charles opening such a place with Camilla in attendance both would have been mentioned in the CC but the York girls don't get a mention.

Only what is in the CC is counted - hence Tim has 5 (all with Anne) and the York girls 0 because they weren't mentioned in the CC.

The Queen approves what goes in the CC so it is her determination as to what counts and what doesn't.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 03-07-2013, 02:39 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Posts: 326
I appreciate the work you do tracking this, Iluvbertie. Very interesting!

I'm curious about the stats for the York girls. I just went onto the "search the court circular" page, and it doesn't even list them as members of the extended family. (Interestingly, though, it does still list the Queen Mum, Princess Margaret, and Princess Alice.) Search the Court Circular

Have the York girls ever performed an engagement noted as "official" by the circular?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 03-07-2013, 03:16 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnel View Post
I appreciate the work you do tracking this, Iluvbertie. Very interesting!

I'm curious about the stats for the York girls. I just went onto the "search the court circular" page, and it doesn't even list them as members of the extended family. (Interestingly, though, it does still list the Queen Mum, Princess Margaret, and Princess Alice.) Search the Court Circular

Have the York girls ever performed an engagement noted as "official" by the circular?
When they attend larger Royal gatherings such as Trooping the Colour or thanksgiving services, they get a mention along with the rest of the family. Beatrice attended the Maundy service with the Queen and Prince Philip which was official.

I am not aware of them doing anything either together or individually (i.e. without one of the senior royals) where they have been credited with official status.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #385  
Old 03-07-2013, 03:25 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
They haven't been on an individual official engagement but last year both did engagements with other royals - Beatrice went with The Queen and Philip to the Maundy Service while Eugenie accompanied her father on an engagement.

They have done things individually e.g. Beatrice received the Olympic Torch at Harewood House - no credit but when William, Kate and Harry received it at BP they were given credit. The same with presenting Olympic medals - Anne and Kate were given credit but not Eugenie.

Earlier this year both girls represented the UK government on a two day tour of Germany but The Queen didn't regard these two days and the various events involved as official engagements, despite representing the nation, and so nothing in the CC.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old 03-08-2013, 06:00 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Weekly update to 7th March

A quietish week - The Queen was of course laid up for most of it and Charles and Camilla also had a quiet week but with a Mid-East tour coming up in all likelihood they were doing preparations for that tour. They will be quite busy of the next week on the tour.

HM The Queen - 49 (48 - up 1)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 19 (16 - up 3)
HRH The Prince of Wales - 102 (97 - up 5)
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 40 (38 - up 2)
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 1 (1 - no change)
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 6 (3 - up 3)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 5 (5 - no change)
HRH The Duke of York - 48 (46 - up 2)
HRH Princess Beatrice of York - 0 (0 - no change)
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 0 (0 - no change)
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 32 (28 - up 4)
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 26 (21 - up 5)
HRH The Princess Royal - 85 (73 - up 12)
Vice-Admiral Tim Lawrence - 5 (5 - no change)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 26 (20 - up 6)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 12 (9 - up 3)
HRH The Duke of Kent - 43 (34 - up 9)
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 0 (0 - no change)
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 0 (0 - no change)
HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 0 (0 - 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 - 102
HRH The Princess Royal - 85

HM The Queen – 49
HRH The Duke of York - 48
HRH The Duke of Kent - 43
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 40
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 32
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 26
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 26

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 19
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 12

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 6
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 5

Vice-Admiral Tim Lawrence - 5
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 1
HRH Princess Beatrice of York – 0
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 0
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 0
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 0
HRH Princess Michael of Kent -0
HRH Princess Alexandra - 0

Year to date total - 499

Days on which official engagements were undertaken to 7th March:

HM The Queen - 18
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 11
HRH The Prince of Wales - 33
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 19
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 1
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 4
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 2
HRH The Duke of York - 17
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 16
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 17
HRH The Princess Royal - 34
Commander Tim Lawrence - 4
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 18
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 9
HRH The Duke of Kent - 22

All others to this point - 0
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old 03-08-2013, 06:37 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
They haven't been on an individual official engagement but last year both did engagements with other royals - Beatrice went with The Queen and Philip to the Maundy Service while Eugenie accompanied her father on an engagement.

They have done things individually e.g. Beatrice received the Olympic Torch at Harewood House - no credit but when William, Kate and Harry received it at BP they were given credit. The same with presenting Olympic medals - Anne and Kate were given credit but not Eugenie.

Earlier this year both girls represented the UK government on a two day tour of Germany but The Queen didn't regard these two days and the various events involved as official engagements, despite representing the nation, and so nothing in the CC.
Thanks for the observation, Iluvbertie. I am sure most of us would have missed it. Not cricket, in my opinion. I think often about how to heal the York schism (as I find myself calling it).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old 03-08-2013, 08:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
I don't think there is a schism but more this is reflective of public demand for fewer obvious royals and so the girls aren't going to be supported by the monarch but will have to support themselves or be supported by their future husbands.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old 03-08-2013, 08:35 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
Thanks for the observation, Iluvbertie. I am sure most of us would have missed it. Not cricket, in my opinion. I think often about how to heal the York schism (as I find myself calling it).
I think you may be reading too much into it. We simply don't know the reason why the York girls don't get mentioned in the Court Circular. As Bertie pointed out, there was an occasion recently when Charles and Anne both attended the same event - Anne got a mention in CC whereas Charles didn't.

If the intention is to cut down on the number of Royals performing public engagements as a cost cutting exercise then it makes sense that the grandchildren, with the exception of William and Harry, are the ones cut. The girls are not the only grandchildren of monarchs who don't carry out public engagements - Prince Michael, Zara, Peter, David Linley and Sarah Chatto are all in the same position as Beatrice & Eugenie.

The Palace has to be aware of the bad publicity they attract over the perceived costs of Royal engagements, justified or not. The days of multiple Royals undertaking engagements are probably over.

Simply because something has been done a certain way in the past doesn't mean it should continue that without a good reason. I'm aware of the argument that there will simply not be enough working Royals to continue with the same level of engagements as they do today. It may be that there will simply be a streamlining of the type of work that the Royal Family undertakes.

I remember when Diana resigned her patronages many of her charities were forced to take on non-Royal patrons. I read one article a year or so later when the spokesperson for the charity said it had actually turned out to be a good thing. The non-royal had been able to fund raise and devote time to them in ways in which Diana could not either because she was constrained by protocol or because she simply had so many charities that she simply could not devote the same time to them. So change may not (and I emphasise may) turn out to be a bad thing for the charities or the Royal Family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old 03-09-2013, 05:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
The reason why the York girls don't get mentioned in the CC is simple - The Queen doesn't want them mentioned and she is the one who deterimines what is and what isn't an official engagement. Even when the royal is representing the government it is still up to The Queen to decide whether to acknowledge that in the CC and she says 'no' to the girls.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #391  
Old 03-15-2013, 03:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Weekly update to 14th March

This was quite a busy week as is always the case when there are foreign tours involved. Even the Queen managed double-figures despite cancelling engagements.

HM The Queen - 60 (49 - up 11)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 28 (19 - up 9)
HRH The Prince of Wales - 121 (102 - up 19)
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 55 (40 - up 15)
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 1 (1 - no change)
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 6 (6 - no change)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 5 (5 - no change)
HRH The Duke of York - 58 (48 - up 10)
HRH Princess Beatrice of York - 0 (0 - no change)
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 0 (0 - no change)
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 43 (32 - up 9)
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 37 (26 - up 11)
HRH The Princess Royal - 93 (85 - up 8)
Vice-Admiral Tim Lawrence - 6 (5 - up 1)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 35 (26 - up 9)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 14 (12 - up 2)
HRH The Duke of Kent - 52 (43 - up 9)
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 0 (0 - no change)
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 0 (0 - no change)
HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 0 (0 - 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 - 121
HRH The Princess Royal - 93

HM The Queen – 60
HRH The Duke of York - 58
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 55
HRH The Duke of Kent - 52
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 43
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 37
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 35

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 28
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 14

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 6
Vice-Admiral Tim Lawrence - 6
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 5

HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 1
HRH Princess Beatrice of York – 0
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 0
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 0
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 0
HRH Princess Michael of Kent -0
HRH Princess Alexandra - 0

Year to date total - 614 ((up 115)

Days on which official engagements were undertaken to 14th March:

HM The Queen - 22
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 16
HRH The Prince of Wales - 37
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 23
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 1
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 4
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 2
HRH The Duke of York - 20
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 19
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 20
HRH The Princess Royal - 38
Commander Tim Lawrence - 5
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 22
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 12
HRH The Duke of Kent - 24

All others to this point - 0
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 03-16-2013, 06:58 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
HRH Princess Alexandra - 0 (0 - no change)
Three months without engagement is quite strange situation for full-time royal I think.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 03-16-2013, 07:55 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Alexandra has been cutting back on her engagements since her husband died and this is reflective of that.

How many people do you know aged 76 who are full time workers at all?

It is reasonable to assume that such a minor member of the family (42 in line and will drop further with the births of Kate and Sophie Winkleman's babies later this year) to enjoy a retirement that will be denied her older cousins, Elizabeth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 03-21-2013, 10:38 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 676
thanks
i didn't know that Alexandra decided to cut back on her engagements
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 03-21-2013, 03:36 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Alexandra, like the rest of the over 70s royals, including The Queen and Philip, has been cutting back her engagements slowing over the last 10 years or so.

Last year she did a bit over 100 but in her heyday she would regularly do over 300, just as the Queen has cut back from over 600 and Philip from over 800 to around 300-350 each.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 03-21-2013, 04:23 PM
Elly C's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Worcester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,846
Not sure if this is the right thread to post this so please move if needed. After the sad news about the Duke of Kent suffering a mild stroke, over on "the Duke's thread" there has begun a discussion about the age of working Royals in the British Royal Family & how the weight of responsibilities is firmly on Royals aged 60+. One recent comment was that if senior royals want to continue to carry out large number of engagements despite having occasional ill health issues, then that's fine. Well I can agree with this to a point, but I think there are other issues to consider such as an organiser's point of view. One example is the nature of what a can be reasonably asked of a senior royal to do. No one would doubt the stamina of say the Duke of Edinburgh, but clearly there are limited types of activities he and others can be expected to participate in. Yet royal visits need to be "hands on "and interactive if they are to sustain the interest of the public. Also, as minor health problems crop up, engagements have to be cancelled leading to much disappointment amongst invited guests/public. This is a situation which will obviously only get worse. I fully appreciate and admire the determination/dedication of our senior Royals but I do think with these recent instances of illness, the BR family are approaching a critical point which demands a serious rethink about the balance of duties.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 03-21-2013, 04:26 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,833
I agree, Elly C.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 03-21-2013, 04:30 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Duties have been cancelled all the time e.g. last year Sophie had to cancel duties for a couple of days due to illness as did William (1 planned engagement cancelled by him).

I think after the Duke recovers they will ascertain his level of work and reduce accordingly - as they have already done with his sister and The Queen and Philip.

They are always keeping an eye on these things and the royals do take their health seriously and are fully aware of the disappointment when they have to cancel so it that does become an issue they will take the appropriate action.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 03-21-2013, 05:48 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,581
I imagine they do feel bad when they have to cancel an engagement due to illness but people get ill, like you said, and that of course takes precedence. As does your family when Sophie cancelled an engagement to be with Lady Louise when she broke her arm last year.

I don't think the older Royals want to necessarily "retire", but like Alexandra they are perhaps considering "cutting back".
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 03-22-2013, 09:05 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 676
Iluvbertie, what do you think about such additional statistic? to mark every engagement as
1) done by Head of State/Patron/President of an organization/etc. - a certain person is necessary;
2) done by a colonel-in-chief - a certain person is necessary, but the monarch appoints;
3) done by simply a Royal: smth. on behalf of queen or unveil, for example, new station, bridge, etc. - a certain person is unnecessary.

This statistic will allow to know Royal's interchangeability.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
princess beatrice


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Royal Maundy Service - all years (2014: 17 April) Dennism Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 160 04-17-2014 04:10 PM
British Royal Family current events 5: July 2011- March 2013 wbenson British Royals 1204 04-01-2013 07:35 AM
Relationships between members of the Norwegian royal family. Dennism Royal House of Norway 78 11-22-2012 08:04 AM
Some suggestions on how and where to see the Royal Family in 2012 Diarist British Royals 14 01-06-2012 07:55 PM
Royal engagements, marriages, pregnancies, births and deaths Warren Forum Announcements and Admin 2 01-20-2011 12:06 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]