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
 
  #481  
Old 05-20-2013, 07:12 AM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
"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
  #482  
Old 05-20-2013, 08:02 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 753
The Times has it http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/c...cle3766902.ece, but protects from reading all text :(
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 05-20-2013, 09:59 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 05-20-2013, 10:18 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 05-20-2013, 12:16 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 748
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 05-20-2013, 03:46 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 05-20-2013, 05:06 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
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).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 05-20-2013, 05:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 05-20-2013, 05:56 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,271
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?)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 05-20-2013, 06:47 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,073
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!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 05-20-2013, 06:48 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 05-20-2013, 07:00 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,685
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.
__________________
"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
  #493  
Old 05-20-2013, 07:17 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
(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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 05-20-2013, 08:32 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,423
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 05-20-2013, 08:48 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 1,884
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 05-20-2013, 09:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,533
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 05-20-2013, 09:16 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 773
Obviously some are confuse by what I posted and Misinterpreted it wrongly then what I meant. I will delete my posts now.
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 05-20-2013, 09:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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,
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 05-20-2013, 10:42 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 05-22-2013, 10:10 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
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




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:55 PM.

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]