Annual Engagements by Members of the Royal Family 2011-2013

[Iluvbertie]

Based on a comment Victoria B made in the Queen's Jubilee thread I thought I would add another statistic to my calcualations - giving the percentage of duties carried out by The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry compared to that done by the rest of the family - so we can see how much the Wales' are going to have to step up their workload as they older generation ages.

The Queen, Philip and the Wales (Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry) - 45%
Everybody else (Yorks, Wessexes, Anne, Gloucesters and Kents) - 65%

So the Queen and the Wales need to more than double their current workrate to cover the work done by the others in the years ahead - of course William's children will have to step up but Harry's will have the same freedom that Beatrice and Eugenie are having as they will only be the children of the second son - as are Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Now that's interesting, and guess which workers are being celebrated this Jubilee weekend?

 

[Iluvbertie]

A correction to an earlier post of mine.

Sophie's attendance at the Grand Prix ended up being an official engagement and was in the CC for the 27th May along with Dinner that evening so she ended up with 7 engagements in Monaco.

 

[cepe]

Based on a comment Victoria B made in the Queen's Jubilee thread I thought I would add another statistic to my calcualations - giving the percentage of duties carried out by The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry compared to that done by the rest of the family - so we can see how much the Wales' are going to have to step up their workload as they older generation ages.

The Queen, Philip and the Wales (Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry) - 45%
Everybody else (Yorks, Wessexes, Anne, Gloucesters and Kents) - 65%

So the Queen and the Wales need to more than double their current workrate to cover the work done by the others in the years ahead - of course William's children will have to step up but Harry's will have the same freedom that Beatrice and Eugenie are having as they will only be the children of the second son - as are Beatrice and Eugenie.

Not necessarily - they will just have to support less organisations

Now that's interesting, and guess which workers are being celebrated this Jubilee weekend?

That's a negative way of viewing it - the "7" are not being celebrated more than the others - the Queen is simply emphasising the future of the monarchy and her support of Prince Charles, Camilla etc. This is an important opportunity to do that and (a) stress the importance of the role of Prince Charles (b) continuity and (c) a smaller core team in the mid to long term. Seems the right time to do that.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Not necessarily - they will just have to support less organisations

That's the choice they'll have to make, reduce the family and reduce the number of engagements they do thereby probably loosing the respect of a lot of people. Nobody's going to be happy when they realise they no longer have a royal patron because someone wants to cut down the family. IF the family is cut down.

 

[Osipi]

That's the choice they'll have to make, reduce the family and reduce the number of engagements they do thereby probably loosing the respect of a lot of people. Nobody's going to be happy when they realise they no longer have a royal patron because someone wants to cut down the family. IF the family is cut down.

Another thing that may occur in the future is that we'll see more and more of the minor royals that actually aren't part of the "firm" still supporting and being patrons of charities such as Beatrice has done lately.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The problem will be the time that they can put into it - a working royal can devote their entire working life to their charities and organisations while a minor royal who has a real full-time job will only be able to devote limited time to their charity/organisation and will therefore be able to do a lot less for it but if that is what the public want - less contact with royals, fewer charities/organisations (like about half) with royal patrons etc then so be it.

What the royal family have to realise is that it would be blatantly unfair to Beatrice and Eugenie to say to them now - get a full-time job and you aren't wanted or needed by us - and then turn around in say 20 years and say 'bad luck we now need you so give up your career and private family life and start working for us'.

 

[Tyger]

What the royal family have to realise is that it would be blatantly unfair to Beatrice and Eugenie to say to them now - get a full-time job and you aren't wanted or needed by us - and then turn around in say 20 years and say 'bad luck we now need you so give up your career and private family life and start working for us'.

Which brings up the matter of why the two women are being side-lined when they could be doing so much work for the family. Is it truly to do with their mother, Sarah? Is it an attempt of the BRF to distance themselves from the attention-seeking of Sarah? If Sarah were more like Sophie, would her daughters be allowed to be involved?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Which brings up the matter of why the two women are being side-lined when they could be doing so much work for the family. Is it truly to do with their mother, Sarah? Is it an attempt of the BRF to distance themselves from the attention-seeking of Sarah? If Sarah were more like Sophie, would her daughters be allowed to be involved?

I think it if far more a reaction to the vocal minority who are anti-monarchy and who object to any money being spent on the royal family so the idea is to reduce the visible size of the family and that means fewer royals out and about doing royal duties. This mean that the girls are going to be the first royal cousins to not be required but in the future the children of younger siblings will also not be doing royal duties e.g. Harry's children will be expected to also support themselves and not do royal duties.

The first time a change happens it becomes something on which to comment but in future generations it will be the norm to have only the monarch and the heir doing royal duties and the rest of the family working for their own livings rather than being supported by the state.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Weekly update to 31st May.

A quieter week for everyone this week - probably in preparation for the very busy Jubilee Weekend ahead.

HM The Queen - 252 (243 - up 9)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 183 (175 - up 8)

HRH The Prince of Wales - 298 (281 – up 17)
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 147 (140 – up 7)
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 10 (10 - no change)
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 35 (34 - up 1)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 44 (43 – up 1)
HRH The Duke of York - 224 (210 - up 14)
HRH Princess Beatrice of York - 8 (8 - up 1)
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 4 (4- up 1)
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 191 (180 - up 11)
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 171 (158 – up 13)
HRH The Princess Royal - 245 (233 – up 12)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 160 (152 – up 8)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 53 (51 – up 2)
HRH The Duke of Kent - 80 (71 – up 9) ​

HRH The Duchess of Kent - 0 (0 no change)
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 6 (5 – up 1)
HRH Princess Michael of Kent 6 (5 – up 1)
HRH Princess Alexandra - 41 (36 – up 5)


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 - 298
HM The Queen – 252
HRH The Princess Royal - 245
HRH The Duke of York - 224
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 191
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 175
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 171
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 160
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 147
HRH The Duke of Kent - 80
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 53
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 44
HRH Princess Alexandra - 41
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 35
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 10
HRH Princess Beatrice of York – 8
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 6
HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 6
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 4
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 0

Year to date total - 2158 with 79% of those engagements being carried out by The Queen, her children and their spouses. The remaining 21% have been done by her grandchildren, first cousins and their spouses. This sees no change from last week.

The main line (The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry) have remained at 45%.

Next week will see a number of engagements for everyone - even possible The Duchess of Kent at the Thanksgiving Service (that would be the only event I would expect to see her attend - if she attends anything at all this year).

 

[Tyger]

The Duchess of Kent at the Thanksgiving Service (that would be the only event I would expect to see her attend - if she attends anything at all this year).

Why? Is she ill? Elderly? The Duke of Kent does a fair number.

 

[HRHHermione]

Why? Is she ill? Elderly? The Duke of Kent does a fair number.

They are estranged and she lives a separate life from him, from what I recall

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why? Is she ill? Elderly? The Duke of Kent does a fair number.

Then Duchess of Kent retired totally from public life about a decade ago and only attends the very odd occasion. The last time she was seen in public was at William and Kate's wedding.

She and the Duke have lived virtually separate lives since the 1990s and there have been reports that they asked the Queen for permission to divorce but she asked them not to do so and to try to come to some accomodation - nothing official of course but just a report in a couple of papers over the years. Since the effective end of their marriage she lives a totally private life.



Katharine, Duchess of Kent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Royal Wedding guest list: Duchess of Kent comes out from shadows to attend | Mail Online

 

[VictoriaB]

Next week will see a number of engagements for everyone - even possible The Duchess of Kent at the Thanksgiving Service (that would be the only event I would expect to see her attend - if she attends anything at all this year).

According to the Daily Mail (not the most reliable source I know) the Duchess will be at the River Pagent.

 

[Tyger]

Then Duchess of Kent retired totally from public life about a decade ago and only attends the very odd occasion. The last time she was seen in public was at William and Kate's wedding.

She and the Duke have lived virtually separate lives since the 1990s and there have been reports that they asked the Queen for permission to divorce but she asked them not to do so and to try to come to some accomodation - nothing official of course but just a report in a couple of papers over the years. Since the effective end of their marriage she lives a totally private life.

Thank you both for the explanation. I went on-line and read some more. A sad story. She has dramatically aged in recent years - going by pictures of her at William and Kate's wedding - it happens that way sometimes. I wonder why the Queen made the request and why in the face of a different desire they have maintained the formal connection.

They are estranged and she lives a separate life from him, from what I recall

 

[Iluvbertie]

According to the Daily Mail (not the most reliable source I know) the Duchess will be at the River Pagent.

I hope she attends the Pageant, the Concert and the Service and is on the balcony - simply because she has been such a lovely lady and great supporter of The Queen but she tends not to do so.

If she only attends one of these events though I am sure it will be the church service.

She was also so classy at Wimbledon each year presenting the Ladies Trophies leaving The Duke to present the Men's.

 

[Tyger]

She was also so classy at Wimbledon each year presenting the Ladies Trophies leaving The Duke to present the Men's.

When did that stop?

 

[Iluvbertie]

DUCHESS OF KENT TO MISS WIMBLEDON

From this it is clear the last time she was there was 2001.

The Duke has presented both Men's and Ladies' trophies since 2002.

 

[Tyger]

I think it if far more a reaction to the vocal minority who are anti-monarchy and who object to any money being spent on the royal family so the idea is to reduce the visible size of the family and that means fewer royals out and about doing royal duties. This mean that the girls are going to be the first royal cousins to not be required but in the future the children of younger siblings will also not be doing royal duties e.g. Harry's children will be expected to also support themselves and not do royal duties.

The first time a change happens it becomes something on which to comment but in future generations it will be the norm to have only the monarch and the heir doing royal duties and the rest of the family working for their own livings rather than being supported by the state.

I understand now the reasoning - but it will be a lonely place, not so?

I just saw a picture of a line of royals - Charles and Camilla leading the way, with Anne and Kate next - odd that William was not present yet his wife was (I think that is odd) - and then Edward and Sophie. That was all who were present. With the new 'rules' it would only be Charles, Camilla and Kate - and William and Harry if they decided to attend. Pretty sparse - and honest to say, not very interesting. Charles and Camilla are interesting enough - but its the presentation - and perhaps illusion - of extended family that is interesting.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that the extended family would still be on the balcony for things like Trooping the Colour but not the out and about jobs of the royals like opening the wings of hospitals or doing the charity work, etc.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Weekly update to 7th June.

Everyone with duties this week of course due to the Jubilee, even the Duchess of Kent. There was one event - the reception at the Guildhall that the CC said included 'other members of the royal family' so I gave one to everyone who had attended the Church service. If someone has proof that a royal didn't attend that event I will remove it from their count. The Queen of course went to the Reception at the Mansion House while others went to the Guildhall.

HM The Queen - 266 (252 - up 14)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 185 (183 - up 2)

HRH The Prince of Wales - 309 (298 – up 11)
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 156 (147 – up 9)
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 17 (10 - up 7)
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 42 (35 - up 7)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 51 (44 – up 7)
HRH The Duke of York - 237 (224 - up 13)
HRH Princess Beatrice of York - 15 (8 - up 7)
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 11 (4- up 7)
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 199 (191 - up 8)
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 182 (171 – up 11)
HRH The Princess Royal - 255 (245 – up 10)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 170 (160 – up 10)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 59 (53 – up 6)
HRH The Duke of Kent - 86 (80 – up 6) ​

HRH The Duchess of Kent - 4 (0 - up 4)
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 11 (6 – up 5)
HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 11 (6 – up 5)
HRH Princess Alexandra - 48 (41 – up 7)


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 - 309
HM The Queen – 266
HRH The Princess Royal - 255
HRH The Duke of York - 236
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 199
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 185
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 182
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 170
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 156
HRH The Duke of Kent - 86
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 59
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 51
HRH Princess Alexandra - 48
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 42
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 17
HRH Princess Beatrice of York – 15
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 11
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 11
HRH Princess Michael of Kent -11
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 4

Year to date total - 2314 with 82% of those engagements being carried out by The Queen, her children and their spouses. The remaining 18% have been done by her grandchildren, first cousins and their spouses. This sees a change from last week with the Queen, her children and their spouses increases there number of engagements in comparison to the grandchildren, cousins 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 dropped though to 44%.

Some people might have expected more engagements this week as we saw so much of the royals but on two of those days for instance there was only one engagement - just long ones - the races and the pageant. Tuesday saw a number of engagements and even though we didn't see them a number of royals actually did engagements not directly related to the Jubilee e.g. Tuesday evening saw Andrew attending a Concert.

In addition I am sure that many of you saw the pictures of Beatrice and Eugenie at the picnic at BP before the Concert but that wasn't an official engagement but their visits the day before to Jubilee Lunches were - so two for the two visits to Jubilee Lunches but none for the picnic as I only include things mentioned in the CC.

 

[padams2359]

The cousins of the Queen have stayed active in royal duties until recently. However, I feel the the title of Prince or Princess means something in The Firm, and always has. This group plays by rules written long ago. Little things change over time, but the core rules stay the same. Princess Anne and Prince Edward made a decision about their children that maybe a choice that they are leaving up to their to make, and Princess Anne's children have chosen to remain at a distance. It is too early to tell with Prince Edward's children. Prince Andrew did not make the same choice. That will either help, or hurt them, depending on how you look at it, but by title alone, those girls will have a job in The Firm.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Andrew didn't make a choice. Anne's children weren't entitled to HRH unless she or Mark was given a title as the 1917 LPs discriminate against girls.

When Andrew's girls were born no one would have expected them not to be Princesses as they are male line grandchildren of the monarch - the same reason why the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra (along with The Queen herself and her sister) were born HRHs. The situation changed in the 1990s with the scandals involving Diana and Sarah.

If Edward's example is to be followed Harry's children will also not be HRHs during the reign of their father.

The future seems to be that only the children of the eldest child is now going to be HRHs and that Beatrice and Eugenie will be the last children of a younger child of the monarch to have HRH (of course had that been in place in 1926 then the present Queen would have been born as Lady Elizabeth Windsor).

Yes the Queen's cousins have worked hard for her throughout her reign but in the future the cousins of the monarch aren't going to be working for the monarch - although when Beatrice and Eugenie was born that wasn't the expectation. These girls have been raised with one expectation that has changed for them over the last 4 or 5 years and so their plans have had to change. They were raised to expect to serve the country and their monarch in the ways that the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and Princess Alexandra have done but times have changed and in the future the cousins won't be working for the monarch and William, Kate and Harry and Harry's spouse will have to step up and take on the duties currently done by the Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra along with those of their grandparents. Charles and Anne can't add many more - and nor can Andrew. Edward, Sophie and Camilla could pick up their load a bit but the bulk will fall to William, Kate and Harry and his spouse meaning Harry won't probably have a lifelong career in the army simply because he will have to step up and do more and more duties.

 

[padams2359]

Excuse me. Edward made a decision.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Excuse me. Edward made a decision.

Where did I suggest otherwise?

It was Andrew who didn't make a decision. He accepted the normal procedure according to the 1917 LPs when his children were born - which is what I said in my previous post

Andrew didn't make a choice.

I never said that Edward didn't make the decision to deny his children their rights under the 1917 LPs - he clearly did with The Queen's approval, meaning that it was actually The Queen's decision as if she didn't agree whatever Edward decided would have been meaningless.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Weekly update to 14th June.

A lot of engagements this week carried out by many royals with The Queen leading the way with 23.

HM The Queen - 289 (266 - up 23)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 185 (185 - no change)

HRH The Prince of Wales - 325 (309 – up 16)
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 166 (156 – up 10)
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 23 (17 - up 6)
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 47 (42 - up 5)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 51 (51 – no change)
HRH The Duke of York - 251 (237 - up 14)
HRH Princess Beatrice of York - 15 (15 - no change)
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 11 (11- no change)
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 231 (199 - up 32)
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 214 (182 – up 32)
HRH The Princess Royal - 267 (255 – up 12)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 170 (170 – no change)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 59 (59 – no change)
HRH The Duke of Kent - 88 (86 – up 2) ​

HRH The Duchess of Kent - 4 (4 - no change)
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 11 (11 – no change)
HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 11 (11 – no change)
HRH Princess Alexandra - 52 (48 – up 4)


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 - 325
HM The Queen – 289
HRH The Princess Royal - 267
HRH The Duke of York - 251
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 231
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 214
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 185
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 170
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 166
HRH The Duke of Kent - 88
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 59
HRH Princess Alexandra - 52
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 51
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 47
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 23
HRH Princess Beatrice of York – 15
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 11
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 11
HRH Princess Michael of Kent -11
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 4

Year to date total - 2470 with 78% of those engagements being carried out by The Queen, her children and their spouses. The remaining 22% have been done by her grandchildren, first cousins and their spouses. This sees a change from last week with the Queen, her children and their spouses reducing their percentage of engagements in comparison to the grandchildren, cousins 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 remained at 44%.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Weekly update to 21st June.

This week we have seen a lot of the royals out and about at the races but only The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were listed as attending officially so they are the only two who are credited with an engagement for attending the races. Some of you may also remember seeing Beatrice at Harewood House greeting the Olympic flame but again that wasn't an official engagement listed in the CC so no credit in my list for her for that event. I do think we should remember that a lot of the royals do unofficial engagements as well, which aren't counted in any official type tally.

Everyone was listed as attending Trooping the Colour so everyone was credited with two engagements for that day - trooping and flypast. A number of people were also present at the Garter, either as participants or watching but officially listed.

This highlights one of the interesting things - what constitutes an official engagement e.g. The Queen and Philip get the credit for the races but Sophie who has been every day as well gets no credit for attending as for her is wasn't an offiical engagement but she is credited as officially attending the Garter ceremony where she also simply watched.

HM The Queen - 300 (289 - up 11)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh - 195 (185 - up 10)

HRH The Prince of Wales - 343 (325 – up 18)
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 174 (166 – up 8)
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 31 (23 - up 8)
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 53 (47 - up 6)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 53 (51 – up 2)
HRH The Duke of York - 259 (251 - up 8)
HRH Princess Beatrice of York - 17 (15 - up 2)
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 13 (11- up 2)
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 242 (231 - up 9)
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 221 (214 – up 7)
HRH The Princess Royal - 274 (267 – up 7)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 176 (170 – up 6)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 65 (59 – up 6)
HRH The Duke of Kent - 96 (88 – up 8) ​

HRH The Duchess of Kent - 6 (4 - up 2)
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 13 (11 – up 2)
HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 13 (11 – up 2)
HRH Princess Alexandra - 58 (52 – up 6)


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 - 343
HM The Queen – 300
HRH The Princess Royal - 274
HRH The Duke of York - 259
HRH The Earl of Wessex - 242
HRH The Countess of Wessex - 221
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 195
HRH The Duke of Gloucester - 176
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - 174
HRH The Duke of Kent - 96
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester - 65
HRH Princess Alexandra - 58
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - 53
HRH Prince Henry of Wales - 53
HRH The Duke of Cambridge - 31
HRH Princess Beatrice of York – 17
HRH Princess Eugenie of York - 13
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 13
HRH Princess Michael of Kent -13
HRH The Duchess of Kent - 6

Year to date total - 2602 with 77% of those engagements being carried out by The Queen, her children and their spouses. The remaining 23% have been done by her grandchildren, first cousins and their spouses. This sees a change from last week with the Queen, her children and their spouses reducing their percentage of engagements again in comparison to the grandchildren, cousins 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 remained at 44%.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I find it interesting that the numerous royals who are clearly doing engagements but aren't listed in the CC are missed from the list. I might start a comparison list because I think it's slightly unfair.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I did think about adding a column for engagements not listed but I also realise that it wouldn't be complete so would still be unfair e.g. Sophie might visit somewhere unofficially but still receive no coverage and so not get the recognition anyway.

It does annoy me at times when I think - this will be a full event only to find only one or two royals credited.

Then you have events like Beatrice's run earlier this year, Eugenie's run and William and Harry's polo - where do you put them? As engagements or as fun. We have all seen William and Harry at different rugby games and Beatrice at the tennis but they don't get credit for that while Anne does because she is the Patron of Scottish Rugby so she goes in that capacity.

The interesting thing with Ascot is comparing who was there officially compared with who went to Epsom officially - lots of royals went to Epsom officially but only two to Ascot.

 

[LauraS3514]

Princess Beatrice also opened a Teenage Cancer Trust facility with her mother a couple months ago, again "unofficially", and visited at least two other places while in York with the press in tow. She also gave out the prizes after the Olympic Park run, again unofficially. Princess Eugenie has taken on her first official patronage but her cycle ride in support of that didn't make the CC. I don't know how to "count" these engagements either, but some recognition might go a long way to counterbalancing some of the "useless spongers" comments out there.