British Royal Family Engagements 2016

[Dman]

I believe Catherine is doing very well, all while taking care of two kids at home. William has stepped up and now, heading into 2017, his workload will start to increase even more. Harry is pretty busy and doing well as well. I think the young royals doing and will continue to do well in their work as senior royals.

 

[cepe]

I believe Catherine's official engagement number is in the hundreds.

140 which is up by 78 on last yr. These are my figures, taken from Times CC

 

[Dman]

The focus should be on their work and not on some large number. We have to start paying attention to quality and their roles they are carving out. It's really not about one working harder than the other, but one has more responsibilies than the other.

If William, Catherine and Harry was handed down roles from; The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, The Queen Mother, and Princess Margaret, their responsibilities would be great too.

 

[tommy100]

Catherine has the fewest public appearances. That does not mean she did the least. We have discussed over and over the difference between showing up and pulling a curtain and building/running collaborative coalitions.
And Mods need to move a "Kate does little" discussion to an appropriate thread.

I didn't say she did little, I said on those figures presented she did the least. The figures are of course open to interrogation - already its been pointed out they have placed George's date of birth wrongly.

Please do move this to a more appropriate thread

 

[muriel]

Prince Charles was 2016’s hardest working royal, followed by Princess Anne – Royal Central

Many thanks.

Quite disappointing to see that Camilla only did around 220 engagements this year. I would expect her to be doing around 300 per year.

 

[Rudolph]

140 which is up by 78 on last yr. These are my figures, taken from Times CC

A big jump for Catherine

 

[Ish]

Easy target. The general ingrained mysogyny, the attitude, that she's undeserving of her position, and 'lesser than'. Does she deserve to get called out? I don't know. But she does get called out more than others, as far as I see.

How is it misogyny to think that a wealthy woman who has a full time nanny for her children could be seen as working in some way?

Personally, I find the defense of Catherine's not doing more engagements because "she's a mother of two young children" to be insulting to the women around the world who hold down full time jobs while raising children. I think there are reasons for her not being a full time royal and pulling in bigger numbers that go beyond the idea that she's "work shy", but the idea that it's because she has kids is insulting to women.

Women can raise children and work. We've been doing it for all of human history. It's not misogynistic in the least to wonder what a woman who has a full time nanny and isn't seen working is doing with her time.

 

[Ish]

Many thanks.

Quite disappointing to see that Camilla only did around 220 engagements this year. I would expect her to be doing around 300 per year.

I believe Camilla's numbers are fairly standard for her. I think she's only hit the 300 mark once or twice since her marriage.

The reasoning behind her numbers is typically that she's a 60+ woman who hasn't enjoyed the best of health. Given some of the criticism of Kate for her numbers, I do find it interesting that Camilla doesn't get more criticism for her numbers, but then Kate is someone the press/public want to see a lot of, while Camilla is not.

 

[TLLK]

It's worth noting that in that "compare the first five years of Diana/Sarah/Sophie/Kate" chart that Maclean's has managed to put George's birth a year before it actually happened.

Thanks for catching that little error hel!

 

[TLLK]

140 which is up by 78 on last yr. These are my figures, taken from Times CC

So cepe did your personal figures match Mr. O'Donovan's this year?

 

[cepe]

I didn't say she did little, I said on those figures presented she did the least. The figures are of course open to interrogation - already its been pointed out they have placed George's date of birth wrongly.

Please do move this to a more appropriate thread

She increased her workload by over 100%. William and Harry also increased their output.

I dont thinkits all about Catherine. Its about William and his decision to be based in Norfolk.


And if you look at all the figures, not one spouse does more than their royal partner

 

[Ish]

She increased her workload by over 100%. William and Harry also increased their output.



I dont thinkits all about Catherine. Its about William and his decision to be based in Norfolk.





And if you look at all the figures, not one spouse does more than their royal partner

I agree 100%. I get why people want to see more from Kate, and I hate the defence of "well she's a mother with kids," but Kate's role is defined and limited by William's.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Thanks Cepe for putting up those CC entries.

I will start putting up the rest of my weekly counts later today - now that I have a working computer.

In late September I had a virus in the system that started to cause major problems - not only for my home computer but our school system and I had to delete everything so had to go back to the drawing board.

By the end of tomorrow I should have my figures for the year put up.

I have Kate at 144 to the 19th December.

I also will do an analysis of each individual's 'types of engagements' if people are interested (I am doing it for my own enjoyment) and a month on month tally to see if there really is a 'padding on figures' for the end of the year for some royals but not others - as alleged elsewhere on the internet.

 

[hel]

I think Kate, William and Harry's roles are all also limited by the need to future proof their schedules.

We know that Charles' intention is to have a streamlined monarchy and likely to change to some degree the type of engagements that are done. But trips to various parts of the country will still need to happen; the reduction is going to come in patronages, I suspect, not "visiting Colchester to view and be seen". If Charles was going to cut those out, he wouldn't still be doing so many of them.

So say William, Harry and Kate did increase up to 350-400 engagements a year, today (leaving aside the question of where the money for that is going to come from). And then HM lives for 10 more years. They'll have "locked in" 350 engagements and won't necessarily have the time to pick up more once Elizabeth, Philip, the Kents, and the Gloucesters stop doing them.

The queen and Philip aren't going to stop, nor are they going to ask HM's cousins to stop. And, frankly, that's to the good. I know a lot is said about how the older generation should be allowed to put their feet up, but a) they clearly don't want to and b) it's likely why they're all comparatively healthy and active. (I say this as someone who's watched her grandmother volunteer for close to 20 years now; Grandma's 99, still actively volunteers 2-3 days a week, and looks about 10 years younger than she is. I'd never dream of telling her to slow down.)

 

[Iluvbertie]

So cepe did your personal figures match Mr. O'Donovan's this year?

Mr O'Donovan's figures aren't published until the 1st January in the UK so we won't know until then whether our figures are close to his or not.

 

[cepe]

Mr O'Donovan's figures aren't published until the 1st January in the UK so we won't know until then whether our figures are close to his or not.

They were published today

 

[cepe]

Sir, I have carried out a survey of the official engagements undertaken by the royal family in 2016 as reported in the Court Circular. I should again emphasise that the above table of figures should not be converted into a “league table” of individual royal performance. All engagements differ as to time and content, and there is also the time taken in preparation, whether it be a visit, investiture or speech. The Queen celebrated her 90th birthday during the year, and it is remarkable the number of engagements carried out by Her Majesty and by the Duke of Edinburgh, who will be 96 in June.

Except for Christmas Day and Easter Day, the Queen never has a day off from the official red boxes which pursue her everywhere.

tim o’donovan Datchet, Berks

(here are the figures)

http://cache-img1.pressdisplay.com/...0000001001&regionKey=BCFDrxErzS5TJuRhdMBZxQ==

 

[Pranter]

Again..neither Kate nor William are full time royals yet. You can't compare their numbers to royals who are working full time at the job.


LaRae

 

[hel]

I also will do an analysis of each individual's 'types of engagements' if people are interested (I am doing it for my own enjoyment) and a month on month tally to see if there really is a 'padding on figures' for the end of the year for some royals but not others - as alleged elsewhere on the internet.

FWIW, my numbers say not, at least for Kate. I've got a month on month tally going back to 2011 and while the resulting charts show patterns, they're fairly obvious ones (fewer engagements in baby bearing years being the chief, spikes in tour months).

 

[Iluvbertie]

My month on month going back to 2000 shows patterns of course but also shows that the royals all spike at certain times while the internet seems awash with the idea that William, Kate and Harry pad their numbers in November - when that is one of the busiest months for all royals.

They were published today

Thanks for that information.

 

[TLLK]

Okay I've never quite fully understood the funding for the BRF engagements.

Is the entire BRF pool of working royals funded by the Sovereign's Grant or is the Prince of Wales and family's engagements being funded solely by the Duchy of Cornwall and with some assistance by the SG or do they have not SG funding alloted?

Confused mind wishes to know the answer.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Sovereign Grant is more for the head of state functions- staff, building, hosting garden parties, state dinners, transportation of the monarch.

If the U.K. Government sends a Royal to a foreign country, the U.K. Government would pay for it. A realm pays for a visit from a royal, like the Cambridges in Canada. The specific charity may pay for the royal engagement like when William went to France to watch England in the Euros that would be billed to the FA or if Edward went to Italy for the DoE awards billed to DoE award I would image. Then there are the moneys from the 2 duchies to help out.

 

[Osipi]

What I think would be interesting to see is a tabulation of just how many people a royal engagement perhaps reached. Harry gets a count of 1 for this and Anne gets a count of 1 for that. Perhaps Harry's reached people globally and was reported in the press and social media world wide and Anne's was centered in a small town and attended by 2,500 people with just a blip in a media column. Which is more important? Almost impossible to really tabulate but its a different way of looking at things. The engagements they're doing are becoming more and more diverse and using different ways of doing them. In my eyes, quantity does not equal quality.

As far as comparing Kate to other females that entered into the royal family, we have to remember that Diana instantly stepped into the Princess of Wales role and her husband was on the rung of the ladder right below his mother. Sophie and Sarah married sons of the monarch. Kate married the grandson of the monarch and its been a fact that W&K were classified as being "part time royals" along with William's brother Harry. If they were working for a firm that doled out a paycheck each week, Kate would get part time pay compared to Sophie at full time.

 

[Curryong]

This is an assessment by a Canadian publication of some senior royals' performances at the end of 2016. It also includes a couple of interesting graphs.

Crowns and frowns: The royal winners and losers of 2016 - Macleans.ca

 

[cepe]

What I think would be interesting to see is a tabulation of just how many people a royal engagement perhaps reached. Harry gets a count of 1 for this and Anne gets a count of 1 for that. Perhaps Harry's reached people globally and was reported in the press and social media world wide and Anne's was centered in a small town and attended by 2,500 people with just a blip in a media column. Which is more important? Almost impossible to really tabulate but its a different way of looking at things. The engagements they're doing are becoming more and more diverse and using different ways of doing them. In my eyes, quantity does not equal quality.

As far as comparing Kate to other females that entered into the royal family, we have to remember that Diana instantly stepped into the Princess of Wales role and her husband was on the rung of the ladder right below his mother. Sophie and Sarah married sons of the monarch. Kate married the grandson of the monarch and its been a fact that W&K were classified as being "part time royals" along with William's brother Harry. If they were working for a firm that doled out a paycheck each week, Kate would get part time pay compared to Sophie at full time.

How much time have you got?
It's immeasurable.
that's why number of engagements - which takes no account of paperwork, learning time, making videos and recording interviews or radio broadcasts - does not measure ALL the work done or its impact.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What I think would be interesting to see is a tabulation of just how many people a royal engagement perhaps reached. Harry gets a count of 1 for this and Anne gets a count of 1 for that. Perhaps Harry's reached people globally and was reported in the press and social media world wide and Anne's was centered in a small town and attended by 2,500 people with just a blip in a media column. Which is more important? Almost impossible to really tabulate but its a different way of looking at things. The engagements they're doing are becoming more and more diverse and using different ways of doing them. In my eyes, quantity does not equal quality.

Outside of the three young royals who get coverage for every single outside the palace engagement they do the others get very little coverage at all for most of what they do.

When was the last time there was any coverage of an engagement by Anne or Andrew? e.g. Andrew went to the 50th anniversary of independence for Botswana and there was no coverage in the UK while Harry, a few weeks later attended similar celebrations in Barbados and received world-wide coverage.

If the only engagements that counted are those that receive media coverage then the only royals who do regular engagements are The Queen and Philip when with her or when he makes a gaff, Charles and Camilla occasionally, William, Kate and Harry all the time, Edward when with Sophie but never alone.

The press want to talk about the clothes the ladies wear rather than the actual charity they are there to support most of the time.

 

[Osipi]

Outside of the three young royals who get coverage for every single outside the palace engagement they do the others get very little coverage at all for most of what they do.

I don't think the lack of coverage bothers them. They're of the mind that they're to do what they're there to do and probably hope all the fluff and fashion coverage is done elsewhere. So we kind of have a conundrum. Its all by the numbers. People are braying for some to do more and step up where the ones that are stepping up hardly get any notice. Perhaps they want the young royals in their face 24/7 as they're "popular".

When was the last time there was any coverage of an engagement by Anne or Andrew? e.g. Andrew went to the 50th anniversary of independence for Botswana and there was no coverage in the UK while Harry, a few weeks later attended similar celebrations in Barbados and received world-wide coverage.

Even Harry's girlfriend, Meghan, has garnered more press by just going to yoga with her mother than the coverage of Andrew and the 50th anniversary in Botswana. Really makes me think that the focus by the media is catering to what the readers seem to want and to be honest, I think its geared to more of a low level gossip, fashion and looking for missteps than actual reporting.

If the only engagements that counted are those that receive media coverage then the only royals who do regular engagements are The Queen and Philip when with her or when he makes a gaff, Charles and Camilla occasionally, William, Kate and Harry all the time, Edward when with Sophie but never alone.

The press want to talk about the clothes the ladies wear rather than the actual charity they are there to support most of the time.

If the only engagements that any member of the BRF did were counted by those that received media attention, we'd be hard pressed to even remember what the engagement was about. That would take the back seat to a skirt flying up or bandages on fingers or flubbing lines in a speech due to technical problems.

All I'm saying is that perhaps one engagement done by one royal that took weeks of planning and making videos and getting two or more organizations to work together for it may have accomplished more and reached more people than another royal doing four engagements in one day at various pit stops along the way. The number of engagements doesn't necessarily mean that one works harder, there are just more that add up in a royal's diary.

 

[cepe]

In order to measure "reach", there has to be either a database you can draw on (this is what Twitter does) or you need a panel (how TV companies, newspapers and other broadcast media do it).

these can measure the extended reach of people who were aware of the activity but it does not measure the impact. In order to do that you need questionnaires. All this costs ££££

TBH when a RF has high approval ratings in its own country (ie BRF) I don't see why this would be necessary although I admit it would be interesting.

A couple of days ranting by one set of "fans" vs another set of "fans", and chats amongst royalistas doesn't, on balance seem to make it worthwhile.

I also find it ironic that the "most transparent" RF when it comes to their activities causes them to get so much criticism.

 

[Osipi]

It would be an impossible task to define and figure out the yardstick on how to measure all the different aspects of an engagement and what results from them.

This is the reason that I just cannot join into the category that Anne works harder than Charles or that Sophie does more than Kate or that Phillip is way ahead in the engagement stakes as compared to little George.

They all do things in their own time, their own style and their own pace. There is no finish line where something is won and accolades passed out and the wreath of laurels is given to a member of the family to wear for the next year. They all have their purpose, their goals and work for the greater good of Crown and Country in support of HM, The Queen. They also have their own individual causes and passions along with some of them raising a family. These are not idle people sitting in a recliner day to day munching on junk food and watching the world go by in extreme luxury and leisure.

 

[cepe]

agree 100%

Never mind that they have 40 years experience behind them.

Comparisons are a waste of time IMO