British Royal Family Engagements 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Full Analysis HRH Prince Michael of Kent

Total Count – 2
Percentage of Total – 0.06%
Days on Which Official Engagements were Undertaken – 2
Number of Engagements Undertaken Overseas – 0

Types of Engagements Undertaken:

Afternoon Party - 1
Dedication Service – 1
Presentation – 1

Charities and Organisations Supported:

Grand Master of the Mark Master Masons – 1

Full Analysis HRH Princess Michael of Kent

Total Count – 2
Percentage of Total – 0.06%
Days on Which Official Engagements were Undertaken – 2
Number of Engagements Undertaken Overseas – 0

Types of Engagements Undertaken:

Afternoon Party – 1
State Banquet – 1
 
Full Analysis HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent

Total Count – 67
Percentage of Total – 1.9%
Days on Which Official Engagements were Undertaken – 49
Number of Engagements Undertaken Overseas – 0

Types of Engagements Undertaken:

Afternoon Party – 1
Banquet – 1
Celebration – 2
Chelsea Flower Show – 1
Christmas Market – 1
Church Service – 1
Commemorative Service – 1
Concert – 6
Court – 1
Dinner – 2
Exhibition – 1
Festival of Remembrance – 1
Funeral – 1
Lecture – 1
Luncheon – 1
Meeting – 1
Named – 1
Opened – 5
Presentation – 1
Presented Award – 2
Presented Trophy – 1
Races – 1
Received – 9
Reception – 6
Reflections – 1
Remembrance Day Ceremony – 1
Started Walk – 1
Symposium – 1
Thanksgiving Service – 3
Visit – 14

Charities and Organisations Supported:

Alzheimer's Society – 1
British Home – 1
British Red Cross Society – 1
Cancer Research UK – 1
Care for Veterans – 1
Chelsea Flower Show – 1
Children and Families Across Borders – 1
Chopin Society – 1
Crisis UK – 1
Falklands Islands Trust – 1
Fitzwilliam Museum Development Trust – 1
Florence Nightingale Foundation – 1
Florence Nightingale Museum Trust – 1
Guide Dogs for the Blind Association – 1
HMS WARRIOR 1860 – 1
Holly Lodge Centre – 1
Honorary Military – 4
Lady Margaret School Centenary – 1
London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art – 2
London Philharmonic Choir – 1
Masterpiece London – 1
Oxford Philharmonic Trust – 1
People's Dispensary for Sick Animals – 2
Perennial - Gardeners' Royal Benevolent Society – 1
Queen Alexandra Hospital Home – 1
Rockinghorse Children's Charity – 1
Royal Academy America – 1
Royal Academy of Music – 1
Royal Alexandra and Albert School – 1
Royal Alexandra Hospital for Sick Children, Eastern Road, Brighton – 1
Royal Humane Society – 3
Royal Over-Seas League – 1
Royal Over-Seas League Annual Music Competition – 1
Sightsavers – 1
 
Wow, thank you as ever Iluvbertie!! Well done!
 
Thank you, Iluvbertie. Very well done statistically and the breakdowns of the engagements by different criteria is something that not only took a lot of time but also dedication throughout the year. It is very much appreciated. :flowers:
 
Thank you again Iluvbertie for your dedication and efforts considering the many failures from the Monarchy website. You mentioned last year that one day you would like to spend time at the British Library reviewing the old Time's Court Circulars. I hope that your wish is granted one day.:flowers:
 
Gosh, what excellent breakdowns by individual. ???

They made me think back to the previous BRF pages and their engagement schedules (pre event) and reports (post event).

One of the ways one could sort events was by LOCATION. And today, that's all disappeared from the BRF Diary pages. I think that is for a number of reasons, but mainly because the current and future focus of the BRF is by INTEREST rather than geography.

It's, IMO, why engagements differ in their impact. There is nothing like being there for a royal walkabout; but Twitter and Instagram bring that impact very close to reality for many folks. And focussing on CONCERNS lets a royal reach the entire UK (heck the Commonwealth and the world) rather than just impacting the locals. Not that the local touch does not have it's value.

I enjoyed the year with the BRF. I especially appreciated that Phil and Betty kept their Anniversary a family thing. Bless them, they earned the privacy when they wanted it.

The shift in kinds and numbers of engagements by each of the Royals will play out in time. I really do believe Charles has a cogent vision for the team and that it is already in play. And I think it will work - but then I am an American and don't have an oar in on this race.

Thanks again to Iluvbertie!
 
Personally, I think there needs to be a fine balance to ensure there is still a spread of engagements throughout the UK. Of course there can still be events that focus on interests and these are important but if the Royals were to stop visiting other places around the UK the UK people, i.e. the taxpayers who pay for the royals to exist, might start wondering if they aren't better off without them. At some basic level they have to feel a connection to the Royal Family. Why do you think the Queen has a tradition of going up for Holyrood Week or Charles has a tradition of his Annual Welsh Tour?
 
I seem to be in the minority when I say I think there are too many royals doing full time engagements. Noone complained when Philip or the Duchess of Kent retired. Likewise, I can't see a problem with the remaining cousins of the Queen from retiring too. This would have the advantages of fewer working royals therefore saving HM some expense, and also freeing up patronages and engagement opportunities for the young royals, who all have significant capacity for doing considerably more.
 
Age discrimination is just as bad as any other form of discrimination. If the Duke of Gloucester is too old to work at 73 then Charles will be too old in 4 years time. If the Duke of Kent is too old then so is The Queen.

Why should anyone have to stop work simply because of their age? In this day and age that is unacceptable.

If the young royals want to take on more patronages they could do so - there are 1000s out there without a royal but they don't want to take on more yet. They will build up but over time and not all in one go.

They also have their foundation through which they support many organisations without actually being the patrons etc.
 
I wouldn't ask them.to retire based on age, but based purely on the fact that they are much further away from the throne now, plus there is a new generation of royals to take their place. I think any more than, say, ten working royals is more than required.
 
Why ask them to retire? At the end of the day it won't be long until they are simply put, too old to undertake duties anyway so why force the issue now? None of their children will take on royal duties, the Duke of Kent is 82, Alexandra is 81, the Gloucesters are in their early 70s. It wouldn't surprise me if we do see them less and less when Charles is King but simply because they are all well past retirement age anyway and simply won't be able to keep up doing lots and lots of duties. I don't see a need to force the issue because they are "further away from the throne", they have nothing else to fall back on and I think IMO it would backfire on Charles somewhat if he tried to force them to retire.
 
I am sure I read somewhere that the Duke of Kent made a comment that as long as his cousin, The Queen, was still working it would be wrong for him to stop. She is setting the standard and the others will follow.

The Kent's have slowed down due to recent illnesses.

Once you say someone is 'too old' at xxxx age then that sets the standard for everyone - so if the Duchess of Gloucester is forced to retire due to age then everyone over her age has to retire (The Queen, The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and the Duke of Gloucester) and those approaching her age know when they have to retire (Camilla in one more year, Charles in two, Anne in four, Andrew in 15, Edward in 19, Sophie in 20, etc).

People should be allowed to work as long as they like and until whatever age they like. As long as they are able to do the job and want to do it, they should be allowed to do it.

I work with two teachers still working 2 days a week in Primary schools both in their 80s. When someone suggested they retire 10 years ago they both laughed - 'why ... we enjoy the job and we are able to do it ...' and do it they do. They are two of the best teachers we have and are still helping the younger teachers, those in their 60s, 50s, 40s and even 30s and 20s, on how to do the job.

The the Kent's and Gloucester's won't be replaced by the York's, or in time Harry's children or Charlotte's and the new baby's is the way to make the family smaller (monarch, monarch's children, monarch's heir apparent's children and spouses only will be more than enough - even leaving out the spouses in most cases)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hel
I wouldn't ask them.to retire based on age, but based purely on the fact that they are much further away from the throne now, plus there is a new generation of royals to take their place. I think any more than, say, ten working royals is more than required.

10 working royals in the line of succession means Anne goes:

The Queen
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie

Can we all be flies on the wall when you tell her she is surplus to requirements?
 
I seem to be in the minority when I say I think there are too many royals doing full time engagements. Noone complained when Philip or the Duchess of Kent retired. Likewise, I can't see a problem with the remaining cousins of the Queen from retiring too. This would have the advantages of fewer working royals therefore saving HM some expense, and also freeing up patronages and engagement opportunities for the young royals, who all have significant capacity for doing considerably more.

Because Prince Philip retired because he decided it was time for him to retire. No one told him he had to. The Duchess of Kent withdrew from public life by her choice many years ago, mostly because of some health issues. That is why no one has issues with their retirements.

Forcing any of the others to retire after a lifetime of dedicated service would be disgraceful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hel
I don’t think anyone will “force” the Gloucester’s and Kent’s to retire. I do think they will bow out gracefully by their own choice at some point.
 
I have acknowledged that I realise I'm in a minority wanting a smaller working royal family.

Secondly, my idea of 'retiring' minor royals such as the Kents and Gloucesters is NOT based on age. They all considerably younger than the monarch!
 
I think there is a difference between wanting a smaller RF and suggesting more "minor royals" are retired off.

I would like to see a somewhat smaller RF in time but only as the RF shrinks over time. In a few years the RF will be pretty small anyway, in the current circumstances the only ones likely to pass down HRH are William and Harry (and even that is considered by some only a possibility). The Kent and Gloucester families won't, Anne won't, Edward won't (bit of ambiguity but I doubt now they will claim HRH for Louise and James), Beatrice and Eugenie won't, Zara and Peter won't.

TBH the question will then be will there be enough Royals to keep up with the work, certainly there won't be enough to keep up the current number of engagements.

But I don't want any of the current royals to be told they aren't wanted and to go off to their houses in the country and do nothing (which let's face it is what "retirement" means)
 
I have acknowledged that I realise I'm in a minority wanting a smaller working royal family.

Secondly, my idea of 'retiring' minor royals such as the Kents and Gloucesters is NOT based on age. They all considerably younger than the monarch!

I’m in that group of wanting a small working monarchy too. I think Tne Prince of Wales want this as well. I don’t think Charles would force the minor royals out of the working Firm. I think they would just gracefully bow out on their own.
 
Can anyone point to an actual statement by Charles (or anyone else for that matter) saying they want a 'smaller royal family'. I don't want a link to a press report but to an actual statement made by Charles or someone else.

I know the origin of the story was in 1992 when the suggestion was made at an early meeting of the now defunct 'Way Ahead' group and some minor palace employee made such a statement but I am looking for a quote directly from an actual royal.

There is no reason to assume that 6 - 8 royals couldn't do the number of engagements currently being done anyway. 4000 divided by 8 equals 500 - and Charles and Anne manage that every year. Philip used to manage 800 in his 40s and 50s so there is no reason why William and Harry couldn't be doing that many and they are almost half-way to the 4000.

The big problem is that there is a 30 year gap between William and his heir so there is an entire generation with no royals to relate to - those in their teens and twenties now have no royal in their generation and as they grow older the interest in the royals will miss that generation completely. With the desire of William and Harry to do less than previous generations and thus be seen less their relevance also declines.

The Queen said it best 'I have to be seen to be believed' and that still means seen to be doing real things not having staff issue a statement via some other medium.
 
Always an interesting debate.

Let's start with "full time royal" - such a thing does not exist except HMQ (cos that's 24/7)

I do not believe that HMQ or Prince Charles will force any royal to retire - it will be personal choice.

The younger royals have never said that they are full-time. The press may have used that term but KP never have.

Although I thought Harry should not have said anything about "modernising the monarchy" it is going to evolve into a smaller unit

Military establishments will continue to have their own royal honorary Head

Re charities and patronages, my thought is that it isn't going to be about individual charities , but more "theme" based.

Catherine on children and the Arts
William on 1st responders and conservation
Harry on veterans
Edward on DoE Award
Sophie leading on sight issues
Andrew on IT and young entrepreneurs

these examples might not be how it pans out but that's just to give an idea. Not cast in stone and, please, not something to argue over.

In addition major charities will have individual royal patrons but not the hundreds as currently (thinking of RA of Arts, of Drama, of Royal Society etc.) I've been reviewing those and some have come naturally to a close (or will do soon) or could be brought under a royal "umbrella"

The UK is awash with charities - and they overlap to a large degree. Money is getting wasted on overheads - that is something else that this approach could quietly address.

It really will change and I think that in age range Harry-Andrew will achieve it. Charles and William will drive it.

Anne will carry on till she drops but she will ensure that the ones she cares about will get support.

(wrote this before I saw ILuvBerties post)
 
Last edited:
Can anyone point to an actual statement by Charles (or anyone else for that matter) saying they want a 'smaller royal family'. I don't want a link to a press report but to an actual statement made by Charles or someone else.

I know the origin of the story was in 1992 when the suggestion was made at an early meeting of the now defunct 'Way Ahead' group and some minor palace employee made such a statement but I am looking for a quote directly from an actual royal.
I would also be interested in reading this. Many people keep referring to this "smaller royal family" idea as absolute fact but did anyone in the family actually ever speak of this?
And really the current largish working family is a testament to the longevity and dedication of those cousins that stepped up to help the young Queen years ago.
 
Last edited:
Because Prince Philip retired because he decided it was time for him to retire. No one told him he had to. The Duchess of Kent withdrew from public life by her choice many years ago, mostly because of some health issues. That is why no one has issues with their retirements.

Forcing any of the others to retire after a lifetime of dedicated service would be disgraceful.

What I find amusing about Philip is that when the announcement was made that he was retiring from public duties, everyone figured the man was going to ride off into the sunset and never be seen doing engagements ever again. What it boiled down to is that his daily planner no longer was being filled with duties and engagements on a daily basis and if Philip wanted to spend the rest of his days by the fire at Wood Farm, he could. The man has been cherry picking things he really wants to do and still does them. At his own pace.

The man is going to be 97 in June and he may not have a full daily planner but he is, by no means, inactive.
 
Exactly.

The Duchess of Kent is still active as well - just not doing royal duties anymore but works with music and some charities there. She is still the patron of a number of charities either solo or in conjunction with her husband.
 
Exactly.

The Duchess of Kent is still active as well - just not doing royal duties anymore but works with music and some charities there. She is still the patron of a number of charities either solo or in conjunction with her husband.
Has she given up teaching?
 
I am not sure. I suspect she may still have some private pupils.
 
Weekly Update to 31st December 2017

There were two engagements between the 21st and 31st December. These figures are just those updated and do not include any other figures.

HRH The Prince of Wales – 534 (15.0%)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales – 176 (5.0%)

Year to Date Total – 3553

Comparison with last year – 3942-3551=389 fewer this year in comparison to last year.

Number of Days on which a royal undertook Official Engagements to 31st December, 2017

HRH The Prince of Wales – 174
HRH Prince Henry of Wales – 98


Adjustments to the Full Analysis of HRH The Prince of Wales

Total Count - 534
Days on Which Official Engagements were Undertaken – 174

Types of Engagements Undertaken:

Visit – 157


Adjustments to the Full Analysis HRH Prince Henry of Wales

Total Count – 176
Days on Which Official Engagements were Undertaken – 98

Types of Engagements Undertaken:

Guest Edited – 1
 
Back
Top Bottom