British Royal Family Engagements 2015

[Curryong]

William wasn't serving overseas at any time during his service career. Nor did he need her when he was working. What was stopping Kate from filling up her diary with a few dozens more charitable engagements between 2011 and her early pregnancy period in late 2012? Everyone has to start somewhere and Sophie was also a new Royal once.

 

[Dman]

William wasn't serving overseas at any time during his service career. Nor did he need her when he was working. What was stopping Kate from filling up her diary with a few dozens more charitable engagements between 2011 and her early pregnancy period in late 2012? Everyone has to start somewhere and Sophie was also a new Royal once.

They worked around his military career. Catherine was new in her royal role, and she wasnt going to be pushed on the Royal stage without William to help guide her. She has been gradually introduced to her official duties. Catherine was sick during her pregnancies. With doctors advice, she did what she could do while pregnant.

There's more to royal duties than just showing up to engagements and adding tons of patronages to ones list. The Cambridge's have decided to support a list of charities that they can be more engaged with, rather than just racking up patronages to look impressive.

There are more things that go on behind the scenes than one thinks. Just because you don't see them working, does not mean they're not working. That article that was written didn't take a lot of things into consideration. Also, unfair comparisons were made.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, well we know Sophie works behind the scenes a lot because it's documented. And apparently she was fine about being pushed onto the Royal stage without Edward at times? People look at Kate, at her work ethic, at her awkwardness still in making speeches, in the shortness of her engagements when she does have them etc, and they have reservations, for which they can hardly be blamed.

 

[soapstar]

Is the amount of time Kate spends at her engagements really that different? I've never heard that she spends less time at her engagments than other royals.

The interesting comparison to me with Sophie and Kate is the number of official duties done in the year after the birth of their respective first child - Kate did 44, Sophie well over double that.

That has set a large part of the tone I think - Sophie who almost died having Louise managed 173 (she did 185 for the calendar year by my count but 12 were in December so I took those off) while Kate who left hospital the next day after an easy birth with a healthy son from the very beginning managed only 44.

That is a huge difference and says a lot, to many people, about William and Kate's approach to their royal duties and responsibilities.

When comparing those numbers, we should also take into account that Sophie gave birth in November, while Kate gave birth in July. So Kate's maternity leave would have had an impact on her numbers for that year.

William and Harry didn't start doing 90+ engagements until a few years ago, so it's surprising that so many expected Kate to come in and start doing more than them. Plus, it seems kinda pointless to compare numbers between part-time and full-time royals.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Something else I noticed with Sophie that did not occur with any of the other royals I looked at is that Sophie had about 33 engagements that were “held a meeting with X charity”. Other royals had non-public meetings with their patronages as well but not as much as Sophie did. Just based on the numbers, it seems like Sophie works the most with her charities out of the royals I looked into

Does Kate Middleton really visit her patronages less than other royals? | Kate Middleton Review

About a year ago I questioned the large number of meetings Sophie attended. Now I think that maybe some of the other members of the BRF hold meetings with their charities but they are not listed in the CC for some reason.

It would not be the first time a similar event is listed for one member of the BRF and not another.

 

[Curryong]

That is why I think the CC really needs a complete overhaul! Also, like some foreign royals, work behind the scenes should be documented for each in the CC, including what was discussed, and with a photograph sometimes. It all leads to greater transparency, and surely that's welcome?

 

[Dman]

That is why I think the CC really needs a complete overhaul! Also, like some foreign royals, work behind the scenes should be documented for each in the CC, including what was discussed, and with a photograph sometimes. It all leads to greater transparency, and surely that's welcome?

It would've great if the royals behind the scenes work was documented or at least highlited. They did this for Prince Charles a while back. The videos of him working is up on YouTube. He works until late hours at his desk.

 

[Osipi]

Throughout this entire discussion on the BRF's work numbers and what is seen and unseen and calculated and analyzed and whatever, one thing keeps popping into my mind and that is the fact that none of the BRF are required to do any of the things they do nor do they get paid compensation for doing it. Either the Queen or Charles covers the expenses incurred but in reality, the BRF's "Firm" is a giant non-profit organization for the good of the people and the country and the Crown. They don't punch time cards and they don't collect paychecks and they have no contractual obligations that must be met.

Perhaps instead of focusing on what they don't do, we should be appreciative of what they have done. When we look at the numbers and the events and the tours, what we're seeing is service that is freely given without any expectation of return. To me, that means a lot. It is a fun and interesting past time though to see it all add up in a list though. These are not idle, rich people. They actually care.

Just a different perspective.

 

[Skippyboo]

Royal Engagements 2015

William wasn't serving overseas at any time during his service career. Nor did he need her when he was working. What was stopping Kate from filling up her diary with a few dozens more charitable engagements between 2011 and her early pregnancy period in late 2012? Everyone has to start somewhere and Sophie was also a new Royal once.

William did serve overseas. He was in the Falklands for several weeks in early 2012. During that time Kate did several solo engagements for her new picked patronages and also kicked off the Diamond jubilee with the Queen and Philip in Leicester. She also did a day of engagements with Charles and Camilla. 2012 had Kate's highest engagement numbers even with George wiping out several engagements in December. Let's see how 2016 plays out especially if Kate doesn't become pregnant again -a full year with no HG or newborns.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Curryong]

William was in the Falklands for six weeks as part of his training deployment in air sea rescue. What he was doing there didn't interfere at all with what Kate could have done. She wasn't pregnant at that time either and didn't have to work 'around William's military career' while he was away.

I do hope that Kate steps up to the plate more in the next couple of years. I hope so because I'm a monarchist and I want the British monarchy to last beyond Charles. The trouble is, with any career/occupation, and being a Royal is at least partly that, perceptions matter. If you start very slowly with disparate charities and don't move much in the years afterwards, then people get the impression, for better or for worse, that you are unenthusiastic and work shy. Once that perception gets out into the public arena it becomes very hard to shift, IMHO. And it's been nearly five years...

 

[Dman]

William was in the Falklands for six weeks as part of his training deployment in air sea rescue. What he was doing there didn't interfere at all with what Kate could have done. She wasn't pregnant at that time either and didn't have to work 'around William's military career' while he was away.

I do hope that Kate steps up to the plate more in the next couple of years. I hope so because I'm a monarchist and I want the British monarchy to last beyond Charles. The trouble is, with any career/occupation, and being a Royal is at least partly that, perceptions matter. If you start very slowly with disparate charities and don't move much in the years afterwards, then people get the impression, for better or for worse, that you are unenthusiastic and work shy. Once that perception gets out into the public arena it becomes very hard to shift, IMHO. And it's been nearly five years...

She has stepped up to the plate. She pretty much hit the ground running with conducting engagements since she became engaged to William. She has performed engagements with The Queen & Prince Philip as well. Now her official role is growing and more responsibility will handed down to her.

I found it very much unfair to compare her to Sophie and other royals, who have been working longer than her, and who have gained more responsibilities than she have. You can't compare her to them, because they are full-time royals to begin with. Now I do think she and William will be making that transition to more full-time duties soon, but holding her feet to the fire with unrealistic expectations so early on is completely unfair and just wrong.

Funny part is, if Catherine was pushed out on the Royal stage without care and problems developed, folks would be saying that she shouldn't have been rushed to royal duties so quickly. It's like she's damned if she do and damned if she don't.

I think Catherine has gained a great deal of confidence since becoming a senior royal. She still have many things to learn in the years ahead, but she has come a long way, her charities do appreciate her patronage and the attention she brings to the causes.

 

[Curryong]

What official engagements did Kate undertake on behalf of the Queen before she married (during her engagement) apart from the launch of one lifeboat in Anglesey? I'd hardly call that hitting the ground running!

Sophie and Edward weren't full time royals when they were married nor for several years afterwards. Sophie ran RJH Public relations firm, and Edward Ardent Productions. Both were ill-fated for different reasons, however both were part time royals at the beginning of their married life.

 

[miche]

I'm going to need the Queen to transfer funds in the budget from the Wessexes to the Cambridges so people can stop complaining about how much the Cambridges do

 

[Curryong]

Actually it's Charles that covers official expenses for the Cambridges.

 

[Dman]

What official engagements did Kate undertake on behalf of the Queen before she married (during her engagement) apart from the launch of one lifeboat in Anglesey? I'd hardly call that hitting the ground running!

Sophie and Edward weren't full time royals when they were married nor for several years afterwards. Sophie ran RJH Public relations firm, and Edward Ardent Productions. Both were ill-fated for different reasons, however both were part time royals at the beginning of their married life.

Catherine conducted many official engagements with William before her wedding, Curryong. The engagement in Wales was just one of many. Go back and learn about everything that happened before the wedding. Also, after their wedding, she made an official visit to Canada, and after that tour, she and William visited LA. She did hit the ground running.

 

[Curryong]

Kate accompanied William on a round of HIS engagements before the wedding (apparently drawing large crowds which they don't any more. As I said in an earlier post Kate married on a wave of good will which largely has evaporated.) It would have been extremely improper for Kate to have conducted official engagements on her own before marriage. What if the engagement had been broken off?

If Kate hit the ground running on her marriage then she has badly tapered off since as her annual numbers of engagements have shown.

 

[Dman]

Kate accompanied William on a round of HIS engagements before the wedding (apparently drawing large crowds which they don't any more. As I said in an earlier post Kate married on a wave of good will which largely has evaporated.) It would have been extremely improper for Kate to have conducted official engagements on her own before marriage. What if the engagement had been broken off?

If Kate hit the ground running on her marriage then she has badly tapered off since as her annual numbers of engagements have shown.

The engagements Catherine went on before her wedding was scheduled for her and William. It was a way of introducing her to the people. Catherine remains very popular with the people.

 

[Mirabel]

I found it very much unfair to compare her to Sophie and other royals, who have been working longer than her, and who have gained more responsibilities than she have.

True.
Also, Sophie doesn't get nearly the same media attention that Kate does, so I expect her engagements are not orchestrated as much and are therefore easier for her.

 

[Dman]

True.
Also, Sophie doesn't get nearly the same media attention that Kate does, so I expect her engagements are not orchestrated as much and are therefore easier for her.

I have to agree. Then again, it would always be easy for Sophie, because she's not a senior royal and future Princess of Wales/Queen.

 

[VictoriaB]

I have to agree. Then again, it would always be easy for Sophie, because she's not a senior royal and future Princess of Wales/Queen.

Sophie is married to the son of the Monarch. She has precedence above Catherine. She is as much a senior royal as Catherine is.

The comment on Catherine's numbers in 2012 doesn't take into account the fact that was both a jubilee year (when all the Royals had increased numbers) and London hosted the Olympics and Paralympics. Many of Kate's engagement that year were for things the rest of us pay for not get paid to do - being a spectator at a sporting event. They also didn't require any preparation apart from the one or two times she presented medals (as Iluvbertie has previously commented, Eugenie did not get credited with an official engagement for doing exactly the same thing).

 

[Dman]

Sophie is married to the son of the Monarch. She has precedence above Catherine. She is as much a senior royal as Catherine is.

The comment on Catherine's numbers in 2012 doesn't take into account the fact that was both a jubilee year (when all the Royals had increased numbers) and London hosted the Olympics and Paralympics. Many of Kate's engagement that year were for things the rest of us pay for not get paid to do - being a spectator at a sporting event. They also didn't require any preparation apart from the one or two times she presented medals (as Iluvbertie has previously commented, Eugenie did not get credited with an official engagement for doing exactly the same thing).

I'm talking about there's a difference that Catherine is a future Queen, and Sophie isn't.

 

[Skippyboo]

Royal Engagements 2015

Precedence wise, William and Kate are ahead of Edward and Sophie. Look how they enter the room for the Chinese state dinner or any service with the whole family at Westminster Abbey. The Cambridges are only behind the Queen and Philip and Charles and Camilla in precedence.

Media wise, every public engagement that Kate has done has been covered by the press. Most royals don't have that amount of coverage. William doesn't have coverage of all his engagements.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[VictoriaB]

Precedence wise, William and Kate are ahead of Edward and Sophie. Look how they enter the room for the Chinese state dinner or any service with the whole family at Westminster Abbey. The Cambridges are only behind the Queen and Philip and Charles and Camilla in precedence.

Media wise, every public engagement that Kate has done has been covered by the press. Most royals don't have that amount of coverage. William doesn't have coverage of all his engagements.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The precedence is debatable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_precedence_in_the_United_Kingdom

As for media coverage, it's far easier to cover Kate's handful of engagements than Anne's, Camilla's or Sophie's hundreds. (I just wonder though how many people not posting on this board can tell you what Kate's engagement was about rather than what she was wearing or what she said about her children).

 

[miche]

It is not easier to cover Kate engagement. The media covers her engagements simply because she sells, that all

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is the amount of time Kate spends at her engagements really that different? I've never heard that she spends less time at her engagments than other royals.



When comparing those numbers, we should also take into account that Sophie gave birth in November, while Kate gave birth in July. So Kate's maternity leave would have had an impact on her numbers for that year.

My count is based on the full 12 months after each child was born - hence the maternity leave wouldn't impact unless Kate took more leave than Sophie.

 

[cepe]

I'm disappointed. IT isnt a competition, different royals have differing availability; different royals have longevity on their side (Princess Royal has 46 yrs of royal duty after all); the BRF do not publish league tables because they don't consider it a competition.

I track royal engagements (own interest), I used to publish but I stopped because of those who turn it into a competition.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Very much criticism (with the exception of a few posters) of the Cambridges here, where are all the members who supports and used to defend them?

I do think the BRF could step up and change in a lot of ways. Only time will tell, however.

The BRF does more for charity than the other European royal families does combined, and the monarchy works very well.

That is why I think the CC really needs a complete overhaul! Also, like some foreign royals, work behind the scenes should be documented for each in the CC, including what was discussed, and with a photograph sometimes. It all leads to greater transparency, and surely that's welcome?

Those who follow the British Royal family (including the media) know that they do a lot for charity both in public and behind the scenes, and those who don't follow the British royal family don't bother to look in the CC anyway.

Throughout this entire discussion on the BRF's work numbers and what is seen and unseen and calculated and analyzed and whatever, one thing keeps popping into my mind and that is the fact that none of the BRF are required to do any of the things they do nor do they get paid compensation for doing it. Either the Queen or Charles covers the expenses incurred but in reality, the BRF's "Firm" is a giant non-profit organization for the good of the people and the country and the Crown. They don't punch time cards and they don't collect paychecks and they have no contractual obligations that must be met.

Perhaps instead of focusing on what they don't do, we should be appreciative of what they have done. When we look at the numbers and the events and the tours, what we're seeing is service that is freely given without any expectation of return. To me, that means a lot. It is a fun and interesting past time though to see it all add up in a list though. These are not idle, rich people. They actually care.

Just a different perspective.

Excellent post!

I do hope that Kate steps up to the plate more in the next couple of years. I hope so because I'm a monarchist and I want the British monarchy to last beyond Charles.

The Cambridges are not full time working royals and will not step up before Charles is King. The media knows this, but they almost never bother to mention it.

As I've said before on others threads, The monarchies in the UK, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway remains popular, and some polls have shown record high support the last four years. This is not going to change unless we get some very very major scandals, which is unlikely. I don't think we will see a republic in Sweden or Belgium either, and I hope that the Spanish monarchy will survive.

As far as UK is concerned, I actually think it is the safest Monarchy in the world, along with the Japanese. Republicanism in the UK remains among the lowest in the world, with figures rarely exceeding 20% in support of a British republic, some polls have it as low 13%, and consistent ~70% support for the continuation of the Monarchy. And Some polls have the support for the monarchy as high as 82%, others at around 70 to 76%, another poll has the support for the monarchy from 66 to 70%.

To abolish the British monarchy will be very difficult.
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic, this is very very unlikely.
2: Majority in the house of commons for a referendum, this is not going to happen.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen.
4: Changing the country's name, changing the pound, remove the royal name from all state institutions. These are just some of the things that must be changed.
5: All of this is going to cost so much money that even many Republicans will start doubting it.

The vast majority of the population in the UK will never vote to replace a constitutional monarchy with a divisive politician or a celebrity etc.

Kate accompanied William on a round of HIS engagements before the wedding (apparently drawing large crowds which they don't any more. As I said in an earlier post Kate married on a wave of good will which largely has evaporated.)

William and Kate remains popular in the United Kingdom and if they were to go on a big UK tour (who included a walkabout) many people will show up.

In 20 years:

Charles and Camilla - (if living) will be the respected old monarch and consort.

William and Kate - Will be popular (more than Charles and Camilla), but perhaps not as interesting as their yong and very popular children.

 

[soapstar]

My count is based on the full 12 months after each child was born - hence the maternity leave wouldn't impact unless Kate took more leave than Sophie.

Now I'm confused. You said Kate only did 44 engagements in the year after George was born. But that is the total number she did in 2013. She did 91 engagements in 2014 (the year after he was born).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Now I'm confused. You said Kate only did 44 engagements in the year after George was born. But that is the total number she did in 2013. She did 91 engagements in 2014 (the year after he was born).

Yes she did 44 in 2013, mostly up until his birth, but she also did 44 from the birth of George in 2013 until his first birthday in July 2014. A coincidence that that the number is the same. Most of what she did in 2014 came after George's first birthday.

There are three years here -

January - December, 2013 - 44
From George's birth until his first birthday July 2013 - July 2014 - also 44
January - December, 2014 - 91

 

[soapstar]

But at the end of the day, does it matter exactly when in 2014 she did her engagements? I thought the point was that people want her to do more. Which she did...she went from 44 to 91 engagements. I don't know, it just seems unhelpful to compare how soon/how many engagements each woman did after having a baby.