Which Royals have the least [public] official engagements?

[Nice Nofret]

Her prime duties in the first years of marriage are:
- to adapt to royal live by undertaking some very well vetted and rehearsed official duties;
- to have children
- to learn about her job and making her marriage work and William happy.

It isn't in the interest of the royal family that they are exposed more than necessary, because Charles will be King first, and William will be (by all probability) be for a long time The Prince of Wales ... his face shouldn't wear off before his time ...on a PR point of view, it is always good to have a joker in your hand, when the next crisis comes up

But the main reason is (in my view) that the Queen loved her married years before her accession so much, that she wishes them to have also some freedom and as much unshackled a life as is possible in their position.

[cinrit]

Why is Kate's activity level (engagements undertaken), when she has been in the Royal Family for not quite two years, compared to the activity level of Royals who have been in the Royal Family much longer? As a matter of fact, why is William, who has been an adult in the Royal Family, compared the same way, to Royals who have been working Royals much longer? Why not compare apples to apples, and compare the number of engagements of everyone at the same level of seniority (not Seniority) in the family?

[cepe]

Why compare at all? It isn't a competition. As Iluvbertie said when she started compiling the list of royal engagements - its not a competitive process. The Princess Royal has been a full time royal since she was 18 - over 40 years (and allowing some time for 3-day eventing). That is 40 years of growing her patronages and developing interests. Expecting the same level from a new royal is unrealistic. I think cinrit makes a good point.

The court circular gives actual engagements. It doesn't report the meetings, briefings, research, admin, letter writing, wardrobe planning, etc., that goes with royal duties. None of us can go by just what is reported.

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by cinrit

Why is Kate's activity level (engagements undertaken), when she has been in the Royal Family for not quite two years, compared to the activity level of Royals who have been in the Royal Family much longer?

It's perhaps not compared to members of the royal family who have been around for a long time, but to the three latest females married into the royal family (Diana, Sarah and Sophie) and how quickly they were pushed into undertaking royal duties, especially Diana but also Sarah, became full-time royals within months after their weddings. Maybe Catherine shouldn't be doing as much as Diana did shortly after her wedding, but she could be doing more than she have done until now.

[cepe]

Sophie didn't become a full time royal for a number of years. She and Edward wanted to work outside of the royal family but it just didn't please anyone. the media decided that they were using their royal connections and it gave them an unfair advantage. But I think they have found their way now and do a great, if generally unsung, job.

Pushing Diana and Sarah into royal duties early was a failure and I think that is generally accepted.

So .....why do some people compare Catherine adversely against these 3? Why would anyone want to repeat the errors of the past?

[miche]

From what I've read Diana did around 150 engagement the first two years of Marriage. That about the same amount that Kate has done. Didn't the media and people used to get on Sarah cases because she would follow Andrew around when he was in the navy.

Didn't Sophie become a full time royal after Louise was born?

[Burzg]

Prince Hashim of Jordan

[Duke-of-Earl]

To me this entire concept of 'royal duties' and which members are doing 'more' of them is pretty flimsy.
So many variables go into which royals perform what roles and at what point in their royal careers.
When people want to criticise Catherine they throw up the vague 'royal duties' chestnut are say she isn't doing enough.
I know for a fact if Catherine was patron of a hundred charities she would still be bashed by these same people.
The Queen's children carry out hundreds and hundreds of engagements on her behalf every year as they should. Nothing is being neglected by William or Harry or Catherine having a spot of normalcy before the tsunami begins when their military careers end and they become the 'next' generation of royals.

The oddest part for me is, some go on as if William and Catherine broke a promise on their engagement day and that they lied.
Before their announcement, William was a grandson of the Queen serving full-time in the RAF and undertaking duties on behalf of his grandmother when asked, so why would any of that change because he got engaged?
Go back and read the announcement in the DM on the day of their engagement. "The couple will live in Wales while William finishes his RAF career and carrying out royal duties on a part-time basis. The couple have the full support of both Prince Charles and the Queen"
Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[maria-olivia]

Queen Paola at least once a week.
NO State Visit from and to Belgium anymore.

[AnnEliza]

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

I'm not sure what 'lazy' means but Catherine sure as heck isn't lazy no matter what royal standards you judge her by.

Catherine is married to a grandson of the current Queen,it was announced on the their very engagement day that the couple would not be undertaking full-time 'royal duties'until Williams military career is over. Who would expect Catherine to be a 'working' royal when he husband is not?

But lets come to to what Catherine actually does do , she is patron to 4 very important and personal charities that she picked herself and believes ins.
As a 'third' of the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry , Catherine is helping raise and dispense millions £ each year to dozens of worthy organizations and causes.

I think she is doing exactly what is expected of someone married to a high-profile but still junior member of the BRF.

W&C are focused on their married lives for the first couple of years and all the while work at their individual charities and Royal Foundation. I would judge her differently if she was married to a Crown Prince or even one of the Queens sons but as she is not, the workload she undertakes is more than enough IMO.

Good post -- I agree. Especially since she is starting a family, public life is not her primary duty yet -- it will be increasingly so for the rest of her life.

[Rice]

Has the lack of state visits to/from Belgium been due to the fact there were government issues for so long? Would be nice to see a tiara event in Belgium!