The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   The Court Circular (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-court-circular-23665.html)

RoyalProtocol 07-27-2009 06:49 AM

The Court Circular
 
Each day (except Sunday) Buckingham Palace publishes the Court Circular, this list all the OFFICIAL engagements carried out by The Queen and The Royal Family, it also gives events at which The Queen is represented (e.g. memorial services).

The Court Circular is published by The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Scotsman and is available online at www.royal.gov.uk

The Court Circular is very formal and correct, married ladies are described as Mrs. John Smith and "The Queen was subsequently entertained to luncheon". Therefore I though it would be interesting to discuss the content of the Court Circular each day and the manner in which events are listed (not a discussion of actual events, these are in the respective current events threads), and the way it is written.

The Court Circular provides a fascinating insight into the life of the Royal Family.

Also for reference a full archive from the start until 1985 is available in the Times archive and an archive back to 1997 is available on the Royal Website.

RoyalProtocol 07-27-2009 06:54 AM

The most recent Court Circular published was on the 25th July, it is interesting because it is the first time (which I have noticed) when The Duke and Duchess of Rothesay have been listed as residing at "The Palace of Holyroodhouse", normally only The Queen's residence changes according to where she is with everyone else having a static base.

Also for the first time Prince William is listed under his own entry, normally he is included under the Clarence House entry. His residence is listed as "St. James's Palace".

Here is a link to the text of the CC at The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6726754.ece

wbenson 07-27-2009 06:10 PM

I thought this entry and this entry are interesting, as they make several errors. The first and second one both state that the Royal York Hotel is in Mississauga (which is where the airport is, but the hotel is in Toronto proper). The first one also says that the National Trade Centre is in Mississauga (it's also in Toronto). In fact, the only things the Queen did in Mississauga were arrive and depart at the airport and drive through on her way to and from Oakville and Hamilton. The second one says that Massey College and the Metro Toronto Convention Centre are in Oakville, when they're really in Toronto as well. The Queen did visit Oakville that day, but the Duke didn't accompany her.

Unfortunately I'm not too familiar with any other areas the Queen has been to, so I don't know if that's a one-time thing or a regular occurrence.

RoyalProtocol 07-27-2009 06:21 PM

:previous:
These locations are supplied by the State being visited, therefore I'm pretty sure the mistake (if it is one) was made by the Office of the Governor rather than Buckingham Palace:smile:

wbenson 07-27-2009 06:25 PM

Well, I suppose that losing the election the next year was a suitable punishment for Premier Eves, then! :rofl: (Massey College would be the most surprising, then, as it's very close to the provincial legislature.)

RoyalProtocol 07-27-2009 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 971912)
Well, I suppose that losing the election the next year was a suitable punishment for Premier Eves, then! :rofl: (Massey College would be the most surprising, then, as it's very close to the provincial legislature.)

I was thinking the Lieutenant Governor's Office, rather than the provincial premier!

Skydragon 07-27-2009 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol (Post 971612)
The most recent Court Circular published was on the 25th July, it is interesting because it is the first time (which I have noticed) when The Duke and Duchess of Rothesay have been listed as residing at "The Palace of Holyroodhouse",

Here is a link to the text of the CC at The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6726754.ece

They are not listed as residing at Holyroodhouse, but as having received and entertained there. :flowers:

RoyalProtocol 07-27-2009 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 971939)
They are not listed as residing at Holyroodhouse, but as having received and entertained there. :flowers:

The CC gives the place of current residence in the case of The Queen, I'm quite sure in this case it was stating the Charles and Camilla were that night residing in Holyroodhouse.

Normally they are listed under Clarence House, regardless as whether their really in Clarence House or Government House, Australia

Skydragon 07-27-2009 07:21 PM

:previous: Today the State Apartments are used regularly by The Queen and other members of the Royal Family for State ceremonies and official entertaining.

The Royal Collection - Palace of Holyroodhouse

Could it be that he is shown as being at Holyrood Palace because it is the official residence of HM (when she is in Scotland), whereas Government House is not HM's official residence?

RoyalProtocol 07-29-2009 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 971946)
:previous: Today the State Apartments are used regularly by The Queen and other members of the Royal Family for State ceremonies and official entertaining.

The Royal Collection - Palace of Holyroodhouse

Could it be that he is shown as being at Holyrood Palace because it is the official residence of HM (when she is in Scotland), whereas Government House is not HM's official residence?

I don't think so, I've never seen this destinction made before, perhaps they have decided that C and C should have "a moving court" like The Queen's

Skydragon 07-31-2009 06:18 AM

Do you have the dates that Charles last stayed at Holyrood, it could be that he rarely overnights there. I know he has hosted garden parties at Holyrood a couple of times, but has not always stayed, preferring to travel back to London overnight.

RoyalProtocol 07-31-2009 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 973426)
Do you have the dates that Charles last stayed at Holyrood, it could be that he rarely overnights there. I know he has hosted garden parties at Holyrood a couple of times, but has not always stayed, preferring to travel back to London overnight.

3rd June 2009- TRH were in residence at Holyroodhouse (I must have missed this one)

1st and 2nd June they were in residence at Clarence House eventhough on both days they were in Scotland (but they must have been staying elsewhere than Holyroodhouse)

RoyalProtocol 07-31-2009 08:00 AM

I have looked into this in some detail and have noticed some inconsistency:

5th June 2008 Palace of Holyroodhouse
3-4 in Scotland but Clarence House
30th May 2007-1st June 2007 Stayed in Holyroodhouse but listed as Clarence House
31st May 2006 PofH
8th Sept 2005 PofH
21-22nd June 2005 PofH
2002, 2001 Mixture
2000 All engagements as Lord High Commissioner in PofH
7th-8th June 1999 in PofH but listed as St James's Palace

I am therefore of the opinion that the change came in around 2000 and that The Palace of Holyrood as been used as The Official Residence of The Duke of Rosthesay when he is in Edinburgh

On the 2nd and 3rd September 2004 The Prince of Wales stayed in Hillsborough Castle, he was however listed as staying in Clarence House, so this one shows that the only exception to Clarence House is The Palace of Holyroodhouse

Skydragon 07-31-2009 03:13 PM

:previous: When he is in Scotland, he and the Duchess of Rothesay do not always stay at Holyrood, they have a variety of friends they stay with, along with Birkhall, they also have the option of traveling back to England. As I tried to say earlier, just because he has entertained at Holyrood, does not mean he stayed the night.:flowers:

DIANA FAN IN PARIS 10-06-2010 10:54 AM

Need your help
 
Hello,
I desperatly search the Court Cicular from 1981 to 1997 Where could I find it ?

Lumutqueen 10-06-2010 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIANA FAN IN PARIS (Post 1144527)
Hello,
I desperatly search the Court Cicular from 1981 to 1997 Where could I find it ?

Possible on the Royal Website.
Search the Court Circular

DIANA FAN IN PARIS 10-06-2010 09:00 PM

Thank you but there is not Diana, Princess of Wales. That's I search.
I found out on the Times Archives but it's only until 1985.

Lumutqueen 10-07-2010 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIANA FAN IN PARIS (Post 1144722)
Thank you but there is not Diana, Princess of Wales. That's I search.
I found out on the Times Archives but it's only until 1985.

So your looking for Princess Diana's events?
I doubt you would find anything information about that on roual websites, but you could check the Diana thread in this forum.

Zonk 10-07-2010 10:38 AM

According to the Royal website and the Court Circular page, it contains information on events that occurred within the last 7 years. So you are not going to find anything on the website.

I would imagine that information is available somewhere. Its just a matter of determining where. Wasn't there a book or something that detailed all of Diana's events or am I just imagining that? I have a book called Diana's Diary by Andrew Morton but it doesn't list the particular engagements.

pgm1952 06-22-2011 10:44 PM

This is some time ago but the Court Circular said Her Majesty was represented by a courtier at the funeral of Sasha Ambercorn. Wasn't she a close friend of the Queen and the Duke?

Renata4711 07-12-2011 02:59 PM

Court Circular - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Court Circular July 9th, 2011:
Court Circular: July 9 - Times Online

RomeFriedrich7A 08-20-2011 04:36 PM

I'm not sure whether my question really fits into this threat:
Is it theoretically possible that non-HRHs perform official duties on behalf of the Queen?
I suppose, most young royals try to avoid carrying out public duties regularly if they can. However, it may be necessary in the near future, as p.e. the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are in their 70s and the Duke of Gloucester is in his 60s. They have sat on commissions and boards, have been trustees/chairmen/patrons of many organizations and charities and have represented the Queen abroad on numerous occasions. Who will fill these vacancies when these three working Royals decease (which can be the case in the next decade)? William and Harry have their own charities and organizations and will have to be prepared for greater role within the family. But these so-called minor royals? I'm afraid their positions would remain unfilled if their children (p.e. Earl of St. Andrews, Earl of Ulster) didn't take over their duties.

Iluvbertie 08-20-2011 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RomeFriedrich7A (Post 1305631)
I'm not sure whether my question really fits into this threat:
Is it theoretically possible that non-HRHs perform official duties on behalf of the Queen?
I suppose, most young royals try to avoid carrying out public duties regularly if they can. However, it may be necessary in the near future, as p.e. the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are in their 70s and the Duke of Gloucester is in his 60s. They have sat on commissions and boards, have been trustees/chairmen/patrons of many organizations and charities and have represented the Queen abroad on numerous occasions. Who will fill these vacancies when these three working Royals decease (which can be the case in the next decade)? William and Harry have their own charities and organizations and will have to be prepared for greater role within the family. But these so-called minor royals? I'm afraid their positions would remain unfilled if their children (p.e. Earl of St. Andrews, Earl of Ulster) didn't take over their duties.


The obvious ones would have been Beatrice and Eugenie but the reports are that they have been told to get real jobs and that they aren't going to be needed to do royal duties.

That means, to me, that these organisations that have had royal patronage in the past will have to look elsewhere as the younger royals either have their own interests or have been told - 'you are not wanted/needed as part of the family's working life'.

As people like the Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster actually have to work for a living as they aren't so wealthy that they can afford not to have a real job they also don't really have the time to devote to organisations that take up hours of their time.

I think in the future that working royals will have to do more - e.g. Kate will have to start stepping up to 500+ engagements a year within the next couple of years as will William and even Harry might have to leave the military to take up royal duties full time in support of his father and brother when they are monarchs.

Even Anne is now 60 so within 20 years will be slowing down and Andrew is so discredited that the 500+ engagement he has been doing will have to be done by others - but who is there?

Sorry for the organisations but they will need to look to non-royals to fill these roles.

RomeFriedrich7A 08-21-2011 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1305751)
As people like the Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster actually have to work for a living as they aren't so wealthy that they can afford not to have a real job they also don't really have the time to devote to organisations that take up hours of their time.

Honestly, I don't really regard this as a major problem, because a.f.a.i.k. Earl of St. Andrews and Lord Nicholas Windsor have both dedicated their professional lives to charitable work and don't work for their living on "ordinary" jobs. (Earl of St. Andrews is already patron of a dozen organizations or so, and Lord Nicholas Windsor is the unofficial Catholic representative of the Royal Family) Furthermore, they could either be offered accommodation in return for doing royal engagements (Kensington Palace?) or only carry them out part-time (like Prince Michael of Kent, who never appears in the Court Circular as his many public duties are not declared as "official" and has his own business consulting company in order to earn his living.) By the way, I'd find it a bit disappointing not seeing members of the Kent or Gloucester clans doing official engagements.

Iluvbertie 08-21-2011 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RomeFriedrich7A (Post 1305941)
Honestly, I don't really regard this as a major problem, because a.f.a.i.k. Earl of St. Andrews and Lord Nicholas Windsor have both dedicated their professional lives to charitable work and don't work for their living on "ordinary" jobs. (Earl of St. Andrews is already patron of a dozen organizations or so, and Lord Nicholas Windsor is the unofficial Catholic representative of the Royal Family) Furthermore, they could either be offered accommodation in return for doing royal engagements (Kensington Palace?) or only carry them out part-time (like Prince Michael of Kent, who never appears in the Court Circular as his many public duties are not declared as "official" and has his own business consulting company in order to earn his living.) By the way, I'd find it a bit disappointing not seeing members of the Kent or Gloucester clans doing official engagements.


The major sticking point is how are they going to support themselves? You can't expect Charles to continue to support such distant relations and they aren't that wealthy. Both the Kents and Gloucesters have had to sell stuff to get money in the past and to pay death duties - as unlike Charles their estates don't come free. Charles has indicated that he wants to reduce the size of the working family and doesn't even want his brothers' children doing royal duties so why would he want his mother's cousins children? They didn't even get invited to Zara's wedding afterall - they are too distant and in another generation will probably only appear at things like coronations and funerals. The government has also insisted that Michael pays a full rent for his apartment at KP of over 100,000 pounds a year. The Queen has been paying for the last decade or more but can you really expect Charles to pick up the bill for that for three or four families that are his mother's second cousins and thus his third cousins (I know some on here will argue that they are something like first cousins once removed but that isn't how I was taught by my English grandmother and I will stick with the English/Australian way of referring to cousins). He is loathe to pick up the bills for his own neices so why should he do it for such distant cousins?

Actually Prince Michael doesn't appear in the Court Circular on a regular basis because he doesn't so royal duties. When asked to represent the monarch he does appear - as does anyone else who represent the monarch. He asked and has been allowed to have a business that sees him do all sorts of things but he doesn't actually do royal duties.

I think we must realise that the Kents and Gloucesters are increasingly a long way from the throne and shouldn't expect them to be doing royal duties. The closest any of them are to the throne is 20th and over the next decade will drop further and further. Within 10 years the first of them will be closer to 30th. All that would take is two children each for William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Peter and Zara and voila - down to 31 - with the possible death of the Queen in that time up to 30th again and the Kents even further away with the Duke now at 28th. Remember when the Queen became Queen the present Duke of Kent was 8th in line. Over 60 years he has dropped 20 places and three of those ahead of him in 1952 have also already died so there are 23 new people between him and the throne. There simply isn't room for the descendents of these families anymore in the royal circles. They will join the descendents of George V's daughter as of interest only to royal watchers as their children have children but that is all.

Of George V's descendents - 5/9 grandchildren have done royal duties throughout their adult life.

Of George VI's descendents - 4/6 of his grandchildren have done so for most of their adult life with Edward trying something else first.

Of Elizabeth II's descendents it seems that 2/8 of her grandchildren will be expected to do so - William and Harry. It is to William and Harry that the future will lie and the descendents of past generations simply fade away as has happened throughout history.

Why would you expect the great-grandchildren of one monarch to do royal duties when the grandchildren of later monarchs - Lord Linley, Sarah Chatto, Peter Philips and Zara Tindell - aren't expected to do so and yet their relationship to a monarch is the same as the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester etc?

Even titled grandchildren of the present monarch aren't going to be doing royal duties and have been told to get a job to support themselves.

It is clear that the size of the working royal family is being reduced and frankly if you were to have a royal do something surely it would be better to have HRH Princess Beatrice of York over The Earl of Ulster who will in time be His Grace The Duke of Gloucester - no royal title for him.

RomeFriedrich7A 08-22-2011 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1305948)
The major sticking point is how are they going to support themselves? You can't expect Charles to continue to support such distant relations and they aren't that wealthy. Both the Kents and Gloucesters have had to sell stuff to get money in the past and to pay death duties - as unlike Charles their estates don't come free. Charles has indicated that he wants to reduce the size of the working family and doesn't even want his brothers' children doing royal duties so why would he want his mother's cousins children?

They aren't so wealthy - that's why I've proposed to give accommodation to them in return to do public engagements. And well, mother's cousin's child is not so distant, especially in this family. (My family's not royal, not even noble for the last 100 years, but even I have a good and relatively close relationship to my father's cousin's children. Furthermore, Lord Nicholas is Charles' godson and Lord Downpatrick was Lady Di's...) And don't forget: He doesn't give them privileges because he likes them so much but because he can delegate some of his duties to them (work <-> low rent/...?), I believe that's fair.
As to "he doesn't even want his brothers' children doing royal duties": I don't agree with that. Anne and Edward have disqualified their children for royal duties by not giving them the titles they were entitled to have. And as to Eugenie and Beatrice: In the past, female members of the Royal Family have never been required to do royal duties - it's always the eldest sons that are expected to do so (which would again hint at Earls of St Andrews and Ulster) . (Well-known exception here: Princess Alexandra who was asked by the Queen to do engagements as there was a lack of female members in the 60s.) Consequently, I don't believe that Charles had any influence whatsoever on the fact that most probably no offsprings of his siblings are going to be working members.


"Actually Prince Michael doesn't appear in the Court Circular on a regular basis because he doesn't so royal duties. When asked to represent the monarch he does appear - as does anyone else who represent the monarch. He asked and has been allowed to have a business that sees him do all sorts of things but he doesn't actually do royal duties."

Well, he's leading British delegations travelling abroad (esp. Eastern European countries), visiting schools, hospitals in the UK and abroad, welcoming foreign representatives on the Queen's behalf, visiting troops as colonel-in-chief of various bataillions, chairing dozens of commissions, organizations, attending state banquets ... I believe that comes close to doing royal duties, although, not "officially".


Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1305948)
Why would you expect the great-grandchildren of one monarch to do royal duties when the grandchildren of later monarchs - Lord Linley, Sarah Chatto, Peter Philips and Zara Tindell - aren't expected to do so and yet their relationship to a monarch is the same as the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester etc?

Well, there is one significant difference between those you listed and p.e. Earl of St. Andrews, Earl of Ulster: the latter still have the surname Windsor and are male-line members of the Royal Family. Women (Princess Margaret, Princess Anne) cannot pass down any (royal) titles, so their children are excluded from public life anyway, although they may be genetically closer to the thrown. (But that doesn't count; if it counted, you wouldn't have Number 28, the Duke of Kent, still be an active royal representative.) Furthermore, Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster, when succeeding, will continue to be at least Dukes of Blood Royal (as the Dukedoms are still passed down in the House of Windsor, the reigning house of the Commonwealth Realms), although not styled HRH. They will still take precedence before all other Dukes and certain Officers of State. So, although not having a special style distinguishing them from ordinary Dukes, they still keep royal privileges in official life. It is the title that involves carrying out official duties for the Crown, not the genetical relationship to the monarch (all working members of the royal family except the Princess Royal and The Earl of Wessex are Dukes.)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1305948)
It is clear that the size of the working royal family is being reduced and frankly if you were to have a royal do something surely it would be better to have HRH Princess Beatrice of York over The Earl of Ulster who will in time be His Grace The Duke of Gloucester - no royal title for him.

I agree, an HRH as patron does have more prestige, no doubt. However, before having Mayor John Smith as a patron, organization X will prefer having His Grace, George Windsor, The Duke of Kent, Earl of St. Andrews, Baron Downpatrick. The Dukedom of Kent has always meant representing the monarch and I'd be really surprised if it wouldn't in the future. However, of course, my idea depends on the respective people being willing to take on royal duties, which is not self-evident. (may there be financial problems or something else.)

Well, you may be right that Charles wants to reduce the size of the working royal family, but as I've mentioned before, having Earl of St Andrews/Ulster doing royal duties wouldn't mean more royals in public service, they would simply replace their deceased parents. By the way, Charles/Camilla, William/Catherine, Harry/X, Edward/Sophie, is not really much.
Furthermore, I don't think that Charles wants to risk monarchy's popularity by minimizing royal engagements. The more often people can watch royals visit their local hospital or something, the more likely they will support the monarchy. With so few royals on duty, they'd hardly be able to visit foreign countries, receiving ambassadors, honoring dignitaries, supporting troops, visiting a kindergarden, and so on. The minor royals have always served the more senior ones well, leaving to them all the important stuff, instead opening the new museum of Somewhere-behind-the-seven-hills in the Queen's name. Charles would be very dumb not using this big advantage...

Super Baroness 08-23-2011 12:16 AM

In my opinion, instead of talking about non-royal great-grandchildren of former monarchs performing royal duties, I think it would make more sense to have the husbands of senior princesses have a more active role in the Firm. I know that Tim Laurence has accompanied the Princess Royal on royal engagements since their marriage in 1992 , but he doesn't do solo work (I don't know much about him, but I'm assuming he is still active in his military life..). It makes sense though, because he is not an HRH. Yet in contrast, the Countess of Wessex has been a member of the family since 1999 and has since become a working royal. Of course, it goes back what gender can pass on their HRH and effectively bring in a new (royal) member of the family. Imagine if Harry was female...during the reigns of Charles/William there would be very few working royals.

I know it's a long shot, I just think that for the future and with scaling down of the Royal family, all spouses of the Monarch's children should have high-profile "royal" roles.

Lumutqueen 08-23-2011 05:14 AM

Well when the Queen passes, William, Catherine, Harry & wife - will be the Monarch's children and their spouses and they will all have a high profile role in the royal family.

As to Tim's military career in 2009 he was made Head of Profession for the British Government's Property Asset Management community. I don't know if he still holds this role but I don't think it takes up that much of his time.

Tim's 56 now, I doubt Charles is going to be King for another 10-20 years leaving Tim age 76 - making him a full time working royal at the age of 76 seems unwise.

Duc_et_Pair 01-19-2016 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla (Post 1856925)
Beatrice is expected to perform the same number of royal engagements as Princess Anne.

[...]

That counting of engagements is a hobby by a certain individual whom keeps track and informs media, taking it over without any critical eye: copy-and-paste and sloppy journalism in optima forma.

Every normal person would count "The Princess Royal made a visit to South Georgia where a varied afternoon and evening program was followed" as one engagement: "Visit to South Georgia". The chap however counted it with lots of creativity:

Engagement 1:
The Princess Royal toured the British Antarctic Survey Research Station.

Engagement 2:
The Princess Royal viewed the Shackleton Memorial.

Engagement 3:
The Princess Royal was greeted by South Georgia Government Officers.

Engagement 4:
The Princess Royal met with the British Antarctic Survey Research Staff at Everson House, King Edward Point.

Engamenent 5:
The Princess Royal later viewed the Shackleton Photography Exhibition at Grytviken Museum.

Engagement 6:
The Princess Royal this evening attended a Reception given by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands at Everson House.

Engagement 7:
The Princess Royal afterwards attended a Dinner at Carse House, King Edward Point.

Wow... 7 engagement against one, while the program was exactly the same... welcome in the wonders of (creative) statistics...

Curryong 01-19-2016 06:04 PM

^I thought the elderly gentleman who has been collating the BRF public engagements for decades takes The (London) Times daily. The Times prints a direct copy of the Court Circular and the method of noting each engagement is the CC's.

Iluvbertie 01-19-2016 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1857117)
That counting of engagements is a hobby by a certain individual whom keeps track and informs media, taking it over without any critical eye: copy-and-paste and sloppy journalism in optima forma.

Every normal person would count "The Princess Royal made a visit to South Georgia where a varied afternoon and evening program was followed" as one engagement: "Visit to South Georgia". The chap however counted it with lots of creativity:

Engagement 1:
The Princess Royal toured the British Antarctic Survey Research Station.

Engagement 2:
The Princess Royal viewed the Shackleton Memorial.

Engagement 3:
The Princess Royal was greeted by South Georgia Government Officers.

Engagement 4:
The Princess Royal met with the British Antarctic Survey Research Staff at Everson House, King Edward Point.

Engamenent 5:
The Princess Royal later viewed the Shackleton Photography Exhibition at Grytviken Museum.

Engagement 6:
The Princess Royal this evening attended a Reception given by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands at Everson House.

Engagement 7:
The Princess Royal afterwards attended a Dinner at Carse House, King Edward Point.

Wow... 7 engagement against one, while the program was exactly the same... welcome in the wonders of (creative) statistics...

All you want to count then are the days that the royals worked and not how much they do no those days e.g. 7th January

Andrew

1. The Duke of York today visited West and North Yorkshire to see the impact of the recent floods on homes and local businesses and to meet those affected.
2. His Royal Highness this morning visited flood affected factories in Kirkstall Road, Leeds, West Yorkshire.
3. The Duke of York afterwards attended a briefing on the flooding, at Leeds Civic Hall and was received by Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of West Yorkshire (Dr. Ingrid Roscoe).
4. His Royal Highness this afternoon met members of the local community in Tadcaster, North Yorkshire.
5. The Duke of York afterwards met representatives from the emergency services, York City Council and The Yorkshire Regiment in York who have been involved in the flood relief.
6. His Royal Highness later visited residents and business people in Todmorden, West Yorkshire

Anne

1. The Princess Royal, Honorary President, this morning attended the Oxford Farming Conference at the Examination Schools, 75-81 High Street, Oxford, and was received by the Reverend Canon Glyn Evans (Deputy Lieutenant of Oxfordshire)

To you they both did the same amount of work - 1 engagement.

To me, and others who do a count of the BRF's engagements Andrew clearly did more that day and so it credited accordingly.

Roslyn 01-19-2016 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1857117)
That counting of engagements is a hobby by a certain individual whom keeps track and informs media, taking it over without any critical eye: copy-and-paste and sloppy journalism in optima forma.

Every normal person would count "The Princess Royal made a visit to South Georgia where a varied afternoon and evening program was followed" as one engagement: "Visit to South Georgia". The chap however counted it with lots of creativity:

Engagement 1:
The Princess Royal toured the British Antarctic Survey Research Station.

Engagement 2:
The Princess Royal viewed the Shackleton Memorial.

Engagement 3:
The Princess Royal was greeted by South Georgia Government Officers.

Engagement 4:
The Princess Royal met with the British Antarctic Survey Research Staff at Everson House, King Edward Point.

Engamenent 5:
The Princess Royal later viewed the Shackleton Photography Exhibition at Grytviken Museum.

Engagement 6:
The Princess Royal this evening attended a Reception given by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands at Everson House.

Engagement 7:
The Princess Royal afterwards attended a Dinner at Carse House, King Edward Point.

Wow... 7 engagement against one, while the program was exactly the same... welcome in the wonders of (creative) statistics...

Prepared by someone as a hobby, and no critical eye is cast over it?

I'd love to know what Her Majesty would say to that suggestion, since it is prepared in the Press Office by an Information Oficer, and she herself casts her eye over the CC and approves it before it is sent to the papers! This information is on the official Monarchy website, which also records those same seven engagements on 16th January, though the wording used is slightly different.

Iluvbertie 01-19-2016 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1857147)
Prepared by someone as a hobby, and no critical eye is cast over it?

I'd love to know what Her Majesty would say to that suggestion, since it is prepared in the Press Office by an Information Oficer, and she herself casts her eye over the CC and approves it before it is sent to the papers! This information is on the official Monarchy website, which also records those same seven engagements on 16th January, though the wording used is slightly different.

I think Duc was saying that the counting was done as a hobby (for me it certainly is and I suspect for Mr O'Donovan as well).

The CC itself is approved by HM of course.

Queen Camilla 01-19-2016 07:37 PM

Prince Andrew and Prince Charles keep track of their engagements and release the information each year.

Roslyn 01-19-2016 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1857153)
I think Duc was saying that the counting was done as a hobby (for me it certainly is and I suspect for Mr O'Donovan as well).

The CC itself is approved by HM of course.

I think we might have crossed lines here. I don't know who Mr O'Donovan is. Are we talking about the initial preparation of the CC by the Press Office which is approved by HM, or preparation of a tally for each person made by extracting information published in CC, such as the lists you prepare. I only had in mind the counting for the preparation of the published CC, and that does not seem to be done as a hobby but as part of that person's job.

AdmirerUS 01-19-2016 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1857166)
I think we might have crossed lines here. I don't know who Mr O'Donovan is. Are we talking about the initial preparation of the CC by the Press Office which is approved by HM, or preparation of a tally for each person made by extracting information published in CC, such as the lists you prepare. I only had in mind the counting for the preparation of the published CC, and that does not seem to be done as a hobby but as part of that person's job.

Personally, I refuse to believe that the Queen oversees the CC (excepting the odd occasion when someone needs to be reigned in or when she wants to make sure an old, beloved relative gets a mention).
If she did, there would not be the number of omissions that occur on a regular basis.
I really doubt that she does much more than make sure that the people that do the CC don't let people puff the numbers. I am equally sure that she does not check for omissions. JMO.

cepe 01-19-2016 08:14 PM

The BRF do not count engagements. Anyone who does so (me included) sets their own criteria and hopefully remains consistent.

There is nothing to criticise, except when the BRF don't update the CC on line

TLLK 01-19-2016 08:27 PM

^^^cepe-Hope that whomever is in charge of the online CC will try to keep it updated on a regular basis.

Osipi 01-19-2016 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS (Post 1857169)
Personally, I refuse to believe that the Queen oversees the CC (excepting the odd occasion when someone needs to be reigned in or when she wants to make sure an old, beloved relative gets a mention).
If she did, there would not be the number of omissions that occur on a regular basis.
I really doubt that she does much more than make sure that the people that do the CC don't let people puff the numbers. I am equally sure that she does not check for omissions. JMO.

I think its more that HM needs to see and approve any engagements taken on by any of the BRF where the engagement will be an official one representing HM, The Queen. Those that manage the CC, work from this and from what I've seen lately, they're not doing a very good job. So perhaps Anne will be representing the Queen in Timbuktu in October 2016. Before any of the plans are drawn up and the itinerary planned and the press and photographers given heads up, this trip first has to be approved by HM. It may be given the seal of approval months and maybe even years in advance but nothing happens until the Queen gives the nod. The CC is run by the folks primarily with the job of running the CC and they get their information from the folks that manage the things that the Queen has given her royal nod to. Clarence House and KP have their own staffs that manage the things their "boss/es" have on their calendars as given the royal assent to and also the individual events that pertain to the royal's personal interest as well.

The Firm is a well oiled machine but from what I've seen, the CC department leaves room for improvement in its tallying up of things.

Iluvbertie 01-19-2016 09:07 PM

The CC is the official record of the doings of the monarchy and is checked each day by HM before it is released for that day. This has been the process since its inception by George III.

As a result we see some things recorded as an official engagement for one royal but not for another e.g. in 2012 Kate presented medals as the Paralympics - an official engagement for her, the next day Eugenie did the same thing - but not classed as official by HM and so no entry for Eugenie.

Every royals engagements are listed there and only there for official records. What is approved in advance is not necessarily what ends up in the CC e.g. last year there were 'future engagements' listed for some royals that didn't then get recorded in the CC and others, on the same day, that weren't listed as FEs that were recorded. The online recording of the CC is done to someone in HM's office - note that they seem to get it out to The Times and the other print media efficiently but had some troubles with just the online record.

Mr O'Donovan is the man who has been doing an annual count since the early - mid 1980s and writes the annual letter to The Times, and other outlets, that is taken as the official 'count'. I do an analysis to compare my figures with his early each year as well. The royals themselves do not do an official count although some, knowing that the public like to see the score on the board, have taken to putting out their own figures. I don't imagine that there is a tally board somewhere in BH with the count going up for each royal - although it would be fun to see.:biggrin:

Queen Camilla 01-19-2016 09:29 PM

It is unknown how long Prince Charles or his office has been keeping track but on his website the information is available going back to the 2003-2004 fiscal year..

He might have been keep track as far back as 1980 but never shared this information.

Charles is known to keep everything. He might very well have copies of his daily calendars that list all his engagements.

Iluvbertie 01-19-2016 10:08 PM

The CC is archived somewhere back to the original ones - probably in the royal archives themselves but also in the old days when universities and other libraries had past editions of papers like The Times on microfiche they were there as well (I was using the CC from the 1880s at one time for a research assignment I was doing at uni and was accessing The Times at uni using the microfiche and they had ever copy back to around the 1850s but with the advent of digital they destroyed the microfiche believing that The Times itself would allow subscribers to access archives back that far. As I am not a subscriber I don't know how far back a person can go.


The online CC is archived from 1997.

TLLK 01-19-2016 11:08 PM

:tongue: Pity the poor staff member who has to ensure that each tally mark would be legible and that no one is trying to sneak in an extra mark or (gasp) erase one from their family members.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises