The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   General Royal Discussion (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/)
-   -   The Hardest working Royals in Europe in 2013 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/the-hardest-working-royals-in-europe-in-2013-a-36186.html)

tommy100 12-27-2013 10:18 PM

UK and Scandinavian royals- days worked per royal
 
1 Attachment(s)
Firstly apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, I did search and couldn't find anything
A study has been undertaken comparing the number of days members of the British and Scandinavian royals carried out public duties in this year.
At first glance IMO it does look bad that Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth II worked on more days than their counterparts as they are the oldest monarch and heir in the selection. Although as the comments from the Danish and Swedish royal courts show just counting the days royals appear in public doesn't mean they are sitting at home with their feet up.

Prince Charles named hardest working royal in Europe - with the Queen right behind him | Mail OnlineAttachment 290864

Iluvbertie 12-27-2013 10:21 PM

It is being discussed http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1628834

Pyrrhus 12-27-2013 10:24 PM

Hi

Sent from my Huawei-U8687 using The Royals Community mobile app

cepe 12-27-2013 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommy100 (Post 1628857)
Firstly apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, I did search and couldn't find anything
A study has been undertaken comparing the number of days members of the British and Scandinavian royals carried out public duties in this year.
At first glance IMO it does look bad that Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth II worked on more days than their counterparts as they are the oldest monarch and heir in the selection. Although as the comments from the Danish and Swedish royal courts show just counting the days royals appear in public doesn't mean they are sitting at home with their feet up.

Prince Charles named hardest working royal in Europe - with the Queen right behind him | Mail OnlineAttachment 290864

and the same applies to the BRF. IF this is counting days when public engagements take place (as opposed to private engagements, background work or even the actual # of engagements) then this is a level playing field.

Iluvbertie 12-27-2013 10:31 PM

It does come down to what the different houses regard as reportable events and it seems that the BRF is the only one that lists all the meetings etc that go on behind closed doors while the other houses only list the 'public' events meaning those when the royal is seen out and about.

That means that the comparisons aren't fair as the BRF reports differently than their continental counterparts. The BRF reports things like 'The Queen received xxxx' 'The Prince of Wales held a meeting about yyy' 'The Princess Royal, Patron of zzz attended a meeting of the board'. As there is no press coverage of these events we only know they happened because the CC records them.

The Continental royals don't make public these events as the royal concerned was at home, out of sight of the public.

The other thing about this count is that it is counting things like 'The Queen, was represented by dddd at the funeral of gggg' as a day of work for The Queen.

This survey lacks credibility when you start to analyse the British figures and know what the other royal houses release as information about their work. It is over counting the days for the British - certainly for The Queen by 54 days by counting events such as that above. They have simply gone to the CC and counted the number of days on which The Queen's name has appeared rather than actually reading what happened on that day e.g. Charles undertook an investiture on behalf of The Queen they have counted as a day on which The Queen was working when she wasn't - Charles was.

tommy100 12-27-2013 10:36 PM

UK and Scandinavian royals- days worked per royal
 
I suppose it would only ever be possible to fairly compare each royal if each royal court listed engagements in the same way. Based on the comments from the royal press officers it seems they admit that they don't do that. For example QEII and prince Charles are often (not always but often) listed as receiving the prime minister, Secretary of State for..., general/admiral/group captain etc etc whereas from my own experience I never see any such listings for Queen Margarethe.

cepe 12-27-2013 10:38 PM

IT is NOT engagements it is days worked

tommy100 12-27-2013 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1628863)
IT is NOT engagements it is days worked


But surely the number of days worked has been worked out on the listings of engagements unless the person who carried out the research was able to follow each royal listed.

tommy100 12-27-2013 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1628861)
It does come down to what the different houses regard as reportable events and it seems that the BRF is the only one that lists all the meetings etc that go on behind closed doors while the other houses only list the 'public' events meaning those when the royal is seen out and about.

That means that the comparisons aren't fair as the BRF reports differently than their continental counterparts. The BRF reports things like 'The Queen received xxxx' 'The Prince of Wales held a meeting about yyy' 'The Princess Royal, Patron of zzz attended a meeting of the board'. As there is no press coverage of these events we only know they happened because the CC records them.

The Continental royals don't make public these events as the royal concerned was at home, out of sight of the public.

The other thing about this count is that it is counting things like 'The Queen, was represented by dddd at the funeral of gggg' as a day of work for The Queen.

This survey lacks credibility when you start to analyse the British figures and know what the other royal houses release as information about their work. It is over counting the days for the British - certainly for The Queen by 54 days by counting events such as that above. They have simply gone to the CC and counted the number of days on which The Queen's name has appeared rather than actually reading what happened on that day e.g. Charles undertook an investiture on behalf of The Queen they have counted as a day on which The Queen was working when she wasn't - Charles was.


I agree with all of that, and wrote almost the same at the same time lol. And I know how well you know the Court circular! This survey clearly has it's faults. Maybe if nothing else it will encourage the other Royal Courts to list more of what goes on behind closed doors, meetings with ministers, ambassadors etc. from my own experiences the British and Swedish Royal courts do this already and, surprise surprise, their royals come out on top in this survey.

cepe 12-27-2013 10:48 PM

That's what the Danish press is saying. Charles had 187 days when he was "out and about" (not the no of engagements) and Frederick had 90 days "out and about". They both did other things not included - private meetings, preparation etc, etc. I think that the report is (as far as is possible) comparing like with like. IT is not a measure of how hard any of them work - quality and quantity argument would also come into play. The other "immeasurable" is that the more engagements (not days) you do, the more prep you need. That is something which isnt mentioned. Further reason why i is not a measure as to how hard any of them work.

But I am surprised by the figures. I would have thought they would have done more. My biggest surprise is Haakon but that's JMO.

tommy100 12-27-2013 11:03 PM

My biggest surprise is mette-marit and that she is listed as the lowest out of the sovereigns and heirs. But that's just my opinion

Iluvbertie 12-27-2013 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1628869)
That's what the Danish press is saying. Charles had 187 days when he was "out and about" (not the no of engagements) and Frederick had 90 days "out and about". They both did other things not included - private meetings, preparation etc, etc. I think that the report is (as far as is possible) comparing like with like. IT is not a measure of how hard any of them work - quality and quantity argument would also come into play. The other "immeasurable" is that the more engagements (not days) you do, the more prep you need. That is something which isnt mentioned. Further reason why i is not a measure as to how hard any of them work.

But I am surprised by the figures. I would have thought they would have done more. My biggest surprise is Haakon but that's JMO.


Charles hasn't had 187 days 'out and about' at all. He has 187 days on which he is mentioned in the CC and that includes 17 days when he had someone represent him at another event e.g. when he was represented at the memorial service for the Duchess of Kent's father. That is counted by the survey as a working day for Charles but he didn't attend the memorial service at all. He did official engagements on 170 days and not all of those were days when he was out and about but could have been a day when he held a number of meetings. His preparation time for engagements is on top of that but this survey isn't comparing like with like as the Danes don't count things the same way.

Fred is only counted as days when he is out and about - when he is seen publicly. Charles is counted on every day he is mentioned in the CC even if he didn't do anything official, wasn't seen, and simply operated in his office - maybe met one person or held a formal meeting at CH but not out and about which he did on 33 days during the year - so 17 days when he was represented by someone doing something and another 33 when he wasn't 'out and about' but doing official things inside CH - things that aren't listed for Fred.

The other thing that is missing from this list is the royal who has worked on the most days - and that award goes to ANNE not Charles (he has more engagements but she works officially on more days).

LadyFinn 12-28-2013 06:53 AM

It would be interesting to know how they have counted for instance the work days of the swedish royals - from the court's swedish calendar of the english one? Often there are big differences in those calendars, the swedish one is more complete, all events aren't mentioned at the english calendar. And especially about Victoria's and Daniel's calendars, often the court puts an article and photos of actual events to their website, although the event hasn't been at the calendar at all.
The way the courts announce and count their work is so different that the working days of different royal families can't be compared.

An Ard Ri 12-28-2013 07:32 AM

I noticed the above listing didn't include the Belgian,Spanish or Dutch Royals nor the Princely Families of Monaco/ Liechtenstein.

BritishRoyalist 12-28-2013 03:59 PM

The Hardest working Royals in Europe in 2013
 
I was not exactly sure where to put this but I will put it here and if doesn't being here the administrators can move it.

A Danish Newspaper (Ekstrabladet) compiled a list of the hardest working Royals in Europe based on the official calendars of members of the Scandinavian and British royal families between January 1 and December 16 of this year. The British Royal Family came out on top with Prince Charles working 189 days and HM Queen Elizabeth working 181 Days. Prince Philip even so 92 worked an 120 days (he may have work more if he never had his surgery this summer which afterwards his recovery was about two months.

Read more: Prince Charles named hardest working royal in Europe - with the Queen right behind him | Mail Online

'The (British) Royal family is the hardest working in Europe, with Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth topping a list of British and Scandinavian monarchs. An investigation into the number of working days in European royal houses found that the 65-year-old Prince of Wales is the hardest grafter with 189 working days, followed by the Queen with 181 days and the King of Sweden coming in third.
Despite turning 92 this year, Prince Philip did more work this year than a majority of the younger royals, clocking up an impressive 120 working days'.

Empress Merel 12-28-2013 04:07 PM

Scandinavian and British Royals. That hardly covers the rest.

I'm pretty sure that, with the inauguration and all of the tours the Dutch monarchs have done, they would be extremely high, if not the highest.

BritishRoyalist 12-28-2013 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Merel (Post 1628964)
Scandinavian and British Royals. That hardly covers the rest.

I'm pretty sure that, with the inauguration and all of the tours the Dutch monarchs have done, they would be extremely high, if not the highest.


True and it also doesn't give you Princess Anne. She is one of the hardest working Royal in the British Rpyal Family.

cepe 12-28-2013 04:14 PM

I think this is the 3rd place is has been discussed :wacko: confused ;)

Lee-Z 12-28-2013 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1628968)
I think this is the 3rd place is has been discussed :wacko: confused ;)

yeah, can't we keep it in this thread?

cepe 12-28-2013 04:45 PM

I think we need a mod


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises