British Royal Family Engagements 2017

[soapstar]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

My issue is it’s been announced that William and Kate was full time now, while Harry is still part timer (unless I missed an announcement, in which case, feel free to let me know). I’ll take out Kate bc of the pregnancy. So how is it that Harry has more engagements than William? What defines full one vs. part time if not the number of engagements?

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe it’s been announced that William and Kate are full-time. I think it’s just been said that they would be taking on more royal duties.

As for William and Harry’s numbers, William had a job until the end of July. He was working as a pilot and doing royal engagements, so his numbers being a bit lower than Harry’s isn’t surprising and pretty much expected.

[Rudolph]

“Full time” is a media term. KP never uses the term. Also William had to skip the visits to Sweden and Norway.

[tommy100]

Being 100% honest, I think W,K & H need to up the game. I just don't think they do work enough at the moment, and that isn't just based on the engagement count. Yes there are reasons , Kate being pregnant again, William working. I completely understand the idea that in future it may not just be a turn up and cut a ribbon counting as one engagement type situation. But do they actually do a lot for their charities behind the scenes now? I'm not so sure. I think Harry probably does because he does a lot for Sentebale & Invictus Games but do the others do similar?

I think there are going to be big changes to the way the RF works in the future, and thats not necessarily a bad thing. I just hope the royals don't use that as an excuse to do a lot less.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by soapstar

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe it’s been announced that William and Kate are full-time. I think it’s just been said that they would be taking on more royal duties.

As for William and Harry’s numbers, William had a job until the end of July. He was working as a pilot and doing royal engagements, so his numbers being a bit lower than Harry’s isn’t surprising and pretty much expected.

Yes, the Cambridge’s are now full time senior royals. The palaces never use the term “full time” it’s a media term.

Originally Posted by tommy100

Being 100% honest, I think W,K & H need to up the game. I just don't think they do work enough at the moment, and that isn't just based on the engagement count. Yes there are reasons , Kate being pregnant again, William working. I completely understand the idea that in future it may not just be a turn up and cut a ribbon counting as one engagement type situation. But do they actually do a lot for their charities behind the scenes now? I'm not so sure. I think Harry probably does because he does a lot for Sentebale & Invictus Games but do the others do similar?

I think there are going to be big changes to the way the RF works in the future, and thats not necessarily a bad thing. I just hope the royals don't use that as an excuse to do a lot less.

The problem is the focus is on numbers, but not on the quality of the young royals work. High numbers sounds impressive, but the quality of the young royals work is much more important.

Instead of the end of the year’s numbers being put out, a full quality summary of the senior royals official engagements should be published. The spotlight be should be put on their charitable and military involvement and not on a “end of year” numbers. Numbers don’t give you any meaning.

[hel]

Originally Posted by soapstar

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe it’s been announced that William and Kate are full-time. I think it’s just been said that they would be taking on more royal duties.

As for William and Harry’s numbers, William had a job until the end of July. He was working as a pilot and doing royal engagements, so his numbers being a bit lower than Harry’s isn’t surprising and pretty much expected.

That's correct, soapstar. This is what the announcement said.

From this autumn, however, The Duke and Duchess will increasingly base their family at Kensington Palace. As they have in recent years, Their Royal Highnesses are keen to continue to increase their official work on behalf of The Queen and for the charities and causes they support, which will require greater time spent in London. Prince George will begin school in London in September and Princess Charlotte will also go to nursery and eventually school in London as well.

His Royal Highness will finish his role with the EAAA in the summer in line with his commitment to fly with them for two years.

https://www.royal.uk/update-kensingt...cambridge-2017

The label "full-time royal" was applied by the press and royal watchers.

People scoff a lot at William for the interview in which he said "The term, ‘full-time royal role’ is bandied around quite a lot, and no-one actually really knows what that means", and claim he was saying that *he* didn't know what it meant. However it's pretty clear that he was referring to the fact that the RF don't themselves use the terms "full-time royal" or "part-time royal" and that he feels the media label is meaningless.

With that said, ~48% of William's engagements this year took place in September through December, so I think it's pretty obvious that he has increased his activity level.

[Dman]

The Cambridge’s and Prince Harry had an amazing year with the Heads Together Campaign and the Invictus Games.

With William stepping up to more palace duties and conservation work, Catherine’s work in children and family mental health and addiction and Harry’s wounded warriors work and their oversea tours; the young royals have been quite busy.

A quality that a group of numbers can’t give you.

[Missjersey]

There have been times I've wanted W, K, and H to step up, but honestly, I believe that we're watching a transition and by this time next year, I'm sure their numbers will be up.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

“Full time” is a media term. KP never uses the term. Also William had to skip the visits to Sweden and Norway.

William didn't "skip" the visits--they were postponed until 2018 because of Kate's HG.
William went on the Finland visit as planned, Kate was still not completely well.

[Dman]

Mr. O’Donovan or, anyone else who will take over his job, need to stop focusing on numbers and focus on the royals actual work. Numbers don’t give you an overall picture on the importance of the work members of the royal family do throughout the year. The work is disregarded and numbers become the idea of who’s more dedicated to royal duties. That’s a bad way of looking at the impact of all the hard work the royal family do.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Dman

A quality that a group of numbers can’t give you.

Originally Posted by Dman

The problem is the focus is on numbers, but not on the quality of the young royals work. High numbers sounds impressive, but the quality of the young royals work is much more important.

Bitter much ?
So basically you're saying that the other "old royals" are just doing random and boring stuff all the year but the most interesting duties are made by the younger royals.
I wonder how the Princess Royal, the Prince of Wales ,and all the organizations they represent will react to this "not-at-all-biased" theory.

I'm not worried by the relatively low number of engagements from the younger generation. After all it's increasing each year and as pointed out they are just beginning they full time royal life. So more to come from this bunch.

Plus we must acknowledge the more than honourable numbers of engagements of the Duchess of Cornwall and the Countess of Wessex, two relatively "new" members of the BRF who embraced their royal duties with passion (and yes Sophie had to raise 2 children too).

These numbers are the proof that the Monarchy is not all about highly publicised causes and events and celebrity style fundraisings from fashionable leading figures, it's a day to day work in the heart of the communty spririt of the whole country, from film premieres in London to some country fair in Yorkshire. Monarchy is not THAT glamorous and superficial, it's above all useful for the UK. And with the "value for money" sill firm in the taxpayer's mind, these numbers show that a whole dedicated team is in charge and working hard. And that's good news.

[jacqui24]

I think there has to be a balance at some point between quality and quantity. You can't just look at numbers, but you also do have to look at numbers.

Also, Harry is just slightly behind Sophie and his stepmother. I think he's about 9 behind Sophie, and less than 30 behind Camilla, so I wouldn't say his numbers are that bad.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Nico

Bitter much ?
So basically you're saying that the other "old royals" are just doing random and boring stuff all the year but the most interesting duties are made by the younger royals.
I wonder how the Princess Royal, the Prince of Wales ,and all the organizations they represent will react to this "not-at-all-biased" theory.

I'm not worried by the relatively low number of engagements from the younger generation. After all it's increasing each year and as pointed out they are just beginning they full time royal life. So more to come from this bunch.

Plus we must acknowledge the more than honourable numbers of engagements of the Duchess of Cornwall and the Countess of Wessex, two relatively "new" members of the BRF who embraced their royal duties with passion (and yes Sophie had to raise 2 children too).

These numbers are the proof that the Monarchy is not all about highly publicised causes and events and celebrity style fundraisings from fashionable leading figures, it's a day to day work in the heart of the communty spririt of the whole country, from film premieres in London to some country fair in Yorkshire. Monarchy is not THAT glamorous and superficial, it's above all useful for the UK. And with the "value for money" sill firm in the taxpayer's mind, these numbers show that a whole dedicated team is in charge and working hard. And that's good news.

Who’s bitter and for what?

I’m saying that numbers are just numbers. A full summary of a persons work throughout the year is a better evaluation of the royals roles and duties.

All the royals work hard on their various charitable, honorary military appointments and ceremonial duties and oversea royal tours. Putting that all down to a bunch of numbers don’t give you the true essence of all the hard work they do. It’s why the work is disregarded at the end of the year.

[loonytick]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I think people would understand if the numbers aren’t so drastic. That’s the issue here. It’s not that they aren’t doing as much, but the fact that it’s so far below.

It would be interesting to see if there were some way of measuring impact. For all the disparity in number of events and tasks, if there were some number reflecting the number of people who were aware of each royal's activities through the year, I suspect the younger royals would more than give Anne and Charles a run for their money.

I say that not to disparage the "older royals," but to point out that both styles of royal work are effective, albeit in different ways.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by loonytick

It would be interesting to see if there were some way of measuring impact. For all the disparity in number of events and tasks, if there were some number reflecting the number of people who were aware of each royal's activities through the year, I suspect the younger royals would more than give Anne and Charles a run for their money.

I say that not to disparage the "older royals," but to point out that both styles of royal work are effective, albeit in different ways.

Look, I think the Cambridges and Harry do get really good coverage for the work they do when they do it. Anne and others get far less attention during the year. If this is the one point in the year where they take a hit compared to the older royals, so be it.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Look, I think the Cambridges and Harry do get really good coverage for the work they do when they do it. Anne and others get far less attention during the year. If this is the one point in the year where they take a hit compared to the older royals, so be it.

As it has always been. In the 50's and the 60's Margaret or Princess Alexandra were the "it girls" of the BRF, then Charles and Anne were the "exciting youngs" of the 70's, Diana and and Sarah were the "breath of fresh air" of the 90's.
Each generation welcomes some newbies, and the medias are naturally far more interested in them than the "old guard".
But this old guard is obviously still very much active and the new generation still learning. Continuity is the key for the BRF.

[Dman]

I think there should be an official reflection of the work and activities senior members of the royal family carry out throughout the year. Not in numbers, but a full summary.

Perhaps there could be a programme called A Year with the Royal Family; where the royals official duties and activities are properly highlighted for that year.

Numbers have little meaning, but the full visual of the years work is what’s impressive.

[Zaira]

Sorry, but numbers matter. These are people who have immense privilege and wealth funded by money that would otherwise not be their own. Simply doing away with numbers and doing "snap shots" of their events doesn't tell us much either. The media covers their events, bt having a YE understanding of what those numbers look like is important.

I am pleased to see Harry finally break 200, but even he could be doing much more. I certainly hope he breaks into 300 in 2018.

Certainly, Kate's numbers are pathetic even taking into account her pregnancy. It is not as if she was working a lot before her pregnancy was announced. I can see her numbers going down in the fall, but she was barely doing much before her pregnancy, as usual.

William's show a steady increase in the fall, but he always works more in the fall. Hopefully with him now out of the ambulance he will really rev up in 2018.

The younger royals need to do both the quality and time intensive engagements a la Invictus or HT, and also the bread and butter country fair engagements too. They can't only do one of those categories.

It is IMO wrong to say that the likes of Anne who post huge engagement numbers do not also do quality work. Certainly Charles, who I am no great fan of, does some incredible quality work and still manages to also do many more engagements of the more run of the mill royal type.

[Dman]

The numbers only matter if you like counting and comparing numbers. Just looking at numbers at the end of the year have a way of diminishing the quality and passion the family pour into their work with their patronages and other duties.

No one isn’t saying that the older royals high number of engagements are meaningless.

I’m just saying that boiling down their work and duties to a couple of numbers isn’t right. A proper summary of the royals various roles, duties and other commitments, tell the whole story of their very busy year. You can’t get that in a couple of numbers. Of course other people’s numbers will be higher than the next. Others have more patronages, ceremonial roles, and organizations than the other. That’s just natural.

Charles and Anne had decades to build up their increased engagement numbers. Folks online want the young royals to match that in a year’s time. Impossible!

More patronages and other roles and duties that’s handed down to the younger royals will naturally increase their numbers. Since numbers are the only thing that matter to some folks at the end of the year.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Dman

I think there should be an official reflection of the work and activities senior members of the royal family carry out throughout the year. Not in numbers, but a full summary.

Perhaps there could be a programme called A Year with the Royal Family; where the royals official duties and activities are properly highlighted for that year.

Numbers have little meaning, but the full visual of the years work is what’s impressive.

I do remember some publication called "a Royal year" with a lot of pictures and trivia about the BRF. ...

[AdmirerUS]

Originally Posted by loonytick

It would be interesting to see if there were some way of measuring impact. For all the disparity in number of events and tasks, if there were some number reflecting the number of people who were aware of each royal's activities through the year, I suspect the younger royals would more than give Anne and Charles a run for their money.

I say that not to disparage the "older royals," but to point out that both styles of royal work are effective, albeit in different ways.

Well, an indirect measure could be popularity polling. Also, polling on general support for the monarchy. Sadly, a lot of those polls are really flawed in their design.

I personally believe that the grey men (and women) watch this. Every now and then Anne or someone visits "Upper Puddleston" and some nice forum member posts a link to the local newspaper coverage which never fails to mention "the last time a royal family member visited was Royal X, YY years ago.

When one of the Royals does a day of visits to a specific area, and racks up 5 engagements to more in a day, you will often see them at the "Grand opening" of something that actually opened an odd year ago. But, they gather these visits to the hinterlands into the bundles. And some events wait to be bundled. This manages cost and time for the royals. Btw the are important.

So I tend to believe that the Upper Puddleston area gets a visit both when there is a bundle of notable things to do AND the local poll numbers are fluctuating. Or the local complaint letters are rising.

And apologies to any actual Upper Puddleston that may exist. I am sure it is a lovely place that I would enjoy visiting a great deal! I am a lover of hinterlands.