British Royal Family Engagements 2017

[Lady Nimue]

Thank you, Iluvbertie.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Weekly Update to 28th September 2017

Sorry for the delay. A whole range of personal and work related matters have been interfering with the time needed to get this up to date.

I won’t be putting of the Type of Engagements and Organisations this week but will go back to ‘updates’ next week. I would need to put them all in and it takes 18 pages of a word document to get them all in now.

HM The Queen – 180 (7.3%)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 98 (3.8%)
HRH The Prince of Wales – 367 (14.9%)
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall – 157 (6.4%)
HRH The Duke of Cambridge – 118 (4.8%)
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge – 79 (3.2%)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales – 118 (4.8%)
HRH The Duke of York – 247 (10.0%)
HRH Princess Beatrice – 1 (0.05%) (Unofficial – 21)
HRH Princess Eugenie – 2 (0.1%) (Unofficial – 16)
HRH The Earl of Wessex – 190 (7.7%)
HRH The Countess of Wessex – 122 (4.9%)
HRH The Princess Royal – 375 (15.2%)
Vice-Admiral Timothy Laurence – 38 (1.5%)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester – 154 (6.2%)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester – 75 (3.0%)
HRH The Duke of Kent – 98 (4.0%)
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 2 (0.1%)
HRH Princess Michael of Kent – 2 (0.1%)
HRH Princess Alexandra – 40 (1.6%)

The League Table

HRH The Princess Royal – 375
HRH The Prince of Wales – 367
HRH The Duke of York – 247
HM The Queen – 180
HRH The Earl of Wessex – 190
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall – 157
HRH The Duke of Gloucester – 154
HRH The Countess of Wessex – 122
HRH The Duke of Cambridge – 118
HRH Prince Henry of Wales –118
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 98
HRH The Duke of Kent – 98
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge – 79
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester – 75
HRH Princess Alexandra – 40
Vice-Admiral Timothy Laurence – 38
HRH Princess Eugenie of York – 2
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 2
HRH Princess Michael of Kent – 2
HRH Princess Beatrice of York – 1

Year to Date Total – 2467 ()

Comparison with last year – 2796-2467=329 fewer this year in comparison to last year. NB With the huge number of missing date this is what they are recording so that is what it is – down 364 to this point of the year compared to how many were done last year.

I have information from elsewhere that suggests at least 240 engagements are missing this year and that doesn’t include the missing dates from the last six weeks.

Percentage of Engagements

90s (Elizabeth, Philip) – 11.3%
80s (Edward Kent, Alexandra) – 5.6%
70s (Camilla, Richard, Birgitte, Michael, Marie-Christine) – 7.5%
60s (Charles, Anne, Tim) – 36.9%
50s (Andrew, Edward, Sophie) – 22.7%
30s (William, Kate, Harry) – 12.8%
20s (Beatrice, Eugenie) – 0.1%
Over Retirement Age (65) (All the 60s upwards) – 64.3%

Number of Days on which a royal undertook Official Engagements to 28th September, 2017

HM The Queen – 77
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 61
HRH The Prince of Wales – 119
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall – 64
HRH The Duke of Cambridge – 60
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge – 40
HRH Prince Henry of Wales – 66
HRH The Duke of York – 103
HRH Princess Beatrice of York – 1
HRH Princess Eugenie of York – 2
HRH The Earl of Wessex – 83
HRH The Countess of Wessex – 66
HRH The Princess Royal – 132
Vice-Admiral Timothy Laurence – 25
HRH The Duke of Gloucester – 68
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester – 48
HRH The Duke of Kent – 59
HRH Prince Michael of Kent – 2
HRH Princess Michael of Kent – 2
HRH Princess Alexandra – 32

 

[Iluvbertie]

FAILURE of British Monarchy Website to UPDATE CC

The weekly failure of the British Monarchy website: 22nd and 23rd September, 2017

Missing this year by month:

January – 2nd, 4th, 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th

February – 11th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th (from elsewhere I know there were around 95 engagements on these days but I don’t have the actual information to add to my calculations)

March – 19th, 26th

April – 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th (this is Easter so probably right that there was nothing)

May – 2nd, 14th, 28th (I know Harry did something on the 2nd)

June – 9th, 10th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 30th (Normally Phillip’s birthday would have been acknowledged on the 10th and also missing here are the Queen and William’s visit to Grenfell Towers along with the real biggy – Trooping the Colour)

July – 4th, 5th, 6th, 23rd (from various press reports there were engagements in early July)

August – 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 18th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 26th, 28th, 29th, 31st (not unusual for August but given the strike rate this year who knows)

September – 1st, 2nd, 13th, 22nd, 23rd (this includes at least three days when royals were overseas – Edward and Anne were OS on the 13th September – Anne at the IOC sessions in Peru and Edward was in Italy – arrival recorded on the 12th, nothing for the 13th and then one event on the 14th) As for the 22nd and 23rd Andrew was in Brisbane having been received by the Governor of Queensland on the 21st and then going to church on the 24th but nothing on the two days in between officially – doesn’t make sense.) Harry’s arrival in Canada for the IG wasn’t even noted in the CC and does anyone really believe he had no official reception by the GG?

I have gone back and checked everyone of these dates and none have been updated.

Missing in total of 59 days out of 240 or 24.5%. That is close to a QUARTER of the year to date missing from the online CC.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Overseas Engagements to 28th September, 2017

Total – 498

HRH The Prince of Wales – 95
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall – 52
HRH The Duke of Cambridge – 42
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge – 44
HRH Prince Henry of Wales – 32
HRH The Duke of York – 77
HRH The Earl of Wessex – 23
HRH The Countess of Wessex – 25
HRH The Princess Royal – 60
Vice-Admiral Timothy Laurence – 6
HRH The Duke of Gloucester – 12
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester – 20
HRH The Duke of Kent – 10

Royal Palaces where Events Occurred to 28th September, 2017

NB This is a count of number of engagements not number of royals who attended an engagement at the palace so an engagement where 2 or more royals attended the same event is counted here as one engagement at that venue.

Buckingham Palace (other than HM) – 208
Buckingham Palace (Her Majesty) – 96
Kensington Palace – 57
St James’ Palace – 42
Windsor – 25
Holyrood House – 23
Sandringham House – 12
Balmoral – 6
Clarence House – 78
Marlborough House – 3
Dumfries House – 33
Edinburgh Castle – 4
Hillsborough Castle – 4
Frogmore House – 1

 

[royal-blue]

It will be particularly interesting to see how the end of year figures for the Cambridges compares to that for last year.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Sadly, it will be an apples and bitten apple comparison due to the really large number of days/events not reported in the CC.

Why bother to report if you are not going to do a reliable job of it dear royal offices? They can count the swans, but not the valuable work of the royal family. At least, that's how I see it!

Think about Iluvbertie doing this reporting out of love/respect and how the people paid to do it can't or won't make the effort. I'm disgruntled and they don't care. ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I will put up the figures I have but with the very big rider that I will be missing around 500 engagements due to missing days on the CC.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The CC is doing really well now - last update was the 20th November.

Whoever is in charge of the British Monarchy really doesn't care about the online PR service clearly.

 

[eya]

The most busy Royal for 2017 is Princess Anne

Princess Anne is crowned busiest the royal of 2017 | Daily Mail Online

 

[O-H Anglophile]

It will be particularly interesting to see how the end of year figures for the Cambridges compares to that for last year.

They didn't become full-time until September so next year will be when we see a real increase for William at least. Kate will be off with the new baby for a few months.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not according to my count which will go up over the weekend but I am missing many days due to the hopelessness of the online CC. I notice that Tim O'Donovan's figures also have Charles ahead. I am also still waiting for any update after the 20th December including Harry's guest editing job which was in the FE so should appear in the CC.

The DM is actually being a bit deceitful as they are saying Anne did the most in the UK - she did and Charles did the most overseas - he did but overall Charles just pipped Anne for overall as well according to Mr O'Donovan's figures Charles total 546 to Anne's 540.

There will be a detailed analysis of types of engagements etc over the next week. I am currently double checking my list of patronages etc and when that is done I will give an analysis of each of the main royals (not the York girls or the Michael's of Kent) but the others.

 

[tommy100]

I noticed that, Anne undoubtedly worked hard but Charles actually did 6 more engagements than her.

TBF The Times article words it like that as well, here is a little bit of it:

The Princess Royal carried out more domestic engagements this year than the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry combined.

Princess Anne was confirmed as the busiest member of the royal family, clocking up 455 appearances at charity events, dinners, receptions and other engagements around the country this year, with a further 85 overseas events.

The royal with the fewest UK duties in her diary was, for the third year running, the Duchess of Cambridge. She undertook 63 official engagements at home and 42 abroad. Prince William attended 117 events at home and 54 abroad, while Prince Harry made 139 domestic official appearances and 70 overseas. Even when combined with the 131 appearances by the Duke of Edinburgh, in the year of his retirement, their total still fell short of that of Princess Anne, who is involved with more than 300 charities, organisations and military regiments.
The young royals were also collectively outperformed by the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra, who carried out a total of 570 engagements.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/princess-anne-crowned-busiest-royal-c5vr5jpm7

Edit- wasn't this the year Anne cancelled a trip due to a chest infection? Did she rescheule or were those events cancelled?

 

[ACO]

The younger royals need to step it up. There is no reason for their lack in numbers like this. And yes I know Kate is pregnant and focusing on the kiddos... but still.

 

[Dman]

For some odd reason some folks simply don’t understand something....

The reason why Prince Charles and Princess Anne’s official engagement numbers are so high, is because the amount amount of work they’ve taken on over the decades.

Charles and Anne are patron; President; colonel-in-chief; of so many charitable and military organizations that it’s not even funny. They were handed down patronages/roles from The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh. When The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret died; Charles and Anne’s official duties increased, because the family took on their interests.

William, Catherine and Harry really have only begun their royal careers. The Queen and Prince Philip have only know started to hand down roles to them. Their official engagement numbers won’t match up to the older royals. Although none of this stops the media from making it seems like the younger generation is more lazy than the older generation. That’s simply not true.

The Duchess of Cambridge’s critics must understand that she focus on raising her kids as well. She do her official duties, but her kids come first. This isn’t the 1950’s; when the senior royal left the kids at home with nanny for a majority of the time. That’s not going to happen with Catherine, and in the future, with Meghan.

It’s widely know that the younger royals are redefining royal duties. They’re taking on patronages and increasing their royal duties, but they’re focusing on more of the quality of their work, not quantity. It’s hard for some folks to accept this. Some are used to the old way.

It’s up to the younger generation to redefine the monarchy and that’s what they’re doing.

Too much focus on numbers that people will ignore the major impactful year the Cambridge’s and Prince Harry had with the Heads Together Campaign. Focus on the quality, not quantity.

 

[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?

 

[Curbside]

I think just measuring the number of engagements isn't useful unless the impact of those engagements is also measured. How many attendees are at the engagements? How much money is raised? Are these grip-and-grin appearances, or are they giving speeches? I would think the focus should be on real impact the royals have on the causes they have adopted.

 

[jacqui24]

The Duchess of Cambridge’s critics must understand that she focus on raising her kids as well. She do her official duties, but her kids come first. This isn’t the 1950’s; when the senior royal left the kids at home with nanny for a majority of the time. That’s not going to happen with Catherine, and in the future, with Meghan .

For some reason, I don’t think Meghan will be given the same amount of deference as Kate has been given. Yes, there is some criticism when numbers like this come out, but it’s usually quite smooth sailing. Judging by the reaction to her engagement dress, which was privately purchased, people do seem to like to jump on her for more things. I hope it’d be different once they marry, but I’m not holding my breath. Nor do I think Meghan would be given as long to adjust into royal life or be given credit for adjusting quickly.

I think just measuring the number of engagements isn't useful unless the impact of those engagements is also measured. How many attendees are at the engagements? How much money is raised? Are these grip-and-grin appearances, or are they giving speeches? I would think the focus should be on real impact the royals have on the causes they have adopted.

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.

 

[Pranter]

These folks answer to the Queen. We have no way of knowing what all they have worked out. There are money issues to be considered as well. Plus I would imagine they younger royals are leaving some room so when Charles is King they can take over more of others that will be then 'open'.


LaRae

 

[AdmirerUS]

A lot of this discussion happens every year as the totals get posted. If you go back in this thread there are lots of wonderful insights about the numbers, what they do and do not mean, etc. Go back to each year end for some great past reflection on TBRF activity! Just a suggestion.

 

[Dman]

Firstly, Charles and Anne has been working royals since the 60’s. They started out young and once their military and equestrian careers were over, things picked up for them. They are The Queen’s children, so they’ve naturally took on more official roles and duties over time.

The problem is that the media and royal watchers online like making comparisons between the older generation official engagements and the younger generation official engagements without understanding the differences. They simply characterize the Cambridge’s and Prince Harry as lazy and want the privileges of royal life, but not the work.

This summary is very much inaccurate and unfair.

For some reason, I don’t think Meghan will be given the same amount of deference as Kate has been given. Yes, there is some criticism when numbers like this come out, but it’s usually quite smooth sailing. Judging by the reaction to her engagement dress, which was privately purchased, people do seem to like to jump on her for more things. I hope it’d be different once they marry, but I’m not holding my breath. Nor do I think Meghan would be given as long to adjust into royal life or be given credit for adjusting quickly.

The media and folks online will have no other choice but to allow Meghan the time to adjust to her new royal life. Harry and the royal family won’t be throwing her in the deep end at all..without the time to adjust. Once the children come, her primary focus will be on them. She will do her duties as a senior royal. That’s not something anyone will have to worry about.

As I said before, the Cambridge’s and Prince Harry and Meghan are the new faces of the monarchy and it’s their job to redefine the roles and duties of the monarchy. We have to accept this new reality. The older generation did it one way, and not the younger generation will do it their way.

 

[soapstar]

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]

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.

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]

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-kensington-palace-about-plans-duke-and-duchess-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]

“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]

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

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.