The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3181  
Old 11-30-2017, 02:43 PM
Princess Larisa's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: ., Croatia
Posts: 3,670
I’m pretty sure that the Kents or Gloucesters each have more patronages than William, Harry and Kate together.
Our Iluvbertie compiled league tables for 2016:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1950565
__________________

  #3182  
Old 11-30-2017, 03:37 PM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 695
People tend to accumulate over the years - no on started with all the patronages... so you can only compare what everyone did after they started with the work.
__________________

  #3183  
Old 11-30-2017, 03:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
I will put up a count which will show the Gloucester's and Kent's work for this year - as best as I can given the appalling online CC coverage this year (missing in action now since 20th November ...) but at the end of September the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent had a total of 327 to the combined total of WKH of 320 (baring in mind the number of missing days). I thought it only fair to include three so two princes and a spouse rather than add in Alexandra who adds another 40 to the total of the over 70s Gloucester's and over 80's Kent's.

As for needing Harry's kids - we must remember the intention seems to be - based on the rumours and the non-royal work of the York girls - is for the future to be the monarch, spouse, siblings and children but not nieces and nephews.

In 30 years time the working BRF will probably look something like:

William
Kate
George
Charlotte
Baby #3
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie


That is 10 compared to the current 14 which every seems to agree it way too many. The age ranges in 30 years would be 29 (baby #3) to 87 (Andrew). Today it is 33 (Harry) to 91 (The Queen). I no longer count Philip as he has retired.

I haven't included Charles or Anne as they will either be gone or retired (Charles would have just turned 99 and Anne 97).
  #3184  
Old 11-30-2017, 05:29 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Harry's cousins aren't because there are enough people (for now) to do what the Queen wants done. As time passes and people pass on, there will be a need for more working royals.


LaRae
Thank you LaRae! That was exactly my point although not so clearly stated.
  #3185  
Old 11-30-2017, 06:09 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I will put up a count which will show the Gloucester's and Kent's work for this year - as best as I can given the appalling online CC coverage this year (missing in action now since 20th November ...) but at the end of September the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent had a total of 327 to the combined total of WKH of 320 (baring in mind the number of missing days). I thought it only fair to include three so two princes and a spouse rather than add in Alexandra who adds another 40 to the total of the over 70s Gloucester's and over 80's Kent's.

As for needing Harry's kids - we must remember the intention seems to be - based on the rumours and the non-royal work of the York girls - is for the future to be the monarch, spouse, siblings and children but not nieces and nephews.

In 30 years time the working BRF will probably look something like:

William
Kate
George
Charlotte
Baby #3
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie


That is 10 compared to the current 14 which every seems to agree it way too many. The age ranges in 30 years would be 29 (baby #3) to 83 (Edward). Today it is 33 (Harry) to 91 (The Queen). I no longer count Philip as he has retired.

I haven't included Charles or Anne as they will either be gone or retired (Charles would have just turned 99 and Anne 97).
Thank you for that list Bertie! In 30 years Andrew will be 87. I think realistically we could possibly eliminate those in their 80’s since we really can’t depend on every family member being able to perform as the Queen and Prince Phillip have done into their 90’s. Also in 30 years any grandchildren will be too young. That would mean just 7 adults carrying the entire load if Harry’s children are not included.
  #3186  
Old 11-30-2017, 06:30 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
In 30 years George will be older than Harry is now - 34, Charlotte will be 32 and the new baby 29 - hardly 'too young.
  #3187  
Old 11-30-2017, 06:43 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
In 30 years George will be older than Harry is now - 34, Charlotte will be 32 and the new baby 29 - hardly 'too young.
I was referring to William’s grandchildren, not his children.
  #3188  
Old 11-30-2017, 07:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by tihkon2 View Post
Seeing as she's met the Queen several times already and Charles, etc..I'd wager she's got her curtseying down pat. Now she'll have to get used to people curtseying to her.
Do people still curtsey to members of the royal family, other than HMQ and Prince Philip, very often? But I agree, she won't have curtsy to that many people compared how many would have to curtsy to her if we are all going by the strictest protocol.
  #3189  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:18 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
I was referring to William’s grandchildren, not his children.
Sorry - your post didn't specify whose grandchildren so I assumed you were referring to the current 'grandchildren' meaning William's children or William's generation itself not a generation that is yet to come.

7 people could easily do the work necessary. Most of the family now do around fewer than 250 engagements a year. If all 7 up their game to 500 they would be around the total done now and if Anne and Charles can do that on a regular basis then they all can.
  #3190  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
7 people could easily do the work necessary. Most of the family now do around fewer than 250 engagements a year. If all 7 up their game to 500 they would be around the total done now and if Anne and Charles can do that on a regular basis then they all can.
That does seem to stretch it though. I'm not sure if I feel comfortable with someone in their 70s or 80s doing 500 engagements a year. That does seem a lot. And yes I know the Queen and Prince Philip had a lot of engagements and the Queen still does, but I think that's really pushing it for Charles' younger siblings. Also, I know the younger generation gets a lot of flack for not doing more number of engagements, but I do think there is benefit for them to spend more time working in the background setting up charities and raising young children. I still think there will be fewer royal engagements overall to accommodate that though.
  #3191  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:25 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Harry's cousins aren't because there are enough people (for now) to do what the Queen wants done. As time passes and people pass on, there will be a need for more working royals.


LaRae

Exactly right.

Right now its....18? 17?

Most of these people undertook the role of professional royal because the Queen asked them to, or they were so close they had to.

Now, a lot of that was before all of the new ways of connecting with subjects via the internet. Still, the future for the BRF looks to be a smaller core group of HRHers. That core group must get it right and not stumble out of some club at 4:30 in the morning.

There is no prestige in meeting an HRH if they lead a debauched lifestyle.

Eugenie, to me, is the most socially attractive York woman.

Some commentators here deplored how her early-evening charity speech went unremarked, while her later-that-evening bar crawl grabbed headlines.

She should have known better! If you do attend an event as the honored guest ..... hold on ... forget that, if you're Royal, don't be a a 4:30 AM barfly! Is that really too much to ask? We're in your corner, you see.

If you are a Royal, act like one.
  #3192  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:43 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
One thing that has not been brought up along with the amount of working royals is that we don't know just how royal engagements will be scheduled and performed by the time William's children are old enough to take on the roles.

For instance, when Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, it took months for the Queen and Philip to visit other countries. Now, a royal engagement by a member of the British royal family can be done in Norway with being home in time for dinner. With the onset of instant communications and fast travel, global events can be scheduled and pulled off easily. Invictus Games is a prime example of this.

The days of individual, single visits to places to unveil plaques may even be fading into the sunset as more organizations band together under the umbrella of a royal foundation.

We just can't assume that the level and ways of engagements we have today for the working royals are going to be the same 30 years from now. We just have to look and see just how much our world has changed in the past 30 years and the differences that have come about because of those changes.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3193  
Old 11-30-2017, 09:52 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
In 30 years time the working BRF will probably look something like:

William
Kate
George
Charlotte
Baby #3
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie


That is 10 compared to the current 14 which every seems to agree it way too many. The age ranges in 30 years would be 29 (baby #3) to 83 (Edward). Today it is 33 (Harry) to 91 (The Queen). I no longer count Philip as he has retired.

I haven't included Charles or Anne as they will either be gone or retired (Charles would have just turned 99 and Anne 97).
So interesting to now see the x-factor (Harry's spouse) now have a name.

I am so very happy for Harry, having found such a gifted woman to work alongside him. As he said, it's a relief. It is.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #3194  
Old 12-01-2017, 12:18 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
Exactly right.

Right now its....18? 17?
With Philip's retirement it is, in reality, 14


The Queen
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate
Harry
Andrew
Edward
Sophie
Anne
Richard
Birgitte
Edward
Alexandra

The two Kent's are definitely slowing down and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that one or both of them are going to retire in the next year or so due to the health issues they have both experienced in recent years.

I know my 'count' includes royals like the York girls and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent but the reality is that none of them are working for 'The Firm' - they turn up at the really big events and the odd garden party or something relevant.
  #3195  
Old 12-01-2017, 12:35 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
They do more then just 'turn up for the odd garden party'. They all represent a number of different patronages and do events all year around. The difference is they don't get recognition or compensation for it as they are considered 'private'.

Tim is also in that category. If his and Anne's genders were reversed, he would likely be considered working. He accompanies her as well as doing events for the war graves commission.

But yes, the royals people can complain about supporting, as we all know they do, is 14 and going down from there.
  #3196  
Old 12-01-2017, 07:24 AM
xenobia's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Near the artic circle, Sweden
Posts: 942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
With Philip's retirement it is, in reality, 14

The Queen
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate
Harry
Andrew
Edward
Sophie
Anne
Richard
Birgitte
Edward
Alexandra
And in a couple of years, my guess is that it will be:

The Queen
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie
Anne

And with Willam and Kate having thee young ones at home - perhaps Harry and Meghan will also have little ones - the actual numbers of working royals will be significantly less in just a couple of years. At least that's my guess.
  #3197  
Old 12-01-2017, 02:54 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Why would the Gloucester's not be working in a couple of years? They are only 2 and 4 years older than Charles after all.

I know the Kent's are over 80 but the Gloucester's aren't. Prince Richard is the youngest of George V's grandchildren and is 21 years younger than the eldest grandchild and 18 years younger than the third grandchild - The Queen. He may be of the Queen's generation but is closer in age to Charles and both he and his late older brother William were almost like Charles' older brothers in many ways. Richard was even too young to be a page boy at the Queen's wedding.

The Gloucester's will continue well into Charles' reign. If they are 'too old' than Charles would be 'too old' only four years later.
  #3198  
Old 12-01-2017, 03:41 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
One thing that has not been brought up along with the amount of working royals is that we don't know just how royal engagements will be scheduled and performed by the time William's children are old enough to take on the roles.

For instance, when Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, it took months for the Queen and Philip to visit other countries. Now, a royal engagement by a member of the British royal family can be done in Norway with being home in time for dinner. With the onset of instant communications and fast travel, global events can be scheduled and pulled off easily. Invictus Games is a prime example of this.

The days of individual, single visits to places to unveil plaques may even be fading into the sunset as more organizations band together under the umbrella of a royal foundation.

We just can't assume that the level and ways of engagements we have today for the working royals are going to be the same 30 years from now. We just have to look and see just how much our world has changed in the past 30 years and the differences that have come about because of those changes.

The bold part I whole heartedly agree with. Remember in the early days of the Queen's reign royal visits were often known as "tours" as they took so long. Also more countries were under 'British rule' therefore requiring more visits. For example Princess Alexandra represented the Queen for Nigeria's 1960s Independence. Bear in mind such events would probably have taken at least two weeks to attend, nowadays that could be done in 2-3 days jetting in and out. If you have a royal away for a month you need someone to take up the events at home.
  #3199  
Old 12-12-2017, 04:15 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
My sister, M. Payton, sent me this link and I think it is well worth posting here.

https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/...establishment/
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3200  
Old 12-13-2017, 11:27 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,629
I see the passing of the Queen as a benchmark for change for the Monarchy. The Queen and Prince Phillip did so much to restore the honor of the Monarchy after the events in the 1930's. The mess of everything in the 80's and early 90's, coupled with the handling of Diana's passing almost pushed it to the edge.

The Queen has been steadfast in her role. Charles...outspoken. His marriages had and have their challenges. The younger royals have grown up with a desire to be us but still be them.

I sometimes think in their goodhearted desire to be more open, William, Catherine and Harry have behaved along the lines of reality TV people, and not royals in the sense of one must not let the daylight in, so to speak.

I think a certain wedding has moved it closer to that sense of E! reality.........

I do also think you will see countries currently part of the Commonwealth may vote to leave after he becomes King.

One must still realize what the psychology of the what is "popular" and PC does not translate into an automatic acceptance being forced down peoples' throats.

I guarantee you changes are coming from other countries after she passes.

It is sadly in SOME respects to close to a Bravo or E! show.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 552 04-07-2021 03:53 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 523 05-22-2018 02:06 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 310 04-09-2018 01:37 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness crown jewels customs doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! henry viii history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:46 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×