Europe's Hardest Working Royals In 2013


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

tommy100

Heir Apparent
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
4,996
City
England
Country
United Kingdom
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 OnlineImageUploadedByThe Royals Community1388197077.290135.jpg
 
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 OnlineView attachment 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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
IT is NOT engagements it is days worked
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
I noticed the above listing didn't include the Belgian,Spanish or Dutch Royals nor the Princely Families of Monaco/ Liechtenstein.
 
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'.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
I think this is the 3rd place is has been discussed :wacko: confused ;)
 
I think we need a mod
 
True and it also doesn't give you Princess Anne. She is one of the hardest working Royal in the British Rpyal Family.

Currently Princess Anne ranks 2nd after her brother in iluvbertie's counting. I think this poll looks at monarchs and heirs.

As for where the information belongs, the article isn't just about the BRF, which the annual engagements thread is about.
 
Currently Princess Anne ranks 2nd after her brother in iluvbertie's counting. I think this poll looks at monarchs and heirs.

As for where the information belongs, the article isn't just about the BRF, which the annual engagements thread is about.

okay, than i will repeat my view on it here: it's an article by a danish tabloid and in my view is written to compare the danish royals with some of their counterparts in other royal houses most familiar to the danish public.

imo the article is written to insinuate that the danish royals work less than they could, and just that.
The article does in no way imply to be a thorough study of all RF's, and DM is just trying to squeeze a story out of it...
 
okay, than i will repeat my view on it here: it's an article by a danish tabloid and in my view is written to compare the danish royals with some of their counterparts in other royal houses most familiar to the danish public.

imo the article is written to insinuate that the danish royals work less than they could, and just that.
The article does in no way imply to be a thorough study of all RF's, and DM is just trying to squeeze a story out of it...

Exactly. :flowers:
Its hard to compare houses, just because they have a different way to count their events and also how they list the events themselves on their calendars. some list every meeting and some do not :flowers:
 
Exactly. :flowers:
Its hard to compare houses, just because they have a different way to count their events and also how they list the events themselves on their calendars. some list every meeting and some do not :flowers:

Well that :) but what tabloid is ever known for scientifically-based articles, nope, imo just written to downplay the efforts of the Danish RF
 
Well that :) but what tabloid is ever known for scientifically-based articles, nope, imo just written to downplay the efforts of the Danish RF

agreed :flowers:
 
okay, than i will repeat my view on it here: it's an article by a danish tabloid and in my view is written to compare the danish royals with some of their counterparts in other royal houses most familiar to the danish public.

imo the article is written to insinuate that the danish royals work less than they could, and just that.
The article does in no way imply to be a thorough study of all RF's, and DM is just trying to squeeze a story out of it...

That is IMO a correct view.

Ekstra Bladet is a republican tabloid and it is repeatedly critical of the DRF, sometimes irrationally so. (Something even their own readers don't fail to point out).
Their study should be viewed with a very critical eye.

Anyway, none of the other papers in DK have even bothered to mention this study, which should otherwise raise a debate. So perhaps that says more about this subject than anything else?
I certainly have problems taking a study in a tabloid that has severe problems getting the facts straight about the DRF, to be competent enough to assess the workload of other royal families.

Had this article been made by one of the serious newspapers it would be worth noting. As it is Ekstra Bladet has sadly degenerated to a point where the only things they are really good at covering are crime and undercover journalism.
 
Has anyone pointed out that the UK is exactly that--a united kingdom and commonwealth nations? It's much larger geographically than a lot of other monarchies. They have to work more, they've got more ground to cover.
 
A big THANKYOU!! It's not as if Lichtenstein, Monaco, or the Grand Duchy of Lux have or need a Royal family to do the same scale of engagements as the BRF.
 
But any engagement outside the UK is counted as overseas, exactly the same as counting WA and Maxima's introductory visits this year. The BRF haven't done a lot of commonwealth visits this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom