Well, we finally have the end-of-year numbers for how many events the British royal family did for 2018. This is always a pretty interesting way to end one year and start another, and I’m expecting our annual PR missive from Poor Jason Knauf about how the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are super-keen to really work in 2019. It’s a tradition at this point! And yes, I do think we should factor in the Duchess of Cambridge’s pregnancy and maternity leave into her numbers, just as I think we should factor in the fact that Meghan only became a duchess in May, AND she’s pregnant too. That still doesn’t explain Harry and William’s lack of engagements, especially given that Prince Charles did 507 EVENTS this year.
He celebrated his 70th birthday this year, but Prince Charles showed his devotion to royal duties as he completed 507 engagements this year compared to his son Prince William’s 220. Although being second in line to the throne, the Duke of Cambridge, 36, carried out fewer engagements in 2018 than most older royal family members and less than half the number of his father Prince Charles. And just seven members of the royal family completed more days than the Prince of Wales, including the Queen and her cousin the Duke of Gloucester, 74, according to the annual compilation of royal engagements by Tim O’Donovan. But Prince William did carry out one more engagements than the Duchess of Cornwall who was once described as ‘the laziest woman in Britain’.
Despite celebrating her 92nd birthday in April, the Queen showed no intention of slowing down and completed 283 official engagements throughout the year. The monarch increased her workload by 25 per cent this year, according to Write Royalty. Despite the Duchess of Sussex only becoming a royal in May after her marriage to Prince Harry, Meghan has already completed more royal engagements than the Duchess of Cambridge. The Duchess of Sussex made her first official royal engagement just three days after her nuptials when she attended Prince Charles 70th Birthday celebrations in Buckingham Palace. She has since completed a tour of Australasia where she announced her pregnancy. Meghan’s working days are expected to increase next year, as the Queen is expected to pass along her patronages to other family members.
The Duchess of Cambridge carried out the least number of engagements than any other members of the royal family with 87 appearances and events. Prince Harry carried out 193 events.
Princess Anne, 68, was the crowned the hardest working royal for the third year running with a total of 518 royal engagements. The Earl of Wessex and Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, carried out more than younger royals Prince Harry and Prince William – despite the brothers’ fame.
It sucks that Meghan’s events only began to “count” when she got married, because chica was doing tons of events during her engagement and she really did demonstrate her eager work ethic. I wonder what 2019 will bring – I suspect that unlike in years past, Kate will front-load her year with events in February and March, especially during Meghan’s last trimester, and Kate launching her big Broken Britain charity initiative or whatever. But will Kate still be extra keen by the time Meghan’s maternity leave happens? I don’t know. If we’ve learned anything from the past year, it’s that Kate thrives on head-to-head competition, so the best way to get Kate to work is to get Meghan in front of cameras more often.
As for Harry and William – they have no excuses. Both princes need to be doing a lot better.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Imagining a world where Celebitchy publishes a headline simply reading “Duchess Megan has the fewest number of events for a full-time royal for 2019” and someone I don’t see it happening. Odd isn’t it.
I don’t see that headline ever happening just for the fact Meghan likes to work.
It’s not odd, just the truth, remember Meghan was working from the age of thirteen.
She worked in middle school, high school, and college, that is a history of working.
To be fair, Kate had a well-established reputation for being work-shy long before Meghan came on the scene.
I don’t get how any of them can have their numbers so low? Meghan and Harry count Prince Charles birthday party just after their wedding as an event?! Imagine them doing some real work. All of the younger royals are lazy privileged and entitled and some of the older royals are too.
Will most definitely should have a higher number since he is the heir.
He is NOT the heir. Charles is.
kate may have the fewest but she was pregnant (with a history of pregnancy problems) and on maternity leave. Meghan only joined the ‘official’ count in May and only recently announced her pregnancy so I’ll cut her slack too. But what the literal hell is wrong with Harry. He didn’t have a very pregnant wife and two other children to attend to. You know he probably didn’t do much wedding related prep (they have SO many people working on that) so what was he doing? I think his numbers out of everyone’s are kind of the sketchiest though William could have done more as well. But Harry wasn’t tied down with a big family or anything like that – it’s absolutely embarrassing. And I know it’s fun to talk about the Doolittle’s but really? Why hold Harry up and tear the others down when Harry is certainly no better?
Will wasn’t tied down either.
The two oldest kids are in school so what was keeping Will so busy during the day since they weren’t home?
Nothing is keeping William that busy at home. And Harry wasn’t writing out place cards for his wedding. These guys can and should exert themselves more.
Harry’s role was in large part to be there for Meghan and help her with the transition. Just like the Malta story about the Cambridges, it makes sense that if the Sussexes want a strong marriage, they wouldn’t want to repeat the mistakes of Andrew and Fergie. Meghan had moved to a different country, was newly pregnant and the Sussexes were setting up their home and nursery
The Cambridges were given two full years to ease into married life even though Kate had already been around the Windsors for ten years and hadn’t just left a career and moved to a different country.
I once read that some of Harry’s events don’t count. I hope someone can clarify if this is true, but I think nothing Invictus related gets counted?
Its always been weird to me what counts and what doesn’t. I mean if you google Tim O’ Donovan he’s described as “veteran royal watcher and amateur statistician”. As far as I can tell his Numbers aren’t official or approved in anyway. I mean sure at a macro level you can see some are doing a ton of events and some aren’t. But I bet there’s a little more nuance than just a tally of numbers as to what the work looks like.
I thought I also once read certain tallies count arrivals and departures separately than the event itself. Which seems bizarre to me. Maybe I’m not remembering that accurately. Even so my guess is all of these year end counts are a bit fudged.
All Tim O’Donovan does is count the events in the Court Circular. If he didn’t do it, the papers would have someone doing it and there would inevitably be complaints of republicanism (Guardian), sycophancy (Telegraph) or general inaccuracy (everyone else, except the Times).
Harry’s work for Invictus has been beng counted in the Court Circular in recent years.
To get counted in the Court Circular, the event has to be classified as being carried out on behalf of the Queen.
They count now. So his totals include sentebale and invictus.
Does his Invictus work still not count for her totals? If it doesn’t, then he’d likely have more.
If not, then yeah, he doesn’t have an excuse. Neither does William.
I don’t think either his Invictus or Sentebale work are counted in the CC – not sure why but he does a LOT for both organisations throughout the year.
Harry’s work for Invictus and Sentebale has been counted in the Court Circular in recent years.
The public events count for invictus and Sentebale but not all the planning meetings he attends. He is much more involved in those charities behind the scenes than William or Kate are in any charity.
Harry attends meetings for Invictus and Sentebale and they are counted in the Court Circular.
How do you know that Harry is “much more” involved behind the scenes in his charities than Will and Kate?
They’ve nannies, Maria is the only one out front and center.
Harry was very involved with the wedding planning.
If Harry gets a pass because he was supposedly involved in wedding planning, then does William get a pass for having two small kids and a pregnant wife? They both should be “working” more.
Exactly @Minx. Don’t see why Harry should get a pass at all.
If Kate doesn’t get a pass for having a baby then Harry doesn’t get one from planning a wedding. I would even argue that having a baby is more physically challenging than planning a wedding. Harry is also a full time royal but he worked less than Camilla! William at least has stepped up from last year but Harry hasn’t.
Wedding planning is not an excuse to not work especially with the royals where you know they had a huge team helping them.
This!!! Why are people always harping on Meghan and Kate. They are constantly pitted against each other. It’s a wonder they get along at all. It seems so many want these women to fight. To me this story is tired and old and I’m sick of the misogynistic crap. Sorry, they are in-laws and both have children or are about to. I realize they married into the family and are expected to do certain royal duties, but there is little crap about both Harry and William lack of engagements. Certainly, not to the extent of the women. Please stop adding to this tired sexist story. Why women engage in this is beyond me. It’s hard enough being a woman in today’s world but having to fight other women with these cat fight stories is just stupid.
Hear, hear!!!!
She was on maternity leave. Literally not working.
Between pregnancies and weddings Kate and Megs’ numbers should not be scrutinized or compared too much for 2018 and 2019. Those who do will interpret them according to whom they like better.
And why not make the headline of this article about the boys if this is the only thing to take anyway? Why take it out on Kate _again_??
Agree with this. The internal misogyny has to end.
Yes, thank you. The headline should be about William and Harry.
Agreed. Like others here I cut Kate slack (this year) because of the mat leave. And Meghan for upending her life,moving, adjusting, etc. But no slack for William and especially not Harry. No excuses – and the focus on the two women should shift to the men at this point. They’re both work shy and play at their romanticized fictional view of “normal lives” – which is obviously far from reality. All the perks and little of the work is what the brothers believe they are entitled to and it’s infuriating.
Plus next year Meghan will be a new Mom, and her time might be limited too. Kate will have three children. I know a lot of women work with 3 children, but a fair amount don’t either. This is a terrible story. It’s the boy’s responsibility and legacy. Please stop with these stories.
Agreed ,Wills and Harry look lazy as heck,but because we would rather see their wives (who should also work of course)we’re talking about Kate and Meghan’s numbers more,and the husbands know it and don’t care.They have no financial worries whether they work or not,so what do they care.By my quick calculations,with 52 weeks in a year,and 5 days in a work week,that leaves 260 working days (minus vacation and sick days-In the US that is only about 10-14 days)So thenWill for instance did 220 engagements and we know many were packed into one day and most didn’t last long,so he’s not even working 5 days per week,not even close.Harry too,all these guys must do is show up and smile and wave.Just do it.
Agreed.
ITA. Kate isn’t the story here. Neither is Meghan. What were William and Harry actually doing all year?
Man, I do wish I lived a life where “Attending my father’s/father-in-law’s/own birthday party,” counted as “work.” I mean we can talk about the number of engagements and whatever but when you think of how trivial and pleasant most of them are you realize how plush a deal any “working” royal gets.
Agreed, it’s ridiculous!
There was also the year that giving birth was counted as ‘work’ as it was mentioned in the CC – I think it was when Char was born.
Giving birth is definitely work; no shade for that in my book!! They need heirs, so give credit where credit is due!
THAT’S what I thought, Juniperus! It’s not like they had to clean the house for it or hand out canapes! They just get to dress up in gorgeous clothes and jewels, and eat food that the servants have prepared, and flounce out while the servants clean up! It really beats working on lesson plans until the wee hours, and dealing with classrooms of children who want to be on winter recess!
Right?! I would love that “job”, sign me up. You get to look great, learn about all sorts of interesting things, talk to people who are eager to see you. That’s not work.
Yes my numbers would be off the charts just for December alone!
Let’s face it, technically Meghan and Kate are “on the job” if they are breeding. That’s their purpose at this stage.
LOL, it is really. And as a British person I’d rather see the Queen or Princess Anne. Kate is legally allowed 12 month off and her job must be held open for her.
@B, for real on preferring to see the Queen or Princess Anne. I’ve often wondered if you could make requests if you got an honour (I know you couldn’t request the Queen, but I’d much prefer Anne to William). Not that I’m in any danger of getting an honour, unless services to frequent commenting on websites count 🙂
@B – “her job must be kept open for her” I’m dead. Love it. 😂🤣🤣
Come one people, let us take into consideration:
1. She was on maternity leave. Like all women she gets an extended leave. A luxury we are all afforded and
2. She is the future Queen consort so it’s all good!
Happy 2019, may it be filled with health, happiness and peace.
Seraphina,
Maternity leave really depends on your employer. I have several of my friends who got 6 months and some only 6 weeks. An employee (where I used to work) had to come in to see if she still had a job. Not sure how any of this works since I don’t have children. IMO, a woman or man should get a year off and this includes when they’re adopting.
Yes, I was using sarcasm to get my point across that Kate is afforded what is not the norm. I was given 6 weeks. And it all delends on the mother and child.
Kate is given passes for her lack of work, lack of involvement and lack of being keen on quite a number of things. If we hold certain standards for the royal women, it should be across the board. And Kate should not be given a pass due to her position. Her position requires her to do more.
“Yes, I was using sarcasm to get my point across that Kate is afforded what is not the norm. I was given 6 weeks.”
Seraphina I’m curious about where you live? I just read that maternity leave in UK is 52 weeks, how is Kate then afforded more than norm?
6 weeks is simply inhumane. In Croatia you get a year for first and second child, three years for the third and three years for twins (even if it’s a first pregnancy). I am not a mother but I can’t understand how anyone can think 6 weeks is enough.
6 weeks is cruel, but that’s what we get in the US.
In Canada it’s a year. Was six months until around 1998-99 somewhere in there.
“6 weeks is cruel, but that’s what we get in the US”
I understand what you are saying and I feel sorry for American parents but I have a feeling that some people here (Americans) are acting as if 6 weeks is a norm that Kate should follow and the fact is it isn’t. That’s why I was wondering why Seraphina said that Kate got more then what is a norm.
Should Kate work more? Absolutely, all of them should and I agree that none of it is a real work. But Kate should not be shamed for using maternity leave.
I came back to read the comments. My original comment was not meant to shame Kate. I believe someone else stated that for Kate, going to work may be an apperance out. Kinda like if I go to a museum or a night out. I couls certainly do that and still stay home on maternity leave. Kate doesn’t have to wake uo every morning and go to work so her “maternity” leave is not what we consider “maternity” leave. And going back to work for her is not the same as it is for us. That is reality. It’s like my father owning a company, I work for him, have a baby and call into meetings sporadically or show up for an event once a week MAYBE. That’s not a nine to five job. With worrying about who is taking care of the infant and going home to do housework and make dinner.
Let’s be honest, she could have done more.
Seraphina I apologize if it seemed like I singled you out or something. Maybe shaming is an exaggeration but I have a feeling a lot of people here are trying to make it seem as Kate got special treatment concerning maternity leave and I think she didn’t.
But maternity leave is not the problem here, the real issue is that Kate could and should have done a lot more before and after.
I’m on maternity leave (Denmark) – and 1 month before birth and 9 after and then my husband has 2 months. 6 weeks is just crazy – wow!
For real. I want Kate to do more work in general, but she deserves proper time to bond with her baby like everyone else in the UK. The focus should be on William and Harry. William is second in line to the throne and did fewer engagements in 2018 than the 74 year old Duke of Gloucester. (William managed one more than Camilla).
As far as I know in US it’s 6 weeks,I got 8 because my child was cesarean.NOT ENOUGH TIME to heal and bond with baby!
Lol. Cackling at all you first wolders with 1 year plus. Self-employed… So must work. No guaranteed paycheck so… 3 hours after giving birth I literally went to my hospital bed and pulled out my laptop. Also worked the night before giving birth. When the pains hit I was on a work call. Asked for the call to be postponed. Also I seriously would die of boredom if I had a year off.
The Duchess could have worked more… Maternity leave, yes. But 2 engagements in one day for 3 days per week and some fun weekend appearances at creches with her older kid and some ribbon cutting and a few articles in a ladies’ journal could have pushed up her numbers.
The two princes are lazy by anyone’s standards. They must do better and set an example for their wives.
Now we know why William is out to get the Duchess of Sussex. She’s showing them all up. Lazy soandsos…
I live in US.
@Fredsmother,I completely respect your hard work drive and ethics,it’s great for you.I would like to ask though if you have some or much flexibility that many mothers don’t.When I worked as a nurse 6am-6pm,get there early and leave late,phone calls at home,so twelve hour days became 14 hours and add commute time,and most women in many other fields experience the same.You say you would be bored if you had a full year off,and I respect that,but I am seriously asking if you would feel the same if you didn’t work for yourself?
I completely agree with what you said about the duchess being able to do some small,short,easy appearances,even when on leave.
“I live in US.”
@Seraphina. Thank you, that’s what I supposed. As I said above I feel sorry for Americans but it’s wrong to say Kate got special treatment when she’s allowed 52 weeks and she used less.
It should be established for non-Americans here that those six weeks don’t have to be paid, either. America is the definition of a capitalist dystopia.
This thread makes me want to cry. I’m an American and as a public school teacher, I got 6 weeks of unpaid maternity leave after each baby, even though both were born by c-section. Most of my colleagues would come back in just 4 weeks, as the leave was unpaid. I have always heard about the way other countries treat new mothers, like the stories told right here, and I can’t believe that the US treats women with such utter disrespect. I agree, it really is inhumane.
Bless you,as if school teachers in America don’t have enough burdens,and thanks for what you do.My daughter has been fortunate to have wonderful teachers that have influenced her in so many positive ways,and so many of them also have second and third jobs,😔I really don’t get why you’re treated badly and payed a pittance and people gripe because our education system is floundering.
I think part of the confusion here is that so many Americans have no idea what mat leave means in EU, Canada and elsewhere–actual lengthy safeguarded and paid time off that is often closer to a year or more, which many US women can’t get. I suspect some readers literally read “mat leave” and think that means 6-8 weeks’ time out.
*Edit: I see commentators above have this well in hand. I’ll show myself out.
It’s a disgrace and my heart goes out to American mothers. I wonder why so many people want to immigrate there v.s. other developed countries such as Canada or Australia for example. Maternity leave and health care are so much better…..
Because despite people who have never been here only reading negative things, the US is still a great place to live.
They do pop in the uk a lot. I did see the queen at a friends passing out parade. She was a tiny spect….. Mine would be napping.
I was coming around to Prince Charles but he made that stupid comment.
Assuming the numbers are correct, Kate should have done more in 2018 and every year prior. Maternity leave or not, she had plenty of time prior to giving birth to do what is necessary.
Will and Harry has no excuse. I must say that if Harry’s work with Invictus and other causes are not counted, the numbers counted seem unfair!
Invictus is counted – he only worked 100 days and William only something like 120 days. And Kate around 51 and Meghan 48. Only Princess Anne has a “normal” number off work days close to 200.
Why are you counting the number of days instead of events? To make Kate seem less lazy? Meghan outworked Kate with only 7 months on the job. That’s pathetic
@Bluthfan: because what they do isn’t work and they are not even doing it for a regular number of work days.
And the focus shouldn’t be on Kate, but on William and especially Harry.
Harry’s work for Invictus (and Sentebale) are included in the above count.
Sentebale and Invictus are counted only if Harry attends a meeting or event for them. I can’t imagine that as the founder, he doesn’t have regular informal work to do with them that isnt counted. Furthermore, I dont think that his trip to Africa was counted either as it was private.
If you are referring to the trip to Zambia in November, the associated events were counted in the CC including Harry’s departure from Heathrow and airport arrival in Lusaka.
I think all royals do informal work for their charities whether it is signing a letter, participating in a scheduling meeting, taking a phone call, etc. On my end, I am not prepared to assume that Harry, whether he is the founder, patron, or it is a one off, is doing any significant uncounted work for his charities.
Kate would be entitled to her ‘Maternity Leave’ although from what I ‘m not so sure…I’m disappointed that she didn’t do more engagements between Oct – Dec 18…would’ve thought she could have fitted in a couple of Christmas engagements i.e. Kids carol concerts or something along those lines..I must NOT compare her to Diana who as Princess of Wales fulfilled her many engagements within months of her having her kids….
So true about Diana.
Kate is lazy and now very much entitled.
Kate used her maternity leave as an excuse not to work.
Kate used her newly marital as an excuse. Excuses, Excuses.
Kate has had the worst numbers for the working royals since she married in 2011 and has not been pregnant all of that time but every year there are excuses as if she would be expected to put in a 40 hour week like the normal peasants do. And what if she gets pregnant by late summer next year, as her pattern has been the last two kids, well then she gets slack for 2019 and 2020. Even if Kate pulled out numbers like Princess Anne she still wouldn’t be away from her kids for eight hours per day but so many act like she would be unable to bond with them if she took about three hours per week to do engagements. Yes the US needs better policies and in the UK working women get a year off, but not women who aren’t employed and Kate hasn’t never worked outside of a few months a Jigsaw almost 15 years ago.
And yes William needs to be working more than his uncles and Harry needs to do more as well. But this article is about Kate and she remains consistently lazy.
Can you imagine being a young person in the UK, working several jobs to make ends meet, and seeing William and Harry flit about in large homes and apartments and fancy vacations with every need met, barely doing any work? As the global economy continues to create large gulfs between the haves and the have-nots, these people are amazingly tone-deaf. I wonder if Meghan as an American is more sensitive to this.
And this is not ditch digging. This is meeting people in your country who are doing great things to solve problems, learning about them, and trying to help them accomplish even more.
And props again to Princess Anne who continues to impress. Ironic that the member of the RF who seems least invested in it (rejecting titles for her kids) is working the hardest in its support.
After the queen, the monarchy needs to go.
They are rich in their own right anyway, even if they were not working royals or whatever they do, there are srill rich people who don’t do much but sit around collecting rents and waiting for the hunting season and deciding which international spot to vacation nect, not only those two, but aristocrats do that. Secluded spots in different continents to spend their frequent holidays, done. Breeding and competing with their horses, done, secluded private islands, done. Not only the heirs enjoy that.
Yes to all of this. Stop keeping these people in luxury.
Agreed. The monarchy is a totally outdated institution. I suspect it may end with Charles, maybe William. Really silly in the modern world.
I agree 100%!
In America, at least at my job, you get 6 weeks for mat leave…it’s hard to wrap my head around the time off other countries get. I also find it odd the way the British press treats Kate when she’s pregnant and on leave like she’s so fragile. She has a full staff to look after her kids while she does one event for a couple hours. I have feeling Meghan will not deal with sitting around for 6 months hiding out. Not her style.
I really can’t wrap my head around how little time off people in the US get. Who takes care off the baby after 6 weeks? What about breastfeeding?
We pump, if we can. But in the US, only something like 33% of moms make it to six months and 17% of moms make it to a full year of breastfeeding. The support infrastructure at most people’s jobs isn’t really there (even if it legally should be).
If you’re lucky you have an employer who will let you pump in a room other than a bathroom. If you’re lucky. And you’re paying the cost of rent/mortgage for childcare. The amount that is (anecdotally) most common for women I know who’ve just had babies is around $2000 per month in childcare. I was paying $1000-1200 per month when my oldest (now 18) needed childcare so I could work. My whole paycheck back then. I ended up quitting work to stay home since we were ending up with the same amount at the end of the month. Not that we were doing more than merely surviving on his check, which wasn’t much more than mine.
I work in a special ed preschool and there is space made for nursing/pumping, The child care on site is excellent and very expensive. Most young mom’s opt to take some time off if they can (beyond the 6 weeks).The hard part is healthcare as more and more, employers are not covering spouses if they have another option available.
I am grateful that I was able to stay home for all of my children’s preschool years, but now that I am approaching retirement age, the way that impacted my income (and affects my social security) is significant.
I had four children in America. With the first child, my boss wanted me to come back to work after 6 weeks of non-paid mat leave (this was legal back then) but I said that there was no point, since he wouldn’t pay me much more than I would have to pay for childcare. So my husband and I scrimped and saved and I stayed home. Once we established that pattern, it was relatively easy to have more children. The only full-price item I ever paid for was diapers. I nursed four children for one year each, shopped garage sales for clothes, used public libraries, public parks, and public museums for recreation (we couldn’t afford vacations), and ended up with four self-sufficient adults.
It worked well enough for us, but I wanted a career. I just couldn’t figure out how to make it work — also, we frequently moved due to my husband’s job — and I’m a big supporter of affordable childcare and maternity leave in this country. I want better for my children and grandchildren.
My marriage is strong, and my our habit of saving means that we have a paid-for home and adequate retirement savings to not burden the children with our needs as we age. If we were to divorce, however, I would be impoverished because of the sacrifices I made for the family.
I give Kate a pass for maternity leave, but both young princes should be ashamed of themselves. I know adult children make their own choices, but for both of Prince Charles’ sons to have such a poor work ethic makes me wonder if they weren’t terribly coddled due to their mother’s death. I have a very strong work ethic, and tried to pass it on to my children. Very disappointing showing!
My guess is that William and Harry were coddled both before and after their mother’s death, and the people Charles paid to raise them were not tasked with instilling in them a strong work ethic.
Okay so I have to then bring up Diana.I was pretty young during her popularity,but I still remember her and how much she worked.I know she had her problems,but I don’t think she would have raised lazy children.
I agree that whoever raised those boys must have not instilled in them a great work ethic,some of that simply coddling them because they are the heirs,and part because they lost their mother in such tragic circumstances with the whole world watching.IDK,walking that line would not have been easy,but it seems they both lack respect for the institution that affords them and their families un fathomable wealth and security.
I think Diana bears some of the responsibility for giving them this fictional/romanticized view of what “normal” life is like. Yes they went to amusement parks and to McDonald’s (which somehow Diana, born into wealth and privilege equated with “normal” -or was it “come down here darlings and see how the plebes live!” patronization) but then went home to the palace. William, and Harry have no desire to lead a life of service like the Queen. They’d rather live like their wealthy country set out of the public eye. That’s what they see as “normal” which is patronizing and offensive beyond words…
Well said Redgirl,Diana did have a distorted or rather romanticized view of normal,but I still think they might be working more had she lived.
It would have served the boys better,I guess,if they were just told that they have a unique position of being born into royalty and that they for NO reason other than birth are entitled to riches,wealth,and fame the likes of which most people will never understand,unless or until it’s stripped from them,so they should get out there and be seen doing their royal duties.
Diana carried out many engagements because she was Charles’ consort. Diana blasted “The Firm” for mistreating her and that included making her do royal work. Andrew Morton said that Diana likened it to being a prostitute.
I think that the work habits of William and Harry are one part generational – I am pretty sure that there are plenty of Households where the argument can be made that the members of the older generation have/had more of a work ethic than the Millennials, but if you look at some of the comments that William and Harry have made about what kind of working royals they want to be, Diana actually created that template, for example Diana in 1997 did high profile trips to Angola and Bosnia on behalf of landmines, but also took multiple vacations trips.
To summarize, hardworking Diana happened because she was Charles’ wife and Diana made it clear that that was part of the mistreatment that she received as part of the BRF. When Diana and Charles parted, Diana started doing charity work her own way – she resigned all but a few patronages and then worked on their behalf. The philosophy was to do more focused work for fewer charities which is what Harry and William have espoused and Harry has made at least one disdainful comment about the bread and butter engagements that many of the older royals carry out.
If William, Harry, Meghan and Kate go down the road of very few engagements with the public, the monarchy won’t last long. Which is probably a good thing.
Kate doesn’t deserve an excuse. She only worked part-time before maternity leave and has full household staff as well as nannies. No reason she couldn’t pop over for an event once a week whilebon leave from being lazy.
Okay, but the point you’re missing is that no woman should have to work while on leave. It doesn’t matter what their job is. Maternity leave is supposed to be complete time off.
I don’t buy the excuse that Will was busy with his family and Harry with wedding planning. Most people take care of these things and work full time. Not to mention the huge support staff they have.
And yes, Kate took a shorter maternity leave than the full year others would have, but most workers in England aren’t provided three nannies and a household staff by the government to make working easier. It’s not a fair comparison- the royals are just different.
No @ Jen,didn’t you hear,*the royals,they’re just like us*😆
William and Harry should be ashamed that their father, aunt and elderly grandmother do more events.
But that’s part of the problem, they don’t feel shame. They have the sense entitlement but somehow the sense of duty wasn’t installed in them.
Exactly.
Meghan’s numbers are actually off. He put her outside of the UK numbers as only 51 but she did more than 51 on the Tour and she had 8 in Ireland. She should have about 105.
Either way, I’m tired of the excuses for Kate. She literally gets pregnant every two years and her year between pregnancies is excused because she has small children. Kate is always last of the top Senior Royals. I don’t expect this to improve at all. She’s just a lazy woman.
They all need to do WAY more. William, Kate AND Harry. Meghan is the only one I’m giving slack this year because her engagements only started counting in May and with virtually nothing during June, July and part of August, she racked up in the second half of the year. At this rate, she could easily do over 200 next year.
I say Kate gets pregnant again this year
Yeah, he way undercounted Meghan’s events. Probably to make Kate look less pathetic. Thry’ve been undercounting Harry’s events for years to make William look less pathetic so not surprising
There is no conspiracy and if there is, blame the Queen as these number reflect engagements carried out on her behalf.
If Harry has been doing work that is not counted that is because he chose to do his own thing, however people have asserted that Harry does work for Invictus and Sentabale that does not get counted but Harry’s work for Invictus and Sentabale has been counted in the Court Circular in recent years.
I expect Kate to get pregnant again just to avoid having to work.
Your comment is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Back in attack mode again, rukidding?
Lady D,
The idea that a woman gets pregnant just to avoid work is disgusting. Its sexist. And people pushing this sexist narrative should be ashamed that they hold such views.kate should be allowed a family without people wondering if there is some ulterior motive.
Oh please. Her family is subsidized by the public. So maybe take a seat with the sputtering outrage.
Who makes the decision on where the royals visit each day? Do they only show up to their patronages? Is it up to each royal how many events he/she wants to do? Are there really 500+ organizations who request Anne in a year? Or does an organization request a royal visit and someone gets sent there?
Does Kate limit her visits so as not to outdo her lazy husband, who should absolutely be doing more?
The royals choose how many patronages they get involved with and how many events they do. Anne has many patronages (not 500+) but she does multiple events for each. She also represents the Queen in many respects. The organisation which I work for has the Queen as a patron, but Anne is the one who comes to open things on her behalf. Charles does much the same, but for more important organisations than mine.
As for how it works, when we have a new building or wing to open or similar, we write to BP and give a date. Depending on the importance of the occasion and her schedule, the Queen will either come herself or send a representative. The other royals are free to accept such invitations from the Queen or decline them. As for Kate, I suspect you’re right about her motivations. I don’t think she’s naturally a hard worker, but I also think she keeps herself doing less than William deliberately.
Thank you, Tina. I really appreciate your response. Happy 2019 to you!
You’re very welcome. Happy 2019 to you too!
Interesting – i always wondered about that. Thank you!
But has anyone counted her end of the year button numbers?
Kate fans always have an excuse for her numbers but let’s see what they look like in 2019. Full time royal, not pregnant and on maternity leave with 2 nannies, chef, and housekeeper. And no Meghan’s numbers shouldn’t even be close because she’s pregnant and on maternity leave for most of 2019. Kate should be light years ahead.
Eh? So when does maternity leave start in your part of the world? Meghan’s preggers, due in spring. She would not be expected to have her feet up until closer to the due date. Else, Kate’s “maternity leave” should have kicked in at the start of the year – but pretty sure she did some Scandi trips early this year at what was it? 7 or 8 months up the duff?
Having said that, these “numbers” are a hoot. Someone’s work events involved attending Chazza’s birthday bash? The one in May, mind, not one of the many in October and November around his actual birthday. Also, attending Eugenie or Harry’s weddings? Pshaw. Forget it. I’d say sod it, too, if I was told that I’d be graded at the end of year on how many birthdays, also-ran birthdays and weddings I had attended.
I’m happy that people on Celebitchy are starting to switching the blame from women to the brothers.
William and Harry have no excuse, they’re lazy. I’ll even say – poor Kate, William wasn’t around the first kid much if I remember correctly and she was. She is scrutinised for not working but what about the future king, William and his brother? Lazy and spoiled brothers. Frankly I can see both Kate and Meghan giving each others “the looks”
Kate still deserves shade for being the laziest royal again.
We get it already.
Let’s face it, taking a limo to go make small talk, shake some hands and collect flowers is NOT work..
It’s exactly what their work is. During ww1, the brits saw the writing on the wall when the romanovs and hohenzollerns and hapsburgs fell. They knew they had to work to justify their existence, and work means being seen by their subjects. Shaking hands, getting flowers, uncovering plaques, listening to boring speeches, making small talk. Utterly tedious. For the married in women (who have to prove they “deserve” to be there), that means having every eyeblink and gesture and smile scrutinized. Looking stylish but not too stylish, thin but not too thin, engaged but not too charismatic, intelligent but not too smart. It’s not busting rocks but I can imagine it’s excruciating, especially because everyone’s watching and waiting for a mistake. It takes an incredible amount of poise to handle that.
Kate and Meghan have genuine excuses for their low numbers in 2018. However, it would look better for Kate if she had upped her game during the non-pregnancy years. She has been lazy her whole life and is unlikely to change now unless HM puts her foot down. Time will tell with Meghan but she, at least, has demonstrated a work ethic in her previous career so it bodes well for the future.
The real story is the low numbers for William and Harry. Despite claiming to be “full-time royals”, they rarely do enough to justify their privileged position. As usual, they are happy to accept the perks of Royal life while shunning the responsibilities. The general public need to stop seeing them as Diana’s little boys and realise they are fully grown men heading towards 40. They have traded on the goodwill people have for Diana for too long now.
The monarchy will struggle to survive once the current crop of “working” royals retire. Even the much-maligned Andrew does more than William and Harry.
This!
Yes, agreed. I’m starting to see how maybe there is some truth to William not liking Meghan, her work ethic will really make him look bad. And he’s the future king, imagine being outshined by someone who just married into the family.
It’s the media attention and cult of celebrity around Meghan that would irk William more than her work ethic. The more she puts herself out there, the more media attention she gets so…
Other members of the family outworking W&K were never a concern because they don’t have the spotlight. Love her or hate her, Meghan is the media star of the Royal Family atm.
@Cerys, I’ve felt the same way about Harry and Will for a while. I have believed for quite a long time now that, for lack of a nicer way to put it, they have milked being Diana’s sons for all it’s worth. The problem is, while it worked for a while because they were very young, it just doesn’t work anymore. They’re married grown men. Time to grow up, boys.
If you google around you can find the link with the listing of all the royals and how they rank. Essentially the queen and her 4 kids are doing the most work. The younger generation simply have not stepped up, there is a significant decline in the amount of work they do. And to be fair, if William and Harry are not keen to work, why should their wives, who were not born into royalty, outshine them?
I don’t think the spouses would be “allowed “ to shine too much so they could upstage them , either making their husbands look too bad, or, if they have charisma like Diana did, to steal all the attention just like what happenwd with Charles, both of them were tending to a side of the street each, but still everyone wanted to see and shake hands with Diana, leaving him perplexed and incredulous. The firm will not allow that anymore. Yes, the article should be about william and Harry, but maybe Charles has a hand in there somewhere. He needs to be popular, he is the current heir, not William. All this brouhaha and attention on his sons is a double edged sword. They do too little, they are a detrement and the monarchy looks bad, they work and attract too much attention, they rob Charles’ spotlight. Mmmmmh.
You bring up some good points. It is possible that Charles is jealous of the attention his sons get just as he was with Diana.
Yes, interesting points. There is definitely a pecking order. I feel for Meghan, though she knew what she signed up for. To an extent I guess.
I find it so ridiculous that people set so much store by these numbers which are quite irrelevant, it’s the quality that counts not the quantity. Also we will never know how much the royals do or don’t do behind closed doors, which in my view counts as work. Just because we don’t see their pictures in the papers doesn’t mean that they are twiddling their thumbs doing nothing.
Anyway what is the point of having a royal family if you want to see them working in exactly the same way as their subjects?
Well, they’re called “public engagements” because they’re meant to be engagement with the public. People want to see the royals. Even Princess Anne. The last time she came to my organisation (to open a building), there was a sense of much excitement. Even the most cynical republican types went along to have a look at her. It matters that they’re out there, meeting and interacting with the public. Behind the scenes work is not the same thing.
I’m totally here for Princess Anne – she rocks. She is the only one of royals I’m keen to meet.
Am I the only one here that finds it ludicrous that birthday parties count as “royal events” and attendance at such “royal events” is considered “work”?
Maybe a breakdown of actual charitable work/events vs birthday parties would help bc I really think quality over quantity should be the polestar for measuring which royal is/is not pulling their weight. Sorry, but one royal attending more parties in a year than another royal isn’t impressive to me.
” Sorry, but one royal attending more parties in a year than another royal isn’t impressive to me.”
LOL! Truth!
Geez and still my son’s gran who is British keeps harping on about how she likes lazy waity best and how she’s not sure about Meghan. I just keep my mouth shut as I don’t want to start a row with her. She’s racist but blind about it, I will never forget when she cried because was so worried about what my son will look like when I was pregnant as I’m South East Asian and her son is English. Ugh.
Kate not only has three small kids, she was pregnant with one of them and dealing with hyperemesis for much of the year.
Kate has full time staff, multiple nannies and wasn’t sick with Louis. Meghan outworked her while only being a royal for /2 the year and pregnant. Kate’s lazy. Stop making excuses for her.
Bluthfan, she was sick. You’re just like lucille bluth arent you? Sexist and bitter.
I was sick for most of my pregnancy but only took the time off three weeks before I was due. Lucky as a week after I was on leave, I went into labour, two weeks before I was scheduled for an operation. Kate wasn’t sick this time around plus royal work is not the same as what the public does. Stop making excuses for their laziness.
She was also pregnant and had hyperemesis for most of the year. Give a girl a break LOL
They didn’t even claim she had HG this time. Just morning sickness. It’s her fans desperate to justify everything about St. Kate who keep claiming she had it.
Yep every year Kate is lazy and every year her fans excuse it. It’s embarrassing
William and Harry need to step it up big time. The focus should be on the two of them as they’re the actual royals. Their numbers are appalling especially William as he is the damn heir.
I tried to google historical data regarding Royal work statistics as I’d be very interested to see how many engagements Prince Charles undertook when he was around William’s age and when his two boys were young in the mid to late 80’s.
A lot more: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2506110/prince-charles-did-double-his-sons-work-30yrs-ago-as-wills-and-kate-are-slammed-for-shirking-royal-duties/ For example, Charles did 404 engagements in 1985 (and Diana 299).
The excuse-makers will no doubt give the threadbare excuse that Charles was the heir to the throne then and William is only the heir to the heir, but when the monarch is 92 and the heir to the throne is 70, perhaps the younger generation might be prevailed upon to do just a bit more work.
Thanks for that info Tina. William is unequivocally a lazy git then! I’m not a William fan or defender but I assume that the Queen is obviously happy for William to have a less busy schedule. Perhaps she realises that Charles and Diana did not have a great relationship and there was too pressure too early in the marriage with small children.
The Queen is the boss and the buck stops with her. She can make William do more work if she wishes but she obviously does not!
The spokespeople have always said that the royals set their own schedules. I don’t think the Queen forces the ageing Dukes of Gloucester and Kent to do as much work as they do, and I don’t think she condones William’s laziness either.
I don’t like how attending a bday party counts as a royal engagement.
Regardless of the number of engagements, William is in direct line to the throne. The time for special interest engagements is over unless he plans to do them as an extra. He should be out and about all over Britain meeting all types of people. He should also be hitting 350/400 engagements per year.
I’ll give Kate a bit of slack as she still has Louis but she should be working at least 2 days a week and at least some of her engagements should be outwith the London area.
Harry should never have given up the Army. He apparently only did because he did not get on with his Commanding Officer.
Kate’s raising the future King. Why doesn’t that count as work?
Because the future King is in school, she has multiple nannies and other support, and other working parents in the UK are raising the future doctors, teachers, social workers etc of the UK without a fraction of the help Kate and William are given.
Because it’s not the year 1645?
Just a thought, but maybe it’s time for the royals to stop being taxpayer funded.
Remember awhile back there was an article (Vanity Fair?) about Charles where William was quoted worrying about his Dad’s workaholism? “He never sees the grandkids enough” and “falls asleep reading briefing notes at midnight’ stuff? I’m sure some of it was just to burnish his dad’s image but maybe Will and Harry have both decided to deliberately do less than Charles and his siblings because of a childhood feeling of not having their dad present. Like a “we won’t fall into this work/life imbalance trap with our families.” It must be so nice to have the privilege to only work part time, of course! They also seem defensive about how much they have to “sacrifice” of their personal lives and freedom to live in the royal fishbowl (tbh it would drive me crazy!) that maybe they resist “owing more” to the public than they already “give”. That’s my armchair psych analysis anyway about their lower numbers.
The “never sees the grandkids enough” comment is interesting, considering that when George was very little we heard that Charles was complaining about rarely seeing his grandson, with the implication that William and Kate were making it difficult to do so. My skeptical side gets the feeling that William’s comment was made to try and flip that narrative. I also suspect that William has for a long time now been trying to ease the general public into the idea that when he is king he and Kate will not be doing anywhere near as many engagements and his grandmother and her generation or his father and his generation.
I wonder why people are so involved with the number of engagements working Royals get? They only get to do what they are assigned to do. There isn’t a sign up sheet where they can volunteer. The Firm doles out jobs and none of them have much choice with what they’re given or not. Also most of the organisations headed by the Queen would be insulted if a lesser Royal showed up instead. There’s a tsunami of rules and sensitive etiquette that must be observed so other than the Queen, everyone else just does what they’re asked to do. You get an assignment, you do it. All this rudeness calling the Duchess of Cambridge because of her supposed work count “lazy” is simply lack of understanding that the Duchess can only do what she is assigned to do. There’s no room to ask to do more. You get what you’re given. End. Of.
That’s really, really not the case. They choose their patronages. They choose how much and how hard they work. No one other than Parliament is insulted when the 92 year old Queen is too busy to attend their event. The Queen is not out there telling Anne to do 500+ engagements per year, or aged Princess Alexandra to work more. And she is not telling William, or Kate, or any of them, how much to work. And before anyone asks, I am saying this because it is what the royal spokespeople have always said when asked this question.
I don’t know where you got the information from but I’m British. Also the official palace press will NEVER give any information about the process of patronage assignment are highly guarded secrets. Speculations by media, both British and overseas on unnamed sources can never be trusted. Patronages are not chosen – the Queen assigns them as part of her duties as Sovereign in the same way the Sovereign is the only one with the power to create and retract titles/honours. The Queen is aided in her decisions by the courtiers and other advisors. The York Princesses and Andrew himself would love to do more work but they have been removed from the list of working royals as proof that patronages CANNOT be chosen or volunteered for. Prince Charles and Prince William, to some extent have power to choose given they are directly in line to the throne and future Sovereigns but even now, their status does not usurp that of the existing Monarch. There is a lot of lack of understanding how the British Monarchy works from the non-British crowd.
I’m British too. And what you have said is simply untrue. Organisations can, and do, ask royals who are not the Queen to be their patrons. When Prince Philip retired, he attempted to give his patronages to the younger generation, and they by and large refused to take them. I personally know the director of one of the charities which used to have Philip as a patron, and they simply don’t know what to do now. There’s a difference between restricting the number of working royals, as the Queen and Charles have done, and those working royals deciding what they do. Because it is very much up to them.
@Jinjie, Tina is right. The hours they work are only decided by Kate, William and Harry. Nobody tells them what to do, which is why they do nothing. Pretty much the laziest welfare recipients in history. They are truly a disgrace to their parents and grandparents work ethic.
Nope – Tina is misinformed as is your comment about them being lazy welfare recipients. Both Princes Harry and William have their own private purses and the Duchy of Cornwall from which their father supports them is a traditional property long aligned with the Prince of Wales. To give you perspective, historically, all land and property was under the ownership of the King/Sovereign. The award of a title from the King meant also the award of large tracts of lands which is why aristocrats still have them to this day. The acquisition of land by commoners and the working class is a fairly recent phenomenon of a couple of hundred years (although yes longer than the entire histor of America as a country)- only with the Industrial revolution that began in the 18th century. The lands associated with the Crown such as that of the Duchy of Cornwall are historically theirs. Not to mention that fact that the Royals bring in billions of pounds into the economy. So no – they are not welfare recipients, what they have is legally/historically/constitutionally theirs and the taxes that go to them is part of a centuries old system that is part and parcel of the entire historical fabric of the United Kingdom.
Harry and William inherited £10m each from Diana and Harry a bit more from the Queen Mother. Not nearly enough to keep them in the manner to which they are accustomed – Harry, William and Kate cost the Duchy of Cornwall £5m last year alone.
And the Duchy of Cornwall does not belong to Charles outright. He is entitled to the revenues from the estate as Duke of Cornwall under the 1337 charter, but he cannot touch the capital. He pays tax voluntarily, which is unlike all other private ownership in the country. The Duchy of Cornwall (and the Duchy of Lancaster) are not owned privately like any other private estate. No other private estate has the right of bona vacantia (people’s money if they die without heirs). The Crown Estates (which are separate from the Duchies) are similarly owned by the Queen in right of the Crown, which means by the Crown (which is not the same thing as the monarch, and essentially boils down to the British state). She is given 25% of the revenues, but again can not touch the capital, since George III transferred the lands to the Treasury (along with the responsibility for paying for the government) in 1760. These lands belong to us, the British people.
And finally, the royals do not bring in billions of pounds into the economy. Very few tourists come to see the royals themselves (as opposed to the buildings in which they live, which we could open up to the public year round if they were not there). The royals in no way bring in more than the hundreds of millions of pounds per year that they cost us.
i don’t care! I want to see dresses and tiaras. Could care less about any of them more than that.