2015 Engagement List for Will, Kate, and Harry

[TLLK]

Or perhaps people don't agree as to a single "point" in keeping track of engagements, which is why I started a thread of my own.

Yes, someone could look at the CC.  But it's a very badly designed website, and searching through for each of the younger Royals and tallying up separate engagements (as well as identifying those that never made it onto the online CC, which happens semi-regularly) is time-consuming and annoying.  I wanted to keep a running list somewhere that would let people see at a glance every engagement for all three of W/K/H, as a more convenient reference.  If you don't find it helpful, then by all means don't use it.  I do find it helpful, and hopefully some of the other members of this forum do as well.

I find it useful and I appreciate the time that you take to summarize the trio's engagements. I know you're not assigning a total number to the engagement list, but if a poster chooses to do so then that's an option they can utilize.

Canuck has explained at length throughout the thread where her information is to be found. She is correct that the British monarchy website is known for not keeping an accurate account of engagements performed for all members of the BRF. The London Times Court Circular publishes the information provided which for decades has included overseas/return trip arrivals/departures by ship or aircraft. If she's using the CC as a source expect those events to be included until the BRF chooses to end the practice. As @tiaras pointed out it is the system that is in control of determining what is an engagement or not.

Perhaps it would be more productive to contact the Court Circular and request that they not include arrivals/departures when listing engagements for HM/DoE etc....

[Canuck]

Just my own personal conclusion if that is alright with you. Or is it that only certain conclusions are acceptable.   :hmm:  Must be since I have stated over and over that is my conclusion and some posters continue to argue their conclusion as being the right one.

One should ask themselves why?

I think you'll find that just as you have every right to state your opinions, other posters have every right to disagree with them.  If you want to state over and over that you don't think this list is helpful, that's perfectly fine; but expect other posters to respond with their own opinions on the same.

[TLLK]

I agree with @snokitty but this is how the system's run. So, the problem is not specifically William and Kate it is with the system. The Monarchy as a whole in contemporary times raises a lot of questions, but as long as there are no complains and protests to overthrow them, they will remain and continue.

Also @Canuck was just explaining and answering your Questions.

Thank you @tiaras for pointing out that the issues people might have lie not with specific members but the system. The method of how, when, why the CC lists engagements for the BRF were established decades ago. Many of the members were not even alive when George V had a single system devised to list the family's engagements. It appears that QEII is content with the method that has been published throughout her long reign.

Also thank you again for reminding everyone that @Canuck has taken the time to answer questions. @Canuck's explanation that she is using the CC as her source of information and providing an * to known engagements that were not listed in the CC ie: Harry signing the condolence book at the French embassy to try and provide the best coverage of their engagements is listed in her initial post.
Double post auto-merged: May 01, 2015, 03:26:13 PM

OOPs that should be George III and not George V who established the Court Circular.

[Canuck]

I know we all like to disagree and debate on other parts of the board, but I have tried very hard in this one thread to provide as even-handed and accurate a list of engagements as possible.  I've given a complete list of CC engagements, and I've included (with asterisks to distinguish them) anything that looked like Royal work but wasn't on the CC.  I've explained--in detail--why things have been listed as they are.  I've answered any questions people had as to why things were here/not or were listed a certain way.

My goal here is just to provide a list that people can use (if they like, obviously no one is required to) in reaching their own conclusions as to how much and what type of work the younger Royals have done.  I am really, sincerely not trying to slant the tallies or convince people to count certain engagements or to agree with any particular view other than "this is a hopefully comprehensive list of the possible universe of Royal work, if you'd like it can be used as any easy reference point to count up (based on any criteria you like) what Royal work was done."

Obviously everyone is entitled to post their own opinions, up to and including laughing at and criticizing me for making this list.  But for the sake of keeping things relatively pleasant around here, could we perhaps reach some kind of truce on this issue? 

You'll notice, @snokitty, that I haven't posted on your own engagement thread since two days after you started it when (at the suggestion of @Lady Adams, among others) I started this thread to provide my own list of engagements.  That's not because I don't have disagreements with how you're counting things, it's because I decided that I would simply keep my own running list rather than argue with you about your methodology.  Perhaps you could agree to extend the same courtesy.

I'm sure everyone will have lots to discuss and debate regarding engagement tallies at the end of the year.  And if there are specific questions as to why something has been listed here in a particular way, or someone notices something was left off, I have been and continue to be happy to explain or to make corrections. 

But it's incredibly disheartening to spend time doing my very best to create an accurate and unbiased list (dealing with the CC/filling holes in the online CC via mentions of the paper CC on twitter/researching engagement locations/keeping track of non-CC appearances, and to sometimes spend quite a bit of time trying to sort out whether certain things were Royal vs. other appearances or whether the CC was right to list two things together vs. separately, and to explain in detail why certain things have been listed in certain ways) only to then have the exact same fight about arrivals/departures or be laughed at for "padding" numbers.

[TLLK]

@Canuck do you know if the CC ever credited Harry for his trip to the Australian War Memorial? It's been a topic of discussion at another site that it had not been listed.

I appreciate that you are including events documented by photo, video etc...that are not always listed in the CC. I know that you do apply an asterisk to some that are not formally acknowledged but at least it is being included in your summary.

[tiaras]

 :hug: @TLLK

[In All I Do]

Canuck, I for one appreciate all the work you do for this, because the CC website really isn't user friendly.

It's also pretty obvious to me that you have no "tally" or "numbers" in the posts you make, so accusations that you're "padding the numbers" etc are bizarre to me and I can only conclude that they're a way to create a false equivalency and drag this thread down (in much the same way that some people like to continue to push an opinion again and again and then accuse others of never shutting up when it's responded to) .   :shrug: 

[Canuck]

@Canuck do you know if the CC ever credited Harry for his trip to the Australian War Memorial? It's been a topic of discussion at another site that it had not been listed.

It's not on the online CC yet, though that doesn't mean anything (it often misses engagements that only appear weeks or months later).  But KP announced in advance that the War Memorial would be Harry's one engagement in Australia, so they definitely consider that as an engagement even if the CC hasn't caught it yet.

And thanks, @Adrienne.   :hug:

[TLLK]

Thank you @Canuck. I hope that the CC catches up with this and credits him soon.

[Canuck]

And just to be perfectly clear once again:  this list is intended to be overinclusive.  I'm trying to list everything that anyone might consider Royal work (not things that I personally believe deserve credit as Royal work). 

That way, anyone who wants to use it as a reference can just go down the list and count each thing they think should be given credit, without having to go research what other things the trio did during the year that weren't on the list because Canuck personally didn't think they should be given credit for them.

[TLLK]

@Macrobug-You bring up a good point in that the CC has been and continues to be a means of communications about the activities of the BRF. The "numbers tally" didn't even begin until the late 1970's with Mr. O'Donovan writing to the Times at the end of the year with his own personal tally.
Double post auto-merged: May 01, 2015, 05:33:46 PM

I have to agree, how can "departed Heathrow for Japan" be an engagement for William? That is embarassingly absurd of Kap and the BRF.

And, for Kate, how can "going to Ben Kingsley racing office" and "going to Ben Kingsley Headquarters" be two separate engagements???  :orchid:

@Limabeany-if you look at page two on this thread you can find @Canuck's original answer to @Lady Adams question about the engagement. :)

[Canuck]

I see differences in the numbers you have and actual engagements done. Therefore my conclusion is that the count is being padded.

What "numbers"?  What "count"? 

I don't know how I can be clearer about this:  I'm not saying all of the things listed should be "counted" as real work.  I'm not posting a tally, I'm not drawing conclusions about what counts and doesn't.  All I'm doing is listing everything in the CC as well as (marked with asterisks, so it's clear) things that seems to be Royal work but that didn't appear in the CC. 

If you see something I included that wasn't in the CC, please let me know.  If you see something I missed, please let me know.  If you just disagree that some of the things the CC lists should be credited as work, I'm not going to be able to do anything about that.

[TLLK]

And just to be perfectly clear once again:  this list is intended to be overinclusive.  I'm trying to list everything that anyone might consider Royal work (not things that I personally believe deserve credit as Royal work). 

That way, anyone who wants to use it as a reference can just go down the list and count each thing they think should be given credit, without having to go research what other things the trio did during the year that weren't on the list because Canuck personally didn't think they should be given credit for them.

It's not easy keeping track of this type of information because the CC and BRF websites are not known for their accuracy so thank you for keeping an watch on the articles, videos, etc...that show the trio out and about on their activities.

[TLLK]

I see differences in the numbers you have and actual engagements done. Therefore my conclusion is that the count is being padded.

What "numbers"?  What "count"? 

I don't know how I can be clearer about this:  I'm not saying all of the things listed should be "counted" as real work.  I'm not posting a tally, I'm not drawing conclusions about what counts and doesn't.  All I'm doing is listing everything in the CC as well as (marked with asterisks, so it's clear) things that seems to be Royal work but that didn't appear in the CC. 

If you see something I included that wasn't in the CC, please let me know.  If you see something I missed, please let me know.  If you just disagree that some of the things the CC lists should be credited as work, I'm not going to be able to do anything about that.

You know @Canuck considering that the BRF has joined the 21st century with their various accounts I have to wonder why they cannot keep the CC website more accurately updated?  :shrug:

[Canuck]

That's a great question.  And it's not just the inaccuracy/slowness to update, it's also how clunky and non-user friendly the site is.  The BRF has really embraced internet communication over the past few years -- better websites, twitter, instagram, etc.  I hope someone takes a good look at the CC website at some point and brings it into the 21st century.

[TLLK]

I have this image of the CC secretary working in a dusty room filled with back copies of the Times, a typewriter, and sending everything by pony and trap to the Times.  :P

[TLLK]

I have a feeling this will be a very quiet May for the trio and that we won't see too many engagements being performed until June.

[amabel]

I have a feeling this will be a very quiet May for the trio and that we won't see too many engagements being performed until June.

well Kat is hardly Mrs Busy even when she's not aching all over and exhausted after giving brith..

[TLLK]

^^Checked the always reliable-NOT <_< website for the British Monarchy for future engagements for William and Harry. Of course they have nothing listed for either.
Harry's engagements in May for Australia-"no results found" (He's starting a tour to NZ!!!)
Harry's engagements in NZ-"no results found"

For June's Garter Ceremony and Trooping the Color which typically features both brothers-"no results found."

Their website is poorly managed. No wonder so many members of the family have had engagements not even recorded by the website that were documented by the press.

[memememe]

I believe that the poster on TRF who does the weekly update includes a record now of 'missing days' from the online CC compared to the print CC and there are now only two days missing - both from last week.

That poster had a list of dates for a number of weeks and progressively the online CC did update all dates -- coincidence or the result of the information out there who knows but having a poster somewhere in the internet calling them out weekly can't have hurt.

I know that the rule here is that you can't copy the posts but has anyone thought to ask that poster if they would object to having the information carried across here??

[memememe]

That poster keeps the figures for all the members of the BRF not only William, Kate and Harry.

[memememe]

This thread - yes but the entire forum is only interested in William, Kate and Harry - how sad for a site that calls itself 'Royal Insight' that it has deteriorated in the 18 or so months that I couldn't access the site (new modem opened it up again while previous modem would scramble the site - only site it did that to mind you) to being only dedicated to three people. If the entire forum is only interested in those three people then surely it should be renamed from 'royal' insight to 'William, Kate and Harry insight'.

[Curryong]

But memememe, we discuss many members of the royal family on RI.

It was just that there was discussion a few months about the Cambridges' engagements and how they stacked up over a year, also Harry's. Because the online site dealing with royal engagements isn't particularly reliable and the CC is only printed in a few newspapers it's much easier to track the younger royals' engagements. They are often publicised in the tabs for instance while royals like Alexandra, the Kents or Edward might be a bit more difficult.

[memememe]

That is not true.   :no:  On most of the forums W& K& H. are the hottest boards. Not everyone thinks Charles is the most important royal out there.

They may be the hottest threads.

Sounds like you had a modem problem. Why would that be RIF's fault?

I didn't say the problem was with RIF - I said that RIF was the only site that I had the problem with. Since the new modem I am now able to get back onto RIF. I had no problem with any other site at all with the old modem - only this one. Why I don't know - whether it was modem or this site or a combination I will never know.

I was explaining my absence from the board for so long.

The CC pads all the royal engagements for everyone but for W& K& H that seems to be the only alternative since they do not work often.

The CC is approved by HM and is the record of what she decides is an official event. All royals do events not listed in the CC.

Example: William and Kate both have Charlotte's birth appear in the CC as an engagement.

Not an 'engagement' but simply a record that it happened. The reason why George wasn't listed I don't know but Louise and James were also recorded this way as have been most royal babies since the introduction of the CC in the reign of George III.

They also announce the changes to staff appointments - not as engagements but simply as official announcements - along with the date, in advance, of events such as Trooping. Last week they officially announced the date for next year.

We aren't looking to get the wrong count with the CC padding on this forum as your friend is on the other forum.

I never said that the poster was my 'friend'.

How is recording everything they do any different to counting the events listed in the CC - the official record. I have read this thread and found that according to this count William had done 53 engagements to the end of April, Kate 24 and Harry 25 but the poster on the other forum - to the end of April had William on 48, Kate on 23 and Harry on 21 based on the CC only. It therefore isn't the CC that is padding the figures but here. The poster there has explained that they only count departures and/or arrivals if there is an official reception also included e.g. if the CC says that someone departed Heathrow for say Australia but nothing official then it doesn't count but if the CC says that someone departed Heathrow and was farewelled by the Ambassador or High Commissioner of the country to be visited then they do count it.

The recognised semi-official count is done annually by Mr O'Donovan, who writes a letter to The Times and The Telegraph, and his figures are usually close to the poster on TRF - who started, if I remember correctly by trying to see how close they could come to Mr O'Donovan's during the Jubilee year. Prior to Mr O'Donovan there was no 'count' as such - just a simple recording. He made doing a count more fashionable and the DM did their own count last year that was different again.

It seems as if what you want to do is count all the official and non-official engagements equally whereas HM only wants to record the official engagements and not the unofficial ones that the family does e.g. when she and Philip went to the theatre a couple of years ago as a private engagement that didn't count because they went for a night out. If they were to go officially then they would have it count. She is able to draw a clear distinction.

Correct amount of time earning what they receive is what started this and we can do it our way especially since we are ending the 5th month soon.

How do you know how much preparation they put into the engagement beforehand or is that a simply guess? Without knowing that side of things then there is no way of working out whether they earn what they received - which is zero anyway. They are supported by Charles from the Duchy and not by the Queen from the Sovereign Grant which only covers the official expenses and not the private expenses of the family.

We have debated back and forth what is considered justifiable but to debate whether another forum writing down CC numbers would be better than what we are doing just sounds a little asinine IMO.

By all means do what you have been doing.

There was mention of the poster on TRF and that it was clear that that poster's work was being used at one point so I made a suggestion to ask that person if they would mind if that work was also copied here.

There was no need to jump all over a suggestion.
Double post auto-merged: May 25, 2015, 01:32:47 PM

But memememe, we discuss many members of the royal family on RI.

It was just that there was discussion a few months about the Cambridges' engagements and how they stacked up over a year, also Harry's. Because the online site dealing with royal engagements isn't particularly reliable and the CC is only printed in a few newspapers it's much easier to track the younger royals' engagements. They are often publicised in the tabs for instance while royals like Alexandra, the Kents or Edward might be a bit more difficult.

The CC did have a glitch earlier this year - true but is pretty much up to date now - only missing two days from that recorded in the papers from last week now.

The poster on TRF has a contact with a subscription to The Times who sends updates when a day is missed e.g. the day that Harry arrived in Australia never had an entry in the print media meaning that it wasn't an official engagement at all. The final day in Australia had both a print and online CC and no mention of any engagement for Harry so HM regards those events as private and not official - her decision only.

[TLLK]

I believe that the poster on TRF who does the weekly update includes a record now of 'missing days' from the online CC compared to the print CC and there are now only two days missing - both from last week.

That poster had a list of dates for a number of weeks and progressively the online CC did update all dates -- coincidence or the result of the information out there who knows but having a poster somewhere in the internet calling them out weekly can't have hurt.

I know that the rule here is that you can't copy the posts but has anyone thought to ask that poster if they would object to having the information carried across here??

Hi memememe. Welcome back to RIF. Regarding the tally at TRF, I have messaged one of the posters who works on that very extensive and detailed thread about their information. Their response to me indicated that they'd prefer that RIF do its own tally. :) I'm also sending you a pm with further details on the subject.
Double post auto-merged: May 25, 2015, 09:49:22 PM

@memememe -Not sure if you had the opportunity to read Canuck's very first post on the thread. In it she explains the "Hows and Whats" for her listing criteria. She is using the CC as a source, but she posts an * on private engagements that the public are made of aware but are not listed in  the CC. For example: Harry's trip to the French Embassy to sign a condolence book for the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

She does not want to put an actual number on the engagements either knowing that there is discussion as to what is being counted by Mr. Donovan's annual tally and on other sites.  :)