Totals of Royal Engagements for BRF in 2017

[Curryong]

This is the annual listing for members of the BRF for 2017, as compiled by Tim O' Donovan who does this every year, and long may he continue to do so.

As usual Anne and Charles lead the pack.

Twitter

[Kritter]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSOZfTuW4AMz6RV.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSOZGF4W4AUKGAV.jpg:large

[Curryong]

I think the Wessexes' totals each year are often ignored but Sophie, except for the year James was born, hasn't dropped under 150 since she became a fulltime Royal. And the Duke of Kent, well over 80 years old and performing over 160 engagements a year is great too.

[TLLK]

This is the annual listing for members of the BRF for 2017, as compiled by Tim O' Donovan who does this every year, and long may he continue to do so.

As usual Anne and Charles lead the pack.

Twitter

Yes long may Mr. O'Donovan continue to do his work. Thank you for sharing this information @Curryong. I understand that he uses  the actual Times' Court Circular to tally their engagements throughout the year. The online one for the British Monarchy is woefully inaccurate.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Ys, but theres a difference between quantity and quality of impact....for that W&H lead the pack. :xmas1:

[TLLK]

@Duch_Luver_4ever -You might be interested in this YouGov poll taken in August 2018. It asked if the following royals: Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry- had a positive or negative impact upon the monarchy.

Prince of Wales has had negative impact on royals, 27% of people say in poll | News & Star

William came out top for being seen as having a positive contribution to the royal family - in comparison to Charles, Camilla, the Duchess of Cambridge and Harry.

Ranked in order, 78% thought William had a positive impact, Harry 77%, Kate 73%, Charles 36% and Camilla 18%.

I find it interesting that in this poll, the three who were for most of 2017 were "part timers" and subsequently have lower numbers on Mr. O'Donovan's tally are thought to have such a positive impact.

[amabel]

I tthink that is due to all the massive stuff about Diana in the month or 2 around her anniversary.  It brought up all the old issues that most people have problaby forgotten, and brought them to a new audience.  So IMO it was bound to have something of a negative impact on Charles' image.  but it will problably fade away as time goes on.  it is interesting that William is seen as "positive", when so many people are negative towards him.  But its understandable too because he's the future king, in due course and he's younger than chalres nad untouched by scandal or major problems. so h'es likely to have people seeing him as such..
We shall see.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

@Duch_Luver_4ever -You might be interested in this YouGov poll taken in August 2018. It asked if the following royals: Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry- had a positive or negative impact upon the monarchy.

Prince of Wales has had negative impact on royals, 27% of people say in poll | News & Star

I find it interesting that in this poll, the three who were for most of 2017 were "part timers" and subsequently have lower numbers on Mr. O'Donovan's tally are thought to have such a positive impact.

Thanks, @TLLK interesting numbers, and while a small amount of that might be driven by this yr being the anniversary, but I think shows that W&H have taken Diana's lessons to heart about dealing with people and making a positive impact in the world.

While some may chalk it up to personality and personal appeal, which they have lots and C&C have less, I think it comes down to leverage. Its all about working smarter, not harder. A bunch of teas and plaques dont compare to a heartfelt connection with people.

I think the "lesser" royals can handle all those dour affairs, and let the boys be the "brand icon" of the royals, getting the publicity and goodwill to keep the royals funded, and earning their keep with good works, charity and changing ppls ideas about things that need improving.

[TLLK]

^^^Thanks @Duch_Luver_4ever. One thing to remember is that once upon a time...the older royals that are still working were to some degree the "New Kids on the Block." They were the new faces and received more press coverage. Decades go by and fewer people outside of royal forums recall that QEII had a younger and very elegant cousin named Alexandra who took on many patronages and undertook engagements on her behalf.

  One day these three and soon to be four will be the elderly royals and a new generation will be "dazzling" the press and public. Hopefully all will continue to be influenced by the memory a woman who entered the royal family in 1981 and displayed a new way of interacting with the public. :snowflake:

[sandy]

I tthink that is due to all the massive stuff about Diana in the month or 2 around her anniversary.  It brought up all the old issues that most people have problaby forgotten, and brought them to a new audience.  So IMO it was bound to have something of a negative impact on Charles' image.  but it will problably fade away as time goes on.  it is interesting that William is seen as "positive", when so many people are negative towards him.  But its understandable too because he's the future king, in due course and he's younger than chalres nad untouched by scandal or major problems. so h'es likely to have people seeing him as such..
We shall see.

William and Harry talking about their mother had nothing to do with slamming their father and it was not about him. Paying tribute to her was not a "slap in the face" to their father. Why shouldn't they speak freely about the feelings and memories about their mother? It is not always all about Charles.

I think Charles and Camilla shot themselves in the foot. Especially with the book (love letter) about Camilla by her friend Junor. Junor admitted she spent time with Charles and Camilla re the book which not so coincidentally was another Diana bashing exercise. There also was the ill advised interview that Camilla gave where she played victim. This backfired on them IMO and they were criticized.

I don't think the feelings will  necessarily "fade away." People don't have short memories and some will not see Charles and Camilla in a positive light.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

^^^Thanks @Duch_Luver_4ever. One thing to remember is that once upon a time...the older royals that are still working were to some degree the "New Kids on the Block." They were the new faces and received more press coverage. Decades go by and fewer people outside of royal forums recall that QEII had a younger and very elegant cousin named Alexandra who took on many patronages and undertook engagements on her behalf.

  One day these three and soon to be four will be the elderly royals and a new generation will be "dazzling" the press and public. Hopefully all will continue to be influenced by the memory a woman who entered the royal family in 1981 and displayed a new way of interacting with the public. :snowflake:

True @TLLK  that the "shiny new penny" tends to get noticed, and im sure thats a factor, but I do think like you mentioned, the influence they received growing up is the bulk of the reason theyre so well regarded, and they can influence so many people. With the RF looking to dial the press relationship back to pre 1980, they have to rely more on events like W&H do to get the mass appeal and coverage they need to stay relevant. As much as even the greyist of grey suits may have dreaded the WoW, it at least kept them in the publics mind "no such thing as bad publicity" and all.  :xmas21:

[amabel]

yes there is such a thing as bad publicity, and I'm sure the RF while they accept that the world changes, don't want to be back in the bad old days of leaks, press hysteria etc.  They don't like the Press, no matter that they know they need them...

[Kritter]

^ They still have those things. They do the leaking themselves sometimes to promote & sometimes to hurt each other.  Press hysteria have you seen the photos outside the hospital waiting for George's birth? That was totally ridiculous.    :eyes: