The quarterly and annual royal tallies 2019 to the present

[TLLK]

@Curryong-Yes the two tallies do not match up. The TRF tally has a higher count for everyone and even included those family members who do not carry out official engagements:  Sussexes, DoY, the York Princesses,  Prince and Princess Michael of Kent,  the Wales children Edo Mappelli-Mozzi and Jack Brooksbank in their annual tally as their presence at engagements was noted for 2022. Those engagements appear to be ones associated with the DoY's memorial, the Jubilee and QEII's funeral. QEII's other grandchildren: Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall, Lady Louise and Viscount Severen are not included as they likely didn't have a mention in the CC.

From TRF here's the final count of engagements going from highest to lowest number of engagements. KCIII, QC, PoW and PssoW have their earlier engagements from before the death of QEII added to the ones carried out afterwards.

Rankings Based on Number of Engagements

1. HM The King +HRH The Prince of Wales ? 226 + 324 = 550
2. HRH The Princess Royal ? 509
3. HRH The Countess of Wessex ? 324
4. HRH The Earl of Wessex ? 318
5. HM The Queen Consort + HRH The Duchess of Cornwall ? 80 + 148 = 228
6. HRH The Prince of Wales +HRH The Duke of Cambridge ? 76 + 143 = 219
7. HRH The Duke of Gloucester ? 193
8. HRH The Princess of Wales + HRH The Duchess of Cambridge ? 55 + 123 = 178
9. Vice-Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence ? 150
10. HM The Queen ? 134 ? Died 8th December, 2022
11. HRH The Duchess of Gloucester ? 119
12. HRH The Duke of Kent ? 105
13. HRH Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy ? 57
14. HRH The Duke of York ? 15
15. HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi ? 11
16. HRH Prince Michael of Kent ? 11
17. HRH Princess Michael of Kent - 11
18. HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank ? 10
19. HRH The Duke of Sussex ? 9
20. Mr Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi ? 9
21. Mr Jack Brooksbank ? 9
22. HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge ? 7
23. HRH Prince George of Cambridge ? 5
24. HRH The Duchess of Sussex ? 5
25. HRH Prince Louis of Cambridge ? 2

[Curryong]

2022 totals of royal engagements for each working member of the BRF.

Kate comes the last of all of the senior royals. Those figures for 2022 aren?t exceptional for Kate either. From the beginning of her married life, and from the beginning of the time when she and William and Harry were supposed to be working fulltime, her figures have been extremely low.

The only ones who did less last year are two elderly people in their 80s.

What is that about ?not lunching or playing tennis?? Anybody can talk the talk. It?s walking the walk that matters!

Princess Anne - 214 royal engagements
King Charles III - 181 royal engagements
Prince Edward, Earl of Sussex - 143 royal engagements
Sophie, Countess of Wessex - 138 royal engagements
William, Prince of Wales - 126 royal engagements
Camilla, Queen Consort - 102 royal engagements
Richard, Duke of Gloucester - 100 royal engagements
Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester - 94 royal engagements
Catherine, Princess of Wales - 90 royal engagements
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent - 78 royal engagements
Princess Alexandra - 44 royal engagements

[Nightowl]

First of all, Catherine still have small children at home to care for as both she and William are hands on and not relying on nannies 24/7.  Catherine is just who and what she is....Catherine, wife of William and mother of 3 small children and so many dislike her for that it seems like..some in the royal family should of learned from HM on how to be a loyal royal member of the family.  The negativity  of Catherine is very apparent.

[wannable]

Remarks related to the Princess of Wales' annual engagements have been moved. Further off topic comments will be removed. Please heed the moderator comment from @PrincessOfPeace
If members wish to discuss the number of engagements that each member of the BRF makes, please continue the discussion in the thread linked below.
The annual royal tallies 2019 to the present

I like the ratio and percentage Catherine (and William) are giving to the parenting job. Future King and Queen are focusing on the right things first and foremost, the family values and goals (education, morality, society).  The quality of their joint and independent projects are great. Yes, highlighting charities, towns and cities with their charity of preference or going to a food bank (Pa just gave GBP 250M to domestic crisis, asked them to support his decree) is good too in my books, but their priority as has been discussed for years by the media, by the fans is interesting at best. I'd be in Catherine's shoes thinking Anne and her ex live in the same land estate how did they do it, Edward and Sophie also to date seem to have two grounded children, the York's, then Charles....

Anyway, the high approval ratings of the Wales's, keep on going.

[TLLK]

First of all, Catherine still have small children at home to care for as both she and William are hands on and not relying on nannies 24/7.  Catherine is just who and what she is....Catherine, wife of William and mother of 3 small children and so many dislike her for that it seems like..some in the royal family should of learned from HM on how to be a loyal royal member of the family.  The negativity  of Catherine is very apparent.

Honestly IMO Catherine has the lowest number of engagements among the most senior royals simply because she is the newest member in that group and has the fewest number of patronages, presidencies and appointments. :shrug:

Charles and Anne have the highest number organizations which are in the hundreds that they represent and have been "working" royals since the 1980's. As evidenced by previous annual  engagement tallies taken over the decades, the family members with the higher number of patronages/presidencies will ultimately  have the higher engagement tally numbers.

Edward, Sophie, and Camilla entered in the senior royal pool in the early to mid 2000's so they typically have the next highest number of patronages. Of those three, Camilla held the higher profile position as the wife of the heir to the throne until Sept. 2022. Remember that Charles and Camilla took on the official foreign travel when the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh stopped their overseas travel. There were no outgoing State Visits from the UK when the Queen stopped traveling abroad. There were only incoming ones. 

Finally,  William and Catherine round out the group and they became full timers in 2016.  He has about 40 organizations that he  currently represents and she has 20.

It should be noted that the  patronages, charities, and presidencies that the late DoE and QEII once held  had a combined total of over 1,200. The vast majority have not been "reassigned" to other members of the family. No doubt inquiries as to which organizations still want a royal patron are ongoing since the couple's respective passing. We may receive an announcement prior to the Coronation or afterwards regarding these patronages/organizations etc...
Now there has been an announcement to honorary military appointments with Camilla-Grenadier Guards, William-Welsh Guards and Catherine-Irish Guards, but there are still others that the DoE and QEII held.

[wannable]

Yes, but there has been alleged palace sources during the past years, Kate's primary focus are her children. This shouldn't be dismissed as a non job. It's the hardest job.

[Amabel2]

Kate had low numbers back in her early years of marriage because there wasn't enough money for her to be a full time royal and she was not expected to become one.  She had her children, and a few years ago, Philip retired and freed up money, and she began to do more work..
and she is still probably trying to spend as much time with the children as she can before she and William are busier with supporting Charles and Cam.  They are older people and probably wont do that much travelling and Cath will probalby need to send the kids to boarding school.....

[PrincessOfPeace]

Kate has always stressed that raising her children in a hands on manner is her first priority. In 2012, Kate did 111 official engagements according to the Court Circular, more than either William or Harry, so it's not like she's invisible. Plus her popularity with the British public speaks for itself. 

[Nightowl]

Yes, but there has been alleged palace sources during the past years, Kate's primary focus are her children. This shouldn't be dismissed as a non job. It's the hardest job.

Absolutely agree with you 100% as being a mother is the toughest job there is to raise a child to be a decent human being.   Being born in a royal family and heir more so. 

[Amabel2]

Absolutely agree with you 100% as being a mother is the toughest job there is to raise a child to be a decent human being.   Being born in a royal family and heir more so.

why is it harder to rear a royal child?  One has a lot more help.

[Nightowl]

Just my take on it, a royal child has to learn so many more things about life earlier then a normal child, like they have security around them almost 24/7, they have to watch what they say to people and mostly to reporters if they get close, a normal child can run around anywhere and be sloppy where as a royal child just can't do that, sure royal children have shorts and sneakers and t-shirts yet rarely do we see them in sloppy clothes playing in dirt and having fun on a swing......just my take on some of the issues of a child being born into a royal family and if one is heir then that is another whole different ball park.  I think Catherine tries to make sure George has a normal childhood more then his dad ever did.  Just imagine having your entire life played out by the media and worry who is around the next corner wanting to take your picture all the time.....that is hard for adults let alone a child. Like Beatrice's husband most of the time looks grumpy for the cameras whereas Beatrice just smiles and moves on and it does not effect her like it does her husband.

[Amabel2]

I certainly dont notice Bea's husband looking grumpy, he seems to enjoy looking fashionable and smart in pictures.
Kate has plenty of help with the kids, they have police and nanny and staff to help her...  so far however Louis is being rather a brat, and needs a bit more of a firm nanny.....

When we saw Louis over the summer at age 4 and 4 months, he was behaving in a rather typical four year old fashion. As an educator, I've worked with scor of children around that age and stage of development. We the public just don't always see it on worldwide television coverage.   They can be very compliant but at the same time very impulsive. That's normal for that age and stage. Keep in mind also that we just didn't see his siblings George and Charlotte as much during that age in their lifetimes. I do recall when they were four years old,  George was  being a bit unruly at his aunt Pippa's wedding and Charlotte was sticking out her tongue at the King's Cup. However both of them have been very well behaved since then at public events as demonstrated at the DoE's memorial, Jubilee, QEII's funeral and recently at Christmas.  Louis' father, uncle Harry, cousin Zara etc..displayed similar behaviors at around the same age at public events such as on the BP balcony or when they were in a wedding party. It's been the same with other royal families too.  Now during the Jubilee events where we've seen Louis he had periods of time where he was calmer and still ie: Trooping the Color carriage rides. Then he had times where he was active and unruly ie: Jubilee Concert. His parents had him removed when he stopped listening which was the appropriate step to take.
Children at that age and stage are have shorter attention spans, push boundaries and need more redirection. However incredible growth and maturity takes place over  the period of one year especially when they start school. Parents aren't the only ones who are reinforcing behavior expectations and it's not uncommon to hear parents state that their children are better behaved with their teachers. Honestly I believe that Louis will be fine.

[Curryong]

So far this year it has been Anne and Charles, and then the rest regarding the number of royal engagements among working royals. Anne The Princess Royal ? 344, The King ? 336, with Camilla limping behind, at 152. 

William and Kate are on 109 and 90 respectively, so Kate is miles behind three people in their 70s and William behind two as well as the Dukes of Edinburgh and Gloucester. Kate isn?t just behind them but behind Sophie Edinburgh as well!
Such hard workers, with half the year gone! And August, a time of holidays for the Royals at Balmoral and elsewhere isn?t likely to improve things. Any chance of William reaching his father or aunt?s totals by December?  Hardly! And as for Kate, who regularly is ahead, just, of very elderly working members of the Royal list like the Kents but way behind the rest of the pack, words fail me!

[PrincessOfPeace]

I find this website uses a little perspective - British Royal Family Engagements - 2022 & 2023 - The Royal Forums

[TLLK]

As the King and the Princess Royal have the most patronages, military appointments and honorary positions which have been accumulated over the 40 plus years of royal duty service, I'm not surprised to see that they would be at the top of the list for engagement tallies.  :shrug: When you read the Court Circular, you typically see that a royal is there in their role as a Patron. Those with more patronages tend to have a busier calendar than those with fewer. I doubt that
Charles, Anne, Camilla etc..would expect the Wales to take their place at an engagement of which  they are not the patrons.

The Gloucesters, Edinburghs, and Kents also have gathered many patronages, military appointments etc...in their decades of service. Though of course the Kents are slowing down.

The Wales are the ones with the fewest number of patronages, appointments etc... unlike those in their eighties, seventies and fifties, so I don't expect them to be at the top of the tally.

[TLLK]

I find this website uses a little perspective - British Royal Family Engagements - 2022 & 2023 - The Royal Forums

IMHO this is even better than Tim O'Donovan's.

We know that KCIII is the Patron/President of over 400 organizations. His sister the PssR has 300 or so that she represents. Naturally I expect them to be busier than the younger royals who far fewer patronages.

[Curryong]

IMHO this is even better than Tim O'Donovan's.

We know that KCIII is the Patron/President of over 400 organizations. His sister the PssR has 300 or so that she represents. Naturally I expect them to be busier than the younger royals who far fewer patronages.

Yes, but traditionally the BRF working royals have always had hundreds of Patronages/Presidencies. We knew, because it was discussed over the years that this often just meant their name on a letterhead.

That was so for the QM, the late Queen and the late PP.

It?s been acknowledged over the years in Royal forums that those royals and others did not assiduously follow through with anything like visiting all those charities even a half a dozen times a year each. It would have been physically impossible. And surely nobody is suggesting that King Charles or even Princess Anne visits every one of the charities under their patronage, let alone people like the Kents and Gloucesters doing so.

The point is however that the King and his sister follow through with visiting at least a couple of dozen charities/organisations throughout the year which are high profile, important regionally or otherwise or worthwhile, as well as carrying out ceremonial and other duties.

Kate doesn?t. In fact she received some very rare criticism from the usually adoring British media earlier this year when there were no public engagements and it was not school holidays. She does less, much less in fact, in the number of engagements per year than Diana did. And Diana too had young offspring, the excuse that is regularly trotted out for Kate.

She is going to have to hope that her father in law and his wife and the Gloucesters and Edinburghs keep in reasonable health, and activity, otherwise some of the media are going to start to notice in greater numbers. And as I said on another post William isn?t exactly bursting a boiler every day with royal engagements, whether he is Patron or not.

Sorry I used the wrong thread before.

And The Royal Forum was where I got the figures I quoted in my post. They are indeed very accurate.

[TLLK]

@Curryong-Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the there's been a deliberate shift in policy when it comes to patronages. I believe that this began with the younger children (Andrew/Edward) and  grandchildren (William/Harry) of the late QEII and DoE.  These members would not become the patrons of hundreds of organizations unlike the older group QEII/Doe-Charles/Anne. Instead they would  focus upon foundations (Royal Foundation) or take over existing large schemes ie: the DoE Awards/Pitch at Palace while becoming the patrons of a smaller number of charities. For example Edward only has 70 while his eldest siblings have hundreds.

[wannable]

The impact is stronger and in memory with a few organizations, foundations or tie in one event several charities rather than 6K charities cutting ribbons, a photo op, small chit chat, no one can finger point.

I'd very likely exempt Princess Anne who regularly visits her hundreds of charities every year. Charles a second, but most people recognize his championing via his own organization, foundation (trust).

[TLLK]

I personally believe that around the time that the Wessexes/Edinburghs joined the working royals group, that there was a decision made to have them and any future royals ie William/Harry and future spouses not take on the huge number of patronages that the older group of royals which included Charles, Anne, and Andrew had been doing for decades. At that point in time, the late Queen and DoE had so many that years would go by before the organization would receive a visit from their royal patron.

Edward and Sophie each have about 70 patronages which is far below Edward's elder siblings. Charles has around 400, Anne-300 and even Andrew had around 200.
William has over 30 as well as the Royal Foundation with Catherine holding about 20 patronages.

I don't believe that it was expected that in the future that those younger royals would have as many organizations to represent as the older ones. Mostly because the late Queen, DoE and Charles realized that there would be a smaller group of working royals in the future. Now there are even fewer representatives now that Andrew, Harry and Meghan no longer undertake these types of duties.

So honestly with the remaining half of the year, I doubt that William plans to "catch up" to his father's or aunt's tally numbers mostly because he doesn't represent as many organizations as they do.

[PrincessOfPeace]

There's many ways to look at the numbers. The Wales' are far from invisible. Both William and Catherine have carried out engagements on more days than either Edward or Sophie. William has actually worked more days than Camilla and Catherine is just a few behind her. 

So as far as being out and about, the Wales' are not hiding away anywhere. They are simply putting their family first. 

[Curryong]

I personally believe that around the time that the Wessexes/Edinburghs joined the working royals group, that there was a decision made to have them and any future royals ie William/Harry and future spouses not take on the huge number of patronages that the older group of royals which included Charles, Anne, and Andrew had been doing for decades. At that point in time, the late Queen and DoE had so many that years would go by before the organization would receive a visit from their royal patron.

Edward and Sophie each have about 70 patronages which is far below Edward's elder siblings. Charles has around 400, Anne-300 and even Andrew had around 200.
William has over 30 as well as the Royal Foundation with Catherine holding about 20 patronages.

I don't believe that it was expected that in the future that those younger royals would have as many organizations to represent as the older ones. Mostly because the late Queen, DoE and Charles realized that there would be a smaller group of working royals in the future. Now there are even fewer representatives now that Andrew, Harry and Meghan no longer undertake these types of duties.

So honestly with the remaining half of the year, I doubt that William plans to "catch up" to his father's or aunt's tally numbers mostly because he doesn't represent as many organizations as they do.

Yes it appears that William?s view is to concentrate his engagement calendar on a few areas that he considers vital and that will be the same for Kate, besides ceremonial duties of course. Much the same as royals did before WW2. That has been put forward for several years, (and is the pattern of most Continental royals, who incidentally don?t have a Commonwealth.) And the many hundreds of patronages that the QM, Queen, PP and the old Gloucesters did per year was to be sure, definitely not efficient.

Whether the British people though will be very content paying out millions per year in taxes going in part to Sovereign Grant money for what many would see as one quarter the work that the late Queen did, we will have to wait and see.

And as for visibility, it?s well known that the Cambridges/Wales are the media?s darlings and have a full roster of RRs trailing around after them while many of the engagements undertaken by Anne, Sophie, Edward etc, and even the King and Camilla get much less publicity. So naturally there is a lot of visibility, on one couple. Whether that will continue in quite the same way as they age (and therefore get less interesting to the media and public) we will have to see.

However a comparison has been made of the number of royals now compared to the beginning of the Queen?s reign. And that  is that the majority of the work of the royals was being done then by those in their 20s and 30s with virtually none done by those over 70, while in 2023 about 60% is being done by those over 70 with those in their 40s happy to do about 100 - 200 for the year and of course now  there are no working royals in their 20s or 30s.

[Curryong]

I know this is the wrong thread, but TLLK, has the aged Mr O? Donavon now stopped publishing his totals of royal engagements for the year now? The Telegraph used to publish them I think. Are there any other totals for 2023 being shown in British newspapers?

[Curryong]

I found this from the Telegraph. It?s as well to remember that the majority of the working royals are now over seventy years old with the Kents in their eighties and the Gloucesters nearly eighty. And those royals do the majority of the work.

From the Telegraph.

Princess Anne was the hardest working member of the royal family this year, carrying out 457 royal engagements, 32 more than King Charles.

According to an analysis of public events and official meetings by the Sunday Telegraph, the King ranked in second place, with 425 engagements, while his wife Queen Camilla came in fourth with 233. (Anne is 73, the King 75 and Camilla 76.) The Duke of Edinburgh was third with 297 engagements, and his wife the Duchess of Edinburgh was fifth, with 219 engagements. (Edward is in his sixties. Sophie in her later fifties.)

Prince William and Princess Kate undertook 172 and 128 engagements respectively, with the majority of day-to-day public commitments carried out by royals well into or approaching retirement. The Duke of Gloucester undertook 172 engagements, the same number as William, and the Duchess of Gloucester undertook 117 engagements. The Gloucesters are 79 and 77 years old.

[TLLK]

@Curryong-I recall that O'Donovan would wait until the end of December to release his tally. So we might have  to wait  a couple of weeks.  Hopefully he will supply one this year. It seems like more publications do post one now that the Cc is online.