2016 in Review: Kate Middleton’s Engagement Numbers

179 thoughts on “2016 in Review: Kate Middleton’s Engagement Numbers

  1. I’ve always thought Tim embellished W&K’s numbers while lowering everyone else’s. From what I’ve read in the past 2/3 years, Sophie and Harry have lower numbers than the fandom’s estimates and counts while W&K would have grossly inflated numbers. Rinse and repeated for 2016.

    1. Not that I care to defend Tim O’Donovan but just to put this out there: Airport arrival and departures get counted in the CC for Harry and Sophie as well, and last year I counted Kate as doing more engagements than O’Donovan counted her as doing.

  2. Thank you so much for this comprehensive breakdown and explanation KMR! Although I don’t think W&K will want to thank you.

    I’m appalled. It just isn’t good enough. 16 and a half working days out of 365. Seriously? I really do think questions need to be asked now about the level of work ethic and commitment of this couple and Harry.

    Also it is clear that neither Kate not William are spending much time behind the scenes prepping for engagements. ‘Winging it’ is lazy and disrespectful and Diana would be horrified, she was known for her prep, indeed legendary for her personal and prompt thank you notes and letters.

    I’d like to think they are making private visits, again taking a leaf out of Diana’s book, but I can’t see it.

    Unless in 2017 someone has the balls to call them out on this and get them out there, then not even using the kids for PR is going to work. This is a couple who live an incredibly privileged lifestyle courtesy of the British taxpayer and seem to relish doing as little as possible in return.

    I reckon if push comes to shove with kate she will get pregnant again especially as I can see Pippa wanting children as soon as she is married.

    Thank you again for this informative post.

    1. Debra, I agree with you. Not preparing for one’s visits is just so disrespectful.
      William and Kate seem to be notorious for not doing so. William even admitted to not rading his briefs.

      Yes, Diana would have been horrified. She was sincere in her efforts and people could tell.

      as for Harry’s numbers, I imagine that the time he put into the Invictgus Games, as well as his other primary interests, goes far beyond attending events. Also, the way he relates to people at events says a lot about who is is and what he does.

      I always get the impression that William and Kate usually phone it in, even when they make personal appearances.

      1. Wow, KMR. Really impressed how you made the engagement numbers understandable and put them into perspective.

        So, basically, the only people who increased their engagements were Charles, who seems to be taking over for his parents and working himself to the bone.

        The other increases are for the work shy royals who simply had to up their game this year given they were so indifferent to duty last year.

        Again, thanks so much for this breakdown. Wishing thou a wonderful 2017.

          1. @Sarah

            Yes, Benedict was a wonderfully sly, funny, murderous villain as Richard. (Loved his side eye when his mother gave him a long disapproving look.) But Sophie Okonedo–OMG, that woman can act. I will always think of her as Margaret of Anjou.

            It’s interesting that Ben has an ancestral connection to Richard.

        1. In Catherine Mayer’s biography Charles is called a workaholic and spends hours after whatever he does during the day to write letters, thank you notes, respond to letters people send, memorize briefings for the next few days, etc. I’d say he would often put in a normal 8 hour workday or more. His staff talked about it to her and she saw it herself so I tend to believe he’s one of the few who actually, well, work like a normal human being and then some.

          Sad W&K&H will never help him out with any of that. The Prince’s Trust should be in good hands for whoever takes it over after Charles becomes king because he can’t possibly be as engaged with it as he is now.

    2. Thanks, KMR! I was poking around on the internet and found this Today story comparing Kate and Diana’s first year as royals. Direct quote: ““Diana was such a unique character, and I think Kate really wants to carve her own path. She doesn’t want to be compared to William’s mum. She’s much more independent, much more confident and wants to be her own person.” I just don’t see the independence, confidence, or Kate being her own person after these many years on the job. I really want to but I just don’t. Full article (back from when we all had hope): http://www.today.com/id/47186958/ns/today-today_news/t/how-did-kates-first-royal-year-compare-dianas/#.WGXTuFMrLIU

  3. Thank you for posting this, KMR! I really appreciate how prompt you are with posts about the BRF. And even over the holidays too!

    These numbers really are embarrassingly low. There simply is no excuse for it. Until I started reading this blog, I didn’t necessarily think about W&K’s appearances as something they’re obligated to do given their lifestyle. It’s not that I ever disagreed, I just didn’t give it much thought. Now that I am, and to see numbers like this, I find it really hard to understand why the BRF continues to tolerate such poor turnout and clear disinterest. HM is 90 years old and she is blowing them out of the water with her numbers. Certainly nearing 100 is more of an excuse to make less appearances than having two children (and a nanny, a cook and maids to boot)? I really just don’t get it. This must improve or else the reputation of the BRF will face a real shift in favourability.

  4. I think all of us needs to accept William and Kate will never change, and will always use their kids as positive PR to manipulate the people, and that they will never become KING AND QUEEN in the future because after The Queen passes, unless their is some miracle the monarchy will not last after Charles or during his reign because a lot of people will questioned whether we need a monarchy and a lot of Commonwealth countries will leave the UK and possibly Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    Who knows maybe it was Harry’s destiny all along to be King after all. Diana had it right.
    *Off topic but how much does it cost annually to protect the Cambridges annually?

    1. The realm has been contracting since George V was King. Queen Elizabeth is currently the Head of State (HOS) of 16 countries, during her reign she has been HOS of over 30 countries. I don’t think that it is a fearless prediction that when Charles becomes King that he will be HOS of fewer countries than his mother was, and that when William is King that he will be HOS of fewer countries than his father. Charles and William may have baggage but I think that the loss will be due more to countries deciding that they do not want to have a foreign head of state. I think that the English monarchy will endure but ultimately the descendants of Elizabeth may only be the Head of State of an island in the north Atlantic, maybe even just a portion of that island.

    2. Most countries in the Commonwealth group do not have the BRF as their head of state; they are fully independent. It’s only the Commonwealth realms that still have the British monarch as the lazy, useless, unelected Head of State. I hope that when Lilibet croaks, Canada makes some serious moves to dump the BRF like a steaming pile of turd.

      1. Well there was that random survey in Global news that said 53% of Canadians want the monarchy to end once the Queen passes. And there is no public or obvious movement to do so, which means once Canadians actually think about it, that number will be much higher because Canadians complain about paying for their spoiled actual Canadian citizen senators and aren’t going to want to support a foreign head of state.

        There is a woman on celebitchy who is constantly trying to dismiss this survey or blame Quebec, but she is in denial. Talk to a regular Canadian who doesn’t follow anything royal and they will say they don’t want Chuck on their money.

        1. I read Celebitchy although I don’t post there- I know which poster you are talking about and now how she blames the Québécois for the disapproval ratings for the BRF in Canada, lol!

  5. Either way you look at it the honeymoon with the press is over for the young Royals, it’s clear that they have made a concerted effort to step up this year… but the sheer fact that a tally is being kept, is a signal that while the three of them want to modernize and seem to not want their lives to be just plaque reveals after another, they quickly need to find their way. If I could address the trio for a moment….. 1) William stop acting like it’s all beneath you and that you ‘work’ part time; give up some control or at least pretend to… so the control freak label could phase. 2) Kate … ugh you are not the queen yet… Speak up in your real voice, not the fake posh one, shake it up, be real, straighten that bad posture and stop dressing like my grandma and burn those clutches and flesh color shoes.. please if you do nothing else… burn the shoes 3) Harry get married have some kids… that should buy you 3-4 more years of good press… but do it soon… cause, you are slowly balding… soon you will be that single old bald guy at the pub and that’s not cute… oh and Happy new year to you all!

    1. “while the three of them want to modernize”

      I’m not seeing any evidence of this no matter what mendacious narrative their PR lobs our way (it’s Charles that wants to modernise by streamlining the monarchy). I see the three of them wanting to avoid and do their own thing on the taxpayers’ shilling.

      LOL on the rest of your comment!

  6. Great job with the breakdown KMR!

    As for the engagement totals, I don’t think kate should get credit for the ones where Will is speaking and she just sits there like a lump. All the foreign engagements were that. It is the 21st century and totally bizarre that kate barely speaks in public even after five years on the job.

    They should be embarrassed. But they won’t be. If they had any sense of shame they would have stepped it up years ago.

    1. I believe that from their POV, gracing the great unwashed with their rare and fragrant presence is all that is needed. They are bestowing the greatest of honours by bringing the royal body.

      1. Maven: Kate said as much in the documentary on the Queen’s 90th.

        When describing the Queen’s work during an engagement, she talked about how the queen didn’t have to do anything except be present and or smile and how the peasants were satisfied by this.

    2. I think Kate’s doing the supportive political spouse thing when she just stands and smiles next to Will. I wouldn’t have a problem with that if that weren’t all she does. More solo events, Kate. Many, many more. And more written “events” too. She’s making it look like she phoned in that degree of hers. As does Will.

      KMR, you’ve done a fantastic job with the engagement numbers and breakdown. My New Year’s resolution will be to reorganize my files and other increasingly annoying paperwork. I really wish I had you here with me to help. Best wishes for your 2017!

      1. I know nothing of the reputation of st.andrews but having these two be some of their more well known to matriculate out of there, I’d start to question some of their academic programs

  7. I’m an accountant I love numbers. So first I wondered what would happen when Charles is King and it is just him and his immediate line working….5 working royals. So I added all the other engagements up to approx 11,500 which at an hour an engagement works out at about 1,400 days divide by 5 and hey presto hey would each have to work another 280+ days.

    So full time working royal now almost makes sense. It is possible for the five to pick up the work of all the others and still have more holiday than the average hard working person.

    But would they actually do that or would many things just get dropped? Those little meet and greets that mean so much to people, the patronages …of course foreign tours might decrease if some Commonwealth countries drop them as HOS?

    KMR thank you for all your hard work throughout the year making this post so informative .

  8. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. William has no interest in being King. He will keep up with the charade until HM is gone. Then he’ll step down.
    Nothing in his behaviour shows that he’ll work hard for the institution to still exist. He treats his tours like holidays where his staff just put together different activities the same way we’d ask a travel agent when we’re booking a road trip. He doesn’t prep his tours, doesn’t prepare speeches, doesn’t read briefing notes, doesn’t take any interest in people he’s meeting. He’s basically half-assing his job.
    William also hates the press (actually he hates that he is accountable to the public and that the press is reporting his activities) and the royal duties. Both will be gone if the monarchy is gone.
    On one side, you have a public who feels the BRF is outdated and expensive and on the other side you have young Royals who feel trapped and forced to do a job they hate. Drop the institution and everybody will be happy.

    The way Charles and HM are spoiling William reminds me of a rich couple who keeps buying expensive stuff to their kid because they don’t know how to deal with him while hoping that he’ll eventually get his sh** together. What both HM and Charles don’t get though, is that the issue is deeper. William being reluctant is something that has been around back to his Eton years.

    I know many have said that he won’t step aside because he loves the perks too much. Well, Kate and him stay mainly at “the privately owned by the Windsors” Anmer Hall rather than “the state owned” KP. If the monarchy is gone, nothing forbides them from getting freebies (clothes, vacation spots,etc…). Many deposed Houses are fine. So the Windsors will be fine too.

    1. It will be hard for William and Kate to work as “hard” as Prince Philip or the Queen (!). I just can’t imagine it without thinking of some aristocrats who live on the costs of the people and as history showed us, it’s often shortly before a revolution. It would be a huge change, there was always a king or queen in Great Britain and I think it would be a shame, I always liked Queen Elizabeth and her work.

      1. After reading the article I think it’s obvious. William will step aside when hm dies. He wouldn’t do that to her while she was alive. That explains why kate doesn’t feel the desire to try and why they are shuffling their feet. He will stick it to his dad and live off dianas money. I see it plain as day. I just wonder if harry knows…

        1. @Jeanne, I can see them doing some shift with the line of succession. William will not go out easily. I can see Harry and his kids now being in the position William and his kids are and William being in Harry’s position. It hasn’t been done but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done.

        2. No, I don’t think William will step aside. He will just continue to be lazy and ineffective and Charles will find it hard ,at this point, to start dishing out tough love!

          Thank you, KMR, for such outstanding coverage! Happy 2017 to you and all!

    2. My prediction is that William, assuming he has longevity similar to that of his grandparents, will serve a considerable amount of time as King. I think that he will abdicate but it will be more of a retirement abdication that will come when he and his heir feels that the heir is ready and willing to assume the reins (or reigns 😛 ). IMO if it plays out that way, that will actually be better for the monarchy to have a young-ish monarch in place rather than have three consecutive accessions of aging male monarchs.

      Now this is interesting:
      “What both HM and Charles don’t get though, is that the issue is deeper. William being reluctant is something that has been around back to his Eton years.”

      I actually suspect that the Queen and Charles do “get” that William has been reluctant going back to when he was a teenager, and the Queen, Charles and others probably did some fancy footwork back then to prevent William from doing anything too rash with promises that things will get better and/or they will make every effort to help William create a role and environment that he is comfortable with.

      1. Further to your aomment @aaa, i give you this article in the independent, written in 2003, that touches upon your thought vis a vis HM and Charles being aware of William’s reluctance and possible promises made by William to settle ruffled feathers.


        FYI: the journalist who wrote this article is a political journalist NOT a royal reporter. He has written a book about the BRF, concentrating on the QM to William and Harry, called ‘God Save the Queen?’ He argues that we should let the monarchy go.


        1. There was a follow up by Damian Thompson of the telegraph in an article titled, ‘How Prince William resisted Kohann Hari’s advances’, but the article has been scrubbed from the internet though link is still up.

          The only reference of content i could find was a sentence from the article copied into a comment at royalgossip blog.



          “Prince William has told friends he does not want to be King. His dad went mental. The queen went mental. He was forced to have arguments he wanted to put off for years.”

          I remember reading full article several years ago, and finding it again as recently as 3yrs ago.

          The gist was that in the process of researching his book ‘God save the Queen?’ Johann Hari had discovered that William had told everyone that he didn’t want to be King and had no intention of becoming King. When Johann Hari put this comment into print in an article for the New Statesman Magazine, Charles and the Queen went ballistic and William had to placate them and tell them he would reconsider.

          I think this is why they keep placating him because they think he will change his mind.

          1. Wow. Thanks for the links. I know that William is unpopular – and for good reason – but I do feel for him. Yes: he is fantastically privileged, but he is, too, a man that has lived his entire life trying to reckon with fate that he didn’t choose – one that he wants nothing to do with. That’s quite an emotional burden. No amount of wealth or privilege can relieve that kind of pressure.

            And what the writer says about the role of the BRF in modern society is 100 percent true: to be Royal is to be a full time press spectacle. That’s the extent of the job. William knows it and has loathed it his entire life – long before his mother died. And now he’s trying to shove himself into a job he hates and has always hated. He doesn’t like it and isn’t good at it and, in turn, people dislike him for not liking it and not being good at it. It’s a vicious circle.

            HM and PC attitude toward William makes so much more sense now. They’re just trying to get this man on the throne! They don’t want to push too hard for fear of triggering an abdication. What a mess.

          2. He is not a prisoner. He has the ability to walk away with his enormous inheritance, take his kids, and live in a country where no one is allowed to photograph him in public. He chooses to stay. I do not think it is out of a sense of duty, but rather greed, fear, and being automatically deferred to.

          3. I think his actions still say he’s not interested.
            Maya Angelou said when someone shows you who they are believe then.
            William has showed us over and over agin he’s not interested. I see no desire from him to change his ways

          4. Wow! Thanks for this. Everything just fell into place for me. It explains his vile behaviour and his pushing back. His resentment. He is doing everything within his power to stick it to the RF while raking in the cash. What a sweet place to be.

            This makes the queen and Chuck, idiots, IMO. Do they not see how well their strategies are working (not)? They infantilise him. As mentioned often, he has a choice. They possess that power. Make him grow up and choose. Meanwhile, everyone has to endure his adolescent games of spite. Damn, it all makes sense to me now.

            He is never going to stop agitating for the Midds to get titles because he knows this kills the royals. He really is using the Midds to get back at them. He is going to be hell on wheels once the Duchy of Cornwall becomes his. He is going to drain the coffers dry and flip the bird not only to his family but to the people. Meanwhile, he’ll use the Midds to achieve those ends and they will be fat with smugness. We ain’t seen nothing yet. They will egg him on to destroy everything.

          5. …Edit timed out.

            What we are now seeing is the beginnings of Willy’s towering scorched earth tantrum).

            (This also explains why he wanted 1A, all the obscenely lavish work on it and leaves it empty. It’s throwing the gift right back in their faces, shows his contempt and how worthless it is to him.)

        1. But how? If William abdicates, his son gets the crown. Harry could be regent until his nephew comes of age. He would only become sovereign if both George and Charlotte abdicated – and I think the British public would rather dump the monarchy than play “musical chairs” with the throne. In fact, I would bet that if William were to renounce his place in the line of succession today, the republic movement would gain steam, and Charles would never be crowned.

          1. Yes; any shakeup in the monarchy would result in both public and governmental backlash. People will not just sit and watch as a family of spoiled, wealthy on the taxpayers’ backs abdicate one by one while running off with spoils in doing so.

          2. Actually, maybe they all know that Will has no intention of being King. They just need him to keep his mouth shut – go through the motions until Charles gets that crown on his head. I’m obviously not the first to suggest this lol.

          3. @Lobbit, but I can see if William gets worse the 16 Commonwealth Countries and the UK maybe wanting Harry has king and I read they all have to vote on it and if they want Harry and his heirs than the UK parliament has to change the succession. Anything is possible.

          4. @kitty – Harry is very popular, but I think the public and the polity would fight to abolish the monarchy way before they’d fight to put him on the throne. Just my opinion, though!

          5. And this is why they keep trying to placate William.

            Anything that remotely resembles the abdication spells trouble, though I think the monarchy will be around for awhile considering how entrenched it is into British government.

          6. @Lobbit, maybe or maybe not. If Harry and his family are very popular with everyone including the Commonwealth countries I can see him being King.

      2. I agree with much of this. Further, I think that W is just one of those “grass is greener on the other side” sort of people. When he was 20, according to the article, he didn’t want to be king. So he had a go at being a swashbuckling military hero. However, having got the cool search-and-rescue RAF chopper pilot spot he did so little with it that he risked losing his wings. Then he decided to train for gentleman farmer extraordinaire — much like his father is — and arranged for the Cambridge course. Which he likely failed to complete. And so it goes. I think the pathetic increase in numbers is his way of coping with the fact that he doesn’t want to be king, but he doesn’t want to be anything else even more (less?), either. It would explain his near-constant expression of petulant dissatisfaction. He just isn’t happy being him. But who else could he be?

        1. @graymatters; do you think Diana knew it before anyone William did not want to be King and that’s why she would say “Good King Harry”?

    3. @Maya86
      You may well be right. I’d add that Charles may be pursuing the transfer of the Duchy of Cornwall from being publicly-owned to Wales-owned to enable William and family to live comfortably.

  9. Thanks for this analysis, KMR!

    I find it pretty appalling Kate doesn’t visit these charities but just sends letters or makes video messages. Does she think this is equivalent of showing up? I don’t think she’s good with kids, for example the hospice charities, but visiting them gives them a morale boost these folks deserve. Imagine if Kate did something like Camilla’s yearly hospice Christmas party. Imagine if they wer prepared as Charles, Anne, Sophie, et al were; Catherine Mayer’s biography discusses just how prepared Charles is, for example, with people meeting him saying he /memorizes/ his briefings and always has things to ask, talk about, etc, which I assume is the same for people like Anne and Sophie who take their jobs seriously and always interact appropriately. It’s so disrespectful to do anything but.

    HM has her 3-4 hours of government papers to go through, not to mention the meetings and so on as Head of State she attends. I cannot see William ever doing this.

    I hope everyone has a happy new year, even though it’s not quite that time yet. I’m ready to see 2016 off.

    1. @Ellie we need to accept the fact she is not caught out for the role as a royal and has no interest in being a humanitarian and huge influence in the world.

  10. Looks like the holi-tours of 2016 really boosted the lazy duo’s numbers. Will be interesting to see what will happen after HM passes away, I can’t see much changing though…I suspect the monarchy will end with Charles.

  11. Setting aside the Queen’s daily red box work, there isn’t a royal on that list doing anything approaching full time hours. However, it is the youngest royals who are doing least work, and that to me is wrong.

    One of the excuses made for W&K is that William is not yet the heir – Charles is. Charles is also 68, Camilla is 69. Because of this heir idea and the longevity of the British royals, we have the odd belief that a 68 year old man should be working longer hours and carrying out more engagements than a 34 year old. Heir or not, William and Kate are of prime working age and should be doing more.

    I also know that W&K have two young children. Even setting aside the large staff that help with raising the children, running their home and providing support for everything they do, I do not think it’s unreasonable for Kate to essentially devote at least 1 full day a week to her charitable causes. Her lifestyle is funded to allow her to carry out royal duties and 1 day of work is not expecting her to work anywhere near full-time, if that’s really a concern. If she did 1 day a week, she would go from 16 days a year to 52 days a year. I’d be happy to do double that in exchange for two nice mansions, use of a helicopter and a closet full of fancy hats.

    1. Kate worked 63 days this year, which I stated in my article. That 16 number I mentioned comes from converting her total number of engagements into hours and then dividing by 8 (for a normal, 8-hour working day). She definitely worked more than 16 days this year – it’s just that most of those days were spent “working” for only an hour.

      The thing about the “William and Kate have two young kids that’s why they can’t work” excuse some people throw out there is that Harry works the same amount that they do and he doesn’t have a wife or kids to deal with. So that excuse fails specifically because of Harry. If Harry were working the same numbers that Andrew and Edward do while William and Kate were doing what they’re doing now, then maybe that excuse would have some sort of leg to stand on, but since Harry, for whatever reason, doesn’t outwork William that excuse is BS.

      1. Hi KMR – I was talking about your converted total. Either way, she could do more.

        I think the kids excuse is BS, but is used frequently to justify the lack of work. I’m also unconvinced by the ‘Harry works loads but his hours are kept secret so as not to overshadow W&K’ argument, but that might just be me. The three of them should be taking on more work so their increasingly elderly relatives can take a step back.

        1. Ah, okay. I wasn’t sure, so I wanted to make clear. I, too, think she could and should work more. I get wanting to spend time with your kids while they’re young but she doesn’t have a normal job. She could do an engagement every day and still spend way more time with her kids than the average working mom.

          I, too, am unconvinced of Harry’s workload. I guess we’ll be in minority together. I do think it’s odd that some of Harry’s work doesn’t get counted in the CC (only the first day of Invictus was counted even though he was there multiple days), but I remain unconvinced that he does a huge amount of work we don’t know about – he clearly has loads of time to go on vacation and hang with his girlfriend. And I kind of think the “Harry can’t outwork William” is an excuse Harry himself takes full advantage of. Like, instead of stepping up and actually taking on more of the royal work and letting the elderly royals relax, Harry hides behind the fact that he “can’t outwork William”. Clearly royals farther down in line can outwork the people ahead of them. Many of them outwork the Queen and Philip now, and Anne outworks Andrew and Edward all the time (and sometimes Anne outworks Charles), and this year Edward outworked Andrew. So that excuse is specific to William and Harry because they want it to be true, not that it is some official rule for the family.

          1. I agree. That’s what they are. Excuses. W&K use their kids as an excuse, and Harry uses his older brother as an excuse. If any one of them wanted to work more they could. If Harry wanted a real job, one could be made for him just like one was made for William. None of the trio want to work hard. It would cut into their private time and secret vacations. Why would they? If my job wanted to pay me my full salary without me having to go in most of the days out of the year it’d be hard to not take advantage. Charles needs to sit his kids down and tell them that if they don’t step up he’s cutting them off. Neither son would last long on solely their inheritance from Diana. They live too large.

          2. Harry could support his brother by taking on more work, justifying it by saying he’ll take up the slack while K+W attend to their kids as full-time ‘hands-on’ parents.

            The Wales’ boys have been given too much without being instructed to give back.

          3. We really don’t know how much time he is able to spend out of the country with his girlfriend. Lots of speculation, but how many verified visits not just twitter speculation and fandom running wild?

            Harry was raised taking the brunt of the family-directed negative PR for years. Not just the traditional press bashing of the spare, but the family itself pushing William forward and protecting William’s actions. They still do this today.

            Harry was said to be furious that his father used him many times for his own PR, and also said to accept it as part of the game. That is how the firm works. To that end, he isn’t going to be seen to outwork his brother. Even when he does more, it isn’t counted, because the firm runs the show and William is the focus-and-problem.

            He understands the Do Something idea from his father, so he created Sentebale and Invictus. My hope is, any future spouse of his does the same. The BRF and the press will treat her the same way they treat him – as the one to throw under the bus. She needs to be strong-enough to take it, and she needs to establish her own outside non-profit to be her main focus.

            Do any of them do enough? Of course not. Only time will tell. I hope, if he marries, he leaves behind the ad hoc Foundation and creates a new one with his spouse. They’d also be wise to move to Charles’s PR team.

          4. Plus, lets naively assume that William is working 4 on 4 off, Kate could spend thie 4 on with kiddos then do a day or two (which equates to an he at most)on his “off” schedule.
            Thus, they are both still spending time with kids yet “working” as well

      2. Agree KMR. I think that even if Harry worked every days they would make his numbers low because of William. I think they don’t want Harry to be seen working more than the Cambridges. OMG, Kate only worked 63 days this year and this is the year when she worked most. Thanks again KMR for this post.

        1. I mean, a LOT of Harry’s things don’t count and they’ve only recently started crediting him with Invictus meetings and Sentebale meetings (before it was considered personal charity work), so I do think there’s some effort to make sure he doesn’t overshadow W&K in the numbers, but he should definitely work more as should W&K. It is appalling. Harry though was raised that he is the spare, not as important as William, and William sure needles him about it with his superiority and nastiness to him even in public. Harry’s job, as he was told since he was little, is to support William. He’s sure been the punching bag, the whipping boy so to speak. I don’t think it is some familial rule, I think it is the dynamic of the two, Harry is always deferential to William, even when William is being outright mean to him for the cameras.

          I expect them to have 200+ engagements per year but I doubt it will happen, not even when Charles is king. He’ll still rely on Anne, Sophie, and Edward. Especially Anne who is a rock star.

          I wonder if part of it is because the other royals do keep working and doing their job, not leaving as much for them. I don’t get it other than pure laziness which is probably the real answer. Once the Gloucesters and Kents stop doing royal duties there will be a big void there. They prop up HM a lot, and dutifully, and are always busy.

          1. Devil’s advocate: If William and Kate were to suddenly start counting in the CC meetings that used to be considered private charity work, people would be upset and think it’s William and Kate and KP padding numbers.

          2. Well, W&K don’t do any private charity work, so the point is moot, right? But I get it. 🙂 If they attend meetings and so on I think it should be on the CC, no matter who it is. W&K get credited for Royal Foundation stuff, why did they take so long for Harry’s Invictus involvement to count? I don’t understand that.

          3. I don’t have a problem that most of Harry’s work for Invictus and Sentebale has not been counted as royal work. Invictus and Sentebale are private charities that happen to have a royal as a founder and that founder works on behalf of the charity. Another private charity that has a royal on staff is the EAAA. The way I see it is that both Harry and William spent years in the military and understandably did limited royal work during that time. When they left the military they did not immediately take on full-time royal work, rather they did some variation of a gap year and ultimately ended up doing part-time work for private charities and part-time royal work. I don’t think that either is being short-shrifted because for the most part their work for these charities isn’t being counted in the court circular – although it looks like increasingly Harry’s work is being counted.

          4. There is no shortage of work that needs to be done in the UK. Harry has taken the initiative with Invictus Games and Sentebale. Maybe it is time for him (and perhaps a future spouse) to create a UK-based charity for X. Focus a lot of their attention on that, but again keeping it outside the official royal role.

            Depending upon what happens in the future, they might need those non-profits of theirs to provide their future employment. Or employment for their kids, a la Madeleine and Childhood. Harry’s kids will be as attacked as Beatrice and Eugenie. Better to go into it planning for their futures, as those kids will not be employees of the royal Firm.

  12. If Charles goes ahead and streamlines the monarchy to the top 5 (6 when Harry marries) he will be cutting his nose off to spite his face. Does he really think that that supposed elite group will pick up the slack of excess engagements that are going to arise when he pushes the other royals aside?! The so-called minor royals carry out nearly 2000 engagements between them – can’t wait to see how its going to work! How many charities are going to lose out because of this. Even Princess Alexandra carried out more engagements than Kate. Now Kate is patron of the tennis assoc, does that mean when she turns up at Wimbledon its classed as an engagement? Also, why weren’t Prince & Princess Michael of Kent’s engagements included, I know Prince Michael carries out quite a few?

    1. Princess Alexandra carried out only 88 engagements in 2016; Kate carried out 133 (140 according to Tim O’Donovan).

      Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are not official working royals so they are never included in this list.

      1. Sorry bout that, I only read the one column. Is the reason the Kent’s engagements aren’t included because he had to give up his position in the line of accession when he married?

        1. When Prince Michael and his wife do royal work it gets counted but these days they aren’t often called upon to carry out engagements on behalf of the Queen. I don’t think he has ever been a full-time working royal, nor was he expected to be, he is the youngest son of George V’s youngest son (actually the youngest son of GV who lived to adulthood).

      2. I do wonder if this is why Princess Michael doesn’t have a royal order. HM may consider those for official “working royals” only. She’s certainly put in the time and effort supporting HM through the years.

        1. Rumor has it that the Queen dislikes Princess Michael for being too grand and pushy. I translate that as HM dislikes those more cultured and talented than she herself is. I agree these Kents have done a lot of work in the past.

          1. I don’t recall stories about her not liking M-C because she is grand. I remember the engagement story, where Prince Michael was talking up M-C’s family history and HM’s laughing that she was too grand for us. More along the lines of HM’s teasing her cousin and him trying to make his intended look important.

  13. If (as has been claimed) Kate, William and Harry want their version of royalty to be more meaningful than cutting ribbons, what alternative are they proposing? How will the Cambridge version of the BRF be meaningful, useful, valued and worth the money?

    1. I suspect they want it to look like the royal foundation/heads together optics where they don’t do any work, the royal foundation is a gigantic royal machine that all the charities fall under, and they are trotted out once in a while for pap strolls and soundbites ‘keep up the good work!’

    2. A good question. But is the current iterration meaningful or worth the money? I’m not so sure it is. There’s value in the monarchy’s rich history and in its traditions – but that’s just…nostalgia.

      1. I’m a card carrying Republican so I don’t believe the royals are value for money as it stands, but appreciate that there is general support for the monarchy tied in largely (IMO) with p-eople’s feelings towards the queen as a symbol of continuity, stability and tradition.

        Charles’s actions suggest his monarchy will be more political and outspoken, but smaller in terms of numbers of active royals and occupied royal residences. I’m halff sure he might hand over Sandringham or Windsor to Historic Royal Palaces and largely live at Clarence House, Highgrove and Balmoral. We know he likes farming, environment, etc, and favours a fairly focused approach to charitable activity.

        William? His actions don’t give any sense of how he would act as an effective king. He wouldn’t be cheaper, or more transparent. For years people have confused his (realitive) youth with being down to earth, and his dislike of pageantry with a disdain for luxury and privacy. He’s not down with the kids, he just watches MTV sometimes. He’s not a moderniser, he just doesn’t like waving from balconies. At best, the actions of Court Cambridge suggest a secretive, rarely-seen, litigious, well-funded monarch surrounded by yes men.

        The Cambridge Court would be a short lived, expensive and cantankerous basket case.

      2. @Lobbit,
        I think that you are hitting on something important. Personally I don’t think that you can do much to the current iteration to make the monarchy more relevant or beloved, although it should be noted that in Britain itself, the monarchy and individual royals are very popular – Charles, the least popular of the senior, senior royals is (IIRC) still viewed favorably overall

        When I hear people itemize the value that the current Queen brings it seems tied to the fact that, yeah she’s dutiful, but her real value is that she has been around for so damn long that she is appreciated for her ubiquity.

        William can be the best damn royal who ever royaled but when he becomes King he will very likely not have a monarchist, war-hero PM like Winston Churchill in his corner. He will not have a living parent or grandparent who will provide gravitas and continuity while the country rallies around and gawks at the new monarch and his young family, and actually the family will probably not be all that young. He will likely (and fortunately) not become King in the aftermath of a World War and Great Depression.

        Having said all that, I don’t think that these are grounds for the English to get rid of its monarchy, but I honestly don’t think that there is much Charles or William can do to endear themselves to “their subjects” to the same degree that previous monarchs have, one thing that they have working against them is that sensibilities are different, but the other is the times we live in, and will hopefully continue to live in, which is a time of relative peace and economic stability.

        1. Those aren’t grounds to abolish the monarchy. What is tho, is the people’s desire that their head of state should be elected by the people not based on hereditary rule.
          I think when the queen passes people will truly start to question the validity of the monarchy

          1. The first sentence of my last paragraph is “having said all that, I don’t think that these are grounds for the English to get rid of its monarchy…” but note me specifying “the English”.

            When I assess the situation I divide the “people” into two segments, one segment is the English/British, and the other segment are the people in countries other than Britain for whom the monarch is head of state. I think the trend of countries leaving the realm will continue because, as I and others have mentioned, having a foreign HOS is not acceptable.

            When it comes to the English/British segment, while I think that British sensibilities will be opposed, in principle, to someone being the HOS because of an accident of birth, I think the British will fall in line with the Danish, Swedes and other European constitutional monarchies and keep the status quo even though intellectually they are opposed to obtaining a high ranking position as a birthright.

  14. What really strikes me as disappointing is that William and Kate (as well as Harry) do almost half of their engagements outside the UK. Why? It makes it look like they do toys solely as a way to boost their numbers. My hunch is that the trio do that because the bread and butter engagements they find boring, and they don’t want to do them.

    It also is very disappointing to me that three able-bodied adults worked less than 100 days out of the year.

    I was kind of surprised by Sophie’s numbers. I thought she worked more. Was there a reason for her low numbers this year? If that’s truly how much she usually works perhaps she should also get added to the conversation. Her clothes bill isn’t cheap either.

    1. “My hunch is that the trio do that because the bread and butter engagements they find boring, and they don’t want to do them” – Ding ding ding.

      1. Yes, and there’s commentary how modern William is not wanting to do those boring engagements. *insert major eyeroll here* No, it is what they /should/ be doing. Sure, it’s boring, but it makes people feel important and valued.

        re: Sophie, I’m sure Edward pays for her expenses. He’s got a nice trust fund. It’s also why I don’t care much about Harry traveling–he uses his own money, not taxpayer bucks.

      2. Well I won’t blame them. It looks boring as hell tbh.
        Who would want to spend their lifetime doing that job?
        Everything will crumble when HM will be gone.

          1. Yep, everyone has to do boring stuff within their jobs, it’s life. We don’t have the luxury to pick just the fun parts. The three of them don’t seem to understand that, it’s entitlement pure and simple.

          2. I agree but despite the boring bits of my work, everything that I do supports a larger mission that I believe in and find personally gratifying. What is the mission behind attending garden shows and ribbon cuttings – beyond keeping an expensive 1000 year tradition going? I know that BRF showing up at building dedications and what not makes people feel good but is that worth the price of Kate’s clothing allowance?

        1. I guess I do not find people or important causes/charities boring. Sophie seems to enjoy herself at her royal duties.

          To me it seems the same as being a good party guest. Part of having a good time is your responsibility. The responsibility alone does not land on the host.

          While cutting ribbons may not be the most exciting thing to do at a royal event, meeting people who are kind enough to attend and the chance to assist those putting on the event should add to the enjoyment for W & K.

          1. I think it depends on the personality type. An extrovert would thrive doing the Royal job; for an introvert though it would be a huge challenge.

          2. Well if royal duties only consisted of supporting causes and charities, I’d be okay with it. But it doesn’t stop there. It’s the constant scrutiny from the public and press. People voraciously waiting for the kids sightings.
            Royals are like animals in a cage from birth til death. I feel bad mostly for the born-royals because they had to put aside their dreams and hopes for the institution they serve. Sure there are perks. But what is the point of being rich if it’s to feel shackled?

          3. I think there are a lot of people who are working multiple jobs just trying to make their mortgage payments so they don’t lose their house and buy food so their family doesn’t go hungry that would trade places with any one of the trio in a second to be that rich and shackled.

          4. @Carter: I think I might have not explained myself well.
            What I’m trying to say is that William doesn’t want to be King. So why is he forced to do a job that he doesn’t want to do anyway?
            The BRF is an expensive institution to keep so if the younger royals feel like they don’t want to fight for it then let’s just abolish it instead of having to witness them half-assing the job.
            I don’t want to see William on a tour 10 years from now confessing that he hasn’t read his briefing notes. Or having the argument that W,K and H are not working enough over and over again.

        2. The core support for the monarchy are the people are bread and butter engagements, be they charities, small businesses, street/town fairs. Those are the people so thrilled to meet a royal they buy all the merchandise and line the streets at national events involving the royal family.

          The cool, elite stuff doesn’t support the royals. There aren’t a huge number of those despite the glaring media spotlight.

          It’s the bread and butter engagements that make up the biggest slice of royal support.

          1. Princess Marie of Denmark alluded to this a bit IMO. She has an interview in which she talks about how important it was for her to learn Danish, because she wanted to be able to speak to every person in Denmark. And that it was only right, because they had welcomed her so kindly.

            Her role is smaller, and for awhile was more focused in the countryside where their house was located. She may have been doing more of these small, local events.

            (I don’t see Marie as amazing or charismatic, rather along the lines of Sophie, Alexandra, or Duchess of Gloucester. She understands it is a PR job. Show up, be friendly, show up, be friendly.)

  15. I believe that the BRF is a very fine tuned machine. Decisions are made at Buckingham Palace for who will appear where and when. I think that the focus is strongly om Charles now so that when the time comes he is received as a well-respected and hard working King. Do William and Kate and Harry really get to choose how many appearances they will make? I have always thought that that is determined by a committee of “men in grey suits.” My point is that I believe this whole thing of appearances is not really in their hands so I will refrain from judging them as lazy.

    1. Aides have said for years that they set their own schedule. So it’s not Charles holding them back. They hold themselves back.

    2. Even if there were “men in grey suits” masterminding the young royals minimal work load, they aren’t the ones making W & KM behave like reluctant, petulant, unprepared, and disrespectful children.

      Both the India-Butan and Canada tour were disgraceful with the lazy duo basically acting as though the host countries should entertain them. They were rude and their manners were appalling. KM has proved to be backward in social graces and digs in her heels to avoid all work until forced. Her correspondence in lieu of an appearance is slip shod and indifferent with a dismissive short note that nobody believes is sincere.

      Even when they deign to show up, they aren’t interested in the work as proved by their ill mannered actions. W&KM hate to work, but love the perks. Little “gray men in suits” aren’t instilling W&KM with a petulant, contemptuous, spoiled personality and work ethic.

          1. @aaa: the Foreign office always releases financial figures of each year’s royal tours.

            That’s how we know that Harry is consistently the cheapest royal on tour whilst WK are now the most expensive on tour.

            William outspending Charles on tour is truly mindboggling because Charles lives like an extremely wealthy Edwardian Gentleman. He takes his own food, sheets, accroutments and appointments on tour fgs!! And a very large entourage, yet WK outspend him!!! It’s mindboggling.

          2. That will change once Harry marries and his wife needs to buy lots of expensive clothes and jewelry for the tours.

          3. @Herazeus really? OMG! Never knew William and Kates are the most expensive. Is it because they request the finest accommodations?

    3. I think there’s some germ of truth to the statement but only insofar as it applies to some of the cornerstone events that the Queen usually presides over–W&K aren’t going to show up to the opening of Parliament, for example, unless they are specifically asked to by the Queen or palace officials.

      At the same time, I find it unlikely in the extreme that these same courtiers are telling Kate and William, “You know those charities you’ve publicly pledged to support? The ones that help people who are hurting and improve the quality of life in the realm? You know how, when you devote yourself to promoting them, the people look on you and the British Royal Family as a whole with greater favor and assure them that quality heirs are waiting to take the reins? Well, forget them. Send mediocre letters rather than making appearances. Look bored when you get there. Dodge out after an hour unless Ben Ainslie is there or you get to do something fun for you. In fact, just stay home, shop, or go off on an expensive holiday.”

    4. At this point i have to stick up for the ‘grey men in suits’. I happen to know a couple -since retired, and again this horrible lie that they are running the royals to negative effect is what makes me dislike Diana and her lies thst have been accepted unquestioningly by the public.

      You want horrible ‘men in grey suits’? Look at the Japanese Imperial court and how Masako has been treated by those courtiers.

      Diana and Fergie are/were spoilt, self indulgent women who refused to work in the best interest of the monarchy. Every behaviour William exhibits was learnt at the knee of his mother and damned the consequences if it gets him/her what she/he wants.

      It doesn’t have to be that way. Sophie isn’t being run ragged. The fact that Kate is being treated with kidgloves is a daily demonstration of the humanity of the ‘men in grey’ at BP, yet this lie persists.

      ABKM: FYI, William has turned down invitations to attend parliament. Twice.

      1. Herazeus, that is how I’ve always seen them. Working hard, likely believing in what they do, and trying to get through to some unruly charges. I don’t see them as trying to be masterminds like Sir Humphrey on Yes, Minister.

      2. But he hasn’t shown up on his own initiative, Herazeus, which is my point. It may be that he has turned down invitations, but he hasn’t sought them out and been refused, as far as we can know.

        1. He hasn’t shown initiative for anything except self indulgent living, war with the media and ‘normal living’ fetish.

          The last time he achieved anything was his A level results. Since then everything has been handed to him and or given or invited by dint of his status.

          The royal duties he undertakes are done because someone forced him into it either public pressure via bad publicity or HM didn’t give him much choice in the matter.

          This is a man who is on record saying his aging grandparents should continue working whilst he bunks off. Any ‘normal’ person would have empathy enough to lighten their load without being asked, but in his case, it takes them asking before he does it and with poor grace.

          And he turns down more than he accepts. There is no critical thinking about any of it except to do as little as he can get away with.

          HM tries in her limited way to build him up and he turns her down. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

          The only way he will attend parliament is if it is made mandatory for him to attend like the diplomatic receptions rather than by invitation which he is free to refuse.

          1. I really have to think about what you said about William’s aging grandparents. It’s true, when I think of my grandmother I would be proud to help her with her work she did all her life. He seems really just to see his own fate, but his grandmother had the same and I never heard her complaining.

          2. Lovely Blossom, like your name, your comments are amazingly lovely. I would also want to help my aged grandmother with her life’s work if she were still alive. What an opportunity William has had in this life. He just squanders it and buries himself in the tragedy that befell Harry and him when their mother died so young. I feel badly for that loss, but if only William would let go of his pain and start helping others.

    1. It says William works full time as a pilot. Bad research. Looking closer a journalist would see that William is much more flawed than Charles and a much bigger threat to end the monarchy. William is Trump with less hair.

      1. I know, I caught that too…….we all know William does not work full time at anything, except maybe for whining and thinking of ways to thwart the press.

        1. How many hours does he need to get a full pilots licence? Wouldn’t that confirm how many hours he actually worked at EAAA and the RAF?

          1. It’s known in the RAF he did not meet his minimum flying hours to keep his license or his job, and was reported on but has been whitewashed. Herazeus–have you heard about this because I KNOW I have read it somewhere.

            The NATO minimum is 180 hours per year.

            If you have a military license, UK or US, it is really easy to convert it into a civilian license. William skipped so much of his RAF training because he’s a super important prince, and so he was not prepared to take the actual civilian exams that any military pilot would get on with really quick, not to mention the minimum flying hours. I once read what they were and the requirements.

            I’d asked my dad about this awhile ago because I was curious. My dad who is a pilot (a hobby though, he also says flying helos is way more difficult than flying planes), says that William should have gotten it pretty much automatically. Instead it took him over a year. My dad’s opinion is he was not prepared in the RAF, nor for a civilian license, and it is pathetic the RAF kow-towed to him that much as it is very dangerous to have a pilot who gets to skive off like that. “It’s good to be a prince,” he said about it with an eyeroll and he thought the RAF would have done so much better as in his opinion it is the best air force in the world, better than us Americans, lol. My dad was way more impressed with Harry flying Apaches, he says those courses are crazy hard and he must be an amazing pilot, royal or not.

    2. Read the article, but, again, a jumble of pros and cons regarding the monarchy with some misinformation about W being busy with his helicopter job.

      To me, Elizabeth has the basic goodwill of people because of history. She represents how the BRF was stalwart and inspirational during a terrible time in history that nearly snuffed out Britain. Just like Eleanor Roosevelt, she has the “advantage” and therefore the opportunities to live and behave in ways that are seen as heroic against the backdrop of terrible times. Those images of the royal family’s decision to remain in London during the Blitz, E driving ambulances, her father giving encouraging speeches all have stayed in the public consciousness.

      For Charles, who does strike me as longing to be relevant and do good, there is no opportunity to show heroism because his times are relatively unthreatening. No world crisis backdrop to illuminate his works.

      I think it will be a real struggle for Charles to find a relevant niche once he becomes king. And W&H even more so.

      1. Plus the fact that, although they have a happy marriage, seeing Charles and Camilla is a constant reminder that they are both adulterers.

    3. Poor research on the part of the writer eg that William works full-time as a pilot as opposed to undefined hours as a co-pilot. Nor has the writer questioned the reason for the short RAF stint. He settles on a picture of a charming young family without looking at the abysmal work record of the couple over the duration of their marriage, nor wonders why William’s opinions on anything substantial are unknown. I suspect that this picture is common in the UK and exactly what BP wants to project – the relative youth of the couple, with two toddlers, is a nice tableau that speaks of regeneration.

      The writer is clearly seeing a link in aptitude between Elizabeth and William due to both not expressing political opinions; he has not questioned why – William does not give a f**k about anything except himself whereas Elizabeth represents a wildly different interpretation of what her duty entails.

      I agree with Indiana Joanna in her overall summation of Elizabeth’s reign. Charles’s contributions/ statements over the years have been less clearly seen because memories of Diana get in the way. It will be interesting whether in the 20th anniversary of her death in 2017 someone creates a more balanced portrait of Diana.

      1. Typical PR about William being far more suited and blah-blah than that awful Charles!

        Yeah. Tell me who started a charity with his military pension at 28 and then we’ll talk.

        1. Harry may not be doing a lot of royal events, but starting up sentebale and IG is more than William has ever done. Much more. William takes from the people whereas at least in these two charities Harry gives back a little

  16. I’ve typed several responses and deleted them. I just don’t have enough energy to get angry over this. They are so dissapointing. I wish they’d just go away.

    1. I feel the same way as you do, JET Texas. What is there to say that we already do not know about the work ethic of W, K and at this point, I have to include Harry.

  17. KMR, thank you so much for this analysis: I don’t have time atm to go through it carefully and read the comments, but I do have a quick question. The Canadian tour: In the paragraph regarding the discrepancies between your numbers and O’Donovan’s, it sounds as though you are counting those engagements as UK engagements, not as a foreign tour, right? So, if that’s right, when glancing at Kate’s UK column, the number of engagements actually taking place within the British Isles must be extremely low, correct?

    Thanks again for the breakdown, and I look forward to going over it later today!

  18. Wow when you look at the # of charity engagements in the U.K., truly dismal.
    I’m someone who admires hardworkers and these two clearly need a dictionary to look that word up. One could say these charities don’t necessarily interest her but then what really does? She was content to nothing while waiting for the ring and seems content do nothing now.
    I wonder about the people who like/admire them. I wonder what they find appealing with them? Is it just the HRH? I get with positions of power/wealth you will always find sycophants but her supporters are almost rabid. Tres bizarre

  19. So does anyone know why The Queen and Charles does not spoil Harry like they do with William? William is not the only one who lost a mother at a young age.

    1. Status.

      Once you understand how beholden to status they all are, you’ll understand why Harry has never received the same toys as William and is not as materialy spoilt.

      William has everything due to his status as the heir. That’s the wsy it has always been. It’s the reason Charles, HM, Edward 8 ( as POW), Edward 7 etc and so forth had more material goods and wealth bestowed upon them over and above anything given to their siblings. They are/were heirs. It’s that simple.

      It matters not a jot that Harry has personal wealth from his mother. He will never have as much as William at any given time because William is the heir who receives and will continue to receive more.

      If William stops being the heir, the first consequence will be that he is cut off from all that material wealth except his own private wealth. No duchy, out of Apr 1a, no tax payer funding. He’ll be lucky to get any scraps thrown his way by the family beyond his private wealth.

      1. Well I would think as a loving father and grandmother they would spoil Harry. Do you think they are waiting until he is married and has kids? I see The Queen giving him a huge place at Kensington and a country home. I can also see Charles leaving Clarence House to Harry and his family once Charles is King seeing as William will stay at Apt 1a till he is King.

        1. Kitty, Don’t feel sorry for Harry. He is still living a life that very few in the history of civilization will ever enjoy. All funded by taxpayers courtesy of his accident of birth. He is not hurting for material comforts. He gets credit for work mostly done by others, including Invictus games.

          How many other people can you say that about.

          1. Harry’s funding at least for a lot of his stuff is his own money, considering the QM and Diana’s trust funds made him wealthy. For the official stuff and of course he lives at KP, it’s the taxpayer, but the rest he doesn’t bring out Daddy’s credit card.

            Unlike Kate and her $200k wardrobe paid for by Charles.

          2. That will most likely change once Harry marries and his wife needs an expensive working wardrobe. Charles would then foot the bill for that. Harry is cheap now because he doesn’t have a wife or kids, but that will change.

          3. I just don’t get how why they would do that to Harry even though William does not like his role in life and always wants and not give.

        2. Kitty this is all wishful thinking on your part. If the Queen didn’t bestow that kind of largesse on her favourite child, Andrew, who was the spare to Charles’s heir, what makes you think she will do it for Harry?

          Why isn’t she doing it now when she clearly values Harry over William and shows it by making him a knight Commander and not William.

          It’s not a case of loving Harry any less. This is how the rules of wealth division work in aristocratic families even setting aside the royal aspect of this particular family.

          The heir always receives the most, if not all, the wealth and the siblings make do with whatever scraps the head of the family deigns to give them.

          Every aristocratic family is raised understanding this and they accept this. For a thousand years.

          Why do you think Andrew, the spare, made money the way he did when he is the favourite son of the Queen of UK and NI and part of a wealthy family? It wasn’t just greed. He had to figure out a way to make money because the family wealth goes to Charles even though Charles will inherit all other properties and monies the family holds in trust for the nation.

          Anne and Edward have come to terms with their relative poverty, and they accept the status quo.

          Harry will do the same, if he has not already.

          1. Kitty: you clearly don’t appreciate what a traditionalist HM, Charles and the aristocracy are.

            No matter how beloved the spares and the siblings, they never receive money, toys equal to the heirs.

            I’ve given you a couple of examples that demonstrate this point. We also have the recently deceased Duke of Westminster whose entire multi-Billion fortune went to his heir whilst all the siblings received peanuts.

            It’s not a question of loving the other children less, it’s the business of keeping the estate intact. Giving a bigger share to the others breaks up estates, even royal ones, and that is not something any member of the aristocracy agrees with. It’s the way it’s always been for 1000 yrs.

            That’s why the heir in the royal family is given the vast duchy of Cornwall and the spare, equally important has never had a duchy given to him.

            No matter how popular or beloved the spare, and there have been many spares that were beloved, they’ve never been lavished with material wealth to extent you are suggesting, and they never will be.

          2. @Kitty

            Maybe this will help.

            Look up the definition of primogeniture. I don’t know if you are American but if you are it’s probably a foreign concept to you. Also, to put a spin on it by way of recent popular culture, primogeniture was the point of conflict for the Crawleys on tv series Downton Abbey and Poldark. The Crawleys had to have a male heir even though they had three daughters. Thereby the Mary + Matthew storyline.

            The Poldark series is about a young British man who returns from fighting the American Revolutionary War. Poldark was the son of a second son and his father did not inherit anything from his own father, leaving Poldark bereft but resourceful.
            There are lots of stories about the first born male, however undeserving, getting the entire estate and all the wealth. Alexander Hamilton’s father saw his oldest brother inherit everything, leaving Alexander’s father very poor and a basic ne’erdowell.

            See if that helps. 🙂

    2. I don’t think the Queen should be responsible for supporting Harry. If Anne, Andrew and Edward are anything to go by then Harry will be well taken care of, not that he’s not well taken care of now, but it will get even better.

      My gripe is that I wish Dukedoms were not tied to getting married, make Harry the Duke of Mahiki, Earl of Boujis already! 😛

      Bagshot Park, Edward and Sophie’s (leased) pad:


      1. @aaa I’m hoping Harry gets Duke of Clarence because Sussex is going to be made fun of by the media. Also I see The Queen gifting Harry a nice pad at Kensington and gifting him a country home.

      2. @aaa: There is no rule or law that says a dukedom can only be received on marriage. The Queen’s father chose to do it that way, and the Queen copies her father. She copies her father and grandfather in all things. She’s a follower not an innovator.

        We shall never know why her father preferred to confer dukedoms on marriage rather than at any other time, but i suspect it has everything to do with the fact that he only had daughters and there were no boys to give peerages until the daughters married and they chose commoners (Philip had given up his titles so was technically a commoner) who had to be elevated to the peerage because it was declasse for them to marry commoners.

        There was no doubt that Andrew, being the second son, would be DoY. She could have conferred that upon him at 21 like Charles and his POW title.

        Just like she waited forever to make Anne, the eldest daughter, The Princess Royal, her destined title instead of conferring it on her first marriage or at 21 like she did Charles.

        The only time the Queen has not copied her father was when she made the Duchess of Gloucester a Princess.

        Marriage is a good marker for conferring titles, but there is no rule that says it’s the only time to give one.

        Kitty: i hope he doesn’t get Sussex for similar reasons. I’d be happy if he was granted any of; Avondale, Clarence or Suffolk.

        1. Yeah I was referring to dukedoms created by Queen Elizabeth. I did not even factor in George VI because he was creating a dukedom for the heir’s commoner groom. Most of the dukedoms created by George V and Queen Victoria for their bloodlines were not tied to marriage so it seemed to me like Elizabeth was bucking tradition, but now that I am factoring in the creation of the Edinburgh dukedom, maybe she wanted use what her father did to establish a new standard. I prefer it not be tied to marriage but I guess I won’t hold my breath on that one, although now this makes me wish that Harry remains a bachelor for another couple of decades. 😛

        2. Can you imagine how much the media would ridicule Harry and his wife with the title Sus(SEX)? I hope the Queen gives him Duke of Clarence or Avondale. It sounds very popular

          1. KMR: Edward has never been called the party prince nor have naked pictures from a drunken party splashed everywhere.

            Sex is the last thing anyone associates with Edward as opposed to Harry who is forever the party prince cutting a swath through London blondes at every bar in town.

            Sus(sex) would be a gift to tabloid meme writers because it would be the perfect headline for any story about :arry especially if it involved party behaviour.

        3. My problem with Clarence is it is boring. They’d all be C’s. Cornwall, Cambridge, Clarence. I prefer either Avondale or Clarence&Avondale (which has unhappy history), because it is less boring.

          1. I see no point in him being Clarence, because he’s not doing to get to live in Clarence House. Along with all the downsizing, the downsizing of space is going to have to happen. For security reasons alone, the handful of working royals will be housed only at KP or BP. Clarence House and SJP will be phased out completely as working royal housing.

  20. Great post like always, I enjoy reading the articles and the comments, even if I don’t post often.

    How many speeches live has Kate made this year? I recall one but i am not so sure.
    Maybe for the next tour, Kate and Will can work separately…. no it will be too much to ask for them.

      1. Poor Harry. He is worth over 20 million, lives in a palace, works 20 days a year and lives a life of privilege. Yeah I’m feeling real sorry for Harry. Carole would personally kill PW if he stepped aside. Kate must be Queen!

Comments are closed.

Back To Top