2017 in Review: Kate’s Engagement Numbers

379 thoughts on “2017 in Review: Kate’s Engagement Numbers”

  2. She needs to do more, period.

    Sophie did a ton of engagements when she was pregnant with/had Louise, which nearly killed her. Princess Anne worked while pregnant and Diana worked through horrible morning sickness. Kate has NO excuse. None.

    It is shameful that her husband’s 91 year old granny works harder than she does.

    And Kate’s spending keeps going up and her engagements go down. Someone needs to give her a good kick in the rear and make her do the job she signed up for. I have no patience. No more excuses.

    And it seems the UK press is not calling out Kate or William for their horrid numbers.

    Harry worked more than William this year. I’m surprised that was allowed to happen.

    2. A lot of Harr’s meetings regarding Invictus and such have not been counted before but seem to have done this time along with his Invictus events being added onto the total. It helps.

      I do not expect much different from the Trio now Foursome come May next year. William thinks he can be a part-time king and has been quite open about it. Remember, only bad parents work, good parents like William and Kate don’t work! *head desk*

      1. I was going to mention that. When the Cambridges get off a plane, meet a dignitary, and get photographed, that counts as one event. In the past, all of the Invictus Games counted as one event. We are on to you KP. We know Harry works more. Start showing it.

          1. Because how these numbers are arrived at is never disclosed to the public at large. The article about end of year numbers needs another sub-category to explain:
            1. What is counted eg Ascending/descending a plane count as two engagements, moving from game to game (Invictus).
            2. Length of engagements eg 20-60 minutes each x number = xx hours (not days).
            The public needs to be demanding of how their taxes are spent too, not just turn a blind eye and accept whatever is written.

        2. @Nic919 – I completely agree! It’s pathetic that being greeted at the airport by someone counts as work. And then is separate to having lunch with said person…and then is separate to having them walk you around a museum. It’s really one big con.

          All of the younger royals need to be working more. It’s pathetic – and as much as I like Harry, I include him in that. However, all of Harry’s “engagements” need to be counted so we can really have a more accurate picture. It’s so unfair that several of his charities are considered “private” and therefore none of the work he does for them counts. And, he usually seems much more prepared than William or Kate (his Invictus speeches were wonderful), but again, none of his preparation or behind the scenes meetings count.

    3. What strikes me are William’s numbers.They are a bit low.
      Kate had some excuses this year.She will never be a work-horse, I guess, but she put some effort at the begining of the year(probably because of the plannend pregnancy).
      Harry has good numbers, good for him.He was still bachelor and there stands nothing in his way to do more.
      Also Charles numbers are very good.I’m glad the future king takes his role seriously.

      1. I don’t think being a ‘workhorse’ could be any standard of measure for Kate. Her numbers are simply shameful if one applies common sense. She is a hedonistic slacker who would be reviled if she were living in her parents’ basement without the gild. Let’s add William and Harry to that basement.

    5. I agree, Leah. She’s worked less than an elderly man who announced his retirement this year. Both she *and* that spoilt sod of a husband need to pick it up, these numbers are pathetic.

      1. And why oh why do they have to do engagements together? I’ve just seen they are both due in Coventry later this month where William will be dull / attempt bad humour and Kate will stand around like a useless appendage and say nothing. Surely they can split up and do stuff by themselves? Can’t they? *shakes head

    6. Kate’s Royal Family Appearances, Charity and No Press appearances add to 30. The Royal Duty Appearances, which seem to include purchasing expensive new clothing, so she can stand and wave to the crowds, or Foreign Tours (which seem like holidays at least half the time), comes to 68.

      Take away tours/holidays and balcony/state appearances and Kate did little this year. This must make hard working Princess Anne steam a bit.

      As for Harry, his numbers are better than I expected for someone in a new long distance romance.

  3. This is a pathetic showing but I don’t anticipate any real change unless she is forced to. I am not sure if you want me to reference some of the charts Patricia Treble has done on her blog, but she has also calculated how many of Kate’s outfits were recycled and how many weren’t. Spoiler (only about 1/4 were recycled).

    Again she does less than last year but spends more on her clothing this year… that shouldn’t be the case. Austerity measures have cut services for everyone else including child benefits and health services, but miss princess still needs to shop shop shop if she is going to step out of her palace. So much greed and insensitivity in that attitude.

    William also should have picked things up. He did fewer engagements than last year and was supposed to be full time now that he has stopped playing at being copilot. He could be Prince of Wales any day now and he is nowhere near ready for it. At 35 going on 36 there are no more excuses for either. They remain the Lazy Duo.

    2. In addition to looking at the amount spent on clothing, I’d love to see how the numbers of staff have increased over the years, too. And if time spent on their own foundation is counted in their official year-end numbers, then the numbers on the foundation’s staff also should be included.

      A quick glance at The Foundation of Keenness (thanks to whomever came up with that!) shows that the average number of employees for 2016 was 25, average number of staff was 20. That’s a tremendous jump from 14 for the year 2015, 13 for 2014, 8 for 2013 and 5 for 2012.

      I don’t know of an official KP staffing site to see how their numbers have changed over the years. But what we do have pictorial evidence of is that Kate nearly seven years into this role (and not doing much more than she ever did at these events) now requires multiple staff to be with her on most of her engagements.

      So the number of staff seems to be increasing, yet the “work” numbers are not showing the same.

    3. Nic919

      “This is a pathetic showing but I don’t anticipate any real change unless she is forced to.”

      I like that investigation shows that KP is lying to everyone, has contempt for the people. What matters more, IMO, is spreading the word. It won’t change, it will get worse because the boys are depending on PR exclusively to control the narrative. Skepticism and disbelief are the only tools for bringing down the lies and the monarchy.

  4. Who is Patricia Tremble?

    There have been some grumblings on Twitter among royal reporters re the low numbers, but not much. Victoria Arbiter’s dad says all royals work hard, while the former Royal Chef who used to cook for Diana and the Queen, ventured that not all the royals are hard working.

    There is a whiff of Marie Antoinette about Kate that she needs to quell. This is getting ridiculous.

    1. I misspelled her last name. It is Patricia Treble. Anyway she also created a variety of charts about the royals and their workload. Not to detract from all the work KMR has done though.

  5. I’m just floored that Kate’s numbers are lower than Prince Phillip and he’s more than twice her age!!

    I would love to be able to have the opportunities Kate has in terms of charity work. To quote the movie, The Princess Diaries “wanting to rock the world but having zip power, like me, that’s a nightmare.”

    I don’t know whether to sigh or growl.

      1. I don’t understand how Kate lacks the motivation. What does she do all day now she is a royal? Perhaps that is harsh but Harry has done more engagements this year. With Meghan his number will rise even more because they will share the workload.
        Even Camilla this year has done more engagements. Edward and Sophie have continued to do well in my opinion. Without them and Princess Anne I do not see how they are going to cope.

        1. Kate has always been a selfish human being. How can you live and life of travel and no work and have plenty of money and not give back to those less fortunate at all until required to post marriage? Carole and Mike did not raise their children to think of others and that is fundamentally why the Middletons turn people off. Not because they aren’t upper class, but because their whole lives have been a desperate grasp for material wealth and social prestige without any thought to those who aren’t lucky enough to have an uncle Gary.

          William is also very selfish too, but his parents at least were involved in charities so he doesn’t have an excuse to do so little. With William and Kate both being so selfish, it really doesn’t bode well for the kids. Who is going to show them what duty and service means? Because neither of their parents understand the concept. Harry has at least done things like Invictus and Sentebale and while we can critique his actual involvement in those groups, he at least set them up. What has William done that is similar? Nothing. His father took the role of Prince of Wales and has done more with than any other PoW in history instead of being an idle wastrel. William could do the same with his position. Instead he moans about Royal work and does nothing except try to avoid it.

          2. It is shameful that the younger generation works so much less than HM and the DoE.

            They’ve been coddled for too long, I think. When will William and Harry’s father and grandparents stop treating them with kid gloves because they lost their Mum when they were so young? Yes, that was terrible. It still must hurt, but Diana would have been the first to say to them, “Off your bottoms and onward to help others.”

            I don’t know. I feel very sad that so little is expected and when such little is given that the accolades roll in.

            Happy New Year.

      1. When the first one came out, my nana took my sisters and me to see it to see it. I was 21, Mel was 17 and Sam was 13. It was soon after Nana moved to Florida for good in the Summer of 2001.

      1. For real! In the sequel where Anne Hataway is shown that spectacular closet, all organized by gowns, tiaras and even sunglasses?! OMG!! I want!!

          1. In the sequel, the only scene I liked was when Mia was getting the tour of her royal closet (because it made me drool) and got the surprise in the end of her BFF, Lily! 🙂

            Oh, and I also liked the scene where they were going over possible husbands for Mia LOL!

          2. And Prince William is among them 🙂 I thought it was rather lonely without her best friend. Or to put it another way the friendship had changed.

    5. Why just focus on kate Harry sat at a invictus game ate popcorn and it was classed as an engagement none of them do any work

      1. Emily: Many behind the scenes people at IG say that Harry is very involved with it. Not just photo ops.

        When it launched in London, there were daily reports of all the meetings he was attending as well as being front and centre at as many events as possible. He arrived as early as the cleaners and left hours after the last events.

        At one of the opening/ closing ceremonies (can’t recall which), one of the dignitaries mentioned the months of work he had put into it, not just waiting to be asked to do photo ops.

        Some of the celebs that performed discussed receiving texts and phonecalls directly from him in which he asked them to perform. David Grohl of the Foo Fighters was especially amazed to receive such a phone call because in his view, Harry should have had a minion do it. Magical prince-ing and all that!

        I think as the event travels to other cities, on other continents, as well as operations becoming slicker with each new event, his personal involvement lessens. Thus he was super involved in for London event, but perhaps not so much for Toronto, and will be less involved for Australia.

  6. Congratulations Kate!

    An 81 year old (Princess Alexandra) and a 71 year old (Duchess of Glouchester) worked more days in the UK than you! Way to Tom Sawyer others to do the work who will never have your title or standing, and keep those goodies coming with a long new baby time-off in 2018!

      1. Hi JET– me too.

        With the terrible fire that killed so many, austerity, and future concerns, I’m almost jaw-on-floor amazed that the public doesn’t turn out at royal events to bring pitch forks and boo.

        I’ve said several times that I totally understand keeping the monarchy in respect to HM who’s an amazing worker and provides a cultural tie for the people. But I seriously think there needs to be something brought in the House of Commons to cut back the amount the royal family takes in. It would force the younger group to have to be recycle outfits more and put in more work time or goodbye!

        Keeping the money taps on is a big reason why W/K and Co are as lazy as they are.

  7. Thanks for the chart and post about this, KMR!

    As expected, they’ve done very little, and I don’t think they will continue to outwork Princess Alexandra who is in her eighties, and a few years back was in very poor health indeed. Prince Philip in the past years made pointed comments about how he couldn’t retire, because others wouldn’t step up. And so here we are. Another baby means more time off for William and Kate both. I doubt Harry will step it up either.

  8. She is so privileged she needs to work more. She serves the public the public does not serve her. But maybe The Queen is okay with her workload since she has loaned Kate SO MANY of her personal jewels.

    1. Kate has no nice stuff of her own for the most part so I think that’s a reason why HM loans things to Kate.

      HM just lets William do what he wants, she’d never confront him. Philip has made some comments hinting HE has not been happy.

    2. I don’t think the Queen puts that much value on the jewels. She has a few she really likes but lends the rest out. She does value the concept of duty and service and she still has not given Kate a Family Order yet. BP put out early on that the Queen does not control the schedule of the other royals. They can decide to do little or a great deal.

      1. Wow Nic919 so basically Kate is just lazy. I really do not get it though. She is living a very privileged life. Give your time and WORK!!!!!! Well I hope the jewels don’t mean anything. Does The Queen have a close relationship with Kate?

  9. And again the numbers of the young royals are more than disappointing! They should all be ashamed of themselves. They should at least get the 200, especially when they can have more than one engagement a day. There are about 204 work days a year (mo-fr sans national holidays), so a number in the 200s would at least give them an average look- even we know that is not how it works. I don’t get why there aren’t at least two visits per charity, that should be possible till she reaches 20 patronages.
    And why she had to spent more money for less outings is a mystery to me. I have no problem with her buying expensive stuff BUT (1) she must start to recycle (at least for good PR, (2) go back to more British designers, (3) get more high street pieces again, (4) stop the frumpy look and (5) stop trying to be on trend. She never was a trendsetter and this is absolutely fine. There is no problem to stay inside the look you feel comfortable in.
    I’m often a poster who defends her but the work ethic and spending really rages me. They have so many privileges because of their role (of course they still would swim in money if they decide to drop monarchy) so do something with it. As long as they hold onto their role they have to fulfill it. On the other hand, the Queen wasn’t the biggest worker when she was just Crownprincess. So I believe she is absolutely fine with the second in line keeping a low profile.
    Sadly, I somehow believe, Harry was only been pulling high numbers this year to work very little in the next two to three years. The wedding and possibly children will most likely be more in his focus. Which is understandable but the rest of the world is able to successfully do both.

      1. Sorry but I cannot find as many appearances as your answer implies. If you have a link or a good book resource (please only reputable ones) I would love to have a read as my own research didn’t bring up much.

        1. How do you define reputable ones given that we are talking 60 years ago?

          For example Gyles Brandreth and Hugo Vickers can give you chapter and verse but are they reputable enough given their work is in the 90’s onwards and Gyles is quite the gossip.

        2. Caroline: go to the national archives. They will give you all the information you need regarding princess Elizabeth’s work record.

          The idea that the Queen barely worked or worked little is one put about by Kate fans encouraged by the media and Palace PR to explain away Kate’s lacking work ethic.

          The Queen is of a generation that would have thought it unthinkable NOT to work when there was a war going on and every able bodied person was required to work. An attitude that was carried on into peace time and has many of them still working if opportunity presents itself.

          It’s incredible that 6/7yrs after this myth was debunked and it’s easy to verify, it is still a believed.

          1. Exactly. HM/PP set the example by living economically, working for different war efforts like the Red Cross. They had to worry about being killed every day and what protection efforts could be made to keep them as safe as possible while still being active.

            Not to forget her father, the King and Queen, staying in London when the bombs fell and touring/giving support to the people during the bombing. They didn’t go hide out in the Maldives like W&K would.

            I can’t see these two being the stuff that keeps the public willing to support an ongoing monarchy when they compare what was expected (and received) by past monarchs to put in quality work that demonstrated “skin in the game.”

          2. The Malta story gets pulled out as well when there are documents showing the Queen at most stayed an extended few weeks before and after Christmas. Again this one gets used to justify Kate doing nothing early on in the marriage for the first few years until the excuse of the kids were not available.

          3. And HM actually WORKED. You’d never find Kate tinkering with a truck even in wartime. HM learned real skills, used them, and was proud of them. She stepped up in her younger years. It’s sad that she’s still working as hard as she is when there are able-bodied youngsters who could be taking on these patronages.

        3. I don’t think that the Queen did little or no royal work, rather the Queen when she was the direct heir was allowed, and in fact encouraged by her ailing father, to define her role and lifestyle while she could and not have it defined for her.

          Prince Philip, who as the consort to the heiress presumptive is more comparable to Kate but again not totally apple to apples since William is not the direct heir, anyhoo while Philip did some royal work, he was not consigned to the role of royal worker bee from the moment he married [Crown] Princess Elizabeth, rather he had ambitions to rise through the ranks of the royal navy and was able to pursue that path until the King’s already declining health became so bad that his daughter had to assume some of his duties.

          The point being is that is that it seems like both the royal family and the British public seem accepting of the choices that William and Kate have made. Nothing is being suppressed here, this report comes out every year and the headlines typically focus on how the younger royals work significantly less than the older royals, and yet, along with the Queen, William, Harry and Kate remain the most popular royals with polls showing that there is a preference that the next monarch not be the hardest working royal, rather that the next monarch be his slacker son.

    3. With all due respect- they are not ‘young’ royals. They are merely younger. 40 is on their horizon. One expects maturity at this point- being grown up. Ask the rest of us hard working peons with a life.

      1. Agree, Maven. They are in their 30s and 40 will be here before they know it.
        Then, Kate will be a Midd Royal, Once a Middleton, always a Middleton, or so it seems.

    4. I believe some of Harry’s engagements were excuses to cross the Atlantic to see his girlfriend.

      I otherwise agree with you on wanting to defend them but finding the continuing low numbers going from worrying to vexing to frightening. There are these constant promises of increased work that don’t happen as well as increased tendency for glossy sporting and more celebrity-like engagements rather than the traditional royal ones that are less glamourous but bring comfort and happiness for many.

      I fear for the future – or, to paraphrase Jacques Brel – ‘he has no work ethic, neither does she, how good a king can George turn out to be?”

      The given reason for low numbers for Kate is that she is raising the children but children learn from example and she could be a part-time working mum and still do so much more.

      1. I doubt Kate is playing a huge role in raising her own kids. Then why have the full-time, highly trained and expensive nanny Maria (and probably 1 or 2 other ones too), if Kate isn’t even working part-time at royalling? And we can already see that George is very shy and doesn’t like to engage with people very much- couple that with a laziness and selfishness that he will see from his own parents, I don’t think George will be a good public “king” either. But of course, it is my hope that George doesn’t even have a monarchy to inherit & that he has to work like the rest of the population.

          1. I’m confused. What does Charlotte have to do with this? Children can be raised by the same parents and have totally different personalities.

          2. +1 Kimothy. I think I always look for sociability in my nieces for their personality etc. That is a strong indicator or if they mimic actions or words.

  10. So all this stuff about being ‘keen’ to step up and work full time…..do they have any concept of full time? It’s actually really insulting.

    What have the holitours achieved? Are they having one iota of impact on Brexit? Of course not.

    1. I”m sure once Baby 3 is born we’ll get another “keen to hit the ground running as best-prepared royal ever!” article. Or even before, once 2018 hits. We should have a poll, how long will it take til their PR goes on and on about it!

      1. They really should stop this nonsense. She is a royal already and it is just ridiculous at this point. Maybe KP
        should stop commenting on this matter at all? An announcement how long she/they will take parental leave and then come back and let the numbers speak for themselves.

        1. It remains ridiculous that she takes parental leave at all. She doesn’t work. In the real world you only get a leave when you have held an actual job in the year before pregnancy.

          Outside of needing some time to recover, she should be back doing things within a month. She has no history of difficult births and is unlikely to do so this time. It’s not like she won’t step out and shop or get her hair done at least a few times during her “leave”.

          1. To be fair, I think every mother needs some time after birth to be able to work again.Your body recovers and you get to know your baby intensly.Very important time for mother and child.
            But, I don’t want to defend her work-load after parental-leave.

          2. But to call it a leave is insulting since she isn’t working in the first place. Recovering from pregnancy is one thing, but it is not a leave she is taking and they are using this terminology to imply that she actually has a job in the first place. Did Diana, Sarah or Sophie announce they were on leave? This is more PR nonsense.

          3. Yes every mother and father should spend time with their baby but there are several problematic issues with saying WK are taking leave.
            First and foremost, they aren’t your average working parent, who are working 8-12 hr shifts. To be nice, there engagements on average last about an hr. Once they figure out feeding schedule, Kate could easily pop into engagement before the net feeding.
            2. It’s my understanding that in the U.K. the first 6 months are paid the other 6 is if you can afford the leave unpaid, WK get paid regardless of how little they actually work.
            3. Kate worked 65 days (not even that when considering and hr or so engagement) last yr she worked I believe 63, that’s 300 days to do f**k all, does someone who works the equivalent (less actually) of 2 months get maternity leave??
            It’s a joke and a slap in the face to real working parents.

          4. This depends on the country you are in. In my country it doesn’t matter how long you had the job. A terminated contract would still run out (if it wouldn’t get renewed), but otherwise you could stay at home for a max. of three years and than come back almost from day one. So my take on this is quite different.

          5. I agree with you, Lovely Blossom I wish all mothers had that time. It is so necessary to mother and baby. Kate does need to step it up after her “leave.” And, what about William? Now, that he’s not with Air Ambulance is he going to let Kate have more appearances than he does? The fact that she did more than he did is amazing to me.

        2. Kate didn’t work sufficient hours to qualify for legal maternity leave when Charlotte was born – I checked the numbers. I don’t know this time.

          A mum certainly needs time off with her baby – so to me it comes down to semantics – the palace should say that she will not be taking on engagements for a period of time to be with baby 3 – but not use a defined term that she may not qualify for.

  11. William’s numbers are terrible, too, and unless I’ve missed some major royal news, he isn’t pregnant so doesn’t have that excuse. All this, ‘they’ll work when they are older’ nonsense. Firstly, we’ve heard that for years. Secondly, if royal work is real work, then William, Kate and Harry are of prime working age and need to be pulling their weight now. Most 30-somethings I know are not putting off their careers until they hit their 50s. If the Firm still need the Duke of Kent, Alexandra, etc, to be going out and doing shifts at an age when their less illustrious counterparts would be retired, kicking back with the grandchildren, etc, then they need to get their act together.

    At the very least, Kate needs to visit all her patronages each year, and not just the ones with tennis or yachting involved. William needs to turn up for all the important royal stuff and anything where an organisation has made him patron (ahem, Baftas, ahem) for all their major events. On the pother hand, if all this shaking hands and cutting ribbons is beneath them, and they want to do their Big Focused Royal Cause, then don’t drop Heads Together half way through the year, but do HT activity weekly to keep in the forefront of people’s minds. You won’t change the conversation by going silent for 6 months.

    1. Her failure to attend the real patronages is what is most pathetic. Watching tennis shouldn’t be the priority.

      And both she and Will knew they were going to have another kid and still neither planned for it by doing more work at the beginning of the year. This baby is timed too well for them to allege a surprise. And it’s not like Phillip stepping down was a surprise to them. You can bet they knew this months in advance.

      1. And i was reading celebrity psychic predictions and it was predicted by more than one that WK will have 1 more child- bringing their total to 4. So it is likely that WK will be in their mid-40’s at least before we see them pulling 200 engagements a year.

    2. To be fair, Charles is nearing 70 and still hasn’t hit “the peak of his career. Realistically, William won’t be king for at least another 20 years, and even then it’s not like he could retire early. I think the queen is well aware that there is no end date, so they must make the most of it while they can. I wonder if she regrets her rather chilly relationship with young Charles, and that is why she doesn’t insist on duty before family.

      1. “I wonder if she regrets her rather chilly relationship with young Charles, and that is why she doesn’t insist on duty before family.”

        I have much sympathy for Charles. He had a rather heavy load placed on his shoulders put upon him by both PP and the Queen. Charles had to do the right thing regardless of how difficult the circumstances were. He even had to enter into a loveless marriage, because it’s what the family wanted, and let go of the love of his life. Albeit the Queen’s parents did not consider Philip a suitable spouse for her, she dug her heels in, and stood rigid in her stance. Even in her time when the young women were not allowed to choose, HM would have none of it and her father surrendered to her for fear that she might hold it against him. Therefore, how could the Queen who experienced what it is to have her one true love by her side, could have been so indifferent to Charles’ feelings? IMO, I think HM was rather cold in most of her decisions concerning Charles’ life. I saw a documentary where Charles and Ann were taken to meet their parents and all he got from his mum was a casual pat. brrrr.

        I don’t understand why Charles had to abide by so many rules, e.g., bride had to be a virgin, white, an aristocrat, and devoid of a past, but William flaunted his disregard for their edicts and broke every rule by living with Kate openly and had his way with everything, and still is doing what he wants.

  12. I think that the problem is that Kate never had a full time job before this (correct me if I’m wrong). Certainly not anything demanding and with long hours. I believe that was a concern of the Queen. It will be interesting with Meghan who has been more used to working and could well change the dynamics.

    1. She didn’t even have a part time job in the legal sense of what the UK Govt. classifies as part time work. (16 hours per week). She had a zero hours contract to turn up if and when she pleased based on William’s ‘needs’. And that was to merely to appease HMTQ who had been heard to ask ‘What does Kate actually do? The answer up until then was……Nothing Ma’am.

      1. It remains disturbing to this day that she could not even keep a part time job in order to be available for William. He was already petulant and this would not have placed her on equal footing in the relationship but instead set up a pattern where she serves him. Long term this kind of dynamic can never work well unless you are prepared to sacrifice all levels of self respect.

        1. I always wonder about the Middletons.
          The whole family seems to have one goal at a time and works to it. They all have enough time for it because nobody has to work thanks to mommy’s money.
          It would be intersting to know what Carole does with all her time now that all her daughters are married.Her life goal seems complete.

          3. James isn’t yet settled. For some reason, I keep thinking of a line from some teen superhero movie where the frustrated parent says about a child who isn’t developing any superpowers, “is it too late to dip him in a vat of radioactive waste?”

          4. graymatters, yes, James is always seen as the “failing” member of the Middleton.I just don’t see why. His sisters never impressed with their jobs either, they just married rich.
            He could have developed his own mind, study something mindful, but he didn’t.In this way, he is just like the rest of his family.

    2. We should accept that Kate is not interested in work for others.
      She is polite and friendly to others at engagements, but she is not interested.
      It’s saddening to think that she will be Queen someday.

      1. In all honesty, someone needs to curtail the Middleton influence on Kate’s kids. Those kids will be royals, not Middletons and they need to be more ensconced with the Windsor side. Harsh, but true.

        1. But William is a Middleton and has nailed his sail to that mast long ago. Despite the royals giving him all his perks and money, he feels he is a Middleton and probably wants his kids raised that way too. The middle class idea he has in his head.

          1. “The middle class idea he has in his head.”

            That’s it exactly: His idea of what is middle class seems to be solely based on his experience with the Middletons–where everything has gone his way, he receives everything he wishes for, no one dares to guide or direct him, and he has no accountability! Party on!

          1. Brother of Kate and Pippa. King of the Marshmello treats. A guy some smart, but lazy, girl should nab and live off her sister-in-laws fame and fortune forever and ever!

      3. Jesus, I’d fight anyone who tried to tell me my kids are only part of my husbands family, and not part of the family I came from. And my husband would too, because he’s a decent guy.

    3. Diana never had a job that met the criteria of having a boss, being part of an institution. Yet she worked like a bugger once she married.

      I don’t buy the idea that never having worked in a professional capacity makes you dumb and ignorant like Kate. Diana showed a fabulous work ethic even though her background was not professional. And yet, here she was, looking professional, acting professional.

      Meanwhile, justifications for Kate’s massive laziness and ignorance abound to this day. It wasn’t that she never held a job. It’s that she is lazy, doesn’t care, and revels in her ignorance justfied by her royal superiority. Her lack of work ethic and professionalism have nothing to do with anything. She wears the mantel of princess so she can be as dumb and lazy as she likes. That’s all that matters to her.

      1. She also did not use any of her leisure time during the waiting years to do any charitable work, something she must know would need to be done as a royal. Diana’s charitable work was not a massive secret but constantly in the papers.

        She is simply a lazy incurious and selfish person and nothing since her marriage has shown any difference in her personality. This is what the Queen was implying when she asked “but what does she do?” The question has since been answered… nothing.

        The royal press and PR try to make mountains out of the scraps she does, which mostly are premieres and sports events. She can’t be bothered to visit the poor and sick too often.

      2. But Diana did work, she cleaned houses! And she loved it, she did ironing and minded children. She worked in a nursery, ok not a massive career but at least jobs where she had to turn up every day and do something! As far as I know kate never did anything like this.
        I think these numbers are disgraceful, shocking and its time questions were asked in parliament and the media about are we getting value for money. I’m am also appalled at the cost of Kate’s clothing this year. She has an extensive wardrobe by now, she does not need any more clothes.
        I’m going to write to my MP and KP asking if this not working but spending is acceptable.

        1. Agreed. There have been several interviews with an American woman for whom Diana worked domestically. The woman said she did not know Diana had a title or that was dating Charles (at least until the photographers started showing up). Sounded a bit different than Kate’s zero hour job commitment so she could be available for William.

        2. Diana was also 19, which is early on and most people don’t have a steady job at that point. Kate was 29 going on 30 and has way less justification to have a non existent work history.

          I think it is a great idea to write to your local MP about this waste. Any elected politician gets reamed for even the smallest amount of waste, but the BRF is gorging on taxpayer funds with no restrictions or punitive measures. You can always turn an MP from their seat, but not Kate or Will or the rest.

    4. She had a full time job. It just didn’t pay until the ring finally went on. Waiting for William was work — just not the type of work any of us have done — or, would want to do! She was coached by a champion — her Mum. She did work hard to get her man — by standards most of us will never really be able to understand! To paraphrase the Rod Stewart song, “Some girls have all the luck….”

  13. Wow. I’m shaking my head. This work ethic of hers where she only works 60 something days a year, may be why she doesn’t have a royal family order yet. I will laugh if Megan gets one before Waity.

  14. I think what bothered me the most is that KP issued a statement saying that Kate was going to start doing more work and about two weeks later they announced her pregnancy and HG. Now it is possible that KP didn’t know she was pregnant, but if W and K knew they were TTC or that they would eventually have a third child they just shouldn’t have said anything.

    Jason Knauf had obviously never heard of “never complain never explain”. Stop issuing unnecessary statements Jason! Don’t tell us that the “young royals” are going to step up and work more if they really have no intention of doing so.

    IMO William should be doing at least 300 engagements a year. It is shameful that a 35 year old man in his prime is so much out worked by his aunt and father who are past retirement age.

    I would also suggest that now that Philip has retired and both the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen have not been able to do over seas tours for years William, Harry, and their spouses should do more overseas engagements. At what point is William going to start interacting more with other royal families? Danish, Swedish, Dutch, etc. William and Kate should attend the weddings, funerals, birthday banquets, anniversary celebrations etc of foreign royals. They are not interacting with anyone else and they should be.

    1. This is one of the things that bothers me most. How will they ever maintain relationships if Sophie and Edward remain the ambassadors? But we’ve seen William and Harry flat out ignore people so I guess it’s no wonder that the Queen hasn’t dispatched them.

      1. I think now that Harry’s getting married he and Meghan should be transitioned to that role. I think they’d be good at it, and would actually act appropriately. I just can’t see William and Kate acting or dressing appropriately which is sad.

        I know when Kate and William have ignored foreign royals, but I can’t remember Harry ever spin that?

        2. At the 2012 Olympics, both Harry and William ignored Prince Carl-Phillip of Sweden. Daniel had to approach them (even though they were the host country) for a handshake. If I am recalling correctly….

          It disgusts me how little regard the British seem to have for everyone else. I am including Charles in this, having missed many European Royal events, most recently in Norway. Such self-importance is ugly and in this writer’s opinion, completely unacceptable.

  15. Call me an old cynic but Harry’s numbers were bumped up this year with Invictus being included for the first time so as to detract from just how much time he spent criss crossing the world to woo Sparkles. By their own admission they never went longer than two weeks without seeing each other and her work commitments were a lot less flexible than his.

    Apparently his 70 overseas engagements included every single Invictus event he attended during the whole games.

    That in itself is as scandalous as having your child’s christening or disembarking from an aircraft to meet an official greeting party af the bottom of the aircraft steps counted in your numbers.

    If you think back to the Poland & Germany tour that’s four arrivals and four departures that necessitated an official engagement on the tarmac of an airport. When you break these numbers down even further you realise just how piss poor their working performances really are.

    And I’m a Royalist.

    1. Yes, it’s shabby accounting of ‘work’ and a betrayal of the social contract the BRF has with its fellow citizens. I think you are dead right as to why Harry’s numbers were bumped up and why for the first time, his personal interests were counted, game by game. Such fabrication to hide his fortnightly wooing. But clearly, it does prove that Harry has had little to do on the work front for quite some time. I don’t see his patterns changing. Why? Because he’s had the best part of three years or so to sort himself out post-army and has lacked the discipline, work ethic or motivation to step up to identified work already on the table. His preferred activities tend not to be counted and take him off-shore as much as possible and away from scrutiny. Witness the plan to go a-princing round the Commonwealth after his marriage.

      But who drills down deeper re these figures? Certainly not the media who could unpack what constitutes an engagement, query the numbers as well as interrogate their length and purpose. The former makes a mockery of counting days worked when it should be hours or minutes used as a measuring device when attending an event. The latter – such as the Land Rover event last month – was little more than free PR for a company giving the BRF heavily discounted rates; the advertorial nature of the event should have been made clear in media running that story.

      Charles and his infantilised sons have stated that they will not run the show like their elders, that there will be less hands-on work, fewer charities serviced and so on. I’m guessing that the HT model will be employed: pull groups actually doing the work under a royal banner and then cream off any credit. Minimal effort, parrot-like chanting of a couple of slogans and no doubt, more headbands and dodgy data claiming success. Whether UK people will be satisfied with nothing but smoke and mirrors while these guys live high on the hog is yet to play out.

      It’s naive to think that the BRF will not be impacted by Brexit, Commonwealth countries rejecting a monarch as HoS, as well as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland looking for greater autonomy/ independence. That’s before considering global events not yet in play.

      1. Wales and Northern Ireland aren’t. Honestly, Scotland only is because Nicola Sturgeon won’t let up on her obsession with independence–most don’t want it nor another referendum…

        The Land Rover event for Invictus has been there since day 1 because Land Rover is a big sponsor of the event, probably because of their royal involvement, but the company has given money to the Invictus Foundation from the 2014 Games onward. They donate regularly to the Endeavour Fund I think.

      2. I think Jen was referring to the Birmingham visit to the Land Rover plant which served no purpose whatsoever. And it being one of the few times they did a UK engagement not in London makes it worse.

        It’s a huge scam and all the tiaras in the world won’t make up for it. After Harry’s wedding, what is there really? Only diehards care about the Cambridge babies now, and maybe Harry’s first kid. The scrutiny will only get worse as the Queen and Phillip get older and William and Harry are firmly into middle age.

        If I was an opposition party member in the UK I would demand a throughout auditing of all royal expenses to know just what they are facing in a post Brexit world. The royal press are just stenographers at this point, barely asking the real questions. I know there was a flap about a recent NYT “interview” that didn’t challenge the current Orange person, but really how different is that to most of the articles covering the BRF. The articles mostly act as PR for them.

        1. I think there will be huge interest in Harry’s first kid. First biracial baby born into the BRF. The American interest will be huge. American interest in Meghan and Harry is huge. Meghan just got her third People magazine cover in a month this week.

          People had a huge hand in making Diana a worldwide phenemenon and also keeping the BRF relevant.

          1. People magazine is trying to push Meghan since she is an American (and People mag is in the royals pocket). But honestly I don’t know anyone who cares at all about Meghan/Harry (I’m in the US). So I wouldn’t say American interest is huge based on a royalist fawning magazine in the US.

          2. I don’t think People is trying to push anything. They are already doing so and so is US magazine.

            There might not be huge interest in Meghan, but the response to her in America is more positive on the part of both the press and public. I am sure she is on the cover of a boatload of Canadian mags as well.

        2. Yes, I was referring to the Birmingham visit. And yes, there should be full auditing of royal expenses.

          Leah, I’m sure there is huge interest in the US for Meghan and Harry but it’s the UK that is their constituency first and foremost. It’s the UK M+H+W+K need to serve. What’s the value in any of them if they hide their kids away, do little outside London, and prefer to be anywhere but Britain?

          1. Ew, I think its gross to demand they parade their kids around in exchange for payment. Even I the US he president’s young kids are considered off limits to the press, and they get to choose he job themselves.

    3. Well darn. I commented above I was happy Harry’s Invictus numbers were counting more, unlike the Cambridge’s tarmac numbers, and now you are saying Harry’s numbers went up because they included tarmac visits for him too. From one bad extreme to another. Ugh, I give up on this mess.

      1. I am glad the Invictus numbers are counted (they should be as they’re the true definition of proper Royal work) but it’s why they were counted this year of all years that stinks.

        Harry & Meghan need to be really careful that like the PP ‘finding himself’ tour their plans to visit the whole Commonwealth aren’t only perceived as an extended globe trotting honeymoon and something to stack the numbers up at the end of 2018.

        1. The scenario in your last paragraph is the most likely outcome, unfortunately. It will comprise glad-handing/PR but who needs that? Who cares?

          I agree that Harry’s Invictus Games should count, but just the once, and certainly not each game attended counting as a separate engagement. That’s just a lame attempt to cover for lack of work over the year because Harry’s been off with Sparkles. And that’s why it’s been counted this time – to up his pathetic numbers. Meanwhile, he’s enjoying Duchy money for doing nothing.

          1. Yes…..just the once at each games, not for attending each individual event. I’m damn sure Princess Anne never included the Equestrian events at various Olmpics that she participated in into her numbers. But a cover story was needed this year for Harry or we’d have the people thinking they’d paid for the wooing of Sparkles out of their taxes. God forbid that should have happened.

          2. Mrs BBV, KP got ahead of the game a while ago claiming that Harry paid for his own flights to see Sparkles. Of course, they didn’t add in the taxpayer-funded security officer’s flights etc. A bit like the upcoming wedding: the RF is paying for it… but not the tens of millions in security which will be borne by taxpayers. Again, full disclosure is not an option.

    4. I wondered why all of a sudden all of Harry’s invivtus engagements were counted. And I too thought along your lines. Hate to be such a skeptic but it’s the BRF and there’s always an ulterior motive. Add in Harry has had diarrhea of the mouth this yr to his frequent jaunts, it reeks of putting him in the see he did actually work category.

    5. Mrs BBV,

      You are not a cynic, just a critical thinker.

      “Call me an old cynic but Harry’s numbers were bumped up this year with Invictus being included for the first time so as to detract from just how much time he spent criss crossing the world to woo Sparkles”

      Ever since the engagement interview I have side eyed Harry’s ‘work’. He spent a year and a half getting together with Meghan. Every two weeks.The fact is, the man has no job. Pretending that he has ‘worked’ event to event, like he walked from event A to event B is really offensive. This is not work.

      I want to know why Harry is not held to the same standard as any peon (us) when it comes to the idea of work. Clearly he is not opposed to this kind of accounting. Which tells us all we need to know about him. He is a gilded slacker and the padded numbers show us so.

    6. “. . . Harry’s numbers were bumped up this year with Invictus being included for the first time so as to detract from just how much time he spent criss crossing the world to woo Sparkles. By their own admission they never went longer than two weeks without seeing each other and her work commitments were a lot less flexible than his.”

      Yes!
      Take away those Invictus numbers and what do you have left?

      1. If you take away the invictus numbers he worked less than will and kate people constantly make excuses for harry saying he can’t out work will which is rubbish Anne out worked charles for years people’s rose tinted glasses are finally coming off he’s coasted along on good pr for years he needs to stop talking and start working im feed up with the interviews and telling everyone to put their phones down people work harder on there Facebook accounts then he does for charity

        1. I think the brothers have got their story down so that neither does very much. Handy story for Harry to say he can’t outwork William. Meanwhile, William says he’ll step up later, much later, and also doesn’t want to overshadow Charles. What a couple of douches.

        2. Charles and Anne don’t have a problem with it, though. Judging by William’s attitude, he does; he constantly berates and puts down his brother in public, far beyond sibling rivalry or teasing. a lot of Harry’s stuff has not been counted before, but suddenly is: why? Honesty or obfuscation?

          1. As others have suggested, the reason why Harry’s attendance at Invictus event was counted this time and with each event as a separate engagement was possibly to head off any potential fallout of low numbers due to 18 months of Sparkling across the globe every two weeks.

            William’s idea of humour is often off, straying further than brotherly teasing, and edging towards cruelty. He seems not to understand or care about boundaries simply because none have ever been imposed.

  16. Happy New Year to you KMR and to the community that you’ve built here! I know a lot of times comment boards and forums devolve into petty insults and name calling between posters and that’s social media at its worst.

    Luckily you’ve created a community here that actually highlights the “social” in media and the “inter” in net, at its best! Long may it continue.

    And thank you for the work in putting there numbers together. Unfortunately, we see the same results year after year- low to lowering engagement numbers with higher clothing costs.

      1. Mrs BBV

        I think people continue because the con needs to be exposed. It’s there, in facts, thanks to KMR for instance. I don’t hope for better. Well, actually I do. I hope for the end of this contemptuous lie.

  17. Firstly,thank you for a detailed analysis of the RFs engagements. Her Majesty and the other senior royals set the standardwhich the youngest royals can only aspire to. I agree that the RF is there to serve the public. There is I feel, a need to address the lack of work ethic as already highlighted by many.

  18. You know, I wonder what influence if any, the formidable Catherine Quinn will have on Kate’s engagement numbers in the coming year.

    Whenever I see Catherine with Kate, it seems like a nurse taking her patient out for a day visit. It seems Catherine keeps Kate on a short leash.

    1. Oh, Leah, I’m laughing so hard, I am crying. The image of Ms. Quinn as a nurse taking her patient out for a day visit is priceless!!

  19. Hmm maybe Harry and co need to stop the lie saying they have fewer patronage’s because they want to do more with them and not visit them only once!!??
    National portrait gallery only once?? I mean, that’s an easy one! They had an event on mental health day that she should have gone to that would have worked well with their messaging! Ugh
    I wanted to be positive on NY’s eve but seeing these piddling #s is disgusting and they should find it embarrassing
    I saw Palmer was trying to blame her HG for the low #s but come on, nice try!! Nov they were clearly trying to get her #s up because after July (tour) it was her busiest month! Just ugh again
    Anyhoodles to KMR and KMR peeps, happy and safe new year’s and here’s to having a hopefully fun year discussing kate’s Fashion, jewelry and what not. Good thing the Swede’s will have a baby sash ceremony to occupy us while kate disappears!

    1. Palmer will do anything to prop up William and Kate. He even tried to down play Harry’s excellent BBC programme by saying Kate and William are also great journalists. Palmer got thoroughly DRAGGED on Twitter and rightfully so. He is not a Harry fan.

      One royal reporter, Jack Royston, I believe, said the “Young Family” excuse will only work so long with Will and Kate.

      1. Palmer was brought to heel after the private meeting where they threatened royal reporters with no access, and brought the kids to sweeten the pot.

        1. If William hasn’t shown a work ethic in 34?35? Years, what makes you think he will develop one in the next 10yrs, assuming The Queen lives that long?

          Harry has a work ethic, but only for when it’s personal interests. Charles needs to figure out how to interest Harry in the duties in order to harness that spattering work ethic.

        2. William will also have free reign with the Duchy of Cornwall money so there will be even less reason to listen to Charles. This is the problem with a hereditary monarchy. The people who inherit the power are not necessarily equipped through skills or character to handle the job.

        3. The problem is Charles didn’t – and I put much of the blame there. Bluntly, he was more concerned with being able to marry Camilla and make her acceptable to the public in the crucial period when he should have been pushing a work ethic on his sons and when most parents are doing so.

          He let both those lads run wild – apparently believing school and the forces would do the work for him – and he failed to introduce them to his projects.

          A time back William commented something about not wanting to be like his father working non-stop at the expense of his children. But I think Charles did have more time – he was just focusing on Camilla.

          1. I agree Charles should have exercised more control early on. A lot of his guilt has created a petulant William which is not good in the long run. Right now William benefits from the older folks still holding a grudge against Charles for treating Diana badly, but there is a generation born after she died and they won’t know or care and will have experienced divorcing parents so they won’t be as sympathetic. They will simply see a middle aged man not wanting to interact with them and expecting to travel and not work in exchange for palaces and untold riches. These kids are now 21 and see their health services affected because of austerity measures which don’t affect the BRF. William needs to get a clue fast because Jason’s PR won’t cover it all, especially not in the age of social media, where anyone can have an opinion and press institutions like the BBC and the Times won’t be what everyone reads.

          2. Julia: the rot set in early. Not just with Charles. Diana was just as bad about discipline preferring to be fun parent.

            There are lots of reports of their unruly behaviour long before Diana died.

            The odious Piers Morgan even recounts a tale of his own with dinner (or was it tea) with Diana and a 13yr old William who is described as cheeky throughout the meal, and ignoring any and all admonitions from Diana and doing whatever he pleases including drinking wine.

            As long ago as when he was a small child, there was a report that The Queen grew so concerned about his lack of discipline that she stepped in and insisted Charles and Diana do so. Apparently the parents found his antics amusing rather than cause for concern.

            Between Charles and Diana, they dropped the ball as far as discipline or instilling any sort of empathetic behaviour. Couple that with the toadying behaviour of those in charge of their upbringing as well as their peers and the stage was set for current behaviour.

          3. You can add to that the queen, as perhaps is her nature – seems to have put no pressure on the younger generation – and has given gifts of homes with no work required – so little wonder there is no understanding that most people must earn their benefits.

            There really seems to be no one who will say ‘you must…’

            I have very cautious hopes for Meghan but am worried she sees herself as the next dazzling Diana/Angelina Jolie – rather than taking on the so important yet dull home engagements, and wonder what will happen when the novelty of it all wears off.

          4. +1000, I read the same thing in numerous books & articles. It was Tiggy & various RPOs who raised the princes after their Mother’s death…not Charles.

    2. Something, I’m convinced, has happened behind the scenes between Palmer and Kate/Will/Catherine Quinn/Jason Knauf. Palmer used to be what I’d consider reasonable in his coverage and expectations of that royal couple, looking at actual facts and figures, but lately he seems to have changed. His recent tweets of how Kate is “very serious about her charities” without offering any support for that claim, just repeating it, have made me view him skeptically now.

      1. Including Will and Kate as being “serious journalists” after Harry did his BBC2 thing also was bizarre. Will hasn’t done any guest editing from what I recall and Kate was there for an hour and went shopping the same day. She was caught and it is not a secret she did nothing.

        He is losing any credibility left with bizarre toadying comments like these.

        1. Harry is a dilettante. He has no job. He does not work. Praise for interviewing people? No. It doesn’t make him anything but a privileged trust fund baby with a whole lot of connections but no legitimate professional credentials. He has chosen to go the way of a celebrity.

          1. I am not saying Harry is the next Woodward and Bernstein, but the interviews he did do took up more time and effort than what Kate did for Huffpo and yet Palmer has to include Will and Kate in commenting about the BBC2 program.

            Harry only does a little, but it looks like more because Will and Kate are so lazy and do so little.

          3. No worries. I know we come from the place on these issues so I didn’t want to there to be confusion about me justifying laziness.

          4. Yep he should leave interviewing to real journalists. You know the ones who work hard in their trade. He was enough of a moron to ask Barack Obama’s what kind of underwear he wears. Obama was classy and sensible enough to decline answering that question. What kind of an idiot do you have to be to ask that, that too if a former President?

          5. ‘Cause those rapid dire questions were given to Harry to ask Obama. Obama likes to be hip and cool, so he was probably down with it.

            Harry did a pretty good job preparing for all of it, getting stuck in, really being interested in this–unlike Kate’s fake HuffPo stint. Harry was there pretty much all day, at least.

            A shame he can’t harness what work ethic and interests he does have. I think the military gave him the structure and strength he needed. Where can he get that now? (Yes, they’re grown men, but they behave like kids let’s treat them like it.)

          6. I actually was impressed by Harry’s Obama interview. I don’t know who came up with the questions but overall it was well done.
            The lightening round was meant to be cheeky fun. This isn’t the 1st time these two had met, they have a rapport and they could have fun at the end. I mean, all of them were silly. Suits or the good wife, William or Harry?

          7. Harry is becoming dangerously political without really understanding what he is doing. He isn’t acute enough to to be in that world. He should stay away from interviews and journalism on both sides of the Atlantic and concentrate on engagements – particularly home engagements since he has been away so much.

          8. There is actually historical context to the boxers or briefs question: it was asked of Bill Clinton when he was running for president, and it sort of became a big thing, both for its frivolity and for its supposed symbolism of the generation gap between him and George Bush Sr.

        2. Kate was there for 10mins NOT an hour.

          Huffpo were live tweeting the event and even though it was originally PR billed as a day of guest editing, later shortened to half a day of guest editing, she only showed up for the photos and left to go shopping.

          Yet, that ‘guest writing’s stint is talked up as if she spent the day with the group or even an hour.

          Ditto everytime a photo is posted from KP of her ‘chairing a meeting’. It’s just a 10min photo op and she’s out of there.

          Ps: does anyone remember when the Palace claimed she was reading many science papers in order to pick her charities?!

          Good old days when people actually believed these PR lies.

          1. I wasn’t sure how long it was, but she didn’t actually do much of anything and sadly gets credit for it.

            As for her “meetings” they should not count toward CC numbers unless the minutes record her there for the full time. I noted that a lot of these meetings popped up in the fall probably so that her numbers exceed 100 since they were so bad.

          4. Miley, there was a huge build-up in the press for Kate’s guest-editing HuffPo for a day at KP. The ‘day’ turned out to be 10 minutes or so of photo-ops and then madam was gone. Later that day, she was photographed shopping, laden with goodies from the shops.

      2. I agree something has happened with Palmer. He has gone after Meghan viciously and refused to call out Princess Michael re the blackamoor brooch. He takes every chance to stick a knife into Meghan and is now going after Harry.

        There are royal reporters who don’t care for Meghan, but Palmer is very curious in his upfront bias against her.

        1. Like I said, my friend-that meeting WK&H invited the press to, threatening them with no access, if they weren’t sugary and some like Palmer didn’t change their tune. A lot changed after that, and we heard of the meeting–it is even in biographies, Kate walking around with George.

          1. But wasn’t that meeting a while back? Perhaps there was a forced softening on Richard Palmer’s part that began then, but the change I’ve noticed in him is much more recent–say, after Catherine Quinn’s arrival.

          2. I notice he’s been super fluffy and defensive of the Cambridges since then, but I recall there was yet another meeting post-Charlotte where they brought both kiddos.

        2. Palmer I think is mostly picking up a mood in the nation that is wary of the sudden arrival of Meghan as a fiancee – almost as if she dropped from the sky – which turned people off. As I thought would happen, this made people see Kate in a more favourable light – for the moment.

          It all comes down to things being poorly handled – I blame Jason for much of it – he seems to have no sense and neither do William or Harry.

          1. @Nic919 I agree with about Charles. He shouldn’t have been so lacks with the boys. I think her HM had a lot do with this hands off attitude with the Boys. After Diana’s death. They over compensated with both of them. Now the boys of twenty years ago are now men. With really no work ethic or direction. Yes Harry has done more with his own charities. Then William has. They have been left that flounder for too long. Add into the mix the Middleton Clan and you have a recipe for disaster in my opinion. A work shy heir that is spooned Fed his ego and his own hype being Diana’s son. Yet he is not really Diana’s son anymore. Carole has had more time with him then his own mother did. And warped him into a man child.

  20. Will the Foundation of Keenness release their earnings, and show how they distributed the money among the subsidiary organizations? That is what I really want to know. And thank you, KMR, for another year of royal watching, although I don’t understand why I do this anymore.

    1. Well, their largest grant ever–two million pounds–has been made to themselves, in a sense, to that digital mental health start-up created by their very own royal foundation. Although this start-up was announced AFTER the Heads Together campaign, it had to have been planned long BEFORE those headbands even appeared. To say that the royal foundation was being disingenuous would be too polite: They were being deliberately deceitful.

  21. Thank you KMR for all the work you put into these blog posts and for finding something new to say about Kate to us jaded cynics.

    Also, just wanted to point out that Alexandra and Duke of Kent have really scaled back their work commitments due to poor health. Their numbers are miraculous given their health. Ditto Philip.

    William, Harry and Kate have no shame. I’d die of embarrassment if I was outperformed by a group of OAPs with health issues.

    Frankly, it’s elder abuse at this point.

    2. It is amazing all the age and ill health of these men and women who still do their duty, yet WK&&H refuse to step it up and so Charles has to take on even more. I have read due to it that he has to cut back on his existing charitable obligations, which he does not want to and has been suggested to over the past years (re: Catherine Mayer’s biography); and now he has to because his sons refuse to step up. So not only will he be taking on his father’s previous workload in many ways he is helping his mother as she should be helped considering she’s 91, almost 92. Yet William and Harry won’t. It makes me angry. How selfish and disrespectful can you be.

    3. Elder abuse? That’s absurd. These are very wealthy people with staff taking care of their every need and no one is materially injured if they don’t show up for a ribbon cutting ceremony.

  22. I think that Willy and Harry are depending wholly on the PR juggernaut to brainwash everyone into a ‘modern’ idea of the monarchy- one where they (and their hanger-on wives) can project the PR fairy tale of an engaged monarchy (largely through social media) while they hang in their man caves playing video games, take many exotic holitours to bring healing to the commonwealth, and cash that tax free millions of pounds cheque from the taxpayers.

    1. Exhibit A : Harry’s Newsweek article.

      I wish his comments along your comment had been the headline NOT the plausibly understandable sentence about royals not wanting to be monarch.

      That sentence alone got disected as nauseum and the fact of what he said after that sentence was ignored. In writing that WHK were not going to work like the older royals and by the time it was William’s turn it would be very little work at all. No chance of taking it out of context or misunderstanding.

      It clarified their poor work numbers.

      What we are looking at is a plan, a strategy, in action. Reduce or lower, or both, our expectations of their work numbers or record. They’ll magical prince once or twice a year which really means they’ll PR it to look like they are involved in that annual magical prince-ing. And rest of the time, vacationing and having fun at our expense.

      1. I recall reading that overlooked statement and thinking that their plan is to reduce bread and butter appearances in favor of being charity “CEOs.”

      2. I wonder what Charles’s reaction to this was considering his work reputation and all he has done.

        HM I doubt cares much but Charles…

      3. Oh, for sure the brothers are already enacting a strategy now to lessen expectations and keep their publicly-paid private privilege beyond scrutiny. And for sure, the brothers feel secure in the thought that their PR will effectively fight and win all battles for them. I suspect wiser heads know better, understanding that all institutions are vulnerable.

        You can see what will happen: as older family members drop off, their patronages won’t be re-allocated; they will just disappear. Charity has only been a relatively new activity for the BRF, devised at the time to enhance visibility and relevance. It has become a justification for their expanded income. Does royalty need to be paid to turn up to meet people actually doing the real charity work? Celebrities can – and do – perform that function. What did WKH do with HT that couldn’t have been done better by any number of high profile people?

        What remains then is state-generated work, some of which could also be rationalised. Would that deserve the kind of financial outlay delivered now? At some point, the British people might ask what they are paying for and whether it represents the best use of their resources. If William wants to be a part-time king, then a small, part-time honorarium could be the way to go, should a monarchy continue. That won’t suit the brothers, though.

        1. Bang on Jen! And let’s also add that it will not only suit the brothers but also the brothers’ respective wives. I don’t think wisteria Kate & little-known Meghan have married/are marrying these dim-witted, lazy men for their personalities. These 2 women are firmly seated on the gravy train & will get their couture gowns and designer dresses through any means necessary, while the rest of the country can starve.

        2. Jen, Just dropped by to express my admiration for your brilliant, cogent comments on KMR. Also, still love reading any comment from the wonderful Mrs BBV. And Herazeus’ knowledgeable correction of the media’s obfuscation of the truth.

          1. Aww, thanks, Indiana Joanna. It’s great that we have KMR’s forum to tease out our thoughts, varied as those may be 🙂

  23. We have to accept the younger royals aren’t like the previous generation. They do not wan to work and serve the public. So sad and it makes me sad that the monarchy is going to be in deep trouble after The Queen passes esp. Can you imagine the amount of Commonwealth countries who would want to leave as well?

  24. I don’t think kate cares for the royal duties but prefers to enjoy the perks while using every excuse to justify her poor work ethic.

    1. Pippa did so much better. Marry a seriously wealthy man but no requirement to work. I bet Kate is envious of her sister’s life.

      KMR I join the happy chorus of thanks to you. It’s been a tricky few months on your blogs but let’s hope 2018 brings peaceful differences of opinion. Happy new year everyone.

      1. I bet she is cause pippa can do whatever she wants.I think kate and william like to be handled with kid gloves that way nothing more is asked of them.

  25. I doubt the population of commonwealth countries want Harry and his MRS visiting – it costs too much – we even have to pay for the clothes worn. There are a few photo ops and nothing of substance – they represent the U.K. – stay at home and do some real work

      1. Real work that is the key word here for me. Prince Edward and the Duke of Kent visited our lowly part of the world and if these events are what count as work then there is need to reevaluate the work and how it is measured. They show up say some nice things, shake hands and move on but there is never any impact from such events. We prepare for these visits but after that nothing in our work really changes.

        That is why when assessing the work of these people I do not look for number of days but for the level of impact of their work. To this effect I think the Prince’s trust does have great impact and after that I see Prince Harry’s Invictus games delivering on that scale not just nationally but internationally. You read the reviews and hear the stories and see the interactions and have to acknowledge that something great is happening here.
        So for me it is not the quantity of engagements but the quality and I would advise KP to reconsider the way they report on work engagements and make it more qualitative than quantitative.

    2. +1. Their tours here achieve nothing, just waste our money and soak up resources better deployed elsewhere. If the UK wants to pay through the nose for a monarchy, okay, their choice but we shouldn’t be burdened with the slackers. The UK needs to do something with them.

      1. I agree that Will and Kate’s tours are nothing more than frivolous exercises, but what did Diana and Charles’ tours achieve?

        1. Nothing. They are routine tours of the realms to remind those people that an hereditary monarchy from a foreign country rules over them.

      2. Whilst I agree with much of what you say, the Queen is your HOS as well so the Aussie/Kiwi/Canadian governments need to do their bit to put their respective feet down and demand better. No point just moaning at the Brits.

        It will be interesting to see what happens when the queen dies as that will be the time for change.

        1. Well Turnbull says we can have another postal plebiscite after the Queen dies because the same sex marriage one went so swimmingly. I’d like to see another referendum on a republic but not another postal vote on the matter.

          1. It would need to go to a referendum as it requires a change to the Constitution. That’s the only way to change the Constitution (s.116). It’s a hard needle to thread: only 8 from 44 have passed.

            Turnbull and others have advocated a two-step process to avoid the debacle of the 1999 Republic Referendum. The first step would be to ask whether to stay with the current system or move to a republic. If the answer to the latter is yes, then models would be proposed (eg elected HoS or appointed by Parliament) and people would vote in a referendum for their preferred model.

            What is mandatory by law is a public education campaign. This was not done in the same sex postal survey – no legal requirement – hence so much damaging dribble concocted. The Referendums (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 mandates an official Yes/No case booklet be sent to every voter before a referendum takes place.

            For monarchists: even Prince Phillip thought Australians were ‘mad’ to reject a republic in 1999. The BRF expects it sooner than later. Currently, both major parties support the move to a republic.

          2. As both Philip and Charles have said – a monarchy will not exist if the people don’t want it. It is on the people to accept or reject it and nothing they can do about it. And it is there, ostensibly, to serve the people.

        2. Birdy, we have so little to do with the royals here, I don’t know what we would do to “demand better” of them. We don’t pay for their day-to-day existence except when they turn up on tours every few years for a week or so; we pay for what appears to be showing the British flag and attempts to keep us interested in them.

          Transitioning to a republic and therefore full independence from Britain will be revisited after the Queen’s reign, though the Labor Party has promised a referendum when it next wins government. Even over the last couple of days the issue has been hotly contested. Our fervent monarchist ex-PM, Tony Abbott, opined that losing the monarchy– a foreign HoS – in favour of an Australian HoS was somehow un-Australian. Say what???

          1. I think the same will happen in Canada. Quebec in particular has beeen anti British monarchy for a long time and as the Canadian population becomes more multicultural, there are fewer people of British ancestry who even care about the Windsors. And I can assure you that it will be a huge bone of contention that William cannot speak French. All our GGs have to be bilingual and anyone who aspires to be PM ensures they can speak French if it isn’t their first language. The second Will and Kate visit was not that well attended even with the potential appreance of the kids. And frankly it was offensive that they travelled to various reserves to have indigenous Canadians perform for them, when it is William’s ancestors who help create the system of reserves and the unfair treaties.

          2. Exactly, Nic919. The composition of Australia is truly multicultural though that in itself does not reflect anti-monarchy but more that our loyalties must lie with ourselves, confidence for our future expressed through our own.

            Your point re. indigenous people holds in Australia too; the history post-1788 is appalling and remains so. New Zealand Maori have a different relationship with the Crown through their Treaty of Waitangi, 1840 so the take on independence is more complex.

  26. This is my first time commenting, although I have been following for quite a while now.
    I agree that it is shameful that Kate’s engagement numbers are so low. Especially since her wardrobe expenditure doesn’t correspond with that!
    She wants all of the perks of being royal, without the responsibility. Kate is in such a privileged position where she can do so much good. It’s too bad that she doesn’t show the inclination or desire to.

  27. I was going to say that I’d love to have a job that I only had to work 65 days a year, but then what the hell would I do with myself the other 300 days a year? I don’t have the ability to leave my kids at home to do charitable work (though I do take my girls to the SPCA with me when I go to drop off donations I collect and play with the cats). I wish I could spend all my time working in my community while still being paid for it and having someone to do my housework, and here Kate does sweet f*ck-all on the taxpayer’s dime. At first I scoffed at her thrice-a-week trips to the salon but now I think she must be actually doing it. What else would she do?

    1. NYC, where I live, is full of wealthy, matrons in their thirties with young children, staffs and country houses that constitute a full life, where they shop for designer clothing online, play tennis at elite clubs, work with personal trainers and get beauty and hair treatments, and receivie updates from the nannies and household staff, as requested. They dress up and accompany their husbands or attend fancy events. This is the life that Kate leads– with a few pesky, boring royal photo op/engagements on the side. The royal part is marginal to their real lives—they have skillful P.R. staff who are paid to create media illusions so they can continue with the con job.

      Harry and Megan like jetsetting around the world, visiting exotic locations and represent themselves as “humanitarians” or “philanthropists”. More smoke and mirrors.

      1. You have summed up the landscape and principals with sharp accuracy. We roll our eyes from time to time about their PR but it is nevertheless incredibly effective when (a) the ‘young’ (cough) royals rate so highly in the public’s perceptions and (b) royal followers want/expect them to step up when reason and performance tell the exact opposite story.

      2. Oh, I know. My mother always desired to be a lady who lunched. She had champagne taste on a beer budget (still does but we haven’t talked in 5 years). I never understood it. I’d be bored out of my mind. If I could throw myself into being hands-on in charity work then maybe I could make it, but I’m not the type to really care much about my hair, I have a natural skincare routine that’s way cheaper than any spa and my skin looks amazing, and I can’t handle people touching my feet so pedicures are out. I’d rather cook than dine out or order in all the time. I’d fail horribly at being a socialite. Really, the jools and dresses are the only things I’d be in it for, and even that can get exhausting. Just doing the holiday party circuit for my mom’s bosses throughout the years (very high-ranking naval officers) were too much. I enjoy working and having a feeling of accomplishment with my productivity.

  29. Her is an interesting tidbit related to this KMR post. According to Gallup Poll, The Duchess of Cambridge ranks number 7 in a five way tie as one of the most admired women in the world for the year 2017. Gallup’s most admired man and woman poll is an annual poll that Gallup has conducted at the end of most years since 1947. This polls surveys Americans by asking “what man and woman living today in any part of the world, do they admire most?”

    Gallup is an American researched based global performance-management consulting company, known for its public opinion polls conducted worldwide. See http://www.gallup.com for the complete list. HRM is ranked number 6th for this year.

    2. Only 1% of those surveyed put Middleton into No.10 spot. I wish there was a follow-up question: Why did you make that choice? I can’t think of one reason to admire her.

    3. This makes sense to me…how many people in the US know royalty aside from the BRF? Kate is easily recognizable, and to the public I can see why she is appealing. She appears very relatable as a mother (published photos of Pippa’s wedding, Charlotte’s mini meltdown on the tarmac, releasing her own birthday portrait of Charlotte, etc), and appears devoted to William and his family. She doesn’t create any scandal with outrageous interviews, wild nights out, or trashy clothing. Compared to most images of celebrities, Kate looks like an ideal role model. When the US thinks about the BRF, which is not daily, they see their existence as to be charitable to others, and People and other publications show pictures of them on their charitable visits.

      I would be surprised and delighted if Crown Princess Victoria made it for her work with the UN or environmental issues, but that will not happen. The BRF is the only one that exists (aside from Princess Grace) in the US.

      if Kate was working all the time on issues, she would easily climb to the top numbers, in my opinion.

      I’m sure Gallup gets countless names, so only those internationally published and recognized will float to the top, and easy to pronounce English names will always rise faster.

      1. While we here see through the PR crap, most don’t, you’re right. They see Kate as a “bad ass” relatable mom, quoting people I know who gush about her, who married the love of her life who so happened to be a prince she met by happenstance at university. Eyeroll. They only read what they are told–most prepared, so educated, Diana 2.0, blah-blah-blah.

        1. Yes, the average American doesn’t hate Kate because there’s no reason to. We aren’t paying for her and she doesn’t make big waves; she’s harmless and apolitical.

  31. I understand we all want Kate to do more with her position, but I also think if she adds her number of engagements, her budget would increase too. She’s not thrifty, no matter what the press dubs as recycled outfits. The cost vs. the impact of the visit would have to be studied, and who in KP do we know of that would put in the effort for that? Of course, the easy solution is to do the “bread and butter” UK engagements with a “boring” wardrobe a la Anne. But, I think this generation of royals is not interested in that at all, and they like to be the decision makers. So, I actually don’t care if Kate adds her engagement numbers, because I think the cost to taxpayers will be astronomical. What I do want, however, is more work like writing articles a la Meghan for Time Magazine, for Kate regarding issues like mental health, maternity health, sports and health, etc. Kate’s Huffington Post job was not that impressive, but I do think that type of direction in her work would be a good idea. And, more personal letters to her patronages. They often seem like form letters. I think the first engagements on Ms. Quinn’s diary for Kate should be her patronages.

    1. Kate doesn’t want to do more, William doesn’t want to do more. They don’t care. It’s been seven years, the picture is crystal clear. Are they ‘decision makers’? Really? More like sly wastrels with zero work ethic and puffed-up egos.

      The cost of visits is already high because of security having to be paid by local councils. That effectively means less money spent on local services. Press coverage tends to benefit Kate with attention on her outfits; the charity provides the context but is barely mentioned. It’s about photo ops and a colossal waste of public money.

      The ‘form letters’ are sent in lieu of Kate actually turning up (refer: doesn’t care). They say little and mean less. I doubt Kate does anything but sign them. She has not demonstrated intelligence or commitment to mental health. Case in point: the HuffPo ‘guest editing’ task lasted all of 10 minutes (photo op) then it was off shopping (photographed laden with bags). Personally, I’d rather read the work of experts in the field than those with absolutely zero to offer.

      1. I agree with your points, but Kate is an internationally recognized public figure, so the Huffington idea was very good to draw attention, just not executed well. There were some nice articles by experts there.

        1. Does anyone actually remember what the Huffpo event was about? I don’t. Unless one can prove statistically that this kind of event has an impact, it’s just another PR move to favour the royals and keep them golden. What seems to be proven statistically by Gallup, for example, is that their PR machine is effective. They depend on their celebrity for support, not good works.

          Jen is right. They simply don’t care. They are not interested in anything except a concerted push at deception so that they can continue their obscenely hedonistic lifestyles on the taxpayers’ dime. There is no ‘there’ there, and after all this time I don’t understand how trying to tap into an empty royal shell for a golden yolk is anything other than ridiculous and delusional. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. At this point these self-absorbed, entitled doofusses have shown us who they are. The emperor has no clothes. Better to turf them out and use all those billions for good instead of on wastrels who pretend to do good.

          Strip away their opulent environs, their servants, their jewels, and all their perks and who is standing before us? Yeah. A bunch of feckless losers.

    2. No please! Writing articles is going to run into politics sooner and later and is not a traditional part of royalty nor one that means much to anyone – journalists can do it and the veering towards celebrity is alarming – because then there is no point in the royal family.

      The royal family members do need to get out there and meet people – represent the nation, bring attention not just to causes but to the work people do, bring comfort to those in need, and to those who are helping others – representing the nation in recognising those who achieve. The value of that is enormous – all one needs to do is look at the work other royals do abroad.

        1. Good points to all. I was just admiring Meghan’s Time article about women in India and have seen similar articles that get a lot of attention by celebrities like Keira Knightly (about Chad) or Charlize Theron (South Africa). But, you’re all right…it would likely be too political and not be all of Kate’s own words anyhow. Sigh.

          1. It all depends how it’s framed, but i think actions and pictures work better in the case of royals.

            When Diana did her AIDS handshake, the subject was negatively polarising socially AND politically.

            Yet she found a way to cut through all of that to a simple humanity that helped change perceptions.

            More recently, Camilla’s work with Domestic violence and Rape victims. Taboo and treading on political AND social toes.

            She’s gives speeches on the subject that cut through the BS to simple humanity, and in the case of rape, has helped create a post-rape exam kit that gives the victims a little pampering after their ordeal. The initial kits were allegedly assembled at CH with Camilla part of the team putting them together. It proved so successful that several commercial organisations contribute to the kits now.

          2. Camilla’s work with domestic violence and rape is an exemplary model for WKHM to follow: genuine action. She has used her position to cut through all the reasons why something can’t be done – and does it anyway. Good on her. To my mind, that is quality work driven first and foremost by the needs of victims; the ensuing publicity brings the issue to further light rather than it being a vehicle principally for Camilla.

          3. I think Camilla actually cares about the issue, which is probably the difference. Kate doesn’t care about mental health as an issue and she still doesn’t have any coherent thoughts on the issue. Neither she nor William have done anything serious on this issue yet. Harry may not be an expert, but his experience in combat helps him relate on an emotional level even if he is no expert intellectually.

          4. This might seem silly but I like that Camilla is teamed up with well known individuals who are personally affected by rape and domestic abuse (example: Sir Patrick Stewart). She isn’t associated with him just because he’s the new flavor of the month and all of that. They’ve teamed up together because they both want to make an impact and want to see change happen regarding these man and women who are affected.

          5. Camilla, and I am amused saying this, is like Diana in the sense I do think both women care to use their position to help. To drive change in some ways. Diana did it by loving on AIDS patients and destroying the taboos of touching AIDS patients. Camilla does it by her speeches and work with women’s shelters and charities, in tears with these women, loving on them.

            Kate, and William and to an extent Harry, can’t be arsed. (I think Harry tries–he wouldn’t have had created Invictus or Sentebale had he not–but he could do so much better.)

    3. Anon

      I would prefer a stronger work ethic or perhaps a relinquishing of position/ tax payers funding for their comforts to make way for those who genuinely care and want the responsibility that goes with the titles.

    4. I strongly and respectfully disagree.

      Kate knows nothing about the issues she would be asked to write about–she’s always “keen to learn” and the vaunted “regular girl” that was bringing the monarchy into a regular conversation with the public is a myth.

      She never worked a job where she had to put duty before her personal choice to be at Will’s beck and call. She’s never struggled, and doesn’t seem able to articulate an independent thought of her own–not saying she doesn’t have any but she’s never said anything that indicated a personal identity.

      Marie Antoinette shared her ideas with the people and that didn’t go well. I’d advise Kate to continue what got her the job; be servile and play the victim. It’s really up to the British public to say if and when they’ve had enough.

  32. Happy New Year to All! Thank you KMR for another insightful post. I find the Royal Trio frustrating. I’m not going to include Meghan because she just became engaged in November to Harry. I really do like Harry. I find him charming and relatable. Next to the Duke and Duchess of Stiff. He seems like a real person. Yet it doesn’t let him off the hook. Yes his numbers are better than William’s. Which I find funny. Because I thought Harry was not allowed to outshine Boy Wonder. All and all the three of them and they’re totals are lack luster to say the least. Thirty somethings who are not pulling their weight. Senior royals in order of precedence. Yet Senior Royals in age are out working them. I find it disgusting. That people that are close or way passed retirement age and busting their asses. While you hardly doing anything.

    Prince Philip finally gets to retire. After years of service to the country and the Commonwealth. And you happen to get pregnant. Since her pregnancy announcement it seemed so planned. And I’ve also had the feeling it was part of the 20th Anniversary of Diana’s passing. I know it sounds out there. Yet that is my opinion. The way Kate had the smug smile at the dedication of Diana’s garden at Kensington Palace. Rubbed me the wrong way. It was suppose to be celebration and solemn event about their mother. Yet she is grinning from ear to ear.

  33. I thought that I was the only one that thought the timing had to be due in part to Diana’s 20th anniversary.
    Kate did have a smug look on her face that was inappropriate.
    In one respect I feel sorry for Kate. It can’t be easy having a mother-in-law who is so revered.

    1. I thought I was the only one too. It does seem out there. Yet that is how I feel. It must not be easy being her daughter in law. And being compared to her. Diana was no Saint but she was human and had flaws. Wore her heart on her sleeve. Yet was smart and very cunning when it came to the press. She understood how to use PR good or bad.

  34. Diana definitely knew how to. use PR.

    I think that W and H’s popularity is largely due being Diana’s sons. Harry does seem to have some charisma. I wish he showed a stronger work ethic and more consistency.

    KMR-you do a terrific job. Thanks.

    1. IMO, Kate dressed better (both in casual daytime and evening or fancy moments) 10 years ago than she does now. I understand that she has to follow protocol and all of that but at least add some personality or fun.

      1. She really did. Even pre-George she had much better style. Following protocol doesn’t mean buttoned up to the chin. Just look at some of the things HM wore as a young princess and queen. SHE SHOWED HER SHOULDERS! Clutch your pearls, ladies! *snort*

        1. I agree. Kate wore some lovely pieces before she and William married. Also, her early married wardrobe was nice. It became kind of dull after George. For the amount of money that she spends, you expect spectacular.

  37. I think that an hour long engagement really does take up a lot of a day, if one is preparing, reading speeches, being briefed, memorising names of dignitaries and ensuring you look impeccable, along with whatever else you do that day. But if you’re 7 years into a job and have a competent staff, it needn’t take so long. So I don’t agree with the view that attending, for example, a museum is easy, particularly for introverted personalities. But these numbers are appalling. Kate and William should be ashamed. Unfortunately, I think William and Harry have a poor work ethic and are the product of an inadequate education for their role. Perhaps they should have been learning about constitutional law with private tutors – rather than being normal with other rich kids.

  38. Hi KMR!
    Thanks for a lovely review! My numbers vary slightly but I wanted to share an observation – from the DuchessKateTracker – in 2016 Kate clocks in at 63 days in public. In 2017 she clocks in at 62 days in public.
    How that breaks out in engagements:
    2016 – 62 foreign and 69 UK (131)
    2017 – 37 foreign and 58 UK (95)
    I think it is interesting to see how you can take the same amount of days and come up with such a range in engagement numbers depending on what you are doing. Regardless, it appears that about 80% of her life is quite private. I would expect to see around 60+ days in 2018 as well. With the possibility of more if she attends more things as William’s spouse if his numbers move up.

    Really like your patronage chart – hope you will continue to share that annually.

    1. That’s interesting. I wonder if low sixties is the ‘target’ number for Kate’s public engagements, or the similarity in numbers for 2016 and 2017 is purely coincidental.

  39. I wonder if it’s significant that Tim O’Donovan’s royal engagement table was published in The Times on 29 December, not on 1 January as in previous years. Did he have inside information that no-one would be performing any royal engagements over the last weekend of 2017?

    And I also wonder where in the table the Princesses of York and the Michaels of Kent would feature if their activities were counted. (Why aren’t they?)

    1. The York Princesses and Prince and Princess Michael are not working royals, they do less than ten engagements a year.

      Royal engagements are usually published in advance, so it appears that Tim O’Donovan knew that nothing was scheduled, finalized his list and turned over for publication early. Alternatively, he’s given the list before January 1 to the Times previously, and the Times chose to hold off until January 1 to publish the list.

      1. Beatrice does far more than that out of her own time/desire, and is patron of several charities. It’s a shame considering her cousins haven’t and won’t step up, she would be an asset–warm, kind, and interested, and genuinely compassionate.

        1. Agreed, Ellie. When we do see Beatrice and/or Eugenie officially out and about, they’re all in: warm, friendly and really paying attention/listening to the people they’re meeting.

          I think they might do more than 10 engagements a year behind the scenes, it’s just that they don’t count and doing appear in the CC.

          Also, guess who turned (gasp!) 38 yesterday…..? 😉

          Unfortunately, I’ve been feeling yucky for the past few days. My sinuses are royally acting up, teeth have been killing me (though I have been wearing my night guard), right ankle is bothering me (I think it’s from the boots I wore Tuesday) and feeling sore/achy all over and this unusually cold weather we’re experiencing here in North Florida (we got snow, sleet and ice yesterday!) isn’t helping.

          I think I’m just going to cuddle with my fur baby.

          P.S. If I had to guess, I have a feeling that I might hear from the Yorks sometime this month!

          1. Happy birthday fellow January baby! <3 I'm sorry you're sick – so am I, it's awful. Are you freezing out there? I can't believe how cold it's been in Tallahassee!!!

          2. Woo hoo! We January babies know how to kick off the year!! 😉

            I almost always seem to get sick with something right around and/or on my birthday and it blows. Like I said, I’m gonna cuddle with Missy but I’m also going to update my planner (I bought it in September and I’ve been bedazzling the heck out of it with stickers galore!), watch Netflix (FINALLY finished The Crown over the weekend), and rest.

            Yes!!! I’ve been wearing two pairs of leggings since the weekend and a long john top and when I take Missy out for a quick walk to do her business, I put a coat on both myself and her (though I add a scarf, earmuffs, a hat and mittens to my attire).

          3. Many happy returns, Kimothy. I hope you celebrate over the week or month – hey, why limit being spoiled to one day?

          4. Thank you, Jen.

            Exactly! Especially since I get so hosed having a birthday right after the holidays! Oh, why couldn’t I have been born in mid-March like I was supposed to? (Rhetorical question. 😉 )

          6. It’s not just their charitable activities – when Beatrice and Eugenie paid an official visit to Germany back in 2011 I was really impressed by how professionally they came across. Especially the speech Beatrice gave in which she introduced herself in impeccable German. OK, it was only one sentence, but at least she made the effort. Compare and contrast with her cousin-in-law, who freely admitted to having forgotten all the German she’d learnt at school and asked an onlooker how to say “My name is Catherine”. That was according to Hello! magazine’s report of the Cambridges’ Poland & Germany tour. When even one of the world’s most sycophantic magazines makes you look pathetic, you’re in serious trouble.

        2. Happy birthday! I too can no longer check the box that is 30-35, which means I’m closer to 40 than 30!! Eek but if WK are still referred to as the “young royals” than I’m still a young Sarah! It’s all a matter of perspectivec-I’m the younger sibling so it’s all good.
          Are you getting snow?

          1. Thank you, Sarah! It’s frightening at how fast the years are creeping up on is, isn’t it? I sometimes still **feel** like a young Kimothy though I think it’s because I missed out on so much during my teen years.

            No snow, more ice and sleet which was scary to walk across yesterday (when I was walking up and down the steps of my apartment building when walking Missy).

        3. Yes Beatrice does do more than ten charity events a year but to be considered an engagement that is listed in the court circular she has to be doing the event on behalf of her grandmother. So to clarify, when I stated that, [the York Princesses and Prince and Princess Michael often] do less than ten engagements a year, I am referring to carrying out work on behalf of the Queen.

  40. My daughter and I went to the diana her fashion journey at Kensington palace and it was seriously underwhelming. It cost £30 for both of us and it was a few small rooms with a few dresses and outfits. No accessories or iconic jewellery.
    No film or video of diana but some photos. If I had to sum it up, reluctant would be the word I would use. Like they were forced to do it but did the least they could get away with.
    Also one wall had info that diana did 130 engagements a year which I think is not correct. I think she did more in general but hey let’s not say so in case comparisons are made.
    I was really disappointed particularly after visiting the excellent house style exhibition at Chatsworth recently and the amazing Christian dior exhibition in Paris, both of which showed an attention to detail and breadth that was lacking at KP.

    1. Do the British people not perceive how very part time and grudging W and K are? How cynical? Does that not make them mad? Harry has spent the last year on airplanes and luxury vacations, wooing Meghan, and W and K have led an insular private life with their children and ample staff. No one here knows what they actually do with their time (an estimate given was 80% private life– if that calculation was on a 40 hr week, then they would be “working” 8 hrs a week, with numerous full time staff propping them up. The BRF is a brand (maybe it always has been) rather than an actual entity–it’s all about fostering an illusion as the prime directive of the staff is to preserve the monarchy. Why does the press let them get away with this and not demand an accounting of ALL the money?

      1. “The BRF is a brand…rather than an actual entity–it’s all about fostering an illusion as the prime directive of the staff is to preserve the monarchy. Why does the press let them get away with this and not demand an accounting of ALL the money?”

        You’re exactly right. It is all illusion – or rather, a series of deceptions – the aim being to keep power and wealth concentrated in this family. That means controlling the press to a large extent with its preferred narrative. So we currently have William and Kate portrayed as serious, intelligent and ‘keen’ to step up, though their priorities at the moment lie with being 24/7 hands-on parents, not wishing to interfere with their elders’ desire to fulfill their God-given function. Harry as charismatic and doing all sorts of things that we never see. Both William and Harry seen through the lens of Diana’s boys’, though well on the cusp of middle-age. Well done, palace PR.

        Most people do not pay too much attention to royalty; they are just ‘there’, gently insinuated into everyday UK life so that they are synonymous with national identity. Therefore, abolition can never be entertained: royalty must continue to define all that is the best of Britishness.

        The palace PR also has willing partners in the UK tabloid press who run endless stories about the BRF, especially the ‘young’ ones. Again, all a bout money. Hence, WKH look busier than they actually are. The occasional criticism of laziness is damped down with deflection:
        • Having a part-time job (EAAA), though not often there;
        • Being hands-on parents 24/7, though with a stable of staff;
        • Private meetings/work not counted, though no/few details provided;
        • Bringing out the kids;
        • Mummy died! (when the above fails).

        The hours ‘worked’ are certainly not full-time; again, all smoke and mirrors. Demanding ‘privacy’ and threatening to sue the UK press for printing images are mechanisms aiding this deception. Why successive governments and citizens have not demanded full accountability re. work and funds is beyond comprehension. I can only surmise the forelock-tugging mentality is entrenched.deeply

        1. Thank you, Jen for this clarifying post. There is also, I guess, the intangible sense of emotional wellbeing and national pride at just seeing the queen. Both QE and Charles have played fast and loose with the state funds and properties, essentially diverting $$ intended for other purposes into the private pockets of the family. Every time abolishing the monarchy is brought up, the first retort is that they bring in tourism dollars, or help sell British products. That should be part of what is examined—and even then, is it worth it? To have people like Kate, etc. representing GB in the world does not inspire confidence. The press is not doing its job. The whole system seems corrupt and cynical, and pays homage to the rightness of the British class system and empire.

          1. You’ve summed it up beautifully. If the public were given full information regarding true levels of funding, its re-direction to family, grabs for further public resources (Duchies), would they be so devoted? Somehow I doubt it, though they should be given full information to make an informed decision either way. And if the BRF was squeaky clean, they’d have no qualms in disclosing expenditure.

            It’s incredible that UK journalists know that interrogation of the monarchy is fruitless and probably dangerous. It may take an outlier with a forensic mind and endless tenacity to go after the truth. You can see how the recent Paradise Papers revelations and the BRF’s involvement were quickly shut down, just fizzled out. That could only have been done under heavy-handed direction from those at the top of they system.

          2. Great conversation here.

            I wonder what would constitute a scandal big enough to force the people to stand up and take notice of the real BRF whom I liken to the mafia in greed, attitude and manipulation.

            The real problem is the media. As long as there is a campaign of disinformation and intimidation by the royals, the people will remain blind and dumb, attached to a nostalgic facsimile of sacred greatness. When Harry talks about bringing the ‘magic’ he is tapping into that old stream in new ways, just as the Cambs think that their mere presence, so rare and fragrant, elevates the peon; being royal adjacent becomes the goal, metaphorically touching the hem of their gowns is the greatest delight.

            This is what they and their PR want us to believe. They can make your day without ever investing in you or your well being or knowing anything about you, without ever making an effort or actually caring. The machinery is rather Orwellian in its scope and intent.

            So, yes, they have indeed modernised the monarchy by using the technology. They have just reshaped the old forelock tugging into a more palatable version for modern times. They *want* us to see their perfection. They *want* us to react in awe and gratitude to their beauty, exceptional style, and ‘charm’, and to tales of their wondrous works. Their images are complete artifice in a way they couldn’t be in days of yore. They *want* us to believe their words, believe that they have high ideals. We are awash in the earnestness and keenness of their words and images while they reshape our consciousness of them into gods worthy of celebration.

            Worse, they hide behind a massive wall of PR, petulant and offended that anyone should actually want to know them. They deliberately project the magical princing image all the while contemptuous of anyone thinking they know the ‘real’ person behind the royal facade. They created that cipher to keep you feeling royal adjacent and blessed to know them and then sneer at you for thinking you know them at all. They really are hateful.

            I can’t imagine what it would take to expose them, especially since the media are intimidated/happily complicit. And people call the BRF harmless. I think ultimately this so-called modernisation is about not getting exposed for who they really are.

          3. It infuriates me when they tout the BRF brings in tourism money! Maybe 1% goes to the U.K. Hoping to see a Royal. Everything we an visit, we could see sans the monarchy and on a more frequent basis thus increasing the revenue flow. Hello, Versailles??!!!
            Not to mention the security cost they never disclose. When I read someone was wanting to shuffle the homeless out of sight before the wedding, I thought several things. First was how many millions are going to be spent on security costs for this shindig? That’s money that could have been allocated towards something else more tangible to address the underlying issues of why someone is homeless. What does William have to say since he’s supposed to be championing the cause of the homeless? But as always, it’s all about the optics and not the reality

          4. It’s often a small incident that topples a formerly sacrosanct institution or person. And then things fall really quickly…

            Cracks will appear once the Queen dies; in the public mind, she represents one of the few constants in Britons’ lives. She says nothing to rock her boat. I do believe the BRF and its courtiers know how perilous their situation is, hence a grab for Duchies for their own private ownership, as well as shoring up the family’s fortunes through diversion of funds. And of course, insulating themselves with PR lies such as being responsible for tourist successes – despite no irrefutable evidence offered. Fit for nothing, unable and unwilling to work in the real world, they need the public more than the public needs them.

            I agree that the media through either coercion, complicity or cowardice does not serve the public well. But people, too, need to take responsibility for what they are fed and be vigilant. Common sense – if not a critical mindset – should tell them that the BRF neither needs nor deserves the level of largesse provided, particularly given the amount of ‘work’ done which amounts to little more than meet-and-greets. As Maven so sharply assesses, “They can make your day without ever investing in you or your well being or knowing anything about you, without ever making an effort or actually caring”.

          5. Jen,

            “But people, too, need to take responsibility for what they are fed and be vigilant.”

            Alas, this is easier said than done. The other part of the equation that vivian so astutely pointed out is that the monarchy is enmeshed with national identity for many believers. If you’re fed a steady diet of lies by the royals and the press that continue to make you feel proud, why rebel against it?
            It would mean attacking your own sense of identity.

            People like Herazeus, for example, have added valuable insight to the way things really are and how we’re manipulated. It’s opened the eyes of some, mine included, beginning on Enclave 24 (sadly defunct blog); prior to that I was a happy and ignorant royal watcher and supporter. Kate also has really done a great service for us plebs, by inadvertently exposing the appallingly venal and careless reality.

            Other than through media, how does that word get out, if no one will criticise or expose the BRF?

          6. Maven, I agree that the UK media is currently a hollow vessel on this issue. Royal reporters are too dependent on access and easily brought to heel, as we have seen. It requires a different type of journalistic thinking and resolve, supported by a brave publisher. People can accept or reject whatever critical arguments are prosecuted, but at least they should be made clearly and without fear of threat. How is progress made when the status quo is never questioned?

            I certainly see the BRF’s infiltration into everyday life in the UK. But it’s very selective information that the BRF disseminates, more along the lines of propaganda. Occasional sightings of ‘royalty’ carefully meted out to ‘commoners’, muzzling the press through power and PR, the spectacle of pageantry, palaces and jewels, an anthem that pledges loyalty to a person rather than to a country: it all dazzles as it is meant to do. Hence, critical thinking is suspended and an obedient herd mentality predominates. Diana’s funeral was an excellent example of that; a people completely off-balance.

            The further physical proximity to the BRF and its staged pomp and propaganda, the less deference. The Queen of the UK is also the Queen of our respective countries yet we and our fellow citizens do not, as a rule of thumb, have the same emotional reaction or deference to monarchy. Other ideas are at play, the most important being that leaders can be found from our own ranks but must be worthy of our support or out they go. The non-political nature of the BRF is often brought up as justification, but it’s patently untrue. You only have to look to Northern Ireland’s president as a check on power, but without the expense or conflation of very ordinary people into gods on earth.

        2. I come on to KMR to read the comments and I have to say I simply love all your posts Jen!

          I hope you are feeling much better KMR and thank you for all the time, hard work and dedication you put into this blog!

    2. Historic Royal Palaces really has done a number on KP, having been. It could be so much better. The Victoria exhibition is pretty great, but the rest? I wonder why. I know they are looking at expanding somehow but they should take care of what they have now and do a better job with their exhibits, though I’m sure they are on a strict budget.

    3. I believe Diana averaged 130 engagements a year; people overestimate how much she ‘worked’. I saw a chart of her numbers in comparison to Kate and it wasn’t that much difference. It did go up more after she had Harry.

      1. The media is complicit in downplaying Diana’s numbers especially in comparison to Kate. All the better to elevate Kate and excuse her lack of a work ethic.

        I’m surprised and unsurprised that KP, historical palaces, are colluding in this game by downplaying her numbers to an average 130 per year. That’s William’s overall average. And we know he claims he can’t do more because he is a SAHD. Yet he also complained that Diana was always working and often left him and Garry alone with the nannies or the nursery floor. They can’t have it both ways. Overworked mummy thus Kate can’t work then deliberately underplay her numbers to show that she was barely working.

        The fact is that you can check Diana’s numbers in the national archives and she started with 200 in her first year, went down to 170 in her second year + birthing William, went up again to 250 in the year between the kids, fell back down to 160 the year she birthed Harry and rose again to 200 the year after that and kept rising until she ditched her charities in 1992. This coincided with her separation. She kept 6 charities and worked in a more involved way with them, but the lack of work led to depression and mischief….idle hands and all that.

  41. Rumor has it that Kate and William are in Mustique with Pippa and her hubby, yet today, was supposed to be Charlotte’s first day of nursery school. All her peers started today.

    Someone pointed out that if Charlotte goes to school next Tuesday, the released pics are in direct competition with Meghan’s engagement.

    1. Most reporters are saying they are at Kate’s family house which makes more sense because her family goes to Mustique at the end of January.

      It was also reported Charlotte would start school next week-apparently it was known she wouldn’t start today. That also makes sense since George’s school picks back up on the 9th.

      Might as well start Charlotte at the same time as George and stay with family longer. It was probably known awhile ago when Charlotte would start school, so in that regard, Meghan and Harry decided to have an engagement on the day Charlotte would start school.

      So then Meghan is the one who is trying to take the spotlight away from Kate. Not vice versa. See it works both ways, lol. Not every decision is about Meghan.

      1. In all honesty-royals constantly have engagements on the same days. It means nothing. I don’t see why people are already pitting these two women against each other. As you say when you defend Meghan-we don’t know them, therefore we can’t judge.

        Or maybe it’s Charlotte’s dastardly plan to release photos on the day Meghan has an engagement. That sneaky toddler 😉 (I’m teasing of course). Just pointing out how silly this all is.

    2. Why is this not covered by the press who felt it necessary to point out H &M went away overnight for new year? Bit more expensive to go first class to Mustique with all the nannies. But Pippas husband is probably having to pay. I doubt they’ll visit any of the islands so badly affected by Irma while they are so close. That would be hard work.

      1. There is already such a bias against Meghan. It’s a shame that she’s being written off before she’s given a chance.

        I’m sure Pippa’s husband is paying.

        1. Birdy and Trisha, i agree 100%. Meghan is undergoing a full scale character assassination and it is not fair. She has been given no room for error. If the Monaco trip was mentioned, so should the Mustique trip be.

    3. So if Meghan and Kate do anything on the same day they are competing with one another? That’s strange. Sometimes things are going to happen at the same time; no big deal.

          1. It’s pretty bad and you know they’ll never let up on these ladies. I do hope they end up being great support for one another- they are a lot older than Di and a Fergie in their wonder years. So maybe these two will be friends despite the tarring feathering of them both. Listen, if the Swedes can befriend Sophia this can be done as well.

        2. “I think the press is creating the competition . . .”

          Agreed. I also recall a period of time when the press created ‘conflict’ between Kate and Sophie.

        1. I personally hope that Meghan is a success. And if her presence happens to “nudge” Kate to do more-that’s great. We’ll have to wait and see.

      3. Didn’t Diana admit that she did this–plan engagements on the same day as Charles to “steal” press attention from his big events? And also, before their split, that when they and their staff would sit down to plan out the coming months’ work, they made sure that there was no overlap? I’m not saying that Kate and/or Meghan are using dates to compete. Like you said, sometimes things happen at the same time. It’s just that because Diana admitted to doing so now people realize it’s a tactic that has been–and could be–used, and makes it easier to jump to that conclusion.

  42. I know I am threadjacking but happy to hear that Zara Tindall is expecting. After seeing some of the pics of her in Australia over the holidays, I thought she might be and my hunch was correct.

    2. Wonderful news about Zara.

      I rather doubt a Mustique holiday because Kate is pregnant and the Zika virus is still a risk. I don’t know if that matters in later pregnancy but I can’t see them taking a chance.

  44. Oh, such good news A safe and healthy pregnancy and delivery for Zara. She and her husband do seem to be loving parents and little Mia will be a darling big sis.

  45. I am super happy about Zara, Mike and Mia Tindall’s news. Here’s to a safe delivery and a healthy baby. Not really long to wait either.

  46. Happy new year! Chuck will never let Beatrice & Eugenie be full time working royals, because it will make harry, bill & Cathy look bad. People would start questioning chuck & Di as parents & cousins would be compared?

    1. Halia,
      That is a really astute and insightfulpoint! I bet the Yorkies would shame the principals. I don’t believe that is Chuck’s thinking but I can certainly see that as an outcome.

  47. I don’t think the Yorkies would shame Meghan or Harry.

    What is the REAL reason Bea and Eugenie never became working royals? Is it true that growing up they were told they would be?

    Why can’t they work? After all, Princess Alexandra, Princess Alice, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent carry out/carried out engagements.

    Why not Bea and Eugenie?

    1. Leah, here’s an article you might find interesting:

      http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com.au/2016/10/what-to-do-about-york-princesses.html

      http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/thequeen/queen-denies-granddaughters-working-royal-roles-70098

      From the mid-90’s it was mooted that Beatrice and Eugenie may not be working royals. They would have made a better transition to ‘real work’ had their father accepted this but he did not. That put both women in a difficult place; they thought their father would make things ‘right’ yet the situation had been made clear a couple of decades previously. Also, Charles and sons have signalled streamlining royal activities to a fraction of the present load, nowhere near the same as the Queen and her cousins have done. This means that minor royals are redundant in their scenario.

      1. “From the mid-90’s it was mooted that Beatrice and Eugenie may not be working royals. They would have made a better transition to ‘real work’ had their father accepted this but he did not. That put both women in a difficult place; they thought their father would make things ‘right’ yet the situation had been made clear a couple of decades previously. Also, Charles and sons have signalled streamlining royal activities to a fraction of the present load, nowhere near the same as the Queen and her cousins have done. This means that minor royals are redundant in their scenario.”

        Thank you for providing these links (they made very interesting reading), and I agree with your comment.

        People are either not aware, or perhaps over time have forgotten that streamlining the monarchy was mooted many years ago and is not a ‘recent’ development.

        Andrew, imo, needs to ‘let go’. Reading these two interesting and complex articles has shed some light (for me) as to why rumours about a chilly relationship between Beatrice, Eugenie and Kate are possibly correct. I can see where this bad feeling may have stemmed from.

      2. Charles is going to regret this streamline and I truly feel bad for the various charities that have received substantial help from the royals and their contributions. They’re the ones who are going to suffer in the end. I also feel bad that Beatrice & Eugenie weren’t allowed to become working royals. Do you think part of the reason is due to some grudge Charles might have against Andrew?

        1. I agree. The charities are the ones who will suffer. With a streamlined monarchy, I think that fewer charities will receive attention . Plus, the charities that do receive attention will not receive an adequate amount.

        2. I think much of the “feud” can be laid at the Queen’s doorstep. She always had a chilly relationship with Charles, and spoiled Andrew rotten. But the York girls have not helped themselves with their far too frequent appearances at every social occasion, too often as their mother’s props. Eugenie does not get credit for having had a job for forever, but Beatrice needs to find her calling for her own happiness. Andrew’s attitude has hurt his daughters both in the public’s perception, as have his and Fergie’s antics. Of course the Yorks will be overshadowed by their cousins as they approach nearer to the throne. The Wessex family has handled this far better, and Anne did, too.

          1. I think, as one of those articles pointed out, if Fergie had not been such a nightmare and Andrew had not been well, Andrews, the Yorkies would be full time royals.

        3. Tbh and if the public is going to prop up a stupid system like monarchy, they at least want to be able to gawk at people prettier than themselves or more talented and gifted than themselves-
          It’s worth admiring. I’ll be honest, Beatrice and Eugenie haven’t shown any particular skill or talent in any area and are homely looking women. Take away their designer clothing and put them on a show like “Benefits Street” and their general uselessness will come to the fore.

          Kate and Meghan on the other hand are good looking women. Even if They behave like lazy, celeb socialites with no particular talent in anything, the public willl be a lot more forgiving of their shenanigans because they are attractive. Same with Diana, who wasn’t the saint that she is made out to be, but she was stunningly beautiful and charitable and dragged the royal family to the 21st century- so her many faults are forgiven by the public.

      3. I can’t believe the misinformation in these articles. And it enrages me that it’s written with such authority when it is BS. And with hindsight of current events as if it’s truth telling or the truth was evident 20yrs ago, when it’s a tissue of lies.

        How do i know? Because one of my friends was a ‘grey man’ during the 90s, and of course my previous job in the media during that same period.

        The author’s first glaring lie is that the way ahead group was founded to streamline the monarchy.

        That is categorically untrue. The author is drawing from the example of George V to make their case, but in that they are wrong too.

        George V wanted to make the royals ENGLISH. As english as possible so the nation would forget about their German roots. He wanted to stabilise them and weld them to Britain so the population would not remove them like was happening to the European royal families during this time. He also realised that there were too many royals with HRH, particularly German cousins.

        He therefore restricted the HRHs to children and grandchildren, changed the royal family’s dynastic name to Windsor, and instituted the family’ nobless oblige activities because he realised the public meeting the royals would cement them in public lives better than the occassional glimpse from a balcony of a remote bejewelled figure.

        In the 80s and 90s, the royal family became increasingly unpopular.some of that was due to the public being better educated about the royal family’s finances eg it was public knowledge that they paid no tax. A situation that was mentioned on an almost weekly basis by various newspapers. It became a sore point because the queen simply refused to address it. Their lives continued to be lavish and untaxed despite the recession that hit the country in the early 90s.

        It was only when Windsor suffered a devastating fire in 1992 that the Queen capitulated and started paying tax and even that, voluntarily. The govt of the day were applauded for refusing to pay for Windsor and instead making her pay tax as a condition of any govt help.

        They also forced her to open up the palaces to pay for their upkeep.

        The govt took away her some of the govt funded toys like Britannia although that was sold to the public as decommissioning at the end of a long service. The govt refused to provide a replacement.

        The Queen was widely mocked for shedding a public tear at the decommissioning ceremony in 1997 when she’d been dry eyed at Diana’s death.

        Then there was the Diana effect. Before she joined the family, they had operated in a very remote fashion. They kept to their palace ivory tower as much as possible and definitely didn’t have a common touch.

        By contrast Diana was warm and down to earth and shockingly touched people or allowed them to touch her. And she smiled and seemed to prefer engagements with the public as opposed to the remote, velvet roped, engagements with town officials that were the norm.

        Seriously, this was a thing. I can clearly remember the day the Queen started smiling in public at her engagements and being warm because my friend and i discussed it in the vein of ‘what happened?’ To which the answer was ‘the diana effect’.

        Between the scandals, the mishandling of financials, the perceived coldness and remoteness of the familythe 90s were especially bad for the family.

        The way ahead group was formed in the late 90s as a response to turning the family popularity around. There was no other aim.

        The first thing was to employ PR to make the family look better.

        Secondly, the public engagements changed and the way they were conducted changed. The Queen was much warmer and more smiley in public as opposed to her former poker face. She also engaged with people even if she didn’t hug them like Diana.

        The family had to show more personality on engagement.

        Edward, Sophie and their children were the first casualty of the way ahead group, but not because of long term planning.

        One of the often used accusations against the family was it’s remoteness. Making Edward a royal duke outright on his wedding day was seen as an unnecessary own goal. A solution had to be found that would demonstrate that the family wasn’t remote. They therefore fudged and gave him a lesser title with promise of an upgrade later. They gave the children the titles of an Earl, but the slight of hand is that the they have the definitive article in their title that denotes their relationship to the monarch ie ‘The Lady Louise’ instead of plain ‘Lady Louise’ and they remained legally HRH princes which means they can still pick it up at a later date should they wish to do so.

        There was categorically no talk about the Yorks or their titles. Andrew was yet to become problematic because he was in the navy until 2001. All post-divorce sympathy lay with him as the wronged party. And when Fergie started her commercial ventures in the late 90s, it was her image that suffered NOT Andrew. Andrew had acquired the moniker ‘airmiles Andy’ for his helo habit, and he was criticised for playing too much golf when on shore leave, but he was not the scandalous pariah of current times.

        When he retired in 2001, Charles wanted him to join the royal duties train as dictated by Charles. Andrew refused. The govt made him trade ambassador instead. A role he held for 10yrs until a combination of dealings with shady govts and the Jeffrey Epstein pedo scandal forced him out.

        In those ten years, there was a drip feed of scandal about the various family members designed to make them all look bad, and it came from Charles’s office, masterminded by his press officer Mark Boland. The man fed the public all kinds of negative stories about rest of the family to extent that the rest of the family mistrusted Charles and his office.

        Some of this was covered by a recent BBC documentary that Charles tried to have banned. It publicly spoke about what we all knew at the time. That Charles was deliberately badmouthing his own family, as well as his sons, to make him and Camilla look good. And he’d picked up Diana’s habit of publicly lying to the public to make himself look good.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=16s&v=ER-wEpFitvo

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-WIqvb4IfkA

        All this served to blacken the reputations of Edward and Andrew such that when real scandals arrived, the public was already primed to believe them and to interprete them in the worst way.

        Even today, when Andrew says publicly that he supports Charles, no one believes him. The damage has been done.

        Of course the other concurrent negative is Fergie. Her commercial activites have killed off any goodwill.

        That is coming on top of the media setting her up to be the bad royal during the Diana era, her extra-marital affairs, her debts. Her continued public banishment.

        If Fergie had been protected like Sophie after *her* scandal, we would have a different public perception of her.

        Somewhere in the mid-00s, the govt decided to review the royal finanaces because there had been one too many scandals involving the royal finances. Too many headlines along the lines of ‘the Queen down to her last million’ and therefore asking for more money from the govt.

        The review found that the security bill was too high and too many royals were living large on the govt largesse via the civil list.

        A gradual downgrade of these two areas took place and was completed in 2010. The minor royals lost their grace and favour privileges and had to start paying market rates for their homes. Security was removed from most if not all the minor royals unless they were carrying out royal duties.

        Andrew fought the security downgrade for his daughters because they were still going to be senior royals carrying out duties at that point.

        The idea that the way ahead group was to streamline the royals started in 2011-ish. The Queen and Philip resisted the idea, but Charles got his way because of the scandal that erupted around Andrew at this time.

        Andrew’s daughters were at university or just graduated. Beatrice went to work at her mother’s charity Children in Crisis for a few months.

        I think Andrew, Anne and Edward thought that the decision would be reversed, but when they were sidelined so publicly at the 2012 Jubilee celebrations, they realised the game was up.

        Despite public assumptions coupled with media mischief articles, the Yorks accepted their fate as long ago as then.

        They might help out their father and grandmother when asked, but they are living their lives as private citizens albight royal ones within palaces.

        They undertook a tour in 2012 to Germany because The Queen and the foreign office asked, and Andrew tries to get Beatrice to accompany him on tours, but that’s as much as they dip their toes in royal duties.

        They pay for their own security, and they attend family events which annoys the public because the public can’t seem to distinguish between the family events vs the royal duties.

        And if the daughters attend their grandmother or Andrew, then it’s interpreted in the worst way by the public egged on by the media.

        My personal view is that Eugenie would have struggled to be a full time royal. Even as a child she was ambivalent about her royal status and always wanted a private life rather than a public one. She’s never struggled with the idea that she should be a private citizen and has conducted her life accordingly.

        Beatrice has struggled to reconcile her two lives primarily because both parents seem to need her support and she wants to give it. It brings her into conflict with the public perception that she’s desperate to be on the royal gravy train.

        Fergie has made sure the girls stay close to their grandparents and again this has caused public conflict because when said grandparents ask the girls to perform public duties, it rubs the public the wrong way.

        And for what it’s worth, Beatrice has had various jobs despite her looking like she’s jobless.

        She graduated in summer 2011. Worked for Children in Crisis for 4months starting in the Autumn of 2011.

        She changed jobs in spring of 2012 and worked for 18mths for Cabot Square Capital.

        She undertook a finance investment course in San Franscisco in 2013 before starting a 12mth job in 2014 at Sony.

        After the Sony hack outed her personal details, she quit that job and was unemployed for about 3/ 4 months.

        She started a new job at Sandbridge Capital in spring of 2015 where she stayed until august 2016.

        She left to create her own start-up in business matchmaking which she continues to do. And by the way, that start-up is financially backed by Sandbridge capital.

        Her so-called holidays as touted by the media took a period from 2014 through to 2015. They included Sandrigham and Balmoral with the royals, 2 beach/ yacht holidays with Dave Clarke that she has taken every year of their relationship, a Sandridge work conference, a royal tour accompanying Andrew, and various weekends away with friends and family that included destination weddings, or visiting the family swiss chalet or visiting Eugenie in NYC.

        Further, the idea that she is permanently on holiday was fostered by Dave Clark’s job which required him to schmooze the rich and fabulous in far flung places, on yachts, on beaches etc for Virgin Galactic. His job was to get the rich and fabulous to buy tickets on the inaugural virgin space flight at £100K a pop. He was very good at his job. And he took Beatrice to some of those schmoozing weekends which many suspect was using her as bait because the rich and fabulous always want to meet royalty.

        Have you noticed that since they broke up, no fabulous ‘holidays’ for Beatrice? No yachts, beaches or hanging out with rich and fabulous anymore?!

        But the damage is done.

        And just to be clear, there has never, ever been a suggestion or even thought that Andrew’s daughters should not be princesses or their titles removed even as minor royals.

        That is public fanfiction that has somehow become fact.

        Especially when compared to Anne’s children without title which is also somewhat of an urban legend that has granted Anne fabulous powers of forward thinking and foresight when infact Anne was simply following the laws of the land ie in view of her husband refusing a title, she, as a female, couldn’t pass any on. Thus her children have no titles.

        Fun fact lost in time: The Queen as a female couldn’t pass on any titles to her children. They would have been known as The Lords Charles / Andrew / Edward of Edinburgh and The Lady Anne of Edinburgh as the children of a duke (of Edinburgh). The Queen’s father wrote a letters patent granting any children of her marriage to philip the HRH princes title!!

        Anne’s children have turned out alright and their use of taxpayer funds in the form of security residences and guards deliberately kept low key to foster the image of down to earth ordinariness removed from the royal family. Don’t be fooled. Just because Anbe’s butler isn’t required to wear uniform does render him non existant.

          1. Thank you Kimothy.

            It might read like i’m a York apologist, but i’m a misinformation hater.

            If we are going to tar and feather them, let’s have the correct information to begin with.

            I forgot to add that one of the most sucessful things the PR used by the way ahead group was public perception of the Queen’s handling of the diana funeral.

            It was common knowledge that the Queen hated Diana at the end and her sticking to protocol was a public way of sticking it to a woman she and the family had come to hate.

            I remember the laughter in my house at the Queen being forced to address the nation and the mealy mouthed way she spoke the words.

            Also, that the boys were forced to walk behind the coffin to help the royal family image.

            Decades later and the reason has succesfully been changed to a grandmother keeping her devasted grandsons out of public arena to deal with their grief!!

            Sounds plausible, but considering this very christian woman wouldn’t even say prayers for their dead mother at a service she insisted the boys attend on the morning of her death…….BS.

          2. Herazeus, please write a book. Explain titles, HRH, the significance of commas and “the” in your name, inheritance of titles, the duchies and how they came to be, the civil list, the way ahead group, all of it. Mrs. BBV could help. You could write a best seller. We are floundering in the muddy waters of misinformation, which royalty and the wealthy count on. I will help. As a marketer and librarian I have experience researching, organizing, writing, editing, and presenting. We need a resource to cut through the PR BS like a hot knife through butter!

        2. Thanks for all this, Herazeus. You’re a treasure.

          I really do like the York girls. Something kind and warm about the, especially Beatrice who is always so engaging and sweet natured–something I have read that is indeed how she is. A good egg, a gentle person with a good heart. Shame I think she could be a good working royal. Her parents tainted her reputation, as did that douchey boyfriend who ran off and is now engaged after getting the gal up the duff…

          1. Oh I’m with you 100% Ellie. Also, I never got a good vibe regarding Dave. If anything, I thought he batted for the other team and was just using Beatrice, and not just for work. **ducks in case I’m the only person who thought that**

          2. At least Eugenie and Beatrice turn up at royal engagements. Sorry for the cheap comment but quite honestly they do a lot behind the scenes. Beatrice decorated the interior of the Welsh wendy house at Windsor for the Jubilee in 2012 as her contribution.

          4. I think a lot of us have a soft spot for Bea and Eugenie. My wish for Bea is that she finds work she is passionate about ( I think she’d be great working with teens) and then finds a guy who will respect her and treat her well. I think that Eugenie has these bases covered.

          5. Fifi: She already work with teens.

            She’s a patron of The Teenage Cancer Trust after working with them since she was a teen herself, she’s a patron of the Helen Arkell Dyslexia centre which helped with her dyslexia and routinely fundraises for dyslexia charities as a whole, and her personal charity called *Big Change works primarily with teens.

            *The one engagement attended by Cressida and Harry was for her Big Change charity though that got lost in the media scrum of stories about Cressida and Harry.

        4. Wasn’t there a bit of a rumble with Peter Phillips and his company being given a juicy contract for Jubilee celebrations in the streets?

          1. Yes. Amazing how quickly that story was quashed.

            For those who don’t remember this episode, the Queen was persuaded by Peter to hold a public picnic for her charities to celebrate her 2012 Jubilee.

            Companies were invited to bid for the tender to organise the lunch.

            Surprise, Surprise Peter’s company won it.

            And charged the charities £150 for a ticket. Ostensibly to cover costs and any profits shared equally by the charities.

            The lunch raised £1.5M of which Peter’s company pocketed £750K as their fee whilst charging the costs to the remaining £750K that was supposed to go to the charities. The 600+ charities ended up sharing only £384K.

        5. Better than any Royal Biographer I have ever read … Herazeus are you somehow one incognito? Really enjoyed reading your indepth yet succinctly written precis… bravo

  48. Jen i respect your opinion! Chuck is not doing anything about his sons & d-i-l lack of work. Will daddy & wife pick up the slack? If Chuck does not allow this nieces to help him, is he & stepmom going to work night and day?

    1. Charles is expecting his sons and their wives to step up to whatever the parameters of royal work are when they are in control. Whether they will do that to meet Charles’ expectations is the question…

      1. Not sure when he expects them to pick it up. They have been lazy for seven years post marriage. Harry only slightly better.

    1. I saw that and thought, “wow! Guess I was weird/behaving poorly this morning for having scrambled eggs, bacon and biscuit with gravy.” (Okay, so I ate poorly and my blood sugar levels let me know! ?)

      1. I had leftover gravy with roast chicken that I roasted myself and Sprouts but there was so much gravy that I used a plastic Tupperware box. I had chocolate log for breakfast recently too. I refuse to feel guilty even if it is not good for me.

    2. I don’t know if it’s so much tone deafness vs out of touch with reality. While she’s making avocado tortillas in her palace at Versailles, she hasn’t realized that avocados are expensive for the target audience she’s trying to help. Don’t hate me U.K. Posters but I’m not a fan of the English breakfast (beans aren’t a breakfast food!!) but baked beans are pretty cheap and nutritional.
      Also talking about her favorite meal on top of a French ski resort also misses the point. I suggest she spend some time with some of the plebeians and do cost analysis of the food she’s promoting. Fresh fruit and vegetables shouldn’t be a luxury but that’s another issue in all together. The article reeked of Marie Antoinette

    3. If I am reading this right, and to be fair to Pippa, this has been taken out of context. A number of well-known people – including Pippa – were asked about their favourite breakfasts when growing up:
      https://inews.co.uk/news/christmas-appeal/chef-celebs-including-jamie-oliver-pippa-middleton-give-breakfast-tips/

      The piece in the Mirror reproduces Pippa’s comments from the original article but goes a step further, adding a breakfast recipe from Heartfelt, the cookbook Pippa edited for the Heart Foundation a while back. The original article had carried no such suggestion of children being given avocados and tortillas for breakfast, or the recipe. It’s a deliberate piece of mischief on the part of the Mirror, as far as I can see from a quick internet search. Here’s the Mirror facsimile:
      http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/pippa-middleton-comes-under-fire-11801762

      Magic Breakfast is an incredibly worthwhile and down-to-earth practical charity, providing nutritious, low cost breakfasts to schools:
      https://www.magicbreakfast.com/Pages/Category/about-us

      2. You’re right. They deliberately took things out of context. Pippa even mentioned toast soldiers when she was growing up.

      3. Talking about the French ski resort is still pretty tone deaf though. It would be better for all if she did her charity work for her own personal fulfillment and not for press attention.

  50. What irks me about Pipps is you know she didn’t grow up eating this fancy. This is as tone deaf as her recent hospital visit where she ignored the gravely ill kids in favor of looking into the camera.

    1. I normally give Pippa a bit of leeway (I like her spunk) but this pretty ridiculous of her. And you’re right- pretty sure Carole wasn’t serving up fancy brekkie the likes of this.

    2. Pippa needs to just go away. If the York girls stay out of the spotlight, than a sister in law of a Royal needs to do the same. We didn’t hear from Diana’s siblings like this.

  51. I am writing from across the pond and have been reading KMR for a while. Please help me understand why no one calls Kate and William on the carpet for their lack of responsibility and general laziness. Surely HM must see that none of the young royals have a serious work ethic and this is how the monarchy will fall. I just read that Princess Charlotte, who I believe is just under three years old, is starting nursery school from 9:00AM to 4:00PM. It was suggested that this will give Kate time to bond with the new baby. My children were napping from 1:00PM to approximately 4:00PM at that age. With Prince George and Princess Charlotte both in school all day and a nanny who is, I imagine, employed full time, how much “bonding” will Kate be doing. I am puzzled by the lack of a work ethic in those who live such pampered lives and the fact that there seem to be no repercussions from senior royals. Surely making serious “adjustments” to their very generous funding would help.

  52. I wish Pippa would disappear into the nearest Wisteria Patch, never to be heard from again and take her odious family with her.

    We did actually hear a lot re Charles Spencer, Di’s brother/

    1. The hat looked like she was thinking of auditioning for the Dallas Cowgirls! Without the “lone star,” it would have worked for me. The rest of her outfit, I liked.

    1. If they were there for Kate’s birthday then why aren’t Carole and Mike part of the church walk? Also Pippa just go away.

    2. Pippa is being included because one of the biggest criticisms of the BRF was that Diana was almost completely cut off from her family (in the early years). Pippa isn’t an embarrassment so she’s allowed to come to these kinds of photo ops; Uncle Gary clearly isn’t.

        1. I would have to disagree in regards to Pippa; she’s harmless. Her husband is fine, she’s fine. They’re out of touch but so is the royal family.

          Would you want the BRF to freeze out Doria?? How would that be fair or decent to Meghan?

      3. When does Pippa actually go to church? The paps caught her biking all over London this summer and travelling the world, but never at a church outside of her wedding day. Not a coincidence.

        She is simply there because the cameras are there. It has nothing to do with the BRF freezing her out because she is at Anmer and not staying at Sandringham. Will and Kate are also attending church outside of Christmas or a christening so it’s unusual for them as well. And Carole is always over too so the Middletons have never been in danger of being cut off.

        Why don’t we see Sophie’s dad in all the photos? We know he actually gets invited to the Christmas dinner. Maybe because he doesn’t seek out the cameras.

        1. From what I have read, the Middletons are not church goers. Kate wasn’t confirmed until she was 29. When they do go to church, it does give the appearance of doing it for the photo op

    1. And this is the third different fur hat Kate has worn … how many does she need? Again so much waste and no consequences.

      1. Is that REAL fur, though? If so, shame on her. And someone should tell her those fur hats aren’t doing her ANY favors.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts

Belgian Royal Family Crown Princess Mary Crown Princess Victoria Fashion Jewelry Kate Middleton King and Queen of Bhutan King Charles III Luxembourg Royal Family Prince William Queen Letizia Royal Family of Jordan Royal Family of Norway Spanish Royal Family Swedish Royals

Who was best dressed at Buckingham Palace reception ahead of Coronation?

Back To Top