Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: British Royal Family News 2022  (Read 24817 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Princess MS
Banned
Banned
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 930

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5595





Ignore
« Reply #135 on: December 30, 2022, 03:18:07 PM »

It's very popular name in my family too and used in every generation since some great-great granny introduced it. Funnily enough her sister's name (quite a similar sounding name with double TTs) hasn't been used once...

Anyway: about the amount of work the Wales do:
I have no problem with Kate wanting to be there for her kids and give them a more "stay-at-home-with-mom" upbringing. I am very much of the opinion, that people should (as far as they can) choose what they want in life, without having to bow to "social norms" - women have fought far too hard to get out of the kitchen, just to be forced into another room without having a choice!
The Welsh question however is: they have a huge job - so they either share it (more or less) equally or like in most other families, one does more outside the family and the other inside.
With the Wales, neither is doing a full 40h week and most people in that wage-bracket do more than 40 hs.
So if Kate, by their decision is keeping her workload limited in order to be more "hands on to the kids", William needs to do more.
And considering that a) the kids are in school til afternoon b) there is no shopping, cleaning and laundry to be done at home c) Kate can dictate the schedule - people make appointments with her not she with them  - being more productive in the mornings and early afternoons should not be a problem.

Wills now has excuse of Duchy business. Kate has no excuse but both will do nothing much more
Logged
TLLK

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 1874

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 13664





Ignore
« Reply #136 on: December 30, 2022, 03:23:51 PM »

At some point in the future there is going to be an announcement about the distribution of some of the late QEIi's (600) and the DoE's  (708) patronages among the members of the BRF. The Wales will undoubtedly be taking on more patronages,  charities etc..so their engagement numbers will rise.

However I  don't expect to hear such an announcement until after the new year as I believe that this  review and distribution is still being discussed among the BRF and of course with all of those organizations. I expect  that some will no longer have a royal patron, others might merge with similar ones and others might choose to no longer have a royal patron.
Logged
anneboleyn

Warned
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 731

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 6148





Ignore
« Reply #137 on: December 30, 2022, 04:21:35 PM »

I think a lot of places will either no longer have a royal patron or there will be next to no engagements with them. Charles has slimmed down the working royals and there is no feasible way for them to split the patronages and make them all a priority.
Logged

“And she will keep coming back to life, over and over again, because beneath the skin of this gentle human lives a warrior unstoppable.” - Annabelle M. Ramos
ralf103

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1869

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6264





Ignore
« Reply #138 on: January 01, 2023, 02:43:30 AM »

https://archive.ph/AKaaj

Tim O’Donovan’s annual breakdown of royal engagements has been published. Different totals from that on the other forum but much higher than the DM suggested ones.


Most active royals
Total engagements in 2022
King Charles
497
Princess Royal
474
Countess of Wessex
280
Earl of Wessex
276
Queen Consort
194
Prince of Wales
190
Duke of Gloucester
183
Princess of Wales
138
Queen Elizabeth
120
Duchess of Gloucester
110
Duke of Kent
91
Princess Alexandra
48
Duke of Sussex
0
Duchess of Sussex
0
Prince Andrew, Duke of York
0
Chart
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1669

Offline Offline

Posts: 6304





Ignore
« Reply #139 on: January 01, 2023, 03:03:34 AM »

Those are some very large discrepancies compared to the RF totals.   Ralf I hope you don't mind me more or less repeating your post while adding the Royal Forum totals for ease of comparison.  Mr. O'Donovan is widely considered the "official" tally counter but over the past several year there has been a marked difference in his count vs the poster on RF.  Some time this week the poster will do a person by person breakdown so we can see their methodology and I highly recommend checking that out.

Charles--550 (RF); 497 (TO)

Anne--509 (RF); 474 (TO)

Sophie--324 (RF); 280 (TO)

Edward Wessex--318 (RF); 276 (TO)

Camilla--228 (RF); 194 (TO)

William--219 (RF); 190 (TO)

Richard--193 (RF); 183 (TO)

Catherine--178 (RF); 138 (TO)

HLM--134 (RF); 120 (TO)

Birgitte--119 (RF); 110 (TO)

Edward Kent--105 (RF); 91 (TO)

Alexandra--57 (RF); 48 (TO)
Logged
whiplashhx

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 507

Offline Offline

Posts: 2104





Ignore
« Reply #140 on: January 01, 2023, 03:11:47 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl2C7OViq_U

Fireworks in London tonight paid tribute to HMQ
Logged
Paulina

Warned
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1302

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5755





Ignore
« Reply #141 on: January 01, 2023, 03:13:46 AM »

https://archive.ph/AKaaj

Tim O’Donovan’s annual breakdown of royal engagements has been published. Different totals from that on the other forum but much higher than the DM suggested ones.


Most active royals
Total engagements in 2022
King Charles
497
Princess Royal
474
Countess of Wessex
280
Earl of Wessex
276
Queen Consort
194
Prince of Wales
190
Duke of Gloucester
183
Princess of Wales
138
Queen Elizabeth
120
Duchess of Gloucester
110
Duke of Kent
91
Princess Alexandra
48
Duke of Sussex
0
Duchess of Sussex
0
Prince Andrew, Duke of York
0
Chart

I’m confused why the overseas couple and Andrew are even on the list, even with 0s. Their names should just be scrubbed from lists like this. It’s an icky reminder they are still considered “royal.” They may be, but why remind everyone of them? *sniffs*
Logged

The problem with incompetent, corrupt, fascist government is incompetence, corruption and fascism,  not government (Jerome à Paris - paraphrased)
TLLK

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 1874

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 13664





Ignore
« Reply #142 on: January 01, 2023, 03:23:36 AM »

Those are some very large discrepancies compared to the RF totals.   Ralf I hope you don't mind me more or less repeating your post while adding the Royal Forum totals for ease of comparison.  Mr. O'Donovan is widely considered the "official" tally counter but over the past several year there has been a marked difference in his count vs the poster on RF.  Some time this week the poster will do a person by person breakdown so we can see their methodology and I highly recommend checking that out.

Charles--550 (RF); 497 (TO)

Anne--509 (RF); 474 (TO)

Sophie--324 (RF); 280 (TO)

Edward Wessex--318 (RF); 276 (TO)

Camilla--228 (RF); 194 (TO)

William--219 (RF); 190 (TO)

Richard--193 (RF); 183 (TO)

Catherine--178 (RF); 138 (TO)

HLM--134 (RF); 120 (TO)

Birgitte--119 (RF); 110 (TO)

Edward Kent--105 (RF); 91 (TO)

Alexandra--57 (RF); 48 (TO)


Glad to see Mr. O'Donovan and the tally are back. I was a little concerned that he was no longer able to do this task.

The TRF poster will share their tally soon and will explain their methodology  as well. That tally is very extensive and is broken down by several categories.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1669

Offline Offline

Posts: 6304





Ignore
« Reply #143 on: January 01, 2023, 03:26:15 AM »

Here's a Twitter link that has Mr. O'Donovan's chart that shows the categories he uses.

https://twitter.com/Majes...?cxt=HHwWgIC9sbfo4NQsAAAA
Logged
PruNordstrom

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1200

Offline Offline

Posts: 5096





Ignore
« Reply #144 on: January 01, 2023, 05:02:46 AM »

I wonder if what will happen in future is that patronages will be a temporary engagment with charities, organizations, projects, historical events and UK special events. Focus will be brought to those special interests by a member(s) of the BRF to jump-start interest and then the organization has to be prepared to build on that within their own organization without relying on additional emphasis from the BRF. If organizations rely heavily on one BRF person to drive interest and monetary contributions to their special focus then they are not spending enough of their own time and effort on gaining enough interest in their organization to keep it a ongoing entity. The "shine a light' phrase has been overused in the last 10 years everywhere. But focusing attention on agencies and charities that are addressing current urgent social or medical problems are a good use of BRF members to draw national news attention to areas of need.

What has worked in the past won't work in future.
Logged
Paulina

Warned
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1302

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5755





Ignore
« Reply #145 on: January 01, 2023, 05:36:13 AM »

I liked the idea that the royals had patronages and patronages liked them. A great many people can probably say they met the queen or Philip or others. Now, slimmed down, not as many people will get to meet royals or feel their work is as special

Maybe the glousters or Kents got close to some of their patronages and the people there.
Logged

The problem with incompetent, corrupt, fascist government is incompetence, corruption and fascism,  not government (Jerome à Paris - paraphrased)
TLLK

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 1874

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 13664





Ignore
« Reply #146 on: January 01, 2023, 04:38:42 PM »

I think a lot of places will either no longer have a royal patron or there will be next to no engagements with them. Charles has slimmed down the working royals and there is no feasible way for them to split the patronages and make them all a priority.

I agree. The late QEII and DoE had so many patronages/charities/organizations that a decade or so might pass by before they could attend an in person event. Also I believe that many organizations are opting to merge with larger ones for financial reasons or have closed over time. Charles will now have  state duties to attend to that require his presence. Regarding the redistribution of the patronages/charities etc...that were formerly attached to QEII and the DoE, I believe that the following will occur in the coming months.

Organizations, charities and patronages that are largely associated with the monarch will naturally pass to KCIII.
The same can be said for those related to Cornwall and Wales will likely be taken over by William.
Edward still has the Duke of Edinburgh Prize and all activities associated with it.

The remaining ones that still desire a royal patron will ultimately be added for the monarch and the working royals. 
Logged
TLLK

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 1874

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 13664





Ignore
« Reply #147 on: January 01, 2023, 04:39:14 PM »

I wonder if what will happen in future is that patronages will be a temporary engagment with charities, organizations, projects, historical events and UK special events. Focus will be brought to those special interests by a member(s) of the BRF to jump-start interest and then the organization has to be prepared to build on that within their own organization without relying on additional emphasis from the BRF. If organizations rely heavily on one BRF person to drive interest and monetary contributions to their special focus then they are not spending enough of their own time and effort on gaining enough interest in their organization to keep it a ongoing entity. The "shine a light' phrase has been overused in the last 10 years everywhere. But focusing attention on agencies and charities that are addressing current urgent social or medical problems are a good use of BRF members to draw national news attention to areas of need.

What has worked in the past won't work in future.
   Star
Logged
ralf103

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1869

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6264





Ignore
« Reply #148 on: January 29, 2023, 01:12:47 PM »

https://www.dailymail.co....nce-Harry-Coronation.html

Charles and Anne were spotted at Church in Sandringham today
Logged
Emac0914

Large Member
******

Reputation: 285

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1117





Ignore
« Reply #149 on: January 29, 2023, 02:51:53 PM »

Like Anne’s muted but soft brown look.  She really has got Charles back but hopefully in a way that when Camilla can’t manage him, Anne can.  He’s a smart man but sometimes….
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: