Shouldn't full time royals work a 5-day week?

[ohprettybaby]

I think it is high time that working royals were not measured by the number of engagements they do (as they can do several in one day so that is misleading).

In general, why can't full time working royals work a 5-day week with holidays and bank holidays similar to that of much of the UK population?

Obviously some engagements are not carried out during the daytime but they would get time off in lieu for evening engagements.

Not all if their work is restricted to engagements but, during their set hours, if not fulfilling an engagement, they would be undertaking research or working on their own charitable works.

Different rules would apply for royals carrying out engagements after their State Retirement age. (You can't expect them to do 5 days at 9 -5.30).
Set a different amount of hours per day or per week for part time royals, again with pro rated holiday entitlement.
Surely this would ensure they were more in tune with the population?

@Pjsandbaileys

"I assume you mean from the age of 16 if the are not in further education? So they get to have a childhood without intrusion?"
That would be a great idea so the DC who would have a future role because of their position would be brought up in relative anonimity.

@ohprettybaby just on your point about tradition and not having a choice... if that were true, the word abdicate and the existence of the role of Regent wouldn’t exist. Her own husband retired. Granted, he was not the monarch. But it certainly adds to a picture where it is perfectly possible for the Queen to choose if and when she wants to retire. She doesn’t even need to abdicate to do it, if she appoints Charles as Prince Regent.

Admire her choice if you like, but don’t think it isn’t exactly that - her choice.

So the queen should have retired 30 odd years ago and be on a pension!

I mean - she’s not exactly kicking off the uncomfortable shoes after a long day and saying, “I know Phil, I know - but, what can you do? I’ve got no choice - I’m not in a position of power to question the system, am I?”

I don't work 9-5, Monday to Friday. I freelance and paid per project for outcomes, or sometimes, if I'm writing, per word.

You have a very blinkered view of what "work" is.

@DarlingNikita

"I remember vividly Harry – and William – at that funeral and how horribly lost, young and alone they looked."
According to The Queen's former spokesman, Dicky Arbiter, on the Jeremy Vine show this morning, there was a lot of talk about who should walk behind Diana's coffin. Both William and Harry said they didn't want to but when Prince Philip asked them if they would if he did, they agreed to.

It is a very haunting memory which has probably had a terribly detrimental effect on those two young boys.

Obviously, in hindsight, it was the wrong thing to do but I don't think anyone expected a senior member of the royal family to die before their children were adults.

when Prince Philip asked them if they would if he did, they agreed to. Well, yes, I probably would have too, but I'd describe the circumstances as somewhat under duress.

I read that it was Blair's idea that they should walk behind the coffin. Since constitutionally the sovereign acts on the PM's advice, this put them in a very difficult position. And yes, I read that it was Philip who persuaded them.

I've seen a suggestion that William hasn't forgotten that, and it's why Blair wasn't invited to William and Kate 's wedding. May or may not be true.

I always sign at these comments.
I am no royalist, but I wouldnt want to live the life they do.

Yes they get a funds from the country, but they constantly under the spot light. You wouldn't be able to do or say anything with out fear that it was taken plastered all over the press (with dollops of manipulation to it too).
Also the plain lies that would be printed and the paparazzi following you and your family about.
Nope they do an unenviable job.

I'd have no problem with them walking behind the coffin. Kids, unfortunately, regularly do it. But the fact that protocol or whatever the fk being a royal entails prevented them from being comforted by their dad, or their grandad, or their uncles or ANYONE is what made it so shocking.

I would highly doubt any person here, parent or otherwise would want to swap lives with them.

Blair and the constitution had nothing to do with the way the boys were treated on the day of their mother’s funeral.

You tell me what constitutional crisis would have been caused by a statement saying, “we thank the world for your support, the boys will attend a private family ceremony only, because they are small grieving children”. Who - who in the world - would have criticised if they had seen a family member stop, scoop up a tiny boy, and hug them close?

No PR disaster - quite the opposite in fact.
No constitutional crisis.

The choices about the funeral and the boys, were down to the family. Not exactly a powerless one.

Perhaps Charles might say he didn’t want them there - and his mum insisted. And if he had a MN account, he’d have been given some resources about standing up to her. The decisions taken were definitely a product of the unusual family they are. So you couldn’t say “Charles did this” or “Elizabeth did this” without thinking about the wider context. But I don’t think for a moment it was because of Blair, or the constitution, or anything else except what the family chose to do.

The public money is chiefly spent on maintaining the royal palaces, which belong to the nation, and paying staff and other costs associated with carrying out royal duties, such as clothes and entertaining. A lot of those expenses would still arise even if we didn't have a monarchy. We'd still have a Head of State hosting state banquets at Buckingham Palace. Presumably.

Also the plain lies that would be printed and the paparazzi following you and your family about.
Nope they do an unenviable job

I wonder, how much would any one of you (us?) expect to be paid to be on 24 hour call to the public. Have every move scrutinised and analysed and criticised by people living the comfort of an anonymous life.

I don't think any amount of money in the world could compensate me for that level of 'all part of the job'.

Who - who in the world - would have criticised ....

Many people had already heavily criticised the Queen for staying with her grandsons in the privacy of her own home. Don't you remember the demands for her to come to London?

(And William was hardly a 'tiny boy' to be scooped up and cuddled. He was fifteen, and tall.)

Fair point @MarySidney about the Queen staying with them and criticism - I’d forgotten that.

But it does rather prove that doing what she wanted to do did not bring about a constitutional crisis! I suppose I should have said - who in the world would criticise, with criticism that ultimately amounted to anything but words to just fall away? OK that’s with the benefit of hindsight. But she’s the Queen, and independently wealthy. So in quite a good position to be giving zero fucks what people think. That’s why I think the funeral arrangements were ultimately a family decision, not a government one.

I did say that some royal engagements are carried out in the evenings so they could get home off in lieu for them. RTFT.

I did "RTFT", thanks. A lot of their work isn't carried out Mon - Fri 9-5 as it is. So maybe they are already doing what you suggest, and if they've spent a weekend abroad, working, or visiting charities and events and engagements at the weekend they get time off in lieu.

The reality is, they don't have a standard working week. They don't have a 40 hour week. I would think they work and are in the public eye and under public scrutiny an awful lot more than 40 hours a week.

I'd say they'd absolutely embrace a Mon-Fri 9-5 job if it meant they could actually clock off and the press would fuck off and leave them alone outside that time, and online forums didn't constantly question and criticise everything they do.

You should forward your suggestion to Buckingham Palace. But you'd also need to inform the press and paparazzi that they couldn't follow them around outside of official working hours and duties.