Page 4 | How much work goes on behind the scenes?

auberginefortea · 2024-01-19T03:01:14+00:00

I guess this has been done before, but I couldn't find it. How busy do we think the Royals are beyond the list of engagements we see? My BIL is a diplomat and I know a lot of his job is hosting people, having receptions, giving an opening talk at some event. But he's also busy managing people, writing reports, doing project management of some sort. I'd guess that the actual physical attendance at events is say 20% of his time. How do we think that compares for the Royals? Or do we think their staff carry much of the burden (writing the speech) and the work is reading a one pager in the car on the way to the event?

quantumbutterfly · 27/01/2024 08:01

Angrycat2768 · 23/01/2024 15:04

The reason the Royals can 'work until they die' is precisely because what they do is not onerous in the slightest. Of course the average person cannot work until they are 96. Because anyone who has had to work 40 hours a week as well as bring up children/ care for the house/elderly parents etc cannot do that. They would collapse from exhaustion. The Royals can hand shake a couple of days a month to their hearts content, because it is very, very easy. Particularly when a proportion of their 'work' involves going to film premieres and sporting events. Something others have to do in their spare time. And saying they make the average person working 9-5 look lazy? Really? Is that the same time as they are 'prioritising their children by both working part time, term time only' as if people who work to keep a roof over their kids heads and food on the table cannot be 'prioritising their children? I don't think insulting their subjects is the best way to keep the Monarchy going!

Edited

This

Angrycat2768 · 27/01/2024 09:09

fuchsteufelswild · 27/01/2024 01:35

I think the monarchy is a pretty good thing all without any of the mental gymnastics, without being into the pomp and pageantry and without buying into the lifelong service to the plebs shtick. It's possible. I do not quite think that working royal is an oxymoron.

I mean I like to think it's Shang dynasty levels of orgies and ponds of wine and forests of meat every single day but Charles looks too scrawny for that.

Show quote history

I dont think the Monarchy is a 'good thing; in particular, but I think really, the chances of us ever being a Republic are vanishingly small. We would have to disappear as a country. So I think the more important thing is to hold them to account. They are not held to account by elections, and they are imposed on us as our representatives on the world stage, so they should be subject to far more scrutiny than private individuals. I
I do think if we are going to have a Monarchy, it should be either far more low key, so why do we need the siblings of the Monarch to be on the payroll? All this guff about the Royals needing more people to help out because two members are in hospital. The US President, despite actually being a Head of State with responsibilities and in charge of a far larger country has himself, his wife, Vice President , spouse. Frankly, as per @fuchsteufelswild fantasy, either go full opulence, eating ready peeled grapes, turning up, shaking hands in glam outfits and ask inane questions, lie in bed all day Princess Margaret style with a Martini for breakfast wearing the Crown jewels, be unashamed but open about it and face the consequences, whatever they may be. Or properly slim down, and that includes homes, holidays etc. Not this 'just like you' act where they are doing the opulent lounging around all day for most of the year but pay people to leak puff piece nonsense about how William is juggling childcare around his full time job as if anyone but the most wilfully deferential Monarchist is going to fall for that.
If the job is that onerous, why are they subjecting all their children to it? I suspect the reason The King hasn't done what he said he would do all along and cut down the titles ( So allowing Harry the choice of giving his children the Prince/Princess titles) is because it would have to be done going forward, so Louis children wouldn't have titles either. What should happen is that equality should be applied to all of them, so Charlotte's children aren't entitled to titles as she's female so Louis children shouldn't be either. I personally think Charlotte and Louis shouldn't be working Royals either. King, wife, heir, wife. That's it. One main residence and one country residence each funded by the Taxpayer.

quantumbutterfly · 27/01/2024 09:16

Angrycat2768 · 27/01/2024 09:09

I dont think the Monarchy is a 'good thing; in particular, but I think really, the chances of us ever being a Republic are vanishingly small. We would have to disappear as a country. So I think the more important thing is to hold them to account. They are not held to account by elections, and they are imposed on us as our representatives on the world stage, so they should be subject to far more scrutiny than private individuals. I
I do think if we are going to have a Monarchy, it should be either far more low key, so why do we need the siblings of the Monarch to be on the payroll? All this guff about the Royals needing more people to help out because two members are in hospital. The US President, despite actually being a Head of State with responsibilities and in charge of a far larger country has himself, his wife, Vice President , spouse. Frankly, as per @fuchsteufelswild fantasy, either go full opulence, eating ready peeled grapes, turning up, shaking hands in glam outfits and ask inane questions, lie in bed all day Princess Margaret style with a Martini for breakfast wearing the Crown jewels, be unashamed but open about it and face the consequences, whatever they may be. Or properly slim down, and that includes homes, holidays etc. Not this 'just like you' act where they are doing the opulent lounging around all day for most of the year but pay people to leak puff piece nonsense about how William is juggling childcare around his full time job as if anyone but the most wilfully deferential Monarchist is going to fall for that.
If the job is that onerous, why are they subjecting all their children to it? I suspect the reason The King hasn't done what he said he would do all along and cut down the titles ( So allowing Harry the choice of giving his children the Prince/Princess titles) is because it would have to be done going forward, so Louis children wouldn't have titles either. What should happen is that equality should be applied to all of them, so Charlotte's children aren't entitled to titles as she's female so Louis children shouldn't be either. I personally think Charlotte and Louis shouldn't be working Royals either. King, wife, heir, wife. That's it. One main residence and one country residence each funded by the Taxpayer.

Edited

Show quote history

I tend to agree with you.

Roussette · 27/01/2024 09:39

Well said @Angrycat2768

They obviously can't be all things to all men but please let's not pretend they're toiling away at the coal face, they really are not!
If the country can manage without Kate and William for months on end, doesn't that say something?
(Please note, I hope she's back home soon with her three children, it must be very worrying for them)

All that guff from Charles about slimming down is laughable. Yes natural wastage with Harry and the disgraced Andrew but as it's been shown patronages don't particularly benefit, why can't it just be C&C, W&K. With William assisting with kingly duties. Same as angrycat says with the properties too, they number 27 which is. 😮😮😮

LolaSmiles · 27/01/2024 20:29

I broadly agree with you Angrycat2768.

There's no need to have an extensive working royal family. Let them be private citizens and have whatever private property is theirs but state property should be limited.

Can I also add that they should not be able to influence laws that ensure their own financial interests are preserved?