Support for the Monarchy in the UK 1: Ending Sep 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the monarchy always has to tread a careful line between being too modern (and in that way I agree with some of the comments of Janet Street-Porter) but likewise also not too old and stuffy and aloof.
The Queen was - let's not forget - behind some major changes to modernise the monarchy. She got rid of debutantes being 'presented' for example but part of the monarchy endurance its its stark difference from "celebrity" something which some of the next generations of royals seem not to understand.
 
Here we are. Absorb shocking Harry, the man who singlehandedly according to some is about to bring the British monarchy to its knees! It's an innocuous conversation by the way when you really listen to him.

Just like to mention, in the latest poll taken Harry was the most popular member of the BRF voted by the British public at 74%. Strange for a man forever being accused of being a loose cannon and putting his foot in it etc!
Curryong, Why do you always react so strongly when people (including me) say something about Harry or Diana? And why do you always say (when it comes to Harry or Diana) that people have said things they have not said?

I have to accept that the Diana fans (go against facts) and praises her like she was goddess, and you have to accept people like me who don't like her. The same goes for Harry (a person I do like BTW).

And some facts:

1. Have I said that Harry is bringing the British monarchy to its knees? No, I haven't.

2. Is Harry a losse cannon? Yes (in my opinion) he is.

3. And was that Opinium Research poll you refers to, about popularity? No, it was not.

4. What was that poll about? It was about approval ratings.

5. And as you know, Opinium Research always have the Queen's approval ratings and the support for the monarchy lower than others polls, and Her Majesty's numbers was down due to the ''Paradise Papers'' thing.

6. Her Ipsos MORI ratings (above 80%, sometimes 90%), YouGov ratings (above 80%) and ICM ratings (above 70%) are the highest in the family. And a CNN poll from January 2017 shoved that the Queen was the person with the highest approval rating in the US with 79%, Pope Francis came second with 66%.

BTW, I agree with what tommy100 said.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't attacking the Queen or her approval ratings. I merely pointed out that Harry had 74% in that poll, which he did. And that is worth acknowledging isn't it?

I must take you at your word that you like Harry. However, it would be nice, if you do, if a bit of praise rather than regular criticism of him in a great many posts, came his way sometimes (when praise is warranted.)
 
Last edited:
:previous: As I've said to you in the ''General News for Prince Harry'' thread this summer, I don't follow him that much.

But if Harry stops saying the things which I think are inculting to the Queen and damaging to the monarchy, then I will of course stop my criticism (and I don't think I have said anything negative about him since those interviews in the summer).

BTW, thanks for an interesting discussion! :flowers:
 
Just a note that having president is not necessarily the same as having a very political president. Some countries, for example Germany and Israel, expect their president to be 'above politics' (even though they are a party member of a political party). So, their function is far more like a constitutional monarch (but with a term limit, etc) while the executive power lies with the prime minister (or equivalent).
 
A response to those discussing the popularity of the British monarchy:

The British Monarchy:Republicanism in the UK remains very low, with figures rarely exceeding 20% in support of a British republic, some polls have it as low 13%, and consistent 70/80% support (in most polls) for the continuation of the Monarchy (some polls have shown record-high support at 82% and 86% since 2012). So it's going nowhere, and I actually think it is the safest Monarchy in the world.

To abolish the British monarchy will also be very difficult.
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic, this is very very unlikely.
2: Majority in the house of commons for a referendum, this is not going to happen as long as the polls show that a majority supports the monarchy.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen while I'm alive (and I'm only 29).
4: Changing the country's name, changing the pound, remove the royal name from all state institutions. These are just some of the things that must be changed.
5: All of this is going to cost so much money that even many Republicans will start doubting it.
6: And the vast majority of the british population will never vote to replace a constitutional monarchy with a divisive politician or a celebrity.

Polls: The British monarchy is also that european monarchy with the highest support.

Yes, some of the polls in Denmark show the support at above 80%, but these are polls that don't give people the opportunity to awnser ''don't know/no opinion''. The Danish polls who ask the question as the Brits/Norwegians does, show the suport at around 70% (even seen some in the 50s% and 60s%).

That was also the case in the Netherlands where the TNS NIPO polls were in the 80s% (some in the 90s%). The Maurice de Hond, Synovate and Ipsos polls (which includes the ''don't know/no opinion'' questions) have the support in the 70%s and 60%s (one poll in 2015 at 50%).

About political systems: Why do I prefer an apolitical head of state with a parliamentary system and a prime minister, like we have in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland and Austria etc?

1. Yes, we have our problems in those countries as well, but most of these heads of state (especially constitutional monarchs, but also presidents) are unifying and may have approval ratings at 80/90%.

2. A political head of government is always going to be divisive and almost always have approval ratings below 50%, and should therefore not be the head of state.

Why do I prefer Constitutional Monarchy (with that I mean the European model)?

1. Because I think it's the best political system one can have, and it is (IMO) good for democracy. Why? Because a constitutional monarch don't have the ability to intervene/interfere as an apolitical president may have (yes, some European constitutional monarchs may have that power on paper, but not in reality, and won't use it anyway). And an apolitical president has to be elected (either by the people or the parliament) and that can quickly turn into a divisive, political and (yes) crazy thing.

2. And look at the popularity of some of the monarchs:

QEII: Beloved, admired and extremely popular with approval ratings others only can dream about.

King Harald V: Beloved, admired and extremely popular with approval ratings others only can dream about.

QMII: Very respected with good approval ratings. Even she has (during the past two years) turned into what I will call popular.


And to Iluvbertie's post:
I was a monarchist when I joined this board mind you but it is the information here that turned me into a republican as I realised the full extent of the corruption and misuse of position that the BRF use e.g. William using a loophole to get into the RAF as a pilot when he couldn't get there with his eyesight. As a future king he should be above reproach but he isn't, the constant whinging by the two princes about how hard they have things, the Queen and Charles using off-shore accounts to avoid tax (again it may be legal but as the monarch and heir they also have to be totally above reproach and they aren't). I won't even go into the adultery from so many of the family (trying hard to find any of them who haven't had affairs or cheated on their partners).

UK republicans - like those here in Australia - believe we should have a say in our Head of State which we don't have.
''Corruption''? That is an outrageous thing to claim (and does not consist with facts).

''Queen and Charles using off-shore accounts to avoid tax''? That is an completely wrong thing to say (and does not consist with facts or reality).
1. As you very well known, It was not The Queen's personal fortune.

2. It was the Duchy of Lancaster who provides the Queen with an income. The Duchy is (as you know) administered by it's Chancellor (an MP chosen by the PM) and the Duchy Council (chosen by the Chancellor).

3. She has voluntarily paid both income/capital gains tax since 1993 (when she in reality was forced by a then anti-monarchy press to do so).

4. The income she receives from the Duchy of Lancaster goes to the Privy Purse (the monarchs private income), most of those money is used to fund official/private expenses of other Royal Family members.

''UK republicans - like those here in Australia - believe we should have a say in our Head of State which we don't have''? No most of them don't. Most of them is just angry because they think the Sovereign Grant is personal money given to the Queen.

What I think about UK republicans: I adore the Queen and I am a great admirer of Charles and a big fan of William and Kate. I am also (like 70/80% of the UK population) a big supporter of our constitutional monarchy, but I respect those who think it's wrong to have an unelected head of state.

What I don't respect is lying manipulating ignorant bullies sush as Graham Smith, Kevin Mcguire and Stig Abell or crazy psychopaths such as Russell Brand or the thugs in Daily Fail comment section. They (the DF trolls) are (as i says all the time on these threads) a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, sick, spiteful bullies who hates everyone. And they represents a very tiny minority of the UK public, and many of them are from other countries.
 
:previous:
Oh what a *Beautifully well said* comment Royal Norway........you said it so much better then I ever could.....so agree about all those that have hate in their hearts and souls for the BRF and mostly for HM.....whom I pray is around another decade like her mom was.....:flowers:
 
When Harry met Meghan (the names alone...) the fine thin invisible but so important line between royalty and celebrity has been completely blurred. Now I can easily see Harry acting the cool dude on Graham Norton's sofa and we have all seen his actress' wife on television.

Call me oldfashioned but I preferred The Prince Henry to come home with a more traditional friend because in the end all this will erode the monarchy from within. In the past it was fairly simple what the royal family was: the King's family and he "demanded" his issue to marry according rank and status, all to keep the royal dignity and the prestige of the House. But when a vulgar loudmouth as Sarah Ferguson, a rugby international as Mike Tindall or an actress like Meghan Markle become the new standard for the royal family, then sooner or later a point is reached that the core existence of having a Royal Family is under threat.

If we want to have "commoners" flooding the palace, what about the idea of democratically electing our very own "commoner" to be our Head of State?

This counts for almost all royal families in Europe. From the unwed mom of a son engaging into marriage with the future King (Norway), from the future Queen falling in love with her fitness trainer (Sweden), from the King of the Netherlands thinking that his private feelings for the daughter of a questionable individual was more important than considerations regarding his Royal House, or even the King of Spain having his eyes glued to the TV screen when that goodlooking presenter reads the news again. All nice variations on Cinderella but in the longer terms it is eroding and damaging for what a royal family actually means.

Anyway, I have given up all. The royals themselves seems not to care. Prince Henry of Wales, eh..., "Harry" has seen Meghan and he must and shall have her. More and more I see royal ladies parading around bedecked in historic jewels, hanged with distinghuised Orders and I think: "Girl... you PLAY a Princess. You are no Princess at all!" And deep in all our hearts we know this. We see the tattooed underwear model "Princess" Sofia in all her finery, of that Argentine girl sparkling with priceless gems made for Hannovers, Hohenzollerns, Romanovs or Stuarts (she should not even have been allowed to touch it!), we see a swimmer hapless trying to find her role, visibly trapped in a fairytale at the Mediterrean. It is all becoming a vaudeville. I will not be surprised in the least to see thrones collapsing. To begin in Sweden or the Netherlands and then in a domino wave all over Europe. And the fine thing is: no communists or anarchists in sight. They all did it themselves!
 
Last edited:
.

The difference between commoners and royals or nobles was that the latters had access to better education and manners due to their status. Nowadays almost everybody can have access to these things that can model you into a nobler being, so I don't think the problem is that commoners marry into the royal family. The problem might be when they forget that people are expecting more from them. It is not enough to be a normal, down-to-earth person if you are a royal. You have to set a positive example for others-and when royals fail to do it, they usually get a second chance but when a commoner married into the royal families fail to live up to expectations, they are torn apart.
And yes, I agree you have to maintain an air of dignified mistery if you're royal, otherwise you end up being a celebrity who is doing everything to keep people interested in their persona.
I kind of blame Prince Philip(who was a prince marrying into a royal family) with his 1969 documentary about the Royal Family,he really opened up Pandora's box with that. It was like a Big Brother show.
 
The gene pool of eligible partners would be awfully small if royalty still had to limit themselves so narrowly when choosing a partner. It is not healthy.
Maxima is a very intelligent woman who has been a good partner for W-A.
I have nothing but respect for Daniel, I think he will be for Victoria what Philip has been for Elizabeth. I think Meghan changed her life to adhere to the "rules for royalty" I don't think she'll embarrass the BRF.
They have conducted themselves with more class than much of the so called nobility does that I think you believe are suitable.
 
I've never really understood the criticism of the 1969 documentary. The Scandinavian monarchies, Denmark especially, have made several close up documentaries but still being able to maintain their private lives and without loosing the sense of magic surrounding the institution. If anything I'd blame the Wales & York debacles during the 80s-90s for creating a royal Big Brother show.
Regarding Dukes often voiced opinion regarding the marriages of the modern day royals I do agree to an extent that in the end the status of the royal families will be affected when they continue to marry just about everybody.
That said there are commoners and there are commoners - as I remember it was said by a man on the street in Oslo interviewed by Swedish TV around the time of Haakons marriage to Mette-Marit:"There is no need for any set-up marriages to an European princess but there has to be some standards. We have prominent Norwegian families that could provide good matches for the Royal family like the Haraldsens did 30 years ago." Sofia has behaved impeccable since she married Carl-Philip and is together with Daniel huge assets to Sweden and the Royal family but in the end, in my opinion, it weakens the institution to have photos of one of its members
bare-chested with a snake.
 
Given Jeremy Corbyn is in charge of the Labour Party right now and a bit of a republican, what would this mean for the British Royal Family if he became prime minister right now? Even though he as stated he wouldn't try to fight for a referendum on the monarchy you can't help but wonder if this would give republicans like Graham Smith more legitimacy as a viable option for the UK. Ignoring Brexit and other things, once again what would a prime minister Jeremy Corbyn mean for the Royal Family? Keep in mine opinion polls are showing Labour in the lead right now.

-Frozen Royalist
 
Nothing.

They have had republic PMs before but they know there is no way a referendum would be successful at the moment as support for the monarchy has been consistent for most of the last century and a half at over 75%. There was a dip in the 90s to under 70% but it never dropped below 60%.

In Australia, for instance, we have a republican PM and he is from the Liberal (Conservative side of politics) but he knows a referendum wouldn't get up at the moment. Both sides of politics here have basically accepted it won't happen until after the Queen dies. Current support for a republic here is lower than it has been since the mid-90s and remember we have already rejected a republic once.

With a royal wedding in the offing Corbyn knows that a referendum wouldn't be successful even though it would be his personal desire.

The next election in the UK isn't necessary for 4 years and a lot can happen in that time. It is not unusual for the polls to be against the government mid-term.
 
Nothing.

They have had republic PMs before but they know there is no way a referendum would be successful at the moment as support for the monarchy has been consistent for most of the last century and a half at over 75%. There was a dip in the 90s to under 70% but it never dropped below 60%.

In Australia, for instance, we have a republican PM and he is from the Liberal (Conservative side of politics) but he knows a referendum wouldn't get up at the moment. Both sides of politics here have basically accepted it won't happen until after the Queen dies. Current support for a republic here is lower than it has been since the mid-90s and remember we have already rejected a republic once.

With a royal wedding in the offing Corbyn knows that a referendum wouldn't be successful even though it would be his personal desire.

The next election in the UK isn't necessary for 4 years and a lot can happen in that time. It is not unusual for the polls to be against the government mid-term.

Thanks, even though I try to remain optimistic about the whole cause for a constitutional monarchy I can't help get worried about what I deem the slightest upset to the system. I understand that Royal Family is popular with 7 or 8 out of 10 Britons usually in favor but still I can't help but get worried at times. But yes a lot can happen in four years.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. Truth be told I get worried a lot over even the most minor of things.
 
Why worry? If the monarchy in the UK comes to an end, it will be because the people of the UK don't want it any more..or possilbly because the RF don't want to go on with it. Its their decision.. and It will hardly cause any harm to anyone.
 
Just a really odd question. Should it ever happen that the monarchy is abolished, any clue what they'd call the UK then?
 
Just drop the UK and call it Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mostly the country is referred to as GB now so why change what many people think is the country's name?

Thanks, even though I try to remain optimistic about the whole cause for a constitutional monarchy I can't help get worried about what I deem the slightest upset to the system. I understand that Royal Family is popular with 7 or 8 out of 10 Britons usually in favor but still I can't help but get worried at times. But yes a lot can happen in four years.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. Truth be told I get worried a lot over even the most minor of things.

I do find it interesting that someone who lives in a republic would really get worked up about the possibility of the remaining constitutional monarchies in the world changing to what you have.

Certainly I expect a few of the Queen's remaining realms to follow the majority of the countries of which she was Head of State when she ascended the throne to be republics quite early in Charles' reign. I don't think George will be King of more than maybe 3 - 4 countries and possibly only the UK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my opinion the UK monarchy is the safest of all European monarchies, Liechtenstein and Monaco aside. But all monarchies are vulnerable and have to find their way to be an added value to (and for) society.

The danger is the domino effect when in one of the monarchies a referendum will be held. When Sweden holds a referendum, you can set your clock on similar demands and online petitions in the Netherlands, Belgium of Spain: "If the Swedes can speak out about their form of state, why can't we? Does the Government not trust the will of their own people?"

But Britain society is so complex. The state structure is so complex. When even something like a House of Lords (a totally unelected legislative body) is tolerated, the British monarchy is as solid as a rock.
 
I very much hope that we (Europe) keep our monarchies - at least these countries have now head of states you do not cringe every time they open their mouth / twitter.

Politicians come and go (hopefully) but monarchs are giving a country an idientification figure - somthing very much needed in our fast changing times IMHO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a really odd question. Should it ever happen that the monarchy is abolished, any clue what they'd call the UK then?

Probably Commonwealth of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Commonwealth was actually the term used when Britain was briefly a republic in the 17th century.
 
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...iked-royals-since-records-began-a3756191.html

Prince William and Prince Harry are the most liked members of the Royal Family since modern records began, exclusive research reveals today.
The caring Princes have overtaken the Queen - and are now more liked than their own parents were over thirty years ago.
They also share with the Monarch the highest approval ratings of any Royals, indicating high public approbation for the way they carry out their duties.
The findings by Ipsos MORI in a poll for the Evening Standard are a triumph for the modern approach established by the young heir and his brother, who swept away stuffy manners to bare their emotions in public.
William is the most liked, named unprompted by 62 per cent of Britons.
The level of public affection is even higher than that recorded for his mother Diana, Princess of Wales, which was 45 per cent in 1984 and 47 per cent in 1994.
 
A remarkable poke in the eye for any republicans hoping for a waning of support for the monarchy in Britain in coming decades. This is very pleasing, especially coming from this polling company which certainly can't be accused of conflating approval figures for the monarchy!
 
Not super-special for Charles either, although, while the Queen Mother was alive and Diana was dazzling, HM was said to have observed how she was stuck in between two widely-admired people.

Charles is in that hammock now.
 
Personally I think everything will work out for Prince Charles when he becomes king. He might not be as popular as QEII but I think he'll do a decent job. Plus we do have Prince William after him and keep in mind the Prince of Wales is a little old (I know members of the House of Windsor tend to live a long time but still).

-Frozen Royalist
 
Personally I think everything will work out for Prince Charles when he becomes king. He might not be as popular as QEII but I think he'll do a decent job. Plus we do have Prince William after him and keep in mind the Prince of Wales is a little old (I know members of the House of Windsor tend to live a long time but still).

-Frozen Royalist

If he lives as long as even his father he has another 26 years or more. He could be on the throne for more then 20 years.
 
Well, the ''YouGov most admired person'' figures for 2018 is here, so let's go through them:
(I will only list royal persons here, with the exception of the first place.)

The most admired persons in the UK:

Among the 30 most admired Women:
1. The Queen with 19.60%.
9. Kate with 3.20%.

Among the 30 most admired men:
1. David Attenborough with 16.60%.
4. Harry with 5.30%.
7. William with 4.20%.
9. Philip with 3.10% (first time for him in this poll).

See the list here: YouGov admired list - UK
This is a DF picture, which only includes 20 of the 30 persons in the list.

And I who was afraid that the ridiculous Duchy of Lancaster Paradise Papers thing (in November last year) was going to damage the Queen's popularity, but that has not happened at all.
Her admired numbers are up from 2016 - and her Ipsos MORI/YouGov approval/favourability ratings are still between 80 and 90% (as they've been since 2002).

--------------------

Let's go through the previous ''YouGov most admired'' persons in the UK figures:

2016:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 19.5%.
7. Kate with 3.6%.

Among the 30 most admired men:
1. Stephen Hawking with 13.2%.
4. Harry with 6.4%.
6. William with 5.6%.

2015:
Among the 15 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 17.0%.
5. Kate with 5.2%.

Among the 15 most admired men:
1. Stephen Hawking with 14.8%.
5. William with 6.5%.
8. Harry with 5.9%.

2014:
Among the 30 most admired persons:
1. The Queen with 18.74%.
9. William with 2.6%.
19. Kate with 0.80%.

--------------------

Let's go through the ''YouGov most admired'' persons figures in some of the Commonwealth Realms:

Canada:

2018:
Among the 27 most admired women:
1. Michelle Obama with 12.60%.
2. The Queen with 9.90%.
7. Kate with 4.10%.

Among the 26 most admired men:
1. Barack Obama with 15.10%.
7. William with 5.80%.

2016:
Among the 22 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 10.2%.
8. Kate with 4.7%.

Among the 29 most admired men:
1. Stephen Hawking with 8.5%.
9. William with 4.3%.

Australia:

2018:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. Michelle Obama with 10.30%.
2. The Queen with 8.40%.
7. Kate with 4.40%.

Among the 30 most admired men:
1. Barack Obama with 10.50%.
7. Harry with 4.10%.
9. William with 3.90%.

2016:
Among the 23 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 10.9%.
9. Kate with 4.2%.

Among the 25 most admired men:
1. Dalai Lama with 11.4%.
6. William with 6.5%.

New Zealand:

2018:
Among the 27 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 10.9%.
9. Kate with 4.2%.

Among the 30 most admired men:
1. David Attenborough with 13.40%.
7. William with 4.30%.
10. Harry with 3.50%

2016:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 9.6%.
6 Kate with 4.7%.

Among the 30 most admired men:
1. David Attenborough with 10.8%.
7. William with 5.3%.
12. Harry with 3.1%.

--------------------

Let's go through the ''YouGov most admired'' persons figures in some other countries:

Germany:

2018:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. Michelle Obama with 11.30%.
2. The Queen with 9.10%.
4. Queen Silvia with 5.00%.
No royal men made it to the poll.

2016:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 8.5%.
5. Queen Silvia with 4.2%.
17. Kate with 2.0%.
No royal men made it to the poll

USA:

2018:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. Michelle Obama with 13.20.%
3. The Queen with 5.80%.
No royal men made it to the poll.

--------------------

Let's go through the ''YouGov most admired'' persons in the world figures:

2018:
Among the 20 most admired women:
1. Angelina Jolie with 8.2%.
4. The Queen with 6.0%.

Among the 20 most admired men:
1. Bill Gates with 9.9%.
No royals made it to this poll.

See the whole list here: YouGov admired list 2018 - World

2016:
Among the 20 most admired women:
1. Angelina Jolie with 9.1%.
2. The Queen with 6.7%.
16. Kate with 2.3%.

Among the 20 most admired men:
1. Bill Gates with 11.3%.
No royals made it to this poll.

See the whole list here: YouGov admired list 2016 - World

2015:
Among the 20 most admired women:
1. Angelina Jolie with 10.6%.
4. The Queen with 6.0%.
15. Kate with 2.5%.

Among the 20 most admired men:
1. Bill Gates with 9.2%.
16. William with 2.0%.

See the whole list here: YouGov admired list 2015 - World

2014:
Among the 30 most admired persons:
1. Bill Gates with 10.10%.
17. The Queen with 0.71%.

See the whole list here: YouGov admired list 2014 - World

--------------------

Here are the YouGov links to the lists from all the countries included in the polls:

2018:
YouGov most admired persons - 2018

2016:
YouGov most admired persons - 2016

2015:
YouGov most admired persons - 2015

2014:
YouGov most admired persons - 2014
 
Well because I couldn't find a thread on popularity in commonwealth realms, I'll just have to put this bit of information right here. According to recent polls, the popularity of the monarchy is now at an all time high in Australia, the Prime Minister of New Zealand expects her nation to become a republic within her lifetime and as for Canada, there's just the usual squabble that the monarchy makes Canada not independent.

Can somebody tell me how the House of Windsor makes Australia, New Zealand and Canada not independent countries? I mean they have their own militaries, their own parliaments, their own currencies, their own ways of conducting foreign affairs, their own national football and rugby teams and of course their own national identities. Honestly I found that argument to be one of the weakest and most, pardon my French, idiotic when you think about it.

-Frozen Royalist
 
While we have a Head of State who lives on the other side of the world and can't even bother turning up anymore (due to being too old to travel to see us) we can't be truly independent.

When their is an official visit to this country and their is a toast to the Head of State 'God Save the Queen' is heard - or at least the first few bars.

We can't be truly independent while we share a Head of State with a foreign power.

The problem for republicans in Australia is that they can't agree on the type of republic we should have.

It will happen. The support for a republic in Australia, in last week's poll, was at 50% and 55% if Charles is to become King. It always drops when there is a major royal visiting and Charles was here last week. Even though support for the republic is at its lowest level for a generation it is still at 50%. Support for the monarch is not also at 50% though but at 39% with 11% undecided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom