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

[Mirabel]

Eh, these popularity polls change from minute to minute.
They're not to be taken seriously.


(For example, I'm betting many people have Eugenie confused with Beatrice, who has a much higher public profile).

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

These polls are constantly changing. It's either The Queen, William, Catherine or Harry who is the most popular.

2014
Prince Harry named UK's favourite royal beating the Queen and Kate * | Daily Mail Online

2014
The Queen is most admired person in Britain says poll
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHuqOtyylBvsgxQMPmFL8w8QPI8Rw

2013
God Save the Queen, future kings and Prince George! Poll reveals confidence in the monarchy is at an all-time high | Daily Mail Online

Asked which member of the Royal family they most admire, 26 per cent of people said the Queen, 19 per cent the Duke of Cambridge, 17 per cent Prince Harry and 12 per cent the Duchess of Cambridge.

The survey found that 38 per cent of people are in favour of Prince William being the next King - compared with 42 per cent who said it should be Charles.

The Queen, Charles and William have a good approval rating, that's what counts.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/research...ds-Satisfaction-with-the-Queen.aspx?view=wide

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/research...s-Monarchy-v-Republic-19932013.aspx?view=wide

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/research...tisfaction-with-the-Queen-at-record-high.aspx

 

[Rudolph]

The Queen is ‘most admired woman’ in UK

A recent YouGov poll has shown that The Queen is the ‘most admired woman’ in the UK, and the 4th most admired woman in the world.

The poll, which was carried out across 23 countries and asked over 23,000 people, saw a scattering of Royals make the cut. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were popular in many countries, no doubt aided by their high-profile tour of New Zealand and Australia, and short trip to Washington D.C. and New York last year.

The Duke of Cambridge was voted the 16th most admired male in the world, and ranked as the 5th most admired on the UK list for men. His wife, The Duchess of Cambridge, held similar rankings as the 15th most admired woman worldwide and 5th in the UK.

William and Kate both rank in the top five for the UK

 

[miss whirley]

"The Queen the most admired woman in the UK." Darn Tootin!

 

[Rudolph]

Majority of Britons want to stop funding 'minor' royals such as Prince Andrew and Sophie Wessex | Daily Mail Online

The Royal Family might be more popular than ever before but the majority of Britons think funding for some parts of the institution should be cut.

Although taxpayers are happy to fund the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Cambridges and Prince Harry, a new poll has revealed that most want the rest to take a pay cut.

That would mean Prince Andrew, the Princess Royal, the Wessexes and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, among others, losing any form of public subsidy.

Currently, the Royal Family is funded by a combination of the Sovereign Grant, which replaced the annual Civil List payment and three other grants in 2011, and money from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/05/time-slim-royal-family-down/ - From YouGov

Most British people say that apart from the core royal family of the Queen, Charles and his descendants, the rest should no longer receive money from the taxpayer and royal estates

In terms of public opinion, the British royal family is enjoying something of a heydey.

The Queen has long since recovered from the dark days after Princess Diana's death, Wills and Kate are very popular, and even Prince Charles has enjoyed a turnaround in the past five years.

However, new research from YouGov reveals that the extent of the British public's enthusiasm for the royal family is very strictly limited to the 'core' royals in the direct line of succession.

The minor royals are not thought to warrant any support from the taxpayer or even the Royal Duchies.

 

[Molly2101]

I am unsure how I feel about paying for the others. I agree that the family does need slimmed down but that will happen naturally with age as Edward, Alexandra, Richard and Birgitte will die in the next 10-20 years, leaving the rest in their 60's and 70's. I don't think nor do I see Beatrice or Eugenie (or Louise and James for that matter) working for their uncle when their parents die so they will not be replaced.

Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie will all die (though i'm unsure about Sophie as i'm convinced she's got the fountain of youth at Bagshot Park but she isn't sharing it with Edward). Whether they pass on during Charles' reign or William's reign will only leave, in theory, William, Kate, George and "unborn", Harry, his spouse and possible two children.

I also think that the Queen is sort of being penalized for having 4 children. If she had only had Charles and Anne then this problem would not have occurred as Anne's children were not going to be royals either way so it would have only been Charles' children. It was her choice to have more children as much as it's a human right, but I feel that she is sort of being charged with it now as the public don't want to support her two younger children who did not ask to be born.

The cost to the taxpayer of the royal family is around 58p per head per year, or around 0.005% of total public spending.

From this aforementioned article.

To be fair if we has to stop funding the other royals I doubt they will go without. Anne, Andrew and Edward's own personal finance stands in the millions due to inheritance so I am sure they will all cope.

 

[Al_bina]

It is always funny to read about how much the British royal family costs taxpayers. I assume that Prince Charles will streamline the family under the pretence of saving taxpayer funds.

 

[Skippyboo]

You aren't really paying for the other royals. The Queen uses her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster to fund their activities like Charles uses the Duchy of Cornwall to fund his family. The Sovereign Grant money comes from the income from the Crown Estates where all of it is turned over to the government and a small portion is return to the Royal Household to pay for building maintenance, staff, garden parties etc.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[AdmirerUS]

Majority of Britons want to stop funding 'minor' royals such as Prince Andrew and Sophie Wessex | Daily Mail Online
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/05/time-slim-royal-family-down/ - From YouGov

So I asked myself what drives these numbers? Clearly, the public polled does not see the value in the work done by all those carrying on events on behalf of the crown. So maybe 50% of the engagements undertaken don't translate into appreciation by the public. Maybe those unappreciated events are what needs trimming? Maybe "rah rah economic development" and "happy new playground" ribbon cutting has become passe.

 

[wyevale]

Does it not occur to the Daily Heil, that the reason the Wessex's , the Gloucester's and the Duke of Kent are unappreciated, is that their sterling work receives virtually NO press coverage...

 

[Marty91charmed]

Ha! Te daily fail and its unreliable polls. I wonder if they knowhow hard-working and commited the senior royals are (such as Anne and Sophie). I would be glad to "waste" money on them who behave professionally and do their work! I know that once Charles ascends they will probably be cut out, but the monarchy is going to lose great assets. Now, do you really believe that Harry, William, Kate, their children (and probably some more) will cost less? I think not.

 

[Rudolph]

The survey was conducted by YouGov, not the Mail Online. I provided a link to the YouGov website in my post

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/05/time-slim-royal-family-down/

 

[Skippyboo]

Support for the Monarchy in the UK

When Charles is King, he doesn't have to support William and his family they will be funded from the Duchy of Cornwall.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

I think a more slimmed down Monarchy would be more effective. I think the majority of the work in the "Firm" should be on the Queen & Philip, Charles & Camilla, William and Catherine and Harry. I think the other royals can still go about supporting their charities and other organizations but the "Firm" should be down to the main seven royals.

 

[Skippyboo]

If the others are still doing their charities and such they are still costing someone money. They would still have staffs that need paying. They are still using Royal resources like cars and helicopters. They aren't really getting any press coverage right now for the good that they are doing. So they aren't really stealing the focus away other than Andrew with his bad press.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Mirabel]

You aren't really paying for the other royals. The Queen uses her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster to fund their activities like Charles uses the Duchy of Cornwall to fund his family.

True; however, once Charles inherits the Duchy of Lancaster, perhaps he won't wish to fund the others?


Anyway, are people really that eager to see the others?
I'm sure Sophie, for example, does work hard. But I wouldn't go out of my way to see her at any events.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

True; however, once Charles inherits the Duchy of Lancaster, perhaps he won't wish to fund the others?...

I think Charles will streamline. However, if necessary I believe he will support the elderly members. It would be rather callous to dry dock those who have served his mother so faithfully and for such a long period of time.

 

[Skippyboo]

If he is going to cut them off, wouldn't they be told this beforehand so they can start scaling down their commitments. The Queen can die really at any time and if Charles just cuts everybody off without notice. It will just piss off the rest of siblings.

Edward and Sophie definitely act like they will be involved with the Duke of Edinburgh Trust for the long term.

In easiest thing will allow the Kents and Gloucesters to retire if wanted and they won't be replaced.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[cepe]

True; however, once Charles inherits the Duchy of Lancaster, perhaps he won't wish to fund the others?


Anyway, are people really that eager to see the others?
I'm sure Sophie, for example, does work hard. But I wouldn't go out of my way to see her at any events.

The events are not about # of the public standing outside - it is to support, thank, celebrate, congratulation the people they are meeting and apparently those people do care. Ask any of the charities and patronages, not to mention the military units they are linked to.

 

[royal rob]

I wonder if people have put the likes of Anne, Sophie and Edward in the same basket as Andrew because of recent events.
It's a bit unfair if that's the case as they keep their head down and work


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[cepe]

I wonder if people have put the likes of Anne, Sophie and Edward in the same basket as Andrew because of recent events.
It's a bit unfair if that's the case as they keep their head down and work


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I think it's because they have no idea what they do. Media are not interested so no publicity at all apart from local press.

I find it curious that HMQ is holding a reception to celebrate the patronages of Edward and Sophie when I dont think she has done that for anyone else.

As for "reducing" the size of the monarchy - whatever faults people may find in Charles, he is a compassionate man. None of the minor royals were permitted to work in business. Good example is Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Qualified architect, happily at work, gets married and then his brother dies and it is a case of give it up, you are going to be a royal Duke so can't "trade".

Only income is from investments - and we have has 2 or 3 major financial crises that hit those, particularly when Lloyds Insurance failed in the 80s.

Small regular income, G&F accommodation as long as carrying out royal duties. He'll have to sell the family home eventually.

Financially - he'd have been better off staying an architect.

Charles knows all this and will protect the Glos. and Kents till they decide themselves to retire or they die.

His siblings are safe as well, although Andrew will have to up the public work rate and keep out of trouble.

Finally, there appears to be an assumption from that poll that the public will pay less in tax if there are fewer royals. IMO not so they will notice. Only real cost reduction over time will be in security.

There might be a reduction in travel costs but only if demand falls.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wonder how Andrew can up his work rate - he is already one of the hardest workers - behind his siblings last year but in previous years only his older siblings and other did more so he dropped one place.


The Gloucester's may be The Queen's generation in descent from George V but in reality they are closer in age to Charles and Anne then either Andrew or Edward - only being a couple of years older - Richard turned 70 last year while Charles turned 66 and the Duchess is younger than the Duke while Camilla is older than Charles.


What I found really interesting were the figures of support for Harry with only 48% saying he should be supported. Already he is being seen as largely irrelevant to the future of the monarchy - as Andrew and Margaret were over time in their own generations.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I think it's because they have no idea what they do. Media are not interested so no publicity at all apart from local press.

I find it curious that HMQ is holding a reception to celebrate the patronages of Edward and Sophie when I dont think she has done that for anyone else.

As for "reducing" the size of the monarchy - whatever faults people may find in Charles, he is a compassionate man. None of the minor royals were permitted to work in business. Good example is Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Qualified architect, happily at work, gets married and then his brother dies and it is a case of give it up, you are going to be a royal Duke so can't "trade".

Only income is from investments - and we have has 2 or 3 major financial crises that hit those, particularly when Lloyds Insurance failed in the 80s.

Small regular income, G&F accommodation as long as carrying out royal duties. He'll have to sell the family home eventually.

Financially - he'd have been better off staying an architect.

Charles knows all this and will protect the Glos. and Kents till they decide themselves to retire or they die.

His siblings are safe as well, although Andrew will have to up the public work rate and keep out of trouble.

Finally, there appears to be an assumption from that poll that the public will pay less in tax if there are fewer royals. IMO not so they will notice. Only real cost reduction over time will be in security.

There might be a reduction in travel costs but only if demand falls.

I agree with you.

There is nothing new with this poll. Large parts of the population in this country don't know that Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie is performing official duties. And they don't even know whom the so-called minor royals are. The press isn't interested in them and does not cover their work.

This poll is not about reducing the size of the monarchy, it's about who should receive public money.

I know people who like the Queen and supports the monarchy, but they believes she and the others royals must cover the costs of the monarchy themselves because they are rich. People also believe that the money the royals receive goes to live a life in luxury, people don't understand that employees must be paid, that the bills most be paid and that the royal properties must be maintained.

Large parts of the population don't have a clue about how the monarchy is funded, most people have never heard of the sovereign grant, the duchy of lancaster or the duchy of Cornwall.

 

[cepe]

There is nothing new with this poll. Large parts of the population in this country don't know that Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie is performing official duties. And they don't even know whom the so-called minor royals are. The press isn't interested in them and does not cover their work.

This poll is not about reducing the size of the monarchy, it's about who should receive public money.

I know people who like the Queen and supports the monarchy, but believes she and the others royals must cover the costs of the monarchy themselves because they are rich. People also believe that the money the royals receive goes to live a life in luxury, people don't understand that employees must be paid, that the bills most be paid and that the royal properties must be maintained.

Large parts of the population don't have a clue about how the monarchy is funded, most people have never heard of the sovereign grant, the duchy of lancaster or the duchy of Cornwall.

The Queen does cover the cost of the other royals (except those covered by Charles/DofCornwall) thru D of Lancaster. And you are so right. Ignorance leads this and sadly a generation built on envy.

The fact that HMQ and PoW pay tax voluntarily is not promoted by the UK Media

 

[Skippyboo]

There is also a misconception that the Queen is super rich. They think she owns the palaces, Crown Jewels etc. So she can pay for it all her self.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[COUNTESS]

The Queen is super rich. And these duchies she gleans the monies from to pay this one or that one, to cut a ribbon or open a hospital should be public money, because, these are her monies because he ancestors stole them from the people. For years they did not pay taxes and then when Windsor burned and the expectation was the people would pay to repair a place that couldn't enter, fell under derision, they decided they would pay taxes of sorts. And, yes, if you want to write the Presidents cost big money, they do. You are right. But they work, really work, and no one pay their cousins, Aunts and Uncles, children, sisters and brothers to do anything. Governments cost money. And if you want this showcase of hoo ha you pay.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The Queen is super rich. And these duchies she gleans the monies from to pay this one or that one, to cut a ribbon or open a hospital should be public money, because, these are her monies because he ancestors stole them from the people. For years they did not pay taxes and then when Windsor burned and the expectation was the people would pay to repair a place that couldn't enter, fell under derision, they decided they would pay taxes of sorts. And, yes, if you want to write the Presidents cost big money, they do. You are right. But they work, really work, and no one pay their cousins, Aunts and Uncles, children, sisters and brothers to do anything. Governments cost money. And if you want this showcase of hoo ha you pay.

I have discussed this with you before, but this is ridiculous. It's obvious that you don't know how a constitutional monarchy works.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

I have discussed this with you before, but this is ridiculous. It's obvious that you don't know how a constitutional monarchy works.

Countess is obviously a republican who does not support the Monarchy or The Queen. There no sense in trying to talk her to or reason with her.

She also don't know what she talking about a lot of times like a true Republican.

 

[VictoriaB]

Countess is obviously a republican who does not support the Monarchy or The Queen. There no sense in trying to talk her to or reason with her.

She also don't know what she talking about a lot of times like a true Republican.

Being a republican and understanding how the monarchy works are not mutually exclusive. In fact knowing how it works can be an advantage in making a rational argument for its abolition.

One of the things that became most apparent in the comments made after Prince Philip was awarded his knighthood by the Australian Prime Minister was that some of those whom I would consider the most knowledgeable and thoughtful posters are republicans.

Just as there are those on here who are republican and cannot abide a rational defence of monarchy, there are those who are monarchist and whose argument appears to be "the Queen is wonderful therefore monarchy as an institution is wonderful".

Neither committed monarchists nor committed republicans should be afraid of rational argument and should not be afraid to acknowledge that every political system has its flaws. The trick is to chose the one that works best for the people of that nation - flaws and all.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Just as there are those on here who are republican and cannot abide a rational defence of monarchy, there are those who are monarchist and whose argument appears to be "the Queen is wonderful therefore monarchy as an institution is wonderful".

I prefer a constitutional monarchy because it is a unifying symbol, but the monarch shall have no political power. I mean a constitutional monarchy is much better than a republic, in a constitutional monarchy we has a head of state who unites most of the people, while having a parliamentary system and an elected government. It works very well in the UK, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.