The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 03-20-2012, 03:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 696
Support for the Monarchy in the UK

Any recent polls?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-20-2012, 07:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Haven't seen one recently but I am sure one of the papers will commission one. Usually they come in at 70 to 75% support, probably depending on how the question is worded. I have never seen one to give the republicans much encouragement even during the worst of the War of the Wales and the death of Diana.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-20-2012, 08:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 696


I hope it's above average now. The Royal Family seemed to really settled down every since Kate has married William.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-20-2012, 09:23 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalistbert


I hope it's above average now. The Royal Family seemed to really settled down every since Kate has married William.
I think they've been settled for a long time now. Although there has been some bad publicity (Andrews trade role, Harry's occasional lapses in behavior), on the whole the family have kept their heads down and gone about their duties in a quiet and business like manner. There has really been nothing like the media excesses of the years when Diana and Sarah were members of the family.

Personally, I think the family has seemed more or less settled ever since those two divorces.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-20-2012, 10:46 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Victoria, what does "settled" mean in this context? Do you mean "functioning in a predictable manner without scandal?"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-20-2012, 11:12 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi

Victoria, what does "settled" mean in this context? Do you mean "functioning in a predictable manner without scandal?"
I was responding to the previous poster who said in their opinion the Royal Family had settled down since the recent royal marriage.

My view is that although there has been some negative press in recent years it pales into insignificance when you compare it with the 80s and 90s.

Yes, I think on the whole the family does function in a cohesive fashion without significant scandal and by that things have "settled down" when compared with earlier times. I don't think it's a new thing or anything to do with William & Kate.

There is always going to be something that will stir the press into bouts of moral indignation. Whether it is warranted will depend on individual point of view. On the whole though, I think the royal family (and I don't include the Duchess of York because she is no longer a part of the royal family) have managed to function relatively scandal free for quite some time now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-22-2012, 05:03 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 95
There will always be a minority of people in the UK who criticise the Royal family and publicly profess their antipathy to the Monarchy ( ad nauseam ) But the fact remains that the institution of Monarchy is so entrenched in our nation`s psyche, that no amount of carping can ever seriously threaten it`s continual existence. If this sounds rather complacent, i would simply repeat that age old question which every anti-monarchist can never quite answer : If it aint broke why fix it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-22-2012, 05:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
I agree. There are always people who downplay the affection people feel for the Royal Family and support for the monarchy. When the Queen Mother died there were reports in the press that no one cared and no one would turn out for the funeral. The lines for he lying in state extended very far and Westminster Hall had to be kept open longer than plan. Large crowds lined the streets for her funeral. They said the same thing for the Golden Jubilee yet the Mall was jam packed for the balcony appearance. there isnt a politician alive who doesn't wish they could pull the same large crowds and achieve the same poll numbers. The Republican movement has very little support and really has to rely on big royal events to get any publicity at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-22-2012, 05:41 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
Here's a rather interesting article which I bookmarked from the New Statesman on the monarchy, and its current popularity. For those not familiar with the New Statesman - it is one of the most left wing, republican publications in Britain having deep links to the socialist Fabian Society. The article is by Sunder Katwala - number 33 on the Daily Telegraph's Top 100 list of 'most influential left wingers' in Britain. Needless to say not the sort of author, or publication, minded to be positive about the monarchy.

The gist of it is that the monarchy in Britain is more secure than ever. Not because the British have become more pro-monarchy. But because public opinion has not changed at all since 1969 when 18% supported a republic. A poll conducted in 2011 found the number was exactly the same - 18%.

New Statesman - The monarchy is more secure than ever

An interesting figure in the article. The British monarchy was at its strongest just after Diana died and the Queen made her TV address. Support for a republic fell to 9% briefly. I just find it ironic that the episode widely regarded as the most dangerous for the BRF was actually its strongest.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
I think that article summed things up pretty well. Not much encouragement for republicans in the UK.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 696
And may it remain that way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:41 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
We were just discussing, here at home, the remarkable job HM Queen Elizabeth II has done in creating this situation. It could have been so different. She is a remarkable lady and I'm glad that most of her subjects can see that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:56 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
...An interesting figure in the article. The British monarchy was at its strongest just after Diana died and the Queen made her TV address. Support for a republic fell to 9% briefly. I just find it ironic that the episode widely regarded as the most dangerous for the BRF was actually its strongest.
Thank you for that interesting link, EIIR. Usually, i would`nt touch the New Statesman with the proverbial barge pole, but this made very interesting reading. I think anyone who recalls the mass hysteria we witnessed, in the aftermath of Princess Diana`s death, will not be too surprised to learn that the Queen`s sensible handling of such a tragic event, was far more in line with the natural instincts of her people, than the manufactured " revolution " that was propogated in much of the media.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-22-2012, 07:01 PM
doric44's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: toronto, Canada
Posts: 148
i think it will change when or if Charles becomes king when Elizabeth passes. i know Australia and Canada and a number of Commonwealth countries will eventually become republics. and as the Commonwealth shrinks attitudes may change in the UK "if they get rid of them why do we keep them"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-22-2012, 07:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Australia will most likely move to elect its own native head of state as there is already a siginificant republican movement in that country and they have already had one referendum on the subject (the republic lost). In Canada there does not seem to be a significant republican movement, outside of Quebec anyway, and the process to change is quite complicated as amongst other things it requires the approval of all 10 provinces and that is a rare happening. in the long term though, yes it would seem natural for Canada to one day want its own elected head of state.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-22-2012, 07:44 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by doric44 View Post
i think it will change when or if Charles becomes king when Elizabeth passes. i know Australia and Canada and a number of Commonwealth countries will eventually become republics. and as the Commonwealth shrinks attitudes may change in the UK "if they get rid of them why do we keep them"

What makes you think the Commonwealth will shrink? It has been growing over recent decades with the inclusion of nations with no link to Britain's imperial past e.g. Rwanda and Mozambique.

There is no link between nations becoming a republic and leaving the Commonwealth. In fact of the 54 nations of the Commonwealth 16 have The Queen of the UK as their Queen as well while Malaysia has its own monarchy and the other 37 are republics.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-22-2012, 07:57 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by doric44 View Post
i think it will change when or if Charles becomes king when Elizabeth passes. i know Australia and Canada and a number of Commonwealth countries will eventually become republics. and as the Commonwealth shrinks attitudes may change in the UK "if they get rid of them why do we keep them"
The Commonwealth of Nations isn't shrinking; on the contrary, as Iluvbertie pointed out, it's actually expanding. The Commonwealth currently consists of fifty-four nations. While the Queen is the Head of Commonwealth, it's a non-hereditary and symbolic position only.
The Commonwealth Realms, on the other hand, may or may not choose to become republic in times to come. There are currently sixteen Commonwealth Realms, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other states. Queen Elizabeth is the Head of State (Monarch) of all those countries.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-22-2012, 08:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,526
But, when she is gone, things will, probably, change. When Charles, is king, many will defect. Not the same respect.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-22-2012, 08:22 PM
Sonjapearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: In front of my Mac, United States
Posts: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
But, when she is gone, things will, probably, change. When Charles, is king, many will defect. Not the same respect.
Do you expect the monarchy would be popular for William & Catherine's sake? As in, the hope that they would be saviors as they are expected to be?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-22-2012, 08:57 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,352
When Charles becomes King, things will change. What those changes will be remain to be seen. There will still be a monarchy but most likely a very different one. Prince William and Catherine will mostly likely be more popular than Prince Charles and Camilla when he's crowned King.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]