The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #421  
Old 08-15-2019, 05:58 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,414
Very interesting poll and a good breakdown of the demographics. One thing I notice though is that they've got just about every married in female royal addressed as if they were divorced. You'd think they'd know better by now eh?
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 08-29-2019, 09:24 PM
Frozen Royalist's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Raleigh, United States
Posts: 195
To those living in the UK right now and in the Commonwealth Realms, has the recent prorogue destroyed support for the monarchy and ruined QEII's reputation and popularity? The #abolishthemonarchy is taking great stem from what I've seen, some Labour MPs are threatening to abolish the monarchy, and I've also seen the anti-monarchist/republican tweet gaining traction in Canada. So we're doomed aren't we?

-Frozen Royalist
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 08-29-2019, 09:49 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist View Post
To those living in the UK right now and in the Commonwealth Realms, has the recent prorogue destroyed support for the monarchy and ruined QEII's reputation and popularity? The #abolishthemonarchy is taking great stem from what I've seen, some Labour MPs are threatening to abolish the monarchy, and I've also seen the anti-monarchist/republican tweet gaining traction in Canada. So we're doomed aren't we?

-Frozen Royalist
I donít think you understand how the monarchy works in the UK. The Queen is not at fault in this mess.
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 08-29-2019, 10:01 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I donít think you understand how the monarchy works in the UK. The Queen is not at fault in this mess.
But she is receiving some of the blame, from people who don't understand her constitutional duty, and others who are using this as an excuse to stir up trouble.
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 08-30-2019, 02:19 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist View Post
To those living in the UK right now and in the Commonwealth Realms, has the recent prorogue destroyed support for the monarchy and ruined QEII's reputation and popularity? The #abolishthemonarchy is taking great stem from what I've seen, some Labour MPs are threatening to abolish the monarchy, and I've also seen the anti-monarchist/republican tweet gaining traction in Canada. So we're doomed aren't we?

-Frozen Royalist
Other then on twitter and perhaps some blogs Canada really does not have a republican movement. Okay outside of Quebec, but Quebec just wants to be rid of all of us. The politics in UK rarely affect our opinion of monarchy or not.

The reality is most Canadians look at the Prime Minister is our head. If we complain about politics, we complain about Trudeau. The queen is on our money. We might moan a bit about the cost of royal tours but little else.


If the commonwealth countries started gaining independence, Canada may be the last one standing. It would take a lot more then Borris to get Canada to upheave the status quo.
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 08-30-2019, 02:20 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist View Post
To those living in the UK right now and in the Commonwealth Realms, has the recent prorogue destroyed support for the monarchy and ruined QEII's reputation and popularity? The #abolishthemonarchy is taking great stem from what I've seen, some Labour MPs are threatening to abolish the monarchy, and I've also seen the anti-monarchist/republican tweet gaining traction in Canada. So we're doomed aren't we?

-Frozen Royalist
When things settle down and people understand things they will realise that the Queen acted correctly.

I remember The Dismissal in Australia in 1975 and the mass calls for Australia to become a Republic back then. I was still at school. Since then I have been to university had a 40 year career as a teacher and am now retired and Australia is still a constitutional monarchy even though a republic is on the policy of the Australian Labor Party, we have had them in power for about half the time since 1975, we have had a republican Prime Minister from the Liberal Party and we have had a referendum on the issue.

It isn't as easy as some of people think it is to become a republic. The emotions are high at the moment but they will settle down in a few days and things will go on as normal.

Eventually countries like Australia will become republics - probably in Charles' reign in our case - but it won't be because of the Queen actually behaving in the right way as she has done in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 08-30-2019, 03:27 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Politics and Brexit moves SO fast atm. that already the spotlight has moved from 'what the Queen did', to whether that advice [on which she acted] was 'flawed' - so the Law Courts are now the focus..


Given the speed of events, and the [limited] 'attention span' of the 'outraged' I predict there will be no lasting damage - Republicans will still be thus, and Monarchists the same, with the 'easily upset' moved on to something/someone else, and the VAST majority continuing with 'no strong feelings' either way.
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 08-30-2019, 03:40 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Burke, United States
Posts: 547
The world is so uncertain nowadays.
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 08-30-2019, 03:54 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 505
It is interesting, that in our time, where are everywhere rules how to be political correct - especially on Twitter and so on - comparing the english monarchy to the Romanovs and a cheerful "Off with their heads!" are somewhat ok and not "hate speech", how it is called here in Germany.
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 08-30-2019, 07:24 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,216
Recent events are unlikely to affect the Queen's standing too much. Most people (and in fairness most media) point out she had no choice in the matter and if there is fault anywhere, it is with the government and PM for putting her in this position.

The worst that will come of this is people to question the point in having the monarch involved in such issues in the first place. The reality is, recent events also highlight the low calibre of our politicians of late, so the choice between an apolitical sovereign or a political president - well for most part people would rather have a sovereign.
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 08-30-2019, 07:42 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,457
Please note that a number of posts unrelated to the topic have been deleted.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 08-30-2019, 10:52 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,526
I feel the Queen, an impartial figure and head of state of ALL British citizens (eh... "subjects") should not only have heard Government but also have championed the right of Parliament: "Opposition MUST be heard". It is quite an act to silence a duly democratically chosen legislative body in a period in which quite profound and radical decisions are made affecting ALL citizens in ALL four home nations. In here the Queen has not been the impartial figure to guard and maintain the rights of all. Let us be honest, she was just used as Johnson's pawn. This was not the best advert for having a wonderful monarchy. The people in London, or Scotland, or Northern Ireland, which voted to remain in the EU will have seen that the Queen did zero comma zero for them.
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 08-30-2019, 01:05 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Recent events are unlikely to affect the Queen's standing too much. Most people (and in fairness most media) point out she had no choice in the matter and if there is fault anywhere, it is with the government and PM for putting her in this position.

The worst that will come of this is people to question the point in having the monarch involved in such issues in the first place. The reality is, recent events also highlight the low calibre of our politicians of late, so the choice between an apolitical sovereign or a political president - well for most part people would rather have a sovereign.
This is spot on - an apolotical head of state has a lot of advantages.

If the country does well: God save the King/Queen

If the country does badly: down with the government

sums it up rather well I think.

Even if we were a republic we would most certainly have a ceremonial head of state like the Irish president. That sort of presidency works best in the Westminster system where the pm/cabinet governs.
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 08-30-2019, 01:18 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,526
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
This is spot on - an apolotical head of state has a lot of advantages.

If the country does well: God save the King/Queen

If the country does badly: down with the government

sums it up rather well I think.

Even if we were a republic we would most certainly have a ceremonial head of state like the Irish president. That sort of presidency works best in the Westminster system where the pm/cabinet governs.
The Italian, Greek, Irish, Portugese etc presidents are largely cerrmonial but as we have seen these weeks, they can intervene in the interest of state. These weeks the Italian President summoned Parliament to find a new majority because Italy has to deliver a Budget and without a Government the financial situation would derail dramatically. This while the party which broke the Coalition (Matteo Salvini's Lega) actually wanted new elections. The President blocked his dream (new elections). So even "ceremonial" presidents have a role when the maintenance of the Constitution or the interests of State require so.
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 08-30-2019, 01:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The Italian, Greek, Irish, Portugese etc presidents are largely cerrmonial but as we have seen these weeks, they can intervene in the interest of state. These weeks the Italian President summoned Parliament to find a new majority because Italy has to deliver a Budget and without a Government the financial situation would derail dramatically. This while the party which broke the Coalition (Matteo Salvini's Lega) actually wanted new elections. The President blocked his dream (new elections). So even "ceremonial" presidents have a role when the maintenance of the Constitution or the interests of State require so.
This is a good point but of course these presidents are elected (either direct by the people or by their elected representatives) whereas the British monarch is not. This is an important contrast.
What they do in the political sphere & what the British monarch does are very different as a result of this distinction.
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 08-30-2019, 01:40 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The Italian, Greek, Irish, Portugese etc presidents are largely cerrmonial but as we have seen these weeks, they can intervene in the interest of state. These weeks the Italian President summoned Parliament to find a new majority because Italy has to deliver a Budget and without a Government the financial situation would derail dramatically. This while the party which broke the Coalition (Matteo Salvini's Lega) actually wanted new elections. The President blocked his dream (new elections). So even "ceremonial" presidents have a role when the maintenance of the Constitution or the interests of State require so.



I don't know about Italy or Greece, but the Portuguese president is hardly ceremonial. The current Portuguese constitution was designed on the basis of a semipresidential system, not unlike the French Fifth Republic. True, over time and, in recent years especially, the system has become closer to parliamentary government than to the French model, but that doesn't mean that the Portuguese president who, by the way, is directly elected by popular vote and is very partisan, ceased to have extraordinary powers on paper, including the power to dissolve Parliament on his own initiative (i.e. without ministerial countersignature), He can also call a referendum or declare a state of emergency without ministerial approval and refer laws to the Constitutional Court.


In fact, my personal opinion is that, in any republic where the president is elected, even if he is indirectly elected as in Italy, it is impossible to have a perfectly neutral Head of State. That is only possible in a constitutional monarchy and that is why I think monarchies work better with parliamentary government than republics .
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 08-30-2019, 02:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't know about Italy or Greece, but the Portuguese president is hardly ceremonial. The current Portuguese constitution was designed on the basis of a semipresidential system, not unlike the French Fifth Republic. True, over time and, in recent years especially, the system has become closer to parliamentary government than to the French model, but that doesn't mean that the Portuguese president who, by the way, is directly elected by popular vote and is very partisan, ceased to have extraordinary powers on paper, including the power to dissolve Parliament on his own initiative (i.e. without ministerial countersignature), He can also call a referendum or declare a state of emergency without ministerial approval and refer laws to the Constitutional Court.


In fact, my personal opinion is that, in any republic where the president is elected, even if he is indirectly elected as in Italy, it is impossible to have a perfectly neutral Head of State. That is only possible in a constitutional monarchy and that is why I think monarchies work better with parliamentary government than republics .
This is precisely why I can't see Britain ever becoming a republic. The system is not perfect (& recent events may well lead to a reappraisal of monarchical powers) but the alternatives are not appealing. Although I think President Higgins is wonderful!
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,216
Interesting new poll from Public First:

http://www.publicfirst.co.uk/wp-cont...1/PF_Royal.pdf

70% support monarchy over a republic

Do you see (named member of RF) in a positive or negative way:

HM The Queen 45% very positive / 28% quite positive = 73% favourably
Charles 13% very positive / 31% quite positive = 44% (31% neither positive or negative)
Philip very positive 16% / quite positive 24% = 40% (33% neither positive or negative)
William 32% very positive / 39% quite positive = 71%
Catherine 29& very positive / 37% quite positive = 66% (22% neither positive or negative)
Harry 23% very positive / 34% quite positive = 57% (23% neither positive or negative)
Meghan 16% very positive / 25% quite positive = 41% (28% neither positive or negative)
Edward 6% very positive / 16% quite positive = 22% (49% neither positive or negative)
Andrew very positive 5% / quite positive 11% = 16% (31% neither positive or negative)
Anne very positive 19% / quite positive 25% = 44% (39% neither positive or negative)


Which way would be the best way for country for senior royals to spend their time (pick up to three)

Promoting charities in the UK 53%
Recognising efforts of local 44%
Promoting British business overseas 37%
Promoting union of Eng,Scot, Wales & NI 31%
Visiting hospitals 24%
Campaigning on whatever personal causes 17%
matter to them
and on and on....


Members of the RF should keep away from anything controversial so as not to divide the country 50%
Members of the RF should prioritise the promotion of social causes they believe in, even if a lot of people have different views 36%


Who is better at representing modern Britain (only W&K and H&M given as options):
William & Kate 57%
Harry and Meghan 24%


Its interesting seeing how the figures break down by age of those asked, political party etc.

I've deliberately not included one of the questions as I think it will just start the same old discussion on here.

Carried out 28th - 31st Oct, 1005 UK adults surveyed
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:22 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,489
Thank you for sharing this poll. TBH I am a little surprised that the future Queen/Princess Consort-the Duchess of Cornwall was not included as she's going to have an impact on the future of the BRF.


Yes having read the poll elsewhere I agree it was best not to share one of the questions.
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:53 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Interesting new poll from Public First:

http://www.publicfirst.co.uk/wp-cont...1/PF_Royal.pdf

70% support monarchy over a republic

Do you see (named member of RF) in a positive or negative way:

HM The Queen 45% very positive / 28% quite positive = 73% favourably
Charles 13% very positive / 31% quite positive = 44% (31% neither positive or negative)
William 32% very positive / 39% quite positive = 71%
Catherine 29& very positive / 37% quite positive = 66% (22% neither positive or negative)
Harry 23% very positive / 34% quite positive = 57% (23% neither positive or negative)
Meghan 16% very positive / 25% quite positive = 41% (28% neither positive or negative)
Edward 6% very positive / 16% quite positive = 22% (49% neither positive or negative)
Andrew very positive 5% / quite positive 11% = 16% (31% neither positive or negative)
Anne very positive 19% / quite positive 25% = 44% (39% neither positive or negative)

Carried out 28th - 31st Oct, 1005 UK adults surveyed
Added prince Philip and simplified it to positive vs negative:

Based on positive
  1. HM The Queen - 73% positive / 10% negative
  2. William - 71% positive / 9% negative
  3. Catherine - 66% positive / 9% negative
  4. Harry - 57% positive / 18% negative
  5. Anne - 44% positive / 12% negative
  6. Charles - 44% positive / 22% negative
  7. Meghan - 41% positive / 29% negative
  8. Philip - 40% positive / 24% negative
  9. Edward - 22% positive / 21% negative
  10. Andrew - 16% positive / 47% negative

Based on negative (with most negative at the end)
  1. William - 71% positive / 9% negative
  2. Catherine - 66% positive / 9% negative
  3. HM The Queen - 73% positive / 10% negative
  4. Anne - 44% positive / 12% negative
  5. Harry - 57% positive / 18% negative
  6. Edward - 22% positive / 21% negative
  7. Charles - 44% positive / 22% negative
  8. Philip - 40% positive / 24% negative
  9. Meghan - 41% positive / 29% negative
  10. Andrew - 16% positive / 47% negative

How could they forget about Camilla? And Sophie should have been included as well. Although I expect she would have a relatively high number of 'in between' or 'I don't know's, just like her husband.

And it's clear that the queen, William and Catherine are in their own league with 65% + positive and 10% or less negative. And Andrew is in his own league as well on the other end.
__________________

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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 baby names bangladesh biography bridal gown brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong clarence house coronavirus dna dubai duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie general news thread george vi hill historical drama history hochberg introduction italian royal family jewellery jumma kent languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark northern ireland norway norway history palestine pless popularity prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen mathilde random facts royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown settings startling new evidence stuart swedish queen thailand tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america von hofmannsthal working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×