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

[victor1319]

It was interesting to see that the "haves" like the posh folks around the Duke of Argyll (who was answering questions in the docu) felt British in the first place, and then Scottish.

So, it is like it ever was! Searching through the "dangerous half-knowledge" in the back of my head, I mean to remember, that Scotland lost its independence for good, when the Scottish aristocracy made as a group bankrupt with a colonial adventure in Panama and was in need of a bail-out, which England offered - not for free, but for the Scotland in exchange.

Well, today Scotland is a democracy...

 

[Durham]

Then the many visitors, participants and competitors at the Highland Games. The Dutch camera team could get quite close to Princess Anne. I found it shocking to see Scottish schoolboys (in uniform) videobombing Anne, making the up-yours sign with the tongue in between their fingers - behind her (the security did not intervene). Anne had no idea she was ridiculed.

Further Scottish lassies and ladies in tartan, participating in the Games were asked.
"You know there is a royal here?".
"Yes".
"Does it feel like a honour?"
"What? She?"
"Yes, to have the Princess at the Highland Games?"
"Geez...am I bovvered...???"

Then the documentary maker took place on the stands. Giggling Scottish ladies gossiping.
"Do you feel British or Scottish?"
"Scottish!!!"
"Okay, primarily Scottish and then British of course?"
"No way. Just Scottish!"

Many if not most schoolboys act like juvenile idiots the world over. It’s natural at that age. Then they grow up. Usually. But society is definitely not as deferential as it once was. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing at all really.

Scottish national identity isn’t just a matter of Scottish &/or British. It’s far more nuanced than that. The inhabitants of these islands are tribal & always have been. Identities are as much regional as national. Scotland is as divided over its future as England. Scots are not a monolith. Historically they never have been. Plenty of deep fault lines in Scottish society. The Borders, Orkney & Shetland voted heavily against independence. Clydeside voted for - & there are very obvious cultural & historical reasons for those results. Edinburgh rule is not necessarily any more welcome than government from Westminster.

That said it does sometimes seem as though some foreign observers almost want the UK to break up. Maybe they feel we need to be punished for something? Not sure who would benefit from that however, Mr Putin perhaps. And if the UK is divisible then so is Scotland. It’s a can of worms. As is Quebec, Catalonia, Flanders/Wallonia, Brittany, Lombardy & all of the other separatist movements.

 

[Durham]

So, it is like it ever was! Searching through the "dangerous half-knowledge" in the back of my head, I mean to remember, that Scotland lost its independence for good, when the Scottish aristocracy made as a group bankrupt with a colonial adventure in Panama and was in need of a bail-out, which England offered - not for free, but for the Scotland in exchange.

Well, today Scotland is a democracy...

Scottish & English aristocrats have been marrying each other for generations. They are in that sense very "British". Many had/have estates in both countries.

And many of these links predate the union of course. From Robert the Bruce to Lord Darnley.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think the maker, Tom Egbers, son of an English mother, absolutely has no desire to see the UK go. But last year he toured Ireland/North Ireland and this year he is touring Scotland. The first regions he toured, close to England (he started in Gretna Green), were pretty royalist and pro-Britain and "that woman" (Nicola Sturgeon) was absolutely not generally met with positiveness. The furtherer Tom drove into Scotland with his oldtimer Vauxhall Manta, the more pro-Scot the people seemed to be. Of course it is also what they want to show, they are not for nothing touring Scotland: the documentary needs to be "filled".

 

[Durham]

I think the maker, Tom Egbers, son of an English mother, absolutely has no desire to see the UK go. But last year he toured Ireland/North Ireland and this year he is touring Scotland. The first regions he toured, close to England (he started in Gretna Green), were pretty royalist and pro-Britain and "that woman" (Nicola Sturgeon) was absolutely not generally met with positiveness. The furtherer Tom drove into Scotland with his oldtimer Vauxhall Manta, the more pro-Scot the people seemed to be. Of course it is also what they want to show, they are not for nothing touring Scotland: the documentary needs to be "filled".

Scots can be fiercely pro-Scot but not necessarily pro independence. Aberdenshire voted 6-4 to remain in the union. But yes I understand your point about what it is the programme makers want to show.

If he gets to Orkney &/or Shetland it will be interesting to see what he makes of the people there.

 

[AC21091968]

Thank you for the detailed report, AC21091968. And very interesting, Duc.



I do wonder why Graham Smith (along with his campaign group Republic) appears to be the only public figure who is presented in the media as a voice of UK republicanism. I don't think all of the views espoused by Mr. Smith are necessarily representative of all or even most republicans.

From looking through wikipedia (not exactly accurate), the republic movement in terms of activism and lobbying appear to be centralised as Republic (UK) is only listed. Most of the "republican activists" that I have seen in the media are from Republic. The other group that I could think of who shared republican sentiments, but not as their top priority is Class War (anarchist group). The Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Parties as of now do not have an official policy of republicans, presumably it's not their top priority and not align with the public. However, there are politicians in those party who share republicanism views. At one point in 2010, the Green Party had an official policy on the republic model, but then recently Caroline Lucas (only Green MP in House of Common) tweeted positively about The Queen's 70 years reign. I guess Caroline Lucas wouldn't be the best speaker to argue in opposition to the monarchy debate held by Cambridge Union. Most of the writers and journalists in The Guardian, Independent and Observer oppose the monarchy. Republicanism seems to be scattered amongst individuals more so than group (apart from Republic), again probably due to republic movement not on their top priority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Supporters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_advocates_of_republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom

Back to the Cambridge Union debate, perhaps other republic advocates and politicians are not interested in participating or do not want to perceived as the "Grinch" on The Queen's 70 years on the throne. The motion/question, "This House would rather have a queen than a president" appears to focus on Queen Elizabeth II rather than any UK sovereign. From memory, apart from Graham Smith and other more staunch republicans, the push for republic is more likely to occur after The Queen passes rather than during her reign.

 

[AC21091968]

Here is the video link on Youtube of the Cambridge Union debate:
Unfortunately, Graham Smith (CEO of Republic) pulled out almost last minute, hence the opposition side consists of three student debaters. It was really stacked towards the proposition side in favour, which consisted of three public figures.

 

[Blog Real]

Here is the video link on Youtube of the Cambridge Union debate:
Unfortunately, Graham Smith (CEO of Republic) pulled out almost last minute, hence the opposition side consists of three student debaters. It was really stacked towards the proposition side in favour, which consisted of three public figures.

Good thing Republica's CEO dropped out. He never says anything to take advantage of. ?

 

[tommy100]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifesty...ill-be-better-monarch-queen-prince-charles-or

The public think the heirs to the throne will do a good job as kings, but they have big shoes to fill.

Queen Elizabeth II celebrates her Platinum Jubilee this year. Now 96, the Queen is likely reaching the end of her reign, and so the spotlight will increasingly fall on the heirs to the throne. Queen Elizabeth remains extremely popular among the British public, but will future kings Charles and William live up to the standards she set?

Both princes will have a tough job garnering the same level of approval as the Queen: more than eight in 10 (84%) Britons think the Queen has done a good job in her 70 years on the throne, including six in 10 (60%) who say she has done a ‘very good job’.

YouGov tracking data shows that the public are split 34% to 37% on whether Prince Charles should succeed as king after Queen Elizabeth, or whether the crown should pass down in favour of the more popular Prince William.

The British public tend to think both princes will make good kings should they ascend to the throne, but there is significantly more confidence in William than Charles: 77% of the public think Prince William will do a good job as king, compared to 57% for Prince Charles.

Young people in particular are much more supportive of William than Charles – 51% of 18 to 24-year-olds say William will make a good king, compared to just 29% who think Charles will. Britons aged 65 and older have more faith in both princes, but, again, there is a higher level of confidence in William (87%) than Charles (70%).

Since the Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 2012, the public’s belief in the princes’ ability to be good kings has fallen slightly, with both experiencing four point declines from 83% for William and 61% for Charles.

Britons who favour moving to an elected head of state instead are much less confident in Prince Charles’ ability to be a good king – just a third (32%) think he will do a good job on the throne and 54% think he will do a bad job. The majority (54%), however, still think William will be a good king, with 28% saying the opposite.

Those Britons who think the country should continue to have a monarchy in the future likewise have higher expectations for William (93% expect he would do a good job) than Charles (72%).



The full results of this poll can be found here: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/evyug02jzl/YouGov - Future Kings Survey Results.pdf

I'm particularly impressed that 66% of those who think Britain should move to an elected head of state think HM has done a good job.


Yougov also has a tracker, showing opinion polls on the main members of the family over time
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/89xlamdsmw/RoyalFamily_Opinion_2012toPresent_W.pdf
The latest for all members of the RF (which may be from different recent polls)

The Queen - positive opinion - 81% net positive 69%
Charles positive opinion -54% net positive 19%
Camilla positive opinion - 47% net positive 9%
William positive opinion - 75% net positive 59%
Catherine positive opinion - 70% net positive 55%
Harry positive opinion - 32% net positive -26%
Meghan positive opinion - 23% net positive -42%
Anne positive opinion - 67% net positive 50%
Andrew positive opinion - 5% net positive -80%
Edward positive opinion - 49% net positive 27%


And it you want them ranked by net positive for ease

The Queen - positive opinion - 81% net positive 69%
William positive opinion - 75% net positive 59%
Catherine positive opinion - 70% net positive 55%
Anne positive opinion - 67% net positive 50%
Edward positive opinion - 49% net positive 27%
Charles positive opinion -54% net positive 19%
Camilla positive opinion - 47% net positive 9%
Harry positive opinion - 32% net positive -26%
Meghan positive opinion - 23% net positive -42%
Andrew positive opinion - 5% net positive -80%

 

[An Ard Ri]

Rather good polling for the queen,Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Princess Royal

Shame the Countess of Wessex wasn't included.

 

[Blog Real]

This vote is very good for the Queen, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge.

 

[Mbruno]

This vote is very good for the Queen, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge.

But it is rather problematic that, first, more people think that William should succeed than think Charles should be the next King, and, second, that William's net positive is much higher than his father's.

William is younger and more popular, so the numbers are not surprising. Charles' popularity might increase once he is King, but he is not getting any younger and there is still part of the public who rejects him (more so than they reject William).

Before anyone says it, I know popularity doesn't affect the order of succession, but it is relevant anyway to the future of the monarchy.

 

[camelot23ca]

But it is rather problematic that, first, more people think that William should succeed than think Charles should be the next King, and, second, that William's net positive is much higher than his father's.

William is younger and more popular, so the numbers are not surprising. Charles' popularity might increase once he is King, but he is not getting any younger and there is still part of the public who rejects him (more so than they reject William).

Before anyone says it, I know popularity doesn't affect the order of succession, but it is relevant anyway to the future of the monarchy.

Charles is in an odd position, in the sense that his biggest accomplishments and lasting achievements will have already occurred during his time as Prince of Wales. It will be interesting to see how he’s remembered - he may be destined to be a placeholder King, sandwiched between his legendary mother and his (likely) far more memorable and popular son.

I think that Charles will acquire some of the respect that society and the media give to Heads of State. He’ll get better press and be treated with a touch more deference. I don’t think he’ll ever be popular but that shouldn’t be his goal anyway. He should be able to have a solid time as King and end up with a well respected reign if he leaves his ego at the door and sees William’s popularity as an asset that will help them all, rather than something to feel threatened by.

 

[Blog Real]

Charles is in an odd position, in the sense that his biggest accomplishments and lasting achievements will have already occurred during his time as Prince of Wales. It will be interesting to see how he’s remembered - he may be destined to be a placeholder King, sandwiched between his legendary mother and his (likely) far more memorable and popular son.

I think that Charles will acquire some of the respect that society and the media give to Heads of State. He’ll get better press and be treated with a touch more deference. I don’t think he’ll ever be popular but that shouldn’t be his goal anyway. He should be able to have a solid time as King and end up with a well respected reign if he leaves his ego at the door and sees William’s popularity as an asset that will help them all, rather than something to feel threatened by.

This is also my opinion. I think Charles will do well in his role as king. He may not become a very popular king, but he will certainly be a respected king.
And he will have the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge by his side who will help him.

 

[duke of poliganc]

I think that Charles is lucky that his heir is adult now and popular, if the queen was In her late 90’s and William was still a teen it would have been a pit problematic for Charles.
He is similar to the situation of the Swedish king who is to an extent is tolerated because of his much popular hire the crown princess Victoria, she is a monarch who the Swedish people can’t wait to have as their monarch.

 

[tommy100]

Thinking about it I do wonder sometimes if the likes of William and Victoria who have such high poll ratings, and high expectations made of them, can live up to hype. I hope they do certainly but in some sense Charles is in the best position - not amazing poll numbers but not horrendous so up in the only way (hopefully?)

 

[Blog Real]

In 2012, when the Queen marked 60 years of reign, 73% of Britons said they support the monarchy.

In 2022, the same polling company reports that support for the monarchy has dropped by 11 points to 62%.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-01...-for-monarchy-in-decade-since-diamond-jubilee

 

[Durham]

But interestingly only a fifth want an elected head of state. And that figure's been fairly constant for probably half a century if not more. There's always been republicans in the UK. And they've probably never comprised less than a fifth or so of the population. On occasion probably much higher.

I think recent events (not mentioning any names ) have made people question why we have a royal family if some of them can be seen to behave so badly.

And people of course confuse the royal family with the monarchy. And they're not the same thing even if there's inevitably some overlap.

I suspect having a smaller royal family will help lessen people's cynicism.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I did not find the full tables, but the Telegraph partially reported the results to a survey of British adults, with a sample size of 2,010, carried out by JL Partners between May 20-23.

In addition to approval ratings, the survey asked respondents to sum up each of the mentioned members of the royal family "in a word".


Queen: 75% positive, 10% negative
Most popular descriptions: "amazing", "wonderful", "lovely", "regal"

Prince of Wales: 46% positive, 33% negative
Most popular descriptions: ? ("boring" is among them)

Duchess of Cornwall: 42% positive
Most popular descriptions: "nice", "supportive", "loyal"

Duke of Cambridge: 74% positive, 10% negative
Most popular descriptions: "nice", "king", "boring"

Duchess of Cambridge: 73% positive, 9% negative
Most popular descriptions: ?

Princess Royal: 57% positive, 12% negative
Most popular descriptions: "hardworking", "horsey"

Duke of Sussex: 27% positive
Most popular descriptions: "idiot", "stupid", "spoilt", "ginger"

Duchess of Sussex: 22% positive
Most popular descriptions: "manipulative", "American", "actress"

Duke of York: 5% positive
Most popular descriptions: "paedophile", "disgrace", "pervert", "liar"

 

[Iain]

So, it is like it ever was! Searching through the "dangerous half-knowledge" in the back of my head, I mean to remember, that Scotland lost its independence for good, when the Scottish aristocracy made as a group bankrupt with a colonial adventure in Panama and was in need of a bail-out, which England offered - not for free, but for the Scotland in exchange.

Well, today Scotland is a democracy...

The Darien Scheme may have bankrupted some of the aristocracy who invested in it, but it did not bankrupt the country. At the union, Scotland, which had no national debt, helped to pay off England's national debt in exchange for access to English trade routes, something it could not have done had it been bankrupt.

Scotland has always been very democratic. The Scots never believed in the Divine Right of Kings and our monarchy (the oldest in Europe) was very egalitarian, with the monarch regarded as the first among equals on a par with his people. As such there was no bowing or curtsying. If the monarch failed to do his duties the people had the right to remove him and install another member of the Ryal Fowk in his place, and this is enshrined in the Declaration of Arbroath. The monarch was accessible to his people who could talk to him on a man-to-man basis. Of course, there is always one who takes things too far. The rude and insulting way that John Knox spoke to Queen Mary I was uncalled for, but it does show how monarch and people interacted, Had Knox tried speaking to Elizabeth Tudor like that he would have lost his head.

 

[Marengo]

It's time to close this thread. You can find the new one here.