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

[BritishRoyalist]

Labour debates ditching the monarchy - Story - Politics - 3 News

I thought Labour's were typically Pro-monarchy?

 

[royalistbert]

That's New Zealand Labour not British Labour.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Definitely not - Labour Parties are left-wing, union oriented, workers parties - more likely to be republican.

In Australia when the Australian Communist Party closed down many of its members joined the Australian Labor Party as the most left-wing party left.

It was a previous Labor PM of Australia who was a major push behind Australia's referendum on becoming a republic and it is still Laobr policy here.

In the UK the Labour Party is the left-wing party while the Conservatives are the right wing - David Cameron is right wing while Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were left wing. Many of the British Labour MPs have spoken out on a republic and some of them even cross their fingers when taking the oath - and old fashioned idea that if you cross your fingers when making a promise/oath then your aren't really taking it or bound by it.

 

[royalistbert]

Definitely not - Labour Parties are left-wing, union oriented, workers parties - more likely to be republican.

In Australia when the Australian Communist Party closed down many of its members joined the Australian Labor Party as the most left-wing party left.

It was a previous Labor PM of Australia who was a major push behind Australia's referendum on becoming a republic and it is still Laobr policy here.

In the UK the Labour Party is the left-wing party while the Conservatives are the right wing - David Cameron is right wing while Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were left wing. Many of the British Labour MPs have spoken out on a republic and some of them even cross their fingers when taking the oath - and old fashioned idea that if you cross your fingers when making a promise/oath then your aren't really taking it or bound by it.

That is nonsense only a small minority of Labour are republican. I think its only a handful in parliament. Ed Milliband is the most left wing Labour leader in years and is not a republican. None of the major political parties are republican. The only republican parties I can think of are the nationalist parties.

 

[Marquess Middleton]

Let's assume vaguely 30 million adults in the uk are royalists. Question: how many million adults in the u.s. would be royalists? More than 30 million? Interesting to think a u.s. number might not be far from one needed to be a viable presidential contender.

 

[Ish]

Let's assume vaguely 30 million adults in the uk are royalists. Question: how many million adults in the u.s. would be royalists? More than 30 million? Interesting to think a u.s. number might not be far from one needed to be a viable presidential contender.

30 million in the UK and 30 million in the US is a different representation of the population though.

In the UK there's some 63 million people, so 30 million would be just under 50% of the population. In the US, there's some 317 million people, so 30 million is closer to 10% of the population - for it to be closer to half they'd have to have some 160 million royalists.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Popularity of the Monarchy in the UK.

We may already have a thread for this, but I couldn't find it so this can be moved if necessary.

We get mentions of polls quite frequently relating to different aspects of the royal family and lately it's forcused a lot of the Cambridges. Here are some recent ones;

Support Monarchy ‏@SupportMonarchy 17m
The Monarchy promotes a sense of national identity in the UK - a new poll out today shows that 74% think the Monarchy defines Britishness.

(Today is 13.4.14)

Support Monarchy ‏@SupportMonarchy 15m
Additionally, another poll from the Sunday Times today shows that Brits think The Queen is the person who best represents the UK in 2014.

Yougov have a list of polls including what the Monarchy might be like in 2070 when Prince George is supposedly going to ascend the throne.
yougov.co.uk/pages/royal-family/

 

[RoyalDaisy]

This wasn't a poll about the Monarchy but about "Britishness" and relates to 2013.

There is the best part of a page on it in the Times but I'm pushed at the moment to summarise it.

People surveyed were asked "Who embodies the nation today?"

In terms of members of the Royal Family:-

Queen 63%
Duke of Cambridge 57%
Prince Harry 42%
Duchess of Cambridge 41%

but then again.........

Richard Branson 45%
David Beckham 39%
Stephen Fry 36%

 

[royalistbert]

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/support-for-the-monarchy-in-the-uk-32807.html Here is the thread, I started it.

 

[RoyalDaisy]

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/support-for-the-monarchy-in-the-uk-32807.html Here is the thread, I started it.

The poll wasnt about support for the monarchy so not sure??

 

[Lumutqueen]

The poll wasnt about support for the monarchy so not sure??

The poll shows that 74% of people identify with the monarchy and it defines britishness. To define something you have to popular or be known for that thing. So I would say it has to do with the monarchy being popular, if it wasn't then people wouldn't identify with it. They'd ignore it.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Not sure if agree with that Lumutqueen. In Australia the term "g'day" is meant to define us as Aussies, but I can say that none in my acquaintance use that term or indeed find it appealing. We don't ignore it. We know it is there and it is used by many. I think it is an australianism and I guess defines us for now. Wouldn't say it was popular with the majority of the population. Perhaps popular with the majority of those who are surveyed?

Who was surveyed and how many? Key questions I think.

 

[johnmartins]

What do you guys make of this?

I've just signed up to this forum and had a quick browse through the boards. There are some very interesting topics. The reason I signed up was after reading an article entitled "A Royal Waste Of Money" I had mixed feelings in regards to royal occasions. I wanted to see your opinions about the article;

Here is the article:
A Royal Waste of Money - Enraged Citizen

What do you guys think?

 

[wyevale]

I think that this enraged individual is entitled to his opinion.. but [fortunately] 75 % of the public [according to surveys] disagree, and are in favour of the monarchy.

The idea that republics are cheaper [or more egalitarian] is simply wrong. A look at what the Elysee palace costs the French, or the White House costs the Americans proves this. In addition there are the costs of regular presidential elections, and the pensions, office costs and security of numerous ex-presidents.

As for egalitarianism.. the lobbyists ensure that whoever is elected is from a carefully selected selected group, financed by the corporations or other elite forces in society. I'm glad we do not have a system so wide open to corruption and special interests in this country, and that 'the top job' cannot be bought as it can in other countries,

 

[Ish]

The idea that republics are cheaper [or more egalitarian] is simply wrong. A look at what the Elysee palace costs the French, or the White House costs the Americans proves this. In addition there are the costs of regular presidential elections, and the pensions, office costs and security of numerous ex-presidents.

Every time this discussion comes up (or variations of it) this concept is mentioned and I'm left confused.

Yes, in democratic republics you have to pay for elections on a regular basis, but last I checked constitutional monarchies also have a system of elected representation that results in people paying for regular elections. The parliaments of a constitutional monarchy still have office costs, and I really doubt that there are no pensions or security costs for ex-Prime Ministers.

 

[carlota]

The idea that republics are cheaper [or more egalitarian] is simply wrong. A look at what the Elysee palace costs the French, or the White House costs the Americans proves this. In addition there are the costs of regular presidential elections, and the pensions, office costs and security of numerous ex-presidents.

i disagree with this. yes, the elysee or the white house are expensive to run but any monarchy will have the royal palaces to run plus the residence of their prime minister or president (and the subsistence and security of old presidents, as you mention, PLUS the old monarchs). it's not like democratic monarchies only have the king or queen (ie. the queen of great britain AND cameron or the king of spain AND rajoy AND the ex-king of spain...)

 

[wyevale]

Carlota & Ish - France has Presidential Elections AND prime-ministerial ones , and the Royal palaces would need to be maintained and run even if no monarch lived in them.

Ex Prime Ministers in the Uk do have [fairly minimal] security,but no office costs are paid, and again their pensions are modest in comparison to French or American ones..

 

[Mirabel]

It's simply one person's opinion.

But the thing no one seems willing to acknowledge is that if the RF vanished tomorrow, it would make no difference to the taxpayer.
The money would go on some politician's expense account, or on entitlement programs of one sort or another. It would never revert back to the taxpayer.

That's just the way things are. Citizens in the USA are often enraged by the greed of certain elected officials who have huge pensions, security, and family vacations with costs that spiral into the millions. But that is part of the perks of office.

Personally I'd prefer a monarchy; at least you'd get a decent pageant or two to show for your money!

 

[Rudolph]

Prince George effect! Toddler shifts attitudes to Royals as new official photos released

Prince George birthday: New royal photos released | Royal | News | Daily Express

Around a quarter of all Britons - 24 per cent - say they now have a more positive view of the Royal Family because of him, with only two per cent saying they are more negative, according to a survey by Viewsbank.
The weighted online survey of 1,025 adults carried out this month suggested that across the country some 2.1 million people who previously had a negative image of the royals now claim to have a positive one as a result of the new third in line to the throne.
Among the converts are a younger generation, with 30 per cent of those aged 18 to 24 year saying they felt more positive about the monarchy and 31 per cent of 25 to 34 year olds, compared to only 20 per cent of those aged over 65.

 

[Rudolph]

Ipsos MORI | Trend | Monarchy/Royal Family Trends - Monarchy v Republic 1993-2013

Since 1993 support for a republic in Britain hasn't been above 22 percent.

 

[wbenson]

Off-topic posts about the presidency of Barack Obama have been deleted.

 

[Rudolph]

Battle Royale: Who’s the Most Popular British Royal? - Speakeasy - WSJ

In anticipation of this weekend’s U.S. visit by Prince William and his wife, Catherine, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, we took a look at the royal family’s reception—online and in the media.

Who’s the most popular member of the royal family? “Listening” software company iQ media measured the number of mentions select members of the royal family—Queen Elizabeth, Princes Charles, William and Harry, and Princess Kate Middleton—received in the past two years on TV, online and social media.

 

[cepe]

sheesh "Princess Kate Middleton"

dont know whether to or

 

[Ish]

sheesh "Princess Kate Middleton"



dont know whether to or

Laugh. You have to laugh. Otherwise it'll just break you in the long run.

 

[miss whirley]

I'm glad to see The Queen came in first. I wonder why they didn't measure Prince Philip? I'd like to believe he would have gotten second place.

I also hate when they butcher titles/names. The Duchess of Cambridge is a lovely title, and it's very straightforward too. They think they are talking down to their dense readers, but really it's lazy journalism. I swear I once saw an article that said "HRH Liz" in reference to The Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

HRH for The Queen isn't totally incorrect as she was born with that designation and doesn't stop holding that style just because she holds a higher title. Inaccurate because she holds a higher designation and that should be used but not incorrect.


Referring to Kate as Princess Kate/Catherine is incorrect as she has never been a Princess in her own right and in the UK only Princesses in their own right are entitled to the designation of Princess own name. Referring to her as Kate Middleton isn't incorrect as that is her maiden name and thus is still a form of her name - but it isn't the highest or most recent designation of her name. Calling her Princess William would also be a correct form but why demote her by calling her Princess at all?


I doubt that Philip would have come in second had he been included. Why - this is a measure of mentions on social media - how many people who use social media even know who Philip is? Social media is used far more by younger people than older people - and it would be the oldies who know who Philip and Charles are but the younger generation would all know who The Queen is as she is on the coins, the subject of the National Anthem etc.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I doubt that Philip would have come in second had he been included. Why - this is a measure of mentions on social media - how many people who use social media even know who Philip is? Social media is used far more by younger people than older people - and it would be the oldies who know who Philip and Charles are but the younger generation would all know who The Queen is as she is on the coins, the subject of the National Anthem etc.

I can assure you that most young people in Britain know who Philip and Charles is, but they can't even name the so-called minor royals.

 

[Rudolph]

Royals and Malala are our moral leaders | The Sunday Times

THE Queen and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge provide the best moral leadership for Britons, ahead of church leaders including the Archbishop of Canterbury, according to a poll.

A YouGov survey for The Sunday Times, in which respondents were asked to choose three or four names from a list, found 34% of people see the Queen as giving the strongest moral lead. In second place were Prince William and Kate, who were named by 30%.

The Queen is in first place with 34 percent, W&K are second with 30 percent and Malala is third with 19 percent

 

[Rudolph]

Prince HARRY is the nation's favourite royal with Kate, Duchess of Cambridge in second place | Daily Mail Online

Prince Harry, the Duchess of Cambridge, the Queen, Prince William and Prince Charles might make up the top five, but other royals have also proved popular.

Among them are Princess Anne in sixth place, the Duke of Edinburgh in seventh and Zara Tindall in eighth.
Here are the results in full:
1. Prince Harry (31 per cent)
2. The Duchess of Cambridge (26 per cent)
3. The Queen (21 per cent)
4. The Duke of Cambridge (19 per cent)
5. The Prince of Wales (seven per cent)
6. Princess Anne (six per cent)
7. The Duke of Edinburgh (four per cent)
8. Zara Tindall (four per cent)
9. Prince George (three per cent)
10. Princess Eugenie of York (one per cent)

 

[AdmirerUS]

Obviously, no correlation between popularity and time spent working as a full time royal.