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

[AC21091968]

The focus is wrong in the poll. Aside of any personal popularities which can quite fluctuate (see Andrew, see Harry, see Charles) the core question is the desire of the people to keep the monarchy.


The question should not be; "Do you like Princess Anne?" The question should be: "Do you want to elect your own head of state? Or do you prefer the current hereditary system?" And response on that quite core question during the years shows a trend for maintaining a monarchy, which can be downward or upward. (In almost all monarchies the general curve from WWII to 2021 is slooooooooooowly, little bit by little bit, downward).

YouGov did ask questions on whether or not Britain should have an elected head of state, who should succeed The Queen and should The Queen abdicate. They did at one point of the analysis article mentioned about these results, but then, you're right, it puts the popularity of each royal family members on the heading & blurb. There is even a question on Camilla's title when Charles become King.

{Results shown as 21-22 November 2019 | 21-22 Apr 2021 for most of these questions, except for the second on The Queen}

Do you think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, or should it be replaced with an elected head of state?
Should continue to have a monarchy: 63 | 63
Should have an elected head of state instead: 19 | 20
Don't know: 17 | 16

Looking to the future, do you think the Queen should remain monarch for as long as she lives, or do you think she should retire and let the throne pass to her heirs?
She should remain Queen for the rest of her life: 64
She should retire and step down from the throne: 19
Don't know: 17

Thinking about the future monarch, which of the following would you prefer?
Prince Charles should succeed as King after Queen Elizabeth II: 36 | 37
Prince William should succeed as King after Queen Elizabeth II instead of Prince Charles: 38 | 34
Neither - there should be no monarch after Queen Elizabeth II: 16 | 17
Don't know: 11 | 11

If Prince Charles does become King, should his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall ...?
Become Queen: 13 | 14
Have the title of Princess Consort: 41 | 44
Not have any title at all: 30 |26
Don’t know: 17 | 17

PDF of full results: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/op5ota7eih/The Times Royal Favourability.pdf

Britons still want the Queen to remain in her post as the monarch turns 95
Despite the Queen being well beyond the age when most people retire, two thirds of Britons (64%) want her to remain in her job for the rest of her life. Only a fifth of the public (19%) say she should step down from the throne.

While William is a much more popular figure than Charles, public opinion on who should succeed the Queen is split. Approaching two in five people (37%) say Prince Charles should become King when she retires, while a similar number (34%) would like to see the throne go to grandson William. One in six people (17%) say there should be no monarch after the Queen.

Britons are split on who should succeed the Queen
Younger people are generally more likely to say there should be no monarch, with three in ten 18-24 year olds (28%) preferring this option. But between father and son, a greater share prefer William at (25%), while 16% choose Charles. Among those aged 65+, half (50%) say Charles should become king while a third (33%) would rather see William do it.

If Charles becomes king, only 14% of Britons would like to see wife Camilla, whose popularity is low, become queen. Over two fifths (44%) prefer her to have the title of Princess Consort, while a quarter (26%) say she shouldn’t have any title at all.

YouGov analysis article: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...27/public-opinion-most-senior-royals-improves

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Is Camilla’s popularity low due to Diana or are there other reasons as well? Thanks in advance.

 

[Kataryn]

YouGov did ask questions on whether or not Britain should have an elected head of state, who should succeed The Queen and should The Queen abdicate.

These polls only show how uninformed the citizens of the UK are. Nearly 40% want William as the next king? Then they have no idea how the kingship in the Uk works! There is no interregnung, noone to declare the new king. Once the queen takes her last breath, Charles is the new king. (And Camilla, as his wife, is the queen and would need a new title granted to her to become the Princess Consort, as she is no Princess in her own right yet).


How can you answer such questions with these answers when there is no way "it" will happen according to the people's wishes? You'd have to start right now if you want to get rid of Charles for William, get parliament to start working on that solution, get the states where HM is queen to accept that as well a.s.o. Popularity is all fine but to form a state you have laws and to change them you need a political will and time to see to the legal basics. Not just the opinion of "the people".

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The desire for keeping a monarchy is no longer in the 80 percents. A score between 60% and 70% for the monarchy is more or less the figure in most monarchies. The desire for a republic is between 15-25% in most monarchies, which shows that there is also a big group whom could not care less about monarchy or republic.


All monarchies in North-West Europe have seen scores between 80-90% for maintaining a monarchy after WW II and all monarchies have seen this drop from the 80 percents to the 60 percents in the past 75 years, slooooooowly, little bit by little bit. No matter how immense popular or unpopular various individueal royals were in whichever monarchy, the general trend over the last 7 decades is clear.

 

[Claire]

Is Camilla’s popularity low due to Diana or are there other reasons as well? Thanks in advance.

There are several reasons - and I am going to be rather blunt here.

1. She was the other woman in the relationship. People were more eager to forgive Diana for committing adultery with anyone in general, than Charles committing adultery with Camilla.
2. This feeds into number 2. People would like her more if she was more attractive and younger. Unfortunately yes. People are fickle and yes stake more on attractiveness then they care to admit.
3. She is made out to be work shy, and in many area that reads as lazy. Okay now there was a time when Camilla did more or about the same as William and Harry and they were given the benefit of the doubt, learning the role and everything.
4. People don't see her as relatable. There has been two and a current PR campaign to show the down to earth nature of the Duchess - and it simply doesn't work. I have been told by a journalist that it is her accent that is the problem and in general her body language. Her clothing choices ect.

Personally I just think the British don't see her as good enough for Charles, especially when viewed against Diana. If Camilla had been his first wife, we might be having the conversation as well.

 

[Prinsara]

People who dislike Camilla need to watch more of Tracey Ullman's version of her. And I actually mean it quite respectfully!— it would fix a lot.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

There are several reasons - and I am going to be rather blunt here.

1. She was the other woman in the relationship. People were more eager to forgive Diana for committing adultery with anyone in general, than Charles committing adultery with Camilla.
2. This feeds into number 2. People would like her more if she was more attractive and younger. Unfortunately yes. People are fickle and yes stake more on attractiveness then they care to admit.
3. She is made out to be work shy, and in many area that reads as lazy. Okay now there was a time when Camilla did more or about the same as William and Harry and they were given the benefit of the doubt, learning the role and everything.
4. People don't see her as relatable. There has been two and a current PR campaign to show the down to earth nature of the Duchess - and it simply doesn't work. I have been told by a journalist that it is her accent that is the problem and in general her body language. Her clothing choices ect.

Personally I just think the British don't see her as good enough for Charles, especially when viewed against Diana. If Camilla had been his first wife, we might be having the conversation as well.

Claire, thanks so much for your response! I would have had no idea about a problem with her accent, but I can understand the other issues some may have. Particularly how people blame the “other woman” more than the man. And as you said, looks and youth are so valued. I can see how people might feel she is not good enough for Charles .

Personally, I think that Charles looks so incredibly happy and more grounded since they’ve been married that the other things don’t bother me as much anymore as they used to. The way Diana was treated....just awful and such a mess! Charles has to live with that as well as whatever resentments William and Harry may still have. My marriage (same as many others) was not a good one but the blessing of my two children wouldn’t have happened without it. As Charles is blessed to have his sons. - with all the ups and downs that come with being a parent.

 

[Erin9]

Support for the Monarchy in the UK

There are several reasons - and I am going to be rather blunt here.



1. She was the other woman in the relationship. People were more eager to forgive Diana for committing adultery with anyone in general, than Charles committing adultery with Camilla.

2. This feeds into number 2. People would like her more if she was more attractive and younger. Unfortunately yes. People are fickle and yes stake more on attractiveness then they care to admit.

3. She is made out to be work shy, and in many area that reads as lazy. Okay now there was a time when Camilla did more or about the same as William and Harry and they were given the benefit of the doubt, learning the role and everything.

4. People don't see her as relatable. There has been two and a current PR campaign to show the down to earth nature of the Duchess - and it simply doesn't work. I have been told by a journalist that it is her accent that is the problem and in general her body language. Her clothing choices ect.



Personally I just think the British don't see her as good enough for Charles, especially when viewed against Diana. If Camilla had been his first wife, we might be having the conversation as well.

Thanks. This was interesting to read.

I figured the affair and looks factored in. Charles never seems to have really been forgiven either. It was over a quarter of a century ago, though I imagine The Crown hasn’t helped much; I think Philip got roasted a bit on that show too. (Maybe if Diana had lived long enough to really start a new life of her own, things would be different now in terms of perception.)

I didn’t know she is considered workshy. What she does- she seems to do well. I’m honestly impressed she was willing to take on the job at all given her age and all the hideous press she’s endured.

Hmmm- not being relatable is interesting. I wouldn’t know anything about her accent though. Her clothes seem to suit her IMO. Not sure on the body language. She’s come across as fairly down to earth to me....but I’m not British.

It never occurred to me that the public might think she’s not good enough for Charles. Interesting.

 

[Alison H]

She doesn't sound any posher than Prince Charles or Princess Anne do, or indeed the Queen, but everyone's used to them. In the Queen's younger days, everyone on the BBC had to use RP (Received Pronunciation) ... whereas Camilla didn't come on the scene until things had changed. Younger people, whatever their background, just don't talk like that any more - William and Harry sound far less "posh" than Charles does. There was a big social change regarding accents in the early 1960s, but Camilla obviously grew up before that.

There'd be an outcry if anyone said that someone wasn't relatable because they had a strong Cockney or Glaswegian or Brummie accent, but it's OK to knock someone for being posh. Poor Camilla!

And I think people still have a problem with the fact that Charles preferred an older and not particularly attractive woman to a young, beautiful, glamorous one. Which again is very unfair.

From some of the things we've heard about Prince Charles in the past - goodness knows how many of the stories about him wanting the toilet seat warmed up and the tops cut off his eggs are true, but some of them must be -, he's probably not easy to live with. Camilla's OK with all that, and she makes him happy.

 

[Denville]

I wouldn't have said that Diana's accent was less than "posh" either. Truth is that Diana was pretty and Camila isn't..

 

[duchessrachel]

There are several reasons - and I am going to be rather blunt here.

1. She was the other woman in the relationship. People were more eager to forgive Diana for committing adultery with anyone in general, than Charles committing adultery with Camilla.
2. This feeds into number 2. People would like her more if she was more attractive and younger. Unfortunately yes. People are fickle and yes stake more on attractiveness then they care to admit.
3. She is made out to be work shy, and in many area that reads as lazy. Okay now there was a time when Camilla did more or about the same as William and Harry and they were given the benefit of the doubt, learning the role and everything.
4. People don't see her as relatable. There has been two and a current PR campaign to show the down to earth nature of the Duchess - and it simply doesn't work. I have been told by a journalist that it is her accent that is the problem and in general her body language. Her clothing choices ect.

Personally I just think the British don't see her as good enough for Charles, especially when viewed against Diana. If Camilla had been his first wife, we might be having the conversation as well.

Claire,
I really enjoy your very knowledgeable posts. Could you explain what it is about her accent that helps to make her unpopular? I am an American so I don't really distinguish well between different types of British accents like I do different American accents.

 

[Betsypaige]

Thanks. This was interesting to read.

I figured the affair and looks factored in. Charles never seems to have really been forgiven either. It was over a quarter of a century ago, though I imagine The Crown hasn’t helped much; I think Philip got roasted a bit on that show too. (Maybe if Diana had lived long enough to really start a new life of her own, things would be different now in terms of perception.)

I didn’t know she is considered workshy. What she does- she seems to do well. I’m honestly impressed she was willing to take on the job at all given her age and all the hideous press she’s endured.

Hmmm- not being relatable is interesting. I wouldn’t know anything about her accent though. Her clothes seem to suit her IMO. Not sure on the body language. She’s come across as fairly down to earth to me....but I’m not British.

It never occurred to me that the public might think she’s not good enough for Charles. Interesting.

I don’t buy - sorry, Claire - most of those reasons why the public hates Camilla. It comes down to Diana, always has, always will. Anyone that gives her half a chance seems to really like her, but there are many who refuse to acknowledge that there’s anything good about her.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I wouldn't have said that Diana's accent was less than "posh" either. Truth is that Diana was pretty and Camila isn't..

Camilla Shand was pretty as well, but she was just way older than Diana so any comparison is a disadvantage: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/201...While_the_unwritten_rul-m-2_1478300411904.jpg

--

 

[Erin9]

Camilla Shand was pretty as well, but she was just way older than Diana so any comparison is a disadvantage: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/201...While_the_unwritten_rul-m-2_1478300411904.jpg

--

True. That is a lovely photo of a young Camilla. I suppose it doesn’t help now that, not only was Camilla older than Diana, but Diana is also forever young due to her premature death.

 

[Blog Real]

Camilla Shand was pretty as well, but she was just way older than Diana so any comparison is a disadvantage: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/201...While_the_unwritten_rul-m-2_1478300411904.jpg

--

If we go to see pictures of Camilla when she was younger, we could see that she was a very interesting woman.
But you can't compare with Diana, because they had some age difference.

 

[Prinsara]

Camilla was very pretty and obviously had the personality to make her attractive enough to a few people, not just Charles and Parker Bowles. But decades of being outside with no sunscreen, smoking very heavily, and being in her own deeply unhappy marriage are all more than enough to leave being pretty a memory. She has cleaned up very nicely again basically the whole time she's been remarried.

I think people want to believe that she's a hag, but I think things like Clarence House refusing to stick to the Princess Consort status (which I think is entirely Charles and probably nothing to do with her) don't help her popularity, either. She'd be a little more liked if she were a definite quantity.

That, or Tracey Ullman. ?

 

[camelot23ca]

There are several reasons - and I am going to be rather blunt here.

1. She was the other woman in the relationship. People were more eager to forgive Diana for committing adultery with anyone in general, than Charles committing adultery with Camilla.
2. This feeds into number 2. People would like her more if she was more attractive and younger. Unfortunately yes. People are fickle and yes stake more on attractiveness then they care to admit.
3. She is made out to be work shy, and in many area that reads as lazy. Okay now there was a time when Camilla did more or about the same as William and Harry and they were given the benefit of the doubt, learning the role and everything.
4. People don't see her as relatable. There has been two and a current PR campaign to show the down to earth nature of the Duchess - and it simply doesn't work. I have been told by a journalist that it is her accent that is the problem and in general her body language. Her clothing choices ect.

Personally I just think the British don't see her as good enough for Charles, especially when viewed against Diana. If Camilla had been his first wife, we might be having the conversation as well.

I think number one on your list has been the deal breaker for Camilla. The press really went after her, viciously, and for a long time. She wasn’t able to defend herself at the time so the public got to “know” her via a years long smear campaign. That’s hard to overcome, and the difficulty was compounded by Diana’s death.

Entering royal life at middle age or older would be hard no matter what - it goes against what people see as the norm for royalty. I think things would have been very different if Camilla had been Charles’ first wife, had married him in her 20s, raised a few children with him, etc. As long as she’d made an effort with the British public while she was doing those things, it wouldn’t have mattered if she wasn’t beautiful, or if she aged poorly, because people would already have some degree of affection for her and would be familiar with her good qualities.

But the vast majority of the problem comes back to the fact that she was involved in the implosion of Charles and Diana’s so called fairy tale. Charles has never been able to completely overcome it, either.

 

[Osipi]

Everything you've stated, camelot, is right on the money and is probably the biggest factor affecting Camilla's popularity. It's odd but but it's for all those reasons that I've really grown to admire Camilla. Stepping into a very public life was not something that she aimed for or even really ever wanted to do but because the role came with the man, she took it all on with a smile and a wave and has staunchly stood by Charles' side and that's what really counts.

 

[Betsypaige]

Everything you've stated, camelot, is right on the money and is probably the biggest factor affecting Camilla's popularity. It's odd but but it's for all those reasons that I've really grown to admire Camilla. Stepping into a very public life was not something that she aimed for or even really ever wanted to do but because the role came with the man, she took it all on with a smile and a wave and has staunchly stood by Charles' side and that's what really counts.

She - and Charles - are the epitome of “just getting on with it”. I expect there why HM and Philip ultimately accepted her - HM certainly gets on with Camilla like gangbusters.

Once people are set in their thinking about you, you can’t change their minds. So, Charles and Camilla just do their good works and accept how people feel. That’s not a big deal now, but when the Queen passes, will people at least support them even if they don’t like them? The haters will probably constantly rail against them, but hopefully those who merely just don’t care for them won’t raise a ruckus.

 

[rmay286]

She - and Charles - are the epitome of “just getting on with it”. I expect there why HM and Philip ultimately accepted her - HM certainly gets on with Camilla like gangbusters.

They weren't the epitome of "just getting on with it" for 15-20 years, though. First they had a prolonged affair while Charles and Diana were married (and Diana was young, beautiful and very popular) and then Camilla was still Charles' mistress when Diana tragically died (while still young, beautiful and popular).

I think the comparisons to Diana will be the bane of Camilla's existence even up to the point when Charles becomes king, which, let's face it, can't be far away now. If the Queen lives as long as her mother, it could happen in 6 years, shortly after The Crown wraps up its final seasons. And yes, The Crown dredged up the Diana-Camilla comparisons again, but the contrast between the two women is so stark, it doesn't take much artistic license to make Camilla come off badly. Add a director who does indeed want to spin the story as far in Diana's favour as possible, and you can see why I think Camilla will never win a popularity contest in the UK.

How much people support Charles and Camilla during the reign of King Charles V probably depends on how stable the UK is, socially and economically. If the country is doing well, he may have more support than if there are a lot of other tensions at play.

 

[Kataryn]

I believe we should understand that the British people don't plan a revolution, at least not one against their Royal family. So all this talk about "not liking" a member, "prefering" King William, "strip" Harry and Meghan of their titles will lead to exactly nothing. The Royals will go on as they did or change to a more do-able style (which they will call more "modern") and those, who are young today, will see a "King George" one day. So discuss as much as you like but this is the future of the British monarchy at the moment (especially with the current queen still alive), with both big parties in the parliament happy that this is a reality Brexit did not kill. Though we will see what happens with the Uk itself, when Scotland votes again. But that has nothing whatsoever to do whether the people like or hate Camilla. She is Charles' beloved wife, her place in the family and at court is secure.

 

[Alison H]

There was an opinion poll the other day which showed that a large percentage of people aged 18 to 25 don't plan to have children, because they think overpopulation is destroying the planet. As most news reporters said, with all due respect, will those people be saying the same thing in ten years' time, when they're aged 28 to 35? Younger people, in general, do have more radical views, and those views tend to change as people grow older. That applies to the views on the monarchy as much as it does to anything else.

 

[PetticoatLane]

Something to keep in mind in terms of Camilla becoming Queen is that these polls don't really tell us how strongly the public feel about it. They may say she shouldn't be Queen in an anonymous poll but what does that mean in reality?

Going back to 2005 I'm sure a majority of respondents would've opposed Charles marrying Camilla entirely. Similarly, I'll bet a majority felt she shouldn't be HRH or have a title at all. But, when both things happened, the British public just accepted it and moved on. People worried that she would be verbally or physically abused at engagements with the public or that she wouldn't be invited anywhere. It turns out the concerns were unfounded.

In summary, a majority might prefer that she not be Queen but are they going to take to the streets, burn her effigy and demand the end of the monarchy if/when it happens? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Mbruno]

T
How much people support Charles and Camilla during the reign of King Charles V probably depends on how stable the UK is, socially and economically. If the country is doing well, he may have more support than if there are a lot of other tensions at play.

Wouldn't it be King Charles III? I think Charles will have sufficient popular support provided that he plays his hand well.


For example, YouGov polls show that only 14% of UK adults support Camilla being called Queen while a plurality (about 41 %) accept the title of Princess Consort. Charles already announced his intention in the past to go along with the Princess Consort alternative. Why would he go back on his own announced intention when there is no popular support for that? It would be like shooting himself in the foot at the very beginning of his reign.

 

[AC21091968]

Good Morning America (from ABC) have been pushing the anti-monarchy sentiment on the 10th wedding anniversary of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Good Morning America @GMA
Our #BehindPalaceDoors series takes a look at modernizing the British monarchy. Will the Windsors survive the royal rift?
@JamesAALongman reports.
10:39 PM · Apr 29, 2021·TweetDeck​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1387748271909650440

They kept pushing the narrative that young people are republicans and monarchy will not survive unless radical modernisation. One British commentator mentioned that William and Catherine are old fashion, whilst Harry & Meghan are modern

As Alison H has mentioned earlier (post #712) that some young people will change their opinions on the monarchy over the next decade, just like politics or social issues. In fact, I know some British conservative commentators who were socialists in their youth/early adulthood. Perhaps, some young people (aged 18-24) are staunch republicans, but then become monarchists when they reached in their 30s/40s.

I'm not even surprised at this point the GMB and some commentators in that video are out of touch with the general British public.

Omid Scobie retweeted the Good Morning America's tweet,

Omid Scobie @scobie
Progressive take from @YourGirlTiwa on final day of @GMA’s #BehindPalaceDoors: “Anti-monarchist sentiment is growing in this country, especially amongst the younger generation... The Queen’s successor will have to do a lot of hard work to gain the trust of the British people.”
11:06 PM · Apr 29, 2021·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1387755184764465157

Richard Eden from the Daily Mail questioned Omid Scobie on twitter.

Richard Eden @richardaeden
Really? Is anti-monarchist sentiment growing in Britain? What's your evidence for that? #royal

https://twitter.com/x/status/1387755184764465157

11:28 PM · Apr 29, 2021·Twitter Web App​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1387760794918588419

Personally, I think Omid Scobie (or Sussex mouthpiece) is jumping on the anti-monarchy bandwagon and being controversial for publicity of his new edition Finding Freedom. A more cynical version of me is suggesting that he is willing to through the Royal Family under the bus just to make Harry & Meghan more popular. Yes, I know that celebrities and public figures do this a lot times in order to sell more of their project. Jedward is another example of spouting anti-monarchy drivel in promotion of their upcoming CD.

 

[Denville]

There are not that many monarchists per se, its simply that as people get older, they still may not care for the monarchy, or teh current king, but are too busy with otehr problems to care about changing it, if it is working tolerably well....

 

[Mbruno]

Good Morning America (from ABC) have been pushing the anti-monarchy sentiment on the 10th wedding anniversary of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Good Morning America @GMA
Our #BehindPalaceDoors series takes a look at modernizing the British monarchy. Will the Windsors survive the royal rift?
@JamesAALongman reports.
10:39 PM · Apr 29, 2021·TweetDeck​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1387748271909650440

They kept pushing the narrative that young people are republicans and monarchy will not survive unless radical modernisation. One British commentator mentioned that William and Catherine are old fashion, whilst Harry & Meghan are modern

As Alison H has mentioned earlier (post #712) that some young people will change their opinions on the monarchy over the next decade, just like politics or social issues. In fact, I know some British conservative commentators who were socialists in their youth/early adulthood. Perhaps, some young people (aged 18-24) are staunch republicans, but then become monarchists when they reached in their 30s/40s.

I'm not even surprised at this point the GMB and some commentators in that video are out of touch with the general British public.

Omid Scobie retweeted the Good Morning America's tweet,

Omid Scobie @scobie
Progressive take from @YourGirlTiwa on final day of @GMA’s #BehindPalaceDoors: “Anti-monarchist sentiment is growing in this country, especially amongst the younger generation... The Queen’s successor will have to do a lot of hard work to gain the trust of the British people.”
11:06 PM · Apr 29, 2021·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1387755184764465157

Richard Eden from the Daily Mail questioned Omid Scobie on twitter.

Richard Eden @richardaeden
Really? Is anti-monarchist sentiment growing in Britain? What's your evidence for that? #royal

https://twitter.com/x/status/1387755184764465157

11:28 PM · Apr 29, 2021·Twitter Web App​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1387760794918588419

Personally, I think Omid Scobie (or Sussex mouthpiece) is jumping on the anti-monarchy bandwagon and being controversial for publicity of his new edition Finding Freedom. A more cynical version of me is suggesting that he is willing to through the Royal Family under the bus just to make Harry & Meghan more popular. Yes, I know that celebrities and public figures do this a lot times in order to sell more of their project. Jedward is another example of spouting anti-monarchy drivel

The old-fashioned William and Kate are the most popular members of the BRF after the Queen. The modern Duchess of Sussex on the other hand is viewed negatively by 61 % of British adults.


GMA shouldn't comment on matters they are not knowledgeable about.

 

[AC21091968]

There was a debate held by Cambridge Union on the topic of (Constitutional) Monarchy v.s. Republicanism on Thursday 10th February 2022: "That this House would rather have a queen than a president". The proposition speakers are Darren Grimes (GB news commentator), Andrea Leadsom (Conservative MP of South Northamptonshire, former Lord President of the Council & Leader of the House of Commons) and Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative MP of North-East Somerset, former Lord President of the Council & Leader of the House of Commons). The opposition speakers included Graham Smith (CEO of Republic UK) and two student speakers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1491811898966355968

The post-debate results (poll of the listeners in debate chamber) showed agree to the motion that "That this House would rather have a queen than a president"

• Proposition (Ayes): 216
• Opposition (Noes): 119
• Abstention: 103

In pre-debate polls, instagram favoured opposition 52% (Noes) to 48% (Ayes), while twitter favoured proposition 55% (Ayes) to 45% (Noes)
https://www.instagram.com/p/CZ1JYBEow8_/

There has been previous university debate in the past on the monarchy and republic topic, but what makes this one different is the "30% swing to Ayes" in support of the monarchy. I understand that the Cambridge students are voting on which side making the more convincing argument rather than the personal opinion they hold (which are more likely to lean towards republicanism compare to older age group, according to YouGov latest poll on early-mid 2021). Another factor to consider that the proposition side was being stacked in favour, given that all three speakers are public figures, whilst Graham Smith was the only public figure on the opposition side. Public figures generally speaking have more experience in debating and exposure compared to university student. The recent 70th anniversary of the Queen's accession to the throne probably help the proposition side and support of the monarchy. There is also the relatively high number of Abstention in the post-debate poll.

Unfortunately Cambridge Union has not upload the full video on Youtube and it may take a while, given that the latest debate was held on 20th January but was not uploaded until 6th February. The Express and Daily Star has released some articles on the debate, mostly in favoured of the proposition (pro-monarchy) side.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...on-news-the-queen-prorogation-Jacob-rees-mogg
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...meddling-monarch-politics-reign-Darren-grimes
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...han-Markle-Royal-Family-update-Andrea-Leadsom
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-upstaged-26211135

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

On Dutch television, this week a Dutch-British documentary maker was travelling Scotland and he was in Braemar at the Highland Games. There was also the Princess Royal. 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.

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!"

Another lady a few seats furtherer at the Games shouted:
"She can have 'em all!"
"The Princess?"
"She and that whole worthless lot of Boris and his toffs!"
(Lots of cheer and hilarity from the stands for that lady).

The Dutch anchor did not know what to make of this, he has an English mother and did spend all his holidays with his English nan, aunts et al. He had no idea, as his mother's Britain of 40 years ago was still imprinted in him, so to say. His grandfathee was a pilot in the Battle of Britain. A typical family with the portrait of the Queen in house. He was confused after his visit to Braemar.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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

I understand that the Cambridge students are voting on which side making the more convincing argument rather than the personal opinion they hold [...]

the proposition side was being stacked in favour, given that all three speakers are public figures, whilst Graham Smith was the only public figure on the opposition side. Public figures generally speaking have more experience in debating and exposure compared to university student.

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.