Support for the Monarchy in the UK

[royalistbert]

Any recent polls?

[NGalitzine]

Haven't seen one recently but I am sure one of the papers will commission one. Usually they come in at 70 to 75% support, probably depending on how the question is worded. I have never seen one to give the republicans much encouragement even during the worst of the War of the Wales and the death of Diana.

[royalistbert]

I hope it's above average now. The Royal Family seemed to really settled down every since Kate has married William.

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by royalistbert

I hope it's above average now. The Royal Family seemed to really settled down every since Kate has married William.

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

Personally, I think the family has seemed more or less settled ever since those two divorces.

[PrincessKaimi]

Victoria, what does "settled" mean in this context? Do you mean "functioning in a predictable manner without scandal?"

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi

Victoria, what does "settled" mean in this context? Do you mean "functioning in a predictable manner without scandal?"

I was responding to the previous poster who said in their opinion the Royal Family had settled down since the recent royal marriage.

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

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

There is always going to be something that will stir the press into bouts of moral indignation. Whether it is warranted will depend on individual point of view. On the whole though, I think the royal family (and I don't include the Duchess of York because she is no longer a part of the royal family) have managed to function relatively scandal free for quite some time now.

[James VI]

There will always be a minority of people in the UK who criticise the Royal family and publicly profess their antipathy to the Monarchy ( ad nauseam ) But the fact remains that the institution of Monarchy is so entrenched in our nation`s psyche, that no amount of carping can ever seriously threaten it`s continual existence. If this sounds rather complacent, i would simply repeat that age old question which every anti-monarchist can never quite answer : If it aint broke why fix it?

[NGalitzine]

I agree. There are always people who downplay the affection people feel for the Royal Family and support for the monarchy. When the Queen Mother died there were reports in the press that no one cared and no one would turn out for the funeral. The lines for he lying in state extended very far and Westminster Hall had to be kept open longer than plan. Large crowds lined the streets for her funeral. They said the same thing for the Golden Jubilee yet the Mall was jam packed for the balcony appearance. there isnt a politician alive who doesn't wish they could pull the same large crowds and achieve the same poll numbers. The Republican movement has very little support and really has to rely on big royal events to get any publicity at all.

[EIIR]

Here's a rather interesting article which I bookmarked from the New Statesman on the monarchy, and its current popularity. For those not familiar with the New Statesman - it is one of the most left wing, republican publications in Britain having deep links to the socialist Fabian Society. The article is by Sunder Katwala - number 33 on the Daily Telegraph's Top 100 list of 'most influential left wingers' in Britain. Needless to say not the sort of author, or publication, minded to be positive about the monarchy.

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

New Statesman - The monarchy is more secure than ever

An interesting figure in the article. The British monarchy was at its strongest just after Diana died and the Queen made her TV address. Support for a republic fell to 9% briefly. I just find it ironic that the episode widely regarded as the most dangerous for the BRF was actually its strongest.

[NGalitzine]

I think that article summed things up pretty well. Not much encouragement for republicans in the UK.

[royalistbert]

And may it remain that way.

[PrincessKaimi]

We were just discussing, here at home, the remarkable job HM Queen Elizabeth II has done in creating this situation. It could have been so different. She is a remarkable lady and I'm glad that most of her subjects can see that.

[James VI]

Originally Posted by EIIR

...An interesting figure in the article. The British monarchy was at its strongest just after Diana died and the Queen made her TV address. Support for a republic fell to 9% briefly. I just find it ironic that the episode widely regarded as the most dangerous for the BRF was actually its strongest.

Thank you for that interesting link, EIIR. Usually, i would`nt touch the New Statesman with the proverbial barge pole, but this made very interesting reading. I think anyone who recalls the mass hysteria we witnessed, in the aftermath of Princess Diana`s death, will not be too surprised to learn that the Queen`s sensible handling of such a tragic event, was far more in line with the natural instincts of her people, than the manufactured " revolution " that was propogated in much of the media.

[doric44]

i think it will change when or if Charles becomes king when Elizabeth passes. i know Australia and Canada and a number of Commonwealth countries will eventually become republics. and as the Commonwealth shrinks attitudes may change in the UK "if they get rid of them why do we keep them"

[NGalitzine]

Australia will most likely move to elect its own native head of state as there is already a siginificant republican movement in that country and they have already had one referendum on the subject (the republic lost). In Canada there does not seem to be a significant republican movement, outside of Quebec anyway, and the process to change is quite complicated as amongst other things it requires the approval of all 10 provinces and that is a rare happening. in the long term though, yes it would seem natural for Canada to one day want its own elected head of state.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by doric44

i think it will change when or if Charles becomes king when Elizabeth passes. i know Australia and Canada and a number of Commonwealth countries will eventually become republics. and as the Commonwealth shrinks attitudes may change in the UK "if they get rid of them why do we keep them"

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

There is no link between nations becoming a republic and leaving the Commonwealth. In fact of the 54 nations of the Commonwealth 16 have The Queen of the UK as their Queen as well while Malaysia has its own monarchy and the other 37 are republics.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by doric44

i think it will change when or if Charles becomes king when Elizabeth passes. i know Australia and Canada and a number of Commonwealth countries will eventually become republics. and as the Commonwealth shrinks attitudes may change in the UK "if they get rid of them why do we keep them"

The Commonwealth of Nations isn't shrinking; on the contrary, as Iluvbertie pointed out, it's actually expanding. The Commonwealth currently consists of fifty-four nations. While the Queen is the Head of Commonwealth, it's a non-hereditary and symbolic position only.
The Commonwealth Realms, on the other hand, may or may not choose to become republic in times to come. There are currently sixteen Commonwealth Realms, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other states. Queen Elizabeth is the Head of State (Monarch) of all those countries.

[COUNTESS]

But, when she is gone, things will, probably, change. When Charles, is king, many will defect. Not the same respect.

[Sonjapearl]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

But, when she is gone, things will, probably, change. When Charles, is king, many will defect. Not the same respect.

Do you expect the monarchy would be popular for William & Catherine's sake? As in, the hope that they would be saviors as they are expected to be?

[nascarlucy]

When Charles becomes King, things will change. What those changes will be remain to be seen. There will still be a monarchy but most likely a very different one. Prince William and Catherine will mostly likely be more popular than Prince Charles and Camilla when he's crowned King.