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

[Ista]

It's very odd to me that as detailed as the data is in one sense, that two important members of the royal family were omitted. I wonder what the decision making process around that was?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The data is quite detailed being provided for gender, geographical area, social status, stance on Brexit and political leaning; so while they didn't ask whether they 'agree' with the perceived view of the BRF on divisive causes, that might give you the insight you are looking for.

The details provided are informational, I agree, but unfortunately I lack the necessary knowledge about the public's perceptions of the British Royal Family's views to make an educated guess about, for example, the percentage of SNP voters who perceive the BRF as sharing/not sharing their views on divisive causes.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Prince Harry seen as liability in yougov poll.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-seen-liability-monarchy-22383335

 

[Curryong]

Prince Harry seen as liability in yougov poll.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-seen-liability-monarchy-22383335

The above was presented as being a completely independent YouGov poll as previous results from years ago from that polling company were in the original article, making it seem as if these latest results were from that company. However, this latest one was a poll set up by the Sun tabloid newspaper, using God knows what methodology to get the results they required.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The above was presented as being a completely independent YouGov poll as previous results from years ago from that polling company were in the original article, making it seem as if these latest results were from that company. However, this latest one was a poll set up by the Sun tabloid newspaper, using God knows what methodology to get the results they required.

The full report from YouGov's website may be viewed here. It indeed presents the figures from 2012 side-by-side for comparison, so presumably YouGov considers the methodology in the two polls to be sufficiently similar.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wte7yyb35l/SunOnSunday_Results_200716.pdf

 

[QueenMathilde]

The full report from YouGov's website may be viewed here. It indeed presents the figures from 2012 side-by-side for comparison, so presumably YouGov considers the methodology in the two polls to be sufficiently similar.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wte7yyb35l/SunOnSunday_Results_200716.pdf

It's an interesting poll - not just the Harry and Meghan parts. Though I hadn't realized Meghan rated so low on these polls.

 

[Mbruno]

It's an interesting poll - not just the Harry and Meghan parts. Though I hadn't realized Meghan rated so low on these polls.

The most significant result in the poll is how Prince Harry's rating plummeted compared tp the 2012 survey. And how Meghan is seen as a liability by more than 50 % of the respondents. Only Andrew does worse than the Sussexes (seen as liability by 80 % of the respondents).


Camilla still has relatively low ratings too, but not nearly as bad as the aforementioned and her numbers have improved quite significantly since 2012. The Queen's, Prince William's and Kate's favorability ratings also fell slightly, but they still have very high ratings (low 80s or upper 70s).



Based on that poll, I believe the Sussexes are right to base their business in North America. There may not be much of a market for them in the UK after all.

 

[Alison H]

I really don't know what people's problem with Camilla is. Are people still so obsessed with Diana? Camilla had an extra-marital affair. She's hardly the only person in the world to have done that, and it was 30 years ago. She hasn't put a foot wrong since she married Charles, and she works so hard with her osteoporosis charities and domestic violence charities and other causes.


People are so fed up with Harry and Meghan that I think they've burnt their bridges here.

 

[Somebody]

The full report from YouGov's website may be viewed here. It indeed presents the figures from 2012 side-by-side for comparison, so presumably YouGov considers the methodology in the two polls to be sufficiently similar.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wte7yyb35l/SunOnSunday_Results_200716.pdf

Interesting results; especially if you look at the break-up into different categories. It seems Harry and Meghan truly appeal to a different group, they score relatively well among the groups that typically rate the most senior royal family members (excluding Andrew as everybody agrees that he is a liability) lower; for example:
- Labour scores consistently lowest for 'asset' for all other members compared to Conservatives and Lib Dem; but are relatively more in favour of Harry & Meghan.
- 18-24 year olds score consistently lower than other age group (each subsequent age group considering the members more of an asset than the previous ones); except for Harry and Meghan where the opposite pattern is visible (although the queen, William and Catherine still are considered more of an asset by this age group).
- If regional patterns can be discerned it's typically London that scores the royals slightly lower; again, except for Harry and Meghan who score slightly higher in London than in other regions.

 

[Durham]

What some of the poll does illustrate is the lack of a consensus on certain contemporary issues. There is a lot of division.

Proof positive if needed that members of the royal family must remain as uncontroversial as possible if they are to be a force for unity & stability.

 

[QueenMathilde]

What some of the poll does illustrate is the lack of a consensus on certain contemporary issues. There is a lot of division.

Proof positive if needed that members of the royal family must remain as uncontroversial as possible if they are to be a force for unity & stability.

I live in the US and they didn't used to discriminate - I used to vote in the British half of the polls. "I think this of politician X" knowing full well that it didn't matter I couldn't vote in the UK. That was probably 15 years or so ago I wonder if they still let you do that.

 

[Mbruno]

I live in the US and they didn't used to discriminate - I used to vote in the British half of the polls. "I think this of politician X" knowing full well that it didn't matter I couldn't vote in the UK. That was probably 15 years or so ago I wonder if they still let you do that.

I believe you can now vote in UK elections even if you live overseas (in the US or elsewhere) provided that you were in the electoral register within the previous 15 years.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I believe you can now vote in UK elections even if you live overseas (in the US or elsewhere) provided that you were in the electoral register within the previous 15 years.

You can indeed.
https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

 

[QueenMathilde]

You can indeed.
https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

No, no, I'm American - I meant I used to vote in the YOUGOV polls about things happening in England. So when they said "people think this about Boris Johnson" they were counting me though I couldn't vote.

 

[Durham]

It states:

Sample Size: 1631 Adults in GB
Fieldwork: 15th - 16th July 2020

I don't know how they verify that the participants are in Great Britain. E-mail addresses possibly? Maybe someone knows the answer?

 

[Betsypaige]

I really don't know what people's problem with Camilla is. Are people still so obsessed with Diana? Camilla had an extra-marital affair. She's hardly the only person in the world to have done that, and it was 30 years ago. She hasn't put a foot wrong since she married Charles, and she works so hard with her osteoporosis charities and domestic violence charities and other causes.


People are so fed up with Harry and Meghan that I think they've burnt their bridges here.

Yes, they are. The blame her and Charles for everything, that’s why he is ridiculously unpopular also... How is it possible that he is barely more popular than in 2012? Anne’s numbers aren’t good either - it’s like the British public don’t care for any older Royals, period, except for HM and Philip. Is it ageism?

Harry’s numbers...whoa. I’m shocked they’re that low, but deservedly so

 

[yukari]

It states:

Sample Size: 1631 Adults in GB
Fieldwork: 15th - 16th July 2020

I don't know how they verify that the participants are in Great Britain. E-mail addresses possibly? Maybe someone knows the answer?

It's more likely to use IP address to detect geographic area than email. Same principle to how you can access particular sites from one country but it's blocked when you try to access it from another country.
If I'm not mistaken, DoC's 5 big questions also can be accessed from everywhere but only the one from UK has been used. So basically gather all data, then sort it by IP then discard the one which not have "UK IP".

(of course there's a way to "fake" IP address, but will someone take that much effort just to fill a survey?)

 

[Madame Verseau]

Judging by this poll the Sussexes appeal to a younger demographic, perhaps because they champion issues they care about. I didn't see an ethnic breakdown in the sample group. In US polls you see breakdown ethnicities.

Unity and stability can also read as stuck in the past, not willing to adapt with the times in order to survive.

 

[JR76]

I didn't see an ethnic breakdown in the sample group. In US polls you see breakdown ethnicities.

I don't know about the UK but the mere notion of having an ethnic breakdown in a poll would be seen as wildly offensive and might even be illegal in Sweden where I live. Maybe it's the same in the UK? Either that or ethnicity might not be seen as a big enough factor (?) for it to be included in the polls.

 

[Lee-Z]

same in the netherlands and judging by the poll, no question of ethnicity (or nationality) was asked of respondents...imo it would be a good idea not to start asking it

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Anne’s numbers aren’t good either - it’s like the British public don’t care for any older Royals, period, except for HM and Philip. Is it ageism?

I agree that ageism is very much alive, but overall the Princess Royal is seen as a liability by a mere 9% and as an asset by 56%, which is good in my eyes. What I am curious about is why the Duke of Edinburgh's asset/liability numbers have fallen from 58%/20% to 42%/29% since 2012.

I don't know about the UK but the mere notion of having an ethnic breakdown in a poll would be seen as wildly offensive and might even be illegal in Sweden where I live.

same in the netherlands and judging by the poll, no question of ethnicity (or nationality) was asked of respondents...imo it would be a good idea not to start asking it

Out of curiosity, why is it seen as offensive in Sweden and the Netherlands?

Unity and stability can also read as stuck in the past, not willing to adapt with the times in order to survive.

Stability perhaps, but I can't see how unity among the present-day population of the country could be read as "stuck in the past".

 

[Denville]

I agree that ageism is very much alive, but overall the Princess Royal is seen as a liability by a mere 9% and as an asset by 56%, which is good in my eyes. What I am curious about is why the Duke of Edinburgh's asset/liability numbers have fallen from 58%/20% to 42%/29% since 2012.



Out of curiosity, why is it seen as offensive in Sweden?

Philip is not being seen nowadays as he's retired.. and there was the incident a yaer ago when he crashed his car into someone else's car.

 

[Leopoldine]

With the BRF, ageism doesn't play a part, IMHO. I think Anne is liked and appreciated. Ditto Princess Alexandra and Eddie Kent. Tabloid editors looking at a bottom line will welcome photos of any BRF foibles or pictures of underpants or things of that nature. That means any of them.

 

[JR76]

Out of curiosity, why is it seen as offensive in Sweden and the Netherlands?

To be made to state your ethnicity would be seen as a violation of your individual rights to privacy and would be seen as discriminatory and offensive. It's against the constitution to be made to declare your political views, religion, cultural identity (as in class identity and ethnicity etc) and similar matters. Sweden has had a history of registration of national minorities such as the Sami and the Roma who up until not that long ago were the subjects of special legislation (the Sami still are but now to their advantage). There was also a massive scandal a few years ago when it was revealed that the police departments of the region where I live had a secret archive of those of perceived Roma descent to "make it easier to identify criminals".
This is why there are for instance no clear figures on how many Jews there are in Sweden. To make an estimation people use the membership in the different Jewish congregations, Jewish associations, place of birth etc. The same goes for other ethnicities such as the previously mentioned Roma, Syriacs etc.

 

[Somebody]

Philip is not being seen nowadays as he's retired.. and there was the incident a yaer ago when he crashed his car into someone else's car.

I agree. It is much harder to be seen as an asset when you have 'disappeared' into retirement (-16%); while he showed he can be in the news with something less favorable (+9% in liability); but also the indifference increased with him being out of sight: +4% for neither asset nor liability; +3% for don't know.

Realistically (and morbidly), it is most likely that his last 'contribution' to the popularity of the monarchy will be upon his death (especially if he passes before the queen); as people will feel for his widow most likely resulting in an increase in positive feelings for their monarch (at least momentarily).

 

[Denville]

No, no, I'm American - I meant I used to vote in the YOUGOV polls about things happening in England. So when they said "people think this about Boris Johnson" they were counting me though I couldn't vote.

Sorry are you saying that Americans can vote in the Yougov polls about the BRF etc? So it is not really an estimation of how the British public regard their RF and so on?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sorry are you saying that Americans can vote in the Yougov polls about the BRF etc? So it is not really an estimation of how the British public regard their RF and so on?

See Durham's post quoting the report; it states that the participants were adults in Great Britain.

It states:

Sample Size: 1631 Adults in GB
Fieldwork: 15th - 16th July 2020

I don't know how they verify that the participants are in Great Britain. E-mail addresses possibly? Maybe someone knows the answer?

To be made to state your ethnicity would be seen as a violation of your individual rights to privacy and would be seen as discriminatory and offensive. It's against the constitution to be made to declare your political views, religion, cultural identity (as in class identity and ethnicity etc) and similar matters. Sweden has had a history of registration of national minorities such as the Sami and the Roma who up until not that long ago were the subjects of special legislation (the Sami still are but now to their advantage). There was also a massive scandal a few years ago when it was revealed that the police departments of the region where I live had a secret archive of those of perceived Roma descent to "make it easier to identify criminals".
This is why there are for instance no clear figures on how many Jews there are in Sweden. To make an estimation people use the membership in the different Jewish congregations, Jewish associations, place of birth etc. The same goes for other ethnicities such as the previously mentioned Roma, Syriacs etc.

Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense, but I don't understand its application to opinion polls, since participation in them is fully voluntary (or or I assume).

 

[Betsypaige]

With the BRF, ageism doesn't play a part, IMHO. I think Anne is liked and appreciated. Ditto Princess Alexandra and Eddie Kent. Tabloid editors looking at a bottom line will welcome photos of any BRF foibles or pictures of underpants or things of that nature. That means any of them.

Then why the poor numbers? Charles’ numbers can be explained by the Diana factor; no matter how much good he’s done, many will never forgive him and, in fact, loathe him.

 

[Denville]

Then why the poor numbers? Charles’ numbers can be explained by the Diana factor; no matter how much good he’s done, many will never forgive him and, in fact, loathe him.

Of course tehre is ageism. Anne was pretty unpopular as a young woman.. as times' passed by her approval rating has gotten better but that's not that usual. Charles is outdone by his sons (until Harry's rating just crashed) because he's not a handsome young chap...

 

[JR76]

Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense, but I don't understand its application to opinion polls, since participation in them is fully voluntary (or or I assume).

It's such a touchy issue that the mere inclusion of a question of ethnicity would cause a storm if it became public knowledge.