One year into King Charles's reign, how do Britons feel about the monarchy?

[MamoruHisaishi]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/09/04/one-year-of-king-charles-how-do-britons-feel-ab

The last time I checked, Jane Austen and her family were not a public institution, accepting tax funds.
I’m a private citizen, not part of any public institution so the same laws don’t apply to me…or Jane Austen. Neither of us would ever play a role as Head of State.

There have been countless examples on this thread and others, of information in the public’s interest being sealed etc to maintain the heavily crafted image of the family and institution.

Please tell me the pages and posts on which are these countless examples.

If Princess Margaret destroyed some of the letters which were sent to the Queen Mother how are any of us to know that they were/are 'in the public interest'?

"Darling, lovely to see you last week. Thank you so much for the pretty vase'.

A lot of it really isn't in the public interest I'm sure - but it's a shame if they haven't archived the family letters even the mundane and silly stuff. I really LOVE historical letters collections.

If you like this kind of thing I really recommend the Mitford family letters book, and also the one which just really focuses on Jessica.

upinaballoon · Today 13:17

I'm sure that it isn't just members of the RF who sift through their papers and throw things away. Jane Austen's sister destroyed quite a lot and I've definitely been known to cringe at an old diary entry and shred stuff. Lots of people do

Odd that this should come up now. I've been sorting out old "stuff" prior to a possible house move, and have found several journals I wrote in 1998 and 1999.

My daughters, now "sensible" mothers, were rather wild teens - and I didn't hold back in my journal. After I've read through them I will destroy them.
Or one day they might get their revenge when choosing a home for me!

Groupie

They're nothing but benefit scroungers and now you want to give them privacy. I will bookmark your comment for future conversations and for a laugh when I am talking about the so called royal family to my friends.

Well... yes.... and isn't the bottom line the fact, I would not care a fig if anyone picked over the Wills in our family, the taxes we pay, and I'm trying to think of secrets I want buried, but can't quite come up with anything.

And then we have the accouncement that Andrew's 'business files', his journeys as Trade Envoy, how many times he visited Epstein, what he did during that time, is buried until 2065. We paid for all of that as taxpayer! Yet it's hidden from the general public. We, the people paid for him to swan around the world. So the original post about having this picked over really does not ring true. I want to know, so should everyone. The Royal Family have 'special dispensation' to bury them this long. You bet they do!

I imagine if all of that was out in the public, the Monarchy would be on very thin ice.

My initial instinct is that everyone should have the right to a degree of privacy with their letters and things - but then you look at the influence they can have and things like Andrew and Epstein, or indeed Charles and Saville, and I start to wonder about that too…!

More and more I end up coming to the conclusion that the whole tbh f should be abolished for the sake of the Royals themselves. What a weird, and in many ways horrible life to be born into. Yes, immense wealth and privilege but also never being able to fully have a private life. I feel for the Wales children. What a way to grow up.

They want that life though, and are prepared to cling onto it at all costs- including cost to their children. If they don't want their secrets made public because they want the Monarchy to survive, they should behave properly and not take the piss to the extent that thrir behaviour needs to he hidden for 100 years to ' preserve the mystique' of the Monarchy.

How do you know they want that life? I very much doubt W and K want it. They are forced into it. If W abdicated it would be seen as deeply disloyal and would cause a scandal. He would be undermining everything his grandmother and father have done . It’s not as easy as you might think just to walk away. His brother has already caused deep upset and trauma. Do you think he wants to compound that?

Kate chose the life. She will have known from past history what it has been like for anyone who marries in to this family.

The Monarchy can be changed... bit by bit. It would benefit everyone. There are royal models out there showing it can be done. Slimming down, pruning down, making it the bare bones of a constitutional monarchy. But they don't want that do they

Doing a great job

He’s doing ok, he hasn’t been on the throne as long as his mother, I believe in the early days of Elizabeth’s reign that the politicians at the time said she wasn’t up to job but look how she proved them wrong.

Did a poster really say they don’t deserve a personal life because they’re benefit scroungers? 😆 That doesn’t bode well for people in this country who through no fault of their own have to claim it or for anyone who gets money from the taxpayer 🤦‍♀️

I think if you asked the general public to vote for an elected head of state it would be an absolute disaster, yes there’s so many people in this country that could do it and do it well but the public wouldn’t vote for them would they?? , just look at brexit! They would vote for someone like trump because alot of people are absolutely shite at voting!! I’ll happily stick with the Windsor family.

(Should add that is just my opinion and it may / may not be correct but I’m waiting for the backlash of my comments now)

There should never be backlash on here... it's discussion, difference of opinion and putting forward views surely.....

I know that nothing will change for generations so I accept what we have unequivocally. However, that doesn't stop me questioning practices, kicking back against laws and rules that apply to the public but not the monarchy, wanting huge slimming down and change...
That's just a view.

Yeah your completed correct, they never should be backlash on opinions but the Royal boards can be absolutely awful so I tend to stay away but I felt sorry this morning for Charles when someone called him a benefit scrounger and they don’t deserve a private life! I’ll nip back over to our lovely clothing threads and see you there

I suspect a lot will change when William becomes King.

If they don't want their secrets made public because they want the Monarchy to survive, they should behave properly and not take the piss to the extent that thrir behaviour needs to he hidden for 100 years to ' preserve the mystique' of the Monarchy.

Agree and if we're talking manipulating royal image I'd add the way we're now finding out how much they're able to exert influence over broadcast media including the public service broadcaster paid for by the public to preserve the image they want to present.

Latest examples being the hat party paid for by the public and the late queen's send-off also paid for by the public where they demanded and got control on what could be screened and retain a 'perpetuity edit'.

The benefit of having an hereditary monarchy surely is that if they dont want it they can implement a very long transition out of it. The ' upset' when Harry left was mainly caused by the family ( including Harry) and their enablers in the press. Even Harry said that he thought the Monarchy was necessary, but didn't say why. They could really, properly slim down and model themselves on Scandi royalty qiite easily, but that would involve getting rid of a few homes and getting less money. When I look at William and Kate I see two people who most certainly do want it, and preferably for the minimal amount of effort necessary to get it. I think arguably Charles and Camilla woukd have been happier as wealthy farmers, but all of them take as much advantage as they can.

I don't know.

I thought that for the coronation Charles had a chance to show the world what happy and glorious would look like for a 21st century monarchy. Instead it was a throwback to previous centuries. A lot of people loved it and think that the monarchy is about that - wealth, luxury, privilege, bling, a focus on a great past.

I just can't see that the RF have an appetite for change, or that they would know how how go about it, or that they understand how they come across to most people as opposed to their small immediate inner circle.

I will always remember the expressions that passed between w&k when they said the 'for richer & poorer' part of their vows.
We are being played by the lot of them.

What nonsense. Are you a mind reader?

Harry has damaged it irreparably

Andrew has damaged it even more irreperably.

I so agree. I had such high hopes for Charles, I really did. I would've suffered a Royal Family without too much moaning IF he had made some changes. But everything has pointed to the opposite.
All the portraits going out to public buildings (not a sign of a 21st century monarchy), the complete waste of money Coronation that was unnecessary and not done by any other royal house. I said at the time, if he wanted to show a Monarchy moving forward, pay for it himself. It's a once in a lifetime thing. Show William that is how he wants it done for the future. He is worth £2billion after all.
Then to crown it all (get the joke?!) the 45% increase the family are being given.

Charles had absolutely no intention of slimming down. None of them want it. Anne has said so publicly. Andrew and Harry happening means Charles has no intention whatsoever of going any further.

What I’d like to see first - if it was up to me - is a more transparent accounting at the end of each year for the sovereign grant - so we can see how much it costs for the upkeep of the crown properties and estates and the national archives.

So if there are running costs and structural needs, or estate management needs we can see clearly which buildings and which parts of the estates cost the most money etc.

For me those are the parts of our national heritage that I’d like to see protected and maintained and preserved - safe from international commercial development or acquisition. Those are the costs which I’d want to keep even with a republic.

Then I’d like a breakdown of the costs of the soft diplomacy - the international tours and the domestic hosting of foreign leaders. This part is all led by the government, so then we’d see how much different government administrations were spending on that.

After that we’d see how much is left and actually goes to the living costs of the current royal family. And that’s the first place anyone looking to reduce a budget could start requiring individuals to use funds outside the sovereign grant for different expenses.

@wordler
Good post. That would be a start, yes. I've been banging on about transparency for a long time. When I read the royal report that comes out every June, it is very clever in pulling the wool over eyes!

Sadly, I don't think that transparency will come because I think it opens too many doors on to what our Monarchy are actually costing us.