REUTERS: Only a minority of Britons under 50 support the monarchy

[TallerSally]

The chart below, along with the unprecedented level of social media (and even royalty!) mocking around Katespiracy and Katephotogate, could send a chill down the RF's spine.

Whilst 70% of those aged 65+ and 50% of the 50-64 (the demographic on MN?) support the monarchy, this drops to 30% among the 25-49 and ONLY 19% among the 18-24s - YouGov Jan 24 data.

Some will say "that's nowt new!" But with TikTok, X and other SM having unprecedented reach (far more than mainstream media) and cultivating literally thousands of GenZ and Millennial mini-influencers, and with the RF in its current state of turmoil (some of it illness-related, some not, incl. Prince William being largely MIA, the RF's reluctance to deal with Prince Andrew and his grifting ex-wife, Rose Hanbury and extra child (!!) rumours, the casting-out and continued vilification of M&H, the embarrassment that is uncle Gary, etc etc), are comparisons to a decade ago going to be helpful in predicting what this means for the RF in the future? I doubt it.

We all know the billionaire RF continue to sustain their taxpayer and IHT exemption-funded luxury lives thanks to the public's goodwill, hence they employ loads of professional PR people to do their comms. But if there's anything recent events have shown, KP in particular suck at it, with the KP comms team the subject of derision and ridicule around the globe.

It's easy to say "they've weathered worse", but the past isn't a guarantor of the future. I'm sure Boris Johnson also thought he could lie to the public forever... until one day, the tide turned. Not saying this is an identical situation, but the recent lies emanating from KP (I'm sorry, issuing a fake 'proof of life' photo is equivalent to telling a lie) are part of a culture of secrecy and public manipulation.

And consider this: last August, the above numbers were:
80% of those aged 65+ and 67% of the 50-64s support the monarchy, versus 56% among the 25-49s and 37% among the 18-24s. So a drop of 26pp (percentage points) for the 25-49s, and 18pp for the 18-24s.

And who's to say what the numbers will be post-Katephotogate?

https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/uk-monarchy-suffers-an-impairment-its-goodwill-2024-03-13/

Appreciated, thank you.

Please see my last paragraph in the post above yours

I think it's odd that republicans support Meghan and Harry so much! Them being ultra royal with their coat of arms plus emphasis on titles and whatnot.

I'd choose the monarchy over the current political parties any day

I'm 49 and very ambivalent about the RF

I respected the Queen but Charles and William leave me cold

I appreciate that they have some benefits for the country and that SOME of the RF work hard but realistically if they didn't already exist nobody would think it was a good idea to create them

Mugglewump no one is piling on you. Truly. For the third time, please direct your complaints to Mumsnet Towers.

My DCs in their thirties will not be changing their view, I would put money on it. They have no interest in them, we never talk about them. But I will correct that and say for the first time ever they are saying what the hell is going on

To try and draw a line under this, this is what I originally posted. I don't know why this then had to be pulled apart saying all sorts of things about how I post and what I post.

It is very clear in my post we never talk about it but then just this last week they asked me what do you think is going on

The key words are but to correct that which was left out when I was challenged

And suggesting forums are not for me resulted in me saying I'm quite comfortable I've been here 20 years
I have apologised for saying that.

Can we now leave it please

@Mugglewumppp It wasn't 'full of contradictions though', it was absolutely obvious what Roussette meant. You made an issue out of it over multiple posts and then suggested Roussette should consider not posting anymore. It's not a 'pile on' if other people happen to pick up on your unpleasant posting behaviour.

Anyway, let's leave it.

So in other words, you must have the last word or it's a pile on? 🤣

OK, you can have it. I won't reply again. Hope this helps.

Those aren't alternatives, but I'm curious as to why?...

The RF have been linked to:

... suitcases full of cash from Middle Eastern donors
... racist comments
... support of prolific paedos and protection for paedo-befrienders
... exemptions from anti-discrimination laws
... phoney trade envoy roles wasting public money
... profiteering from the slave trade
...

is it that clear-cut?

Absolutely!

They are meant to be a unifying force in times of national crisis but in reality I think the gap between rich and poor has grown so large now that they currently lack credibility when speaking for “the common man”.

Their arguments about environmental issues, despite individual members of the RF championing excellent projects in that area, seem increasingly hypocritical when they own so many properties and fly about by helicopter.

We once perhaps were encouraged to look up to them somehow as an “ideal” family but now we know all too much about their flaws and how they are no better or worse than the rest of us.

The presence of a monarchy also prevents us from having an independent head of state. It was all too evident during Boris Johnson’s premiership that the monarch does everything the government says.

And the monarchy also prevents us from having an open and accountable head of state when so many of their tax arrangements and wills are clouded in fog.

I would also question why it is seen as morally appropriate for our head of state to be personally so rich and privileged. I can see the argument that if you are representing the country to foreign dignitaries, and you are deploying soft power, then you need to have the best of everything at your disposal. But why the need for such enormous personal wealth?

I would also argue that there seems to be a distinct contradiction in terms about the monarch being head of the Church of England and being so enormously privileged and wealthy. To be clear, I’m not doubting that some members of the RF may have a strong and genuine Christian faith, but that it seems anachronistic for a wealthy and privileged monarch at the heart of the establishment to be head of a church that represents the values of Jesus, who supported the outcast, the poverty stricken, the sinner etc.

I just cannot do this any more.

I have honestly tried my best, by linking my original post and trying to smooth it all out.

I shall return, but not today.

💐😊

Your post was quite clear @Roussette

"Absolutely agree. Republicanism is about so much more than just abolishing Monarchy. It’s about extending power and true democracy to more than just the privileged few and rebuilding our flawed system of government."

Your posts have been an interesting read today @Artapplicapplications787 ,thank you!

@Roussette I'll have to give Baker a re-read

Happy to question others but won’t answer any questions yourself. What exactly are you doing to abolish the monarchy other than talking about it on here? We have had elected politicians worldwide who have engaged in all of the above. Some ousted, some not, all replaced by people just as bad.

Well at least we can blame ourselves if the head of state we elect turns out to be corrupt and we could then vote to have them removed. None of this applies to a monarch sadly.

Yes, I made that point myself, thanks. What did you think I meant by "elected politician". On a realistic level, please point to the country that has a fully elected system and has had no problems with corrupt, venal and deviant politicians who have either been re-elected or simply walked away with no punishment. I suggest the problems listed are problems of human beings, not the particular system of governance.