Royal family favourability trackers, October 2025

[EmpressSisi]

The latest YouGov figures on the Royal Family are in:

• Andrew is spectacularly unpopular—91% negative (Honestly, I’d love to chat with the 4% who still like him 🤣)
• William and Catherine remain the crown jewels of public opinion, with favourability ratings of 76% and 73% respectively.
• Charles’ numbers have edged up slightly, from 59% in August to 62%, despite the ongoing Andrew mess.
• Camilla is still a divisive figure with 45% favourable, 41% unfavourable.
• Harry and Meghan continue to struggle, with favourability at just 30% and 21%.
• Overall support for the monarchy has slipped slightly, from 64% to 62% but is still holding up surprisingly well considering recent events
• A quarter of the population would rather have an elected head of state.

yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53286-royal-family-favourability-trackers-october-2025

The latest poll was posted on January 16th??? 🤷🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️🫣

Thanks, those people live in smoke and mirrors. I think we need to be well aware how they try to manipulate impressions through media, polls, bots and many other distractions. It's deep in every sector, from media to yougov poll.

It's also funny how it's not even an official government poll, so why royalists care so much outside being a vanity project to inflate the royals wanted narrative and egos?

The latest poll was posted on January 16th??? 🤷🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️🫣

I don’t care! The principle still stands!

You do realise that the thread title “Royal Family Favourability Trackers” has been popping up throughout the month in “Active threads” while more and more reports have emerged concurrently about the abuse of Epstein’s victims? And more and more evidence of AMW’s lies become evident?

It’s really offensive frankly.

It’s really crass that anyone is defending or celebrating the monarchy atm; the very institution that has covered up AMW’s nefarious activities and paid £12 million to help him avoid facing his accusers in court.

Is no one thinking of the real consequences on the lives of all of these young women who have been groomed and abused?

The royalists aren’t thinking about these young women all they are concerned about is defending the RF. This is the reason why they have gone quiet on the board in the last few days. They are just waiting for things to die down and then will continue with their bashing of H & M.

It’s the like of yourselves who are resurrecting these threads. It has been dormant since January 19th 🤦🏼‍♀️

And despite your protestations only 3% had favourably towards Andrew? So how is that defending/supporting him? The general public clearly do not like or support him 🤦🏼‍♀️

WTH ?

Why post this poll propaganda when there are devastating issues like sex trafficking being discussed

Those polls are self selected , tiny numbers and meaningless due to the type of question
They are basically asking royalists which parasite is their favourite parasite.
I expect to see them weekly while the Windsors try to propagandise their way out of the pit of their own making .

Give us a vote on the sordid Windsors - that’s a poll I’ll pay attention to

I’d be genuinely interested to see your evidence that YouGov’s polling is “rigged” or unrepresentative, particularly given their use of stratified sampling, weighting, and independent methodological audits.

I’d also welcome any alternative polls you can provide that are equally rigorous, independently verified, transparently scrutinised, and genuinely representative across age, location, and political affiliation. I look forward to reviewing both your data and your methodology 😌

You really don’t know how Yougov works, do you? 🤦🏼‍♀️

Also read the thread, the latest poll was from January and before it was resurrected the last post by was January 19th.

I’m not sure why everyone is so angry as Andrew had 3% favourability last poll? Or is it that their favourites have such low favourability and the ones they like have high favourability? 🤔

Camilla's nephew was a NED at yougov from 2010 to 2019. He wouldn't have been involved in the methodological approach to this or other polling even when he was there, let alone influencing from afar over 6 years after his term of office as NED ended!

Exactly!

Also, are these posters actually disputing that Andrew is unpopular and has low favourability? I don’t understand. You can’t cherry pick statistics to suit your argument. If the poll were truly “rigged,” surely they’d omit Andrew altogether or inflate his favourability, not publish data showing he’s deeply unpopular.

And wouldn’t a biased poll also give the current Queen Consort ratings in the 50s or 60s? Or make the King more popular than William and Catherine? If anything, the internal consistency of the results undermines the claim of manipulation.

You don't have to fake Andrew’s 3% rating for a poll to be rigged; his unpopularity is the shield they use to make the rest of the manufactured data look real. It’s the oldest trick in the book: tell the truth about the obvious stuff (Andrew is a disaster) so people don't question the suspicious stuff (Camilla’s 'rising' popularity or the 62% 'stable' support for the institution). It’s not data; it’s PR with a spreadsheet.

And how is the poll rigged - please be specific and include information on methodolgical processes.

It was a poor choice of thread subject when it was first posted imho and seeing as you ask, you have to know that this scandal has gone way beyond just what AMW did or didn’t do now; everyone is focused on the cover up too and who in the RF knew, and who shut down the diplomats and politicians who tried to warn QE2 about what Andrew was doing?

Also, who made the decision to pay £12 million so that AMW should evade justice?

Why @Sourdillpicklesandmore was it a poor choice of thread topic on the RF board to share quarterly trackers on RF sentiment? It was started in October 25.

Why is it considered “a poor choice” to post royal family favourability ratings on a royal board? As previously stated, this thread was started to discuss the results of the October 25 tracker and has been tracking favourability since at least William and Catherine’s wedding. These polls reflect everything that’s happened over the past few years. It’s just as important to show dips in Andrew’s (and the family’s) favourability and whether that has affected the family’s overall popularity, something I’ve expressed surprise about in previous posts.

Would you equally dismiss a February 26 tracker if it showed a decline in favourability of the royal family/King as a result of the latest revelations? Or would that be considered ‘poor taste’ too?

EmpressSisi and myrtleWilson

I’ve already answered this extensively in November but it’s even more pertinent now given recent revelations.

In summary though; it’s all meaningless!

Popularity is a chimera. You may as well ask who can pay the most for a PR company? Or who has the best connections in the media?

The Royals only reveal what they want us to see.

And given that it’s becoming more and more obvious that the monarchy have been involved in coordinating a huge cover up, and have paid considerable sums of money to maintain “the mystique”
of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee Year, and avoid the humiliation of AMW undergoing a trial, it’s fairly obvious that they value their PR popularity profile more than the wellbeing of abused young women.

How anyone can talk about their popularity in this context is genuinely bewildering to me because it’s such an incredibly short-sighted and superficial view of things and frankly repulsive behaviour on their part.

Then why are you so bothered that the polls are saying they are (or at least some of them) are deemed favourably and others are not?

Also, would you be saying this same thing if a Yougov poll comes out in a few days/weeks time showing that Charles and the royal family have dropped favourability due to recent events?

I don’t understand why this thread is upset certain posters:

Is it:

1. Me for creating a thread based on a legitimate, long-running statistical poll tracker that’s been measuring royal favourability for over a decade and is widely referenced in the media?
2. Or the fact that someone revived a thread first started in October, updated in January with the latest tracker, and then left dormant for 3–4 weeks before resurfacing — seemingly only to claim the poll is “rigged” and to bash Camilla?
3. Or that the public genuinely do dislike Andrew, Meghan, and Harry, are very favourable towards William and Catherine, and are fairly favourable to Charles and the royal family overall — results that conflict with certain posters’ personal beliefs and biases?
4. Or that a lot has been revealed recently, but the polls haven’t yet reflected that — because the last tracker was in January, and the next one isn’t due for at least several days, possibly months

With respect, you seem much more upset by the disagreement than anyone else is by the thread. Pointing out the documented conflicts of interest in a polling company isn't bashing, but instead it's critical thinking. So, please, I need to point that there's indeed a misunderstanding. No one else seems upset, we are simply discussing the context behind the data, which is what this forum is for. I’ve shared some links regarding the poll’s history and conflicts of interest for those interested in the why behind the numbers. I'm happy to wait for the moderators to review them; in the meantime, there's no need for things to get personal. We can agree to disagree on the poll's value.

I’m certainly not upset. I’ve happily debated the points you’ve raised over the past three months. What confuses me is that the very people who revived this thread are now saying it’s not representative of recent events and is in poor taste, despite the fact that it was started in October 25 and had been untouched for over three weeks. It also feels like its revival was used as an excuse to start bashing Camilla (even though others claim the results are being used to bash Harry and Meghan).

This thread was even deleted at one point tonight, and I had to question Mumsnet about it, because for the most part we were being civil and fairly debating the legitimacy of the polls (and so it was reinstated). So I am genuinely confused, and frankly suspicious, of certain posters reviving this thread only to question why it was posted in the first place, without considering the timing of the original post, the legitimacy of the source, or whether they would accept the same poll if it aligned with their own political bias.

I genuinely cannot understand why they would be upset enough to resurrect a thread and then claim it was in poor taste, when it was quietly dying a slow death until they revived it. The fact that the thread was temporarily deleted and has so many hidden posts is, quite frankly, a little suspicious.

I’m a bit confused by the long list of grievance as I only started posting in this thread today, I think you’re taking me for someone else. I’m not resurrecting anything for a hidden agenda. I simply saw a topic on a public forum and joined the discussion. It’s perfectly normal for people to question the validity of a poll, especially given the current news cycle that shows that establishment and many people related to it are not trustfull. Just because you've been debating this for months doesn't mean new posters aren't allowed to offer a their perspective or point out documented biases that corrobate other posters points.

It’s fine that you trust the poll, but you have to accept that others will see the conflicts of interest as a dealbreaker. People aren't upset; we’re just disagreeing. That’s how a forum works