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

I think you’re taking my posts a little too personally. I’m not addressing you specifically. I’m talking about the many posts made today! That’s why the “grievances” post wasn’t quoting anyone or directed at anyone in particular 🤷🏼‍♀️

That's a relief. It was quite a specific list of complaints for someone who wasn't addressing anyone! If the back-and-forth is getting a bit much, there's no harm in ignoring the notifications, that what I do when I get overwhelmed, but It seems many still have plenty to say about the credibility of these trackers...

I wasn’t addressing just one person, but everyone posting today, which is why I listed multi points about why people might be upset over my little thread being rebumped and reminding people of context.

You’re the only one still engaging, so I guess that’s why you took it as being personal towards you. Thanks for your advice — I’d suggest the same for you. I’m happy to debate the polls’ legitimacy, and I’m still waiting for your posts to show up 😊

I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding. I haven't taken anything personally I wasn't the one using the word 'upset' and having grievances; I'm simply a new poster to this thread who is interested in the data.

I'm more than happy to wait for the links to show upthe conflicts of interest at YouGov are well-documented, so I think they’ll add some useful balance to the discussion. There’s no need to make it about personal beliefs when we can just look at the methodology. Looking forward to the mods approving. Good night! 🙂

I think the misunderstanding is yours. I wasn’t directing the grievances at you, it was a generalisation, which is why I didn’t reply to any one post or mention anyone personally. That’s also why I listed several points instead of focusing on just one. It seems you’ve taken it personally for some reason and keep engaging with me despite my explaining my point more than once. I really cannot think as to why 🤷🏼‍♀️

I’m also still curious as why has no one answered my question? If a YouGov poll done today or next week showed the royal family with low favourability due to recent events, would anyone still be doubting YouGov’s legitimacy or accuracy, or calling it a ‘poor choice’ to publish those stats? 🤔

❤️

I need to agree, not a trustuful poll, it's pure propaganda. Its also biased towards the conservatives, so of course they ask their own niche only to get the results they want trying to pretend it reflects eveeyone...

https://www.markpack.org.uk/168573/yougov-is-it-biased-to-the-conservatives/#:~:text=Here%27s%20the%20answer%20from%20the,of%20being%20slightly%20more%20accurate.

theweekinpolls.substack.com/p/some-polling-you-should-ignore-telegraphyougov

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/25/yougov-called-on-to-confirm-who-commissioned-poll-on-rishi-sunak-defeat.

Why would anyone take these polls at face value when the people running the company are literally sitting at the Christmas table with the people they are polling? And lets be honest, we know Camilla and many others arent that popular (nothing against her, but thats the truth).

At best scenario, this poll reflects the opinions of the very conservatives, a very specfic niche of the population in a poll to pat each other backs.

@Chosendolphin

Did you actually read the articles you posted?
They don’t say YouGov is biased towards the Conservatives at all 🤣

The Substack piece is about how a specific YouGov poll was reported by the Telegraph, not about YouGov’s political leanings. It criticises a poorly framed hypothetical question being spun as evidence of Tory strength. YouGov itself said the poll wasn’t intended to measure voting intention and called it out. It’s a commentary on newspapers misusing polling stats to push their own biased narrative, not the polls themselves.

Mark Pack’s article looks directly at whether YouGov is biased towards the Conservatives as per social media mutterings and finds no meaningful evidence that it is. In fact, when you average YouGov’s performance across elections, it actually comes out very slightly Labour leaning overall, not Conservative.

So neither article supports the claim that YouGov favours the Conservatives. One is about media spin; the other concludes YouGov’s results are broadly in line with the industry (and if anything, marginally Labour leaning). Both are actually fairly complimentary towards YouGov - for challenging misuse of its data and for being largely unbiased.

I also checked the demographic breakdown of the latest poll, and the unweighted sample actually had more Labour voters than Conservative ones. Weighting then adjusts that to reflect the real electorate (which is standard polling practice, not evidence of bias on either side).

Unfortunately I can’t open the Guardian link, so I can’t comment on that.

Ops wrong message honestly. Lol

We aren't paying for her to be a stay-at-home mum; we are paying for a public servant.

How do we “pay” her, exactly? Because Catherine gets 24/7 security, paid fro by the taxpayer, whether she’s working or not. The sovereign grant funds her official activities, so the fewer she does, then fewer expenses she can claim. The Duchy of Cornwall pays for her living expenses.

Meghan and Harry were happy to give up the portion of the sovereign grant , they said it was less than 5% of their annual expenses.

Other polling companies are available. Ipsos Mori for example, who shows very similar results (as you’d expect, given this is a science)

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/topic/royal-family-monarchy

Sorry, total cross-posting error! That was meant for a different discussion and obviously lacks the context for this thread. I'm hoping MNHQ can scrub it for me shortly to not detail this topic. And still waiting for my other post with the relevant links to clear the filters!

@Serenster

You are being rather forgetful.
We bloody do pay her !
Ignoring the millions in renovations and security for their multiple homes ( each one protected round the clock whether occupied or not ), she and William pocket 23 million a year from the duchy . No tax due .

Oh yes William assures us that he pays tax but unfortunately we I’ll have to take his word on that . He has closed the books .

That money due only to their roles as heir and his wife . No monarchy , no duchy money
So she is paid and so is he .
£23 million a year .
For doing next to nothing .

They are personally rich, yes. So are many. That’s not the same as us paying them.

At least you conceded that William assures us that he pays tax, I suppose.

Wrong

They are not ‘personally rich’
All they have - the entire sordid lot of them - they have taken from the taxpayer and hoarded.

What is your point re William ? I am repeating his assurance to us that he pays tax- I’m conceding nothing .

I personally am in no way reassured by William’s high handed dismissal of his tax bill. And neither is anyone else with an ounce of intelligence.
If he was paying the same as his father did ( which still wasn’t anywhere near what he’d pay if he didn’t have the Windsor tax exceptions ) he would announce that .

We can confidently assume he’s paying much much less and hiding the fact .

We disagree, but not for the first or last time I am sure!

Im not disagreeing with you @Serenster . These are not matters of opinion. These are facts which bear repeating.

I’m providing details and expanding on aspects which you seem to have unfortunately overlooked

Well, the monarch was hugely wealthy and had large, profitable estates before there was any concept of the 'taxpayer'. So do.many other incredibly wealthy families such as tbe Grosvenors.

Income tax is about 225 years old. Of course people paid various, and changeable, taxes before that, but there wasn't the concept of a 'taxpayer'.

Nor was there a separation between paying for the monarchs personal expenses, and paying for the state to be run effectively (to whatever degree of effectiveness the monarch achieved. Henry VII is generally seen as the start of the administrative state rather than the feudal system).

So i don't think it's accurate to say they aren't personally wealthy unless you say the same about other major landowners and wealthy families whose wealth goes back centuries. Which is a valid opinion! But then it's unreasonable to focus on one family and ignore the others.

We can confidently assume he’s paying much much less and hiding the fact .

Anyone hoping for more transparency, accountability, even work from W is on a hiding to nothing.

As an aside C3 has taken a leaf out of W's book and is now not publishing his own tax figures...

on AIBU there is a poll about the RF, over 60 responses and >75% think the poster is not unreasonable for wanting the RF abolished. This matches the responses I get when I talk people in real life - the majority think it should end.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5485412-epstein-and-the-monarchy-question

No - I disagree with you (see, I said it wouldn’t be the last time 🤣) For example:

“We can confidently assume he’s paying much much less and hiding the fact” - this is your opinion, not a fact. I mean, you even use the word “assume”.

“They are not ‘personally rich“ - I think that is self-evidentially incorrect. Irrespective of any argument about the source, William receives an income of several million every year.

“All they have - the entire sordid lot of them - they have taken from the taxpayer and hoarded” - Baital’s post above sets out a few reasons why others may disagree with your opinion here. I’d also point out that the estates that underlie the Duchy of Lancaster came into the possession of the Crown in the 1300s as an inheritance. Long, long before there was any concept of taxpayers.

Your username seems very ironic given your determined stance that you are the sole source of truth here! Other opinions are most definitely available.