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

And that's more credible than professional polling companies?

Yougov has a decent reputation for professionalism. All polling systems have algorithms that skew them one way or another, but yougov is fairly mainstream. I doubt Tom Whatisname is fixing the results, what would be the point? If people lost trust in the results the company would collapse. And given Camilla's name was mud 20-30 years ago I doubt she's particularly worried about low approval ratings.

Well, the monarch was hugely wealthy and had large, profitable estates before there was any concept of the 'taxpayer'.

Yet a monarch was so pissed off in 1760 with being obligated to fund ruinously expensive government functions he arranged to surrender the income from his estates in return for a fixed income.

It’s interesting that you mention irony. The real irony is defending the private nature of an estate that makes its millions by charging the NHS rent.
It is a fact that William has ended the 30-year tradition of disclosing his tax bill. It is a fact that he is exempt from Corporation and Capital Gains tax. And it is a fact that the public mood is done with "trust us, we’re royals." If the books were as clean as you claim, he’d be shouting the figures from the rooftops of his new Forest Lodge home, not hiding them in a bullet pointed summary. You can be okay with it, but most people see zero benefit in it.

So overall its not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with fact as is a documented that William has ended the transparency his father maintained for 30 years by refusing to disclose his tax bill. But sure, if you’re happy with that level of evasion and dishonesty, that’s your right. Most of us just think that if the Future King has nothing to hide, he wouldn't be working so hard to hide it. And If they were so personally rich they don't need our tax right?

This matches the responses I get when I talk people in real life - the majority think it should end.

I think you might be fortunate there.

The majority I speak to IRL seem to be either weakly in favour or DGAF. Neither group interested in delving hence my having to bang on here 😂

The thread you linked to on AIBU (so a high traffic board) is 3 days old and has only attracted 18 posts! (well 19 now because @Musicalchef has added one😁)

That is actually quite telling in itself.

It’s interesting how our social circles shape our perception of popularity. In my world: largely high-middle-class, internationally mobile, and professionally driven, the support for the monarchy is practically non-existent; it’s mostly just indifference or quiet disapproval. The reality of is that the wall of support'is increasingly confined to a specific demographic of conservative boomers. When you look at the stats for everyone under 45, that prestige has completely evaporated. We're living in two different Britains, and one of them has already moved on.

Yes, it has changed over the centuries. But I think the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall have always been to fund the monarch and heir's private costs i.e. a 'personal' fortune?

And the Crown Estate handed over to the government for their official costs? That’s what you refer to as the agreement in 1760, you left out that it didn't apply to the Duchies.

That's interesting. I think possibly a reflection of the way we self-select our social circles?

And the Crown Estate handed over to the government for their official costs? That’s what you refer to as the agreement in 1760, you left out that it didn't apply to the Duchies.

The Duchies then were considered relatively worthless and hence not significant. They are a historical anomaly.

They've since been more far more aggressively managed in particular by C3 and now W to become significant commercial holdings and maximise their take.

But sure, if you’re happy with that level of evasion and dishonesty, that’s your right.

I’m not happy with evasion and dishonesty, what an odd suggestion.

I however do strongly believe in an individual’s right to privacy. I have been a senior public sector employee, and still believe my tax details are private information. I think that members of the Royal family are likewise entitled to reasonable rights of privacy. The public interest in their lies already justifies a very high level of intrusion. I am constantly bemused at how many posters on this board believe they should have no privacy, in fact.

You’ll doubtless be amused to know my world is also largely high-middle-class, internationally mobile, and professionally driven. And yet my experience differs from yours. Amazing, that!

Aggressively? Or efficiently?

They seem to be significant now, which sort of proves my point. They are 'personal' wealth, and so left out of the 1760 agreement. It may not have been worth much then, it is worth a lot now. Thems the breaks.

And your view on other wealthy families from historic land ownership? E.g. the Grosvenors who happened to own the land that London expanded into?

The public interest in their lies already justifies a very high level of intrusion.

Amen to that 😜

I am, to my shame, not high middle class.

I have been internationally mobile, but most of my friends haven't. My friends are obviously inferior in their opinions. All too many are not 'professionally driven'. I was, but then adopted my daughters and their needs were incompatible with a professional career. So I gave it up, along with any hope my opinion would be valid about anything.

On the other hand I have a lovely group of friends from all backgrounds and walks of life. Getting rid of the monarchy isn't a priority for any of them. Some are mildly pro, most just shrug their shoulders (if it comes up at all) and say there are pluses and minuses in any system.

If they're worth a lot more now why can't we re-examine 'the breaks'?

Maybe alongside the deficient work ethic of those profiting?

Others benefiting from historic land ownership aren't milking the public purse for millions in direct and side benefits.

Nobody is better than anyone else because of their social standing, and I'm sorry if my post came across that way, thinking someone is better for reasons like income, as well as ethnicity etc is despicable. My bubble observation was simply to show that public opinion is fractured. While your friends might be indifferent, for millions of others, the Epstein files and the lack of royal tax transparency are deal-breakers and sane the whole concept of monarchy were people are untouchable. Indifference is a luxury the monarchy relies on, but as the scandals mount, that middle ground is shrinking fast.

My point stands: those who still support the monarchy tend to fall into very specific conservative/older brackets. If it's only to listen to those groups, than it's ignoring the millions of people in who are rightfully demanding accountability and weren't polled by yougov and alikes.

So, yougov's methodology is flawed? Please explain the details, not just they have been 'captured' by the establishment. I suspect all polling companies with a national reach are embedded in capitalism...

What is it about yougov's methodology that makes its results invalid?

Does this apply to all their findings, or only those regarding the RF?