Support for Monarchy dwindling

[TheHaplessWit]

Support for Monarchy now down to 45%

Following on from the previous yougov polls, it seems the constant negativity about Andrew, Sarah Ferguson, William dodging tax / evicting people, Charles ignoring his brothers actions etc... has pushed royal support down to 45%.

How long until a future election process includes a party saying they'll have a referrendum on the Monarchy as part of their manifesto? probably not next time (3 years), but maybe the one after that?

The only chance of a referendum being a part of an election campaign is if we have ended first past the post and have a system of PR.

In any case, once William is king I expect the support for the monarchy will increase, assuming the suggestions about the banishment of Andrew and possibly Harry come to pass.

I'm no royalist or fans of them, but I think Charles has some intellectual curiousity. Lacking in William and Kate in my opinion.
What opportunities these two 40 something year olds have, but they don't seem to embrace it. West Ham FC for William, and Wimbledon for Kate. Oh, and amateur photography for her too. But, in general, they seem to have little interest in the arts, music, ballet, any of it. Not that I can see anyway.

Just my opinion.

I think William will want to do it his way when he takes over. What that will mean, god knows, not sure it will be a good thing.

In any case, once William is king I expect the support for the monarchy will increase

I really disagree with this. He comes across less warm than Charles and less engaged. Added to this, people of his own age are really struggling financially and to get houses and I don't think will support him, nor younger people.

I think there'll be a honeymoon period of support for him. But I think that'll be fairly shortlived.

With all his interest in football where was he when the king of Spain was at the Euro 25 final between England and Spain which England won?

I think Charles has some intellectual curiousity. Lacking in William and Kate in my opinion.

What opportunities these two 40 something year olds have, but they don't seem to embrace it.

Couldn't agree more. But then they don't seem to be in any way a family who do.

Yes I think Charles takes after his father in that respect, who was an outsider. I don't think the rest of them do.

Agree. Especially as it will just be him and his family. I doubt Harry will be drumming up interest by that time. Especially if, as he should, Charles removes the kids titles. All the spotlight will be on him and, if anything he has done before is anything to go by, he will do little of consequence. Whether he can do little and get away with raking in billions and still expecting taxpayer funding will depend on what happens now I think.

In any case, once William is king I expect the support for the monarchy will increase, assuming the suggestions about the banishment of Andrew and possibly Harry come to pass.

I think W will be our last king.

He clearly has no enthusiasm for the role and hasn't for decades.

His stated intention is to 'royal with a small 'r' ' which so far seems to involve reducing his patronages and workload while micro-managing his lucrative estate to maximise his take and he's less transparent in his finances than even the limited (and now dried up) information Papa offered.

He follows the money and the now forcibly reduced royal 'workforce' is ever less effective at hiding it.

Quite.
Trust the teller, not the tale.

No party will have a referendum such as that suggested by @TheHaplessWit.

Republic commissioned the poll, they didn't carry it out themselves! 🙄

Polling company Savanta did that. I'm not aware that they deliberately skew results of the polls they conduct.

Recent YouGovn poll is at 62%
( already stated a couple of times on this thread )

Yes, polls differ. You could just as easily say that the YouGov one is suspicious!

Did the polls ask the same questions? Were they weighted differently? What is the age breakdown in the Savanta one compared to YouGov? What were the lead up questions in each poll?

All sorts of reasons why they could show different results that you'd have to deep dive into to find out more.

Dismissing a poll carried out by a reputable polling company because of who commissioned it is ridiculous.

👏👏👏 Fully agree

Why
Completely Randomly selected by computer
Ive been signed up for years
Every now and then they email me a poll to fill out

The Govn use YouGovn polls for stats.

Info on Savanta is worrying

‘ Savanta polls regarding the British Monarchy, particularly those frequently commissioned by the anti-monarchy campaign group
Republic,
have drawn attention for showing lower levels of support for the Royal Family compared to other pollsters.
While Savanta is a member of the British Polling Council and adheres to industry standards, questions of bias are often raised regarding the question wording and the commissioning body.

Here is an analysis of the claims of bias regarding Savanta polls on the monarchy:

1. Commissioned by "Republic"

Issue- Many of the polls indicating the lowest support for the monarchy (e.g., 45%–48% support) are commissioned by Republic, an organisation actively campaigning for an elected head of state.

Critics argue that special interest groups may design questions to elicit specific answers. However, Republic argues these polls show a "calamitous loss of support".

1. Question Wording Matters

Critics and researchers have pointed out that slightly different questions yield significantly different results.
Eg-
A 2023 Savanta poll showed a 52/34 split when asking,
"Should Britain have a monarchy or an elected head of state?"

However, when asked
“Should Britain keep the monarchy or abolish the monarchy?", 60% answered "keep," and only 29% answered "abolish".

The choice between "monarchy vs. elected head of state" can feel more abstract or political than a direct "keep vs. abolish" question, potentially influencing undecided voters.

1. Contextual Data

Methodology - Savanta generally surveys over 2,000 UK adults, weighting them to be representative of the population, which is standard practice.

While some Savanta polls show lower figures, other pollsters (like NatCen/British Social Attitudes) have also reported historically low, though sometimes higher, support (e.g., 55% considering it important).

Generational divide - Savanta data consistently highlights a sharp divide, with majority support for a republic among those under 35 or 45, which heavily influences the overall percentage.

I therefore wouldn’t trust the data coming through.

They’re still appallingly rich - is that because of who they are? I don’t know enough about how they have money we give them as tax payers and independent wealth.

Apparently they bring wealth from tourism. For me though, the whole class system of lords and ladies and titles needs to be abolished. It just makes an unequal society even more unequal.
Anachronistic , we need to move
forward as a nation.

After Brexit I’d be wary of just bringing in another quick change. However I’m not sure we will have a monarchy in 20/30 years. IMO they will just fade away bit by bit.

Personally I think it’s better for it to happen organically rather than the way Brexit happened. That’s not been good for the country.

I think even the Republicans on this thread dont realistically think we will just suddenly abolish the Monarchy. The only person Constitutionally who has a role is the Monarch. Any changes around that will make very little difference to anyone. Having The Monarch and heir the only ones supported in a couple of homes and getting rid of titles and jobs for everyone else will make little difference to anything, but will mean a smaller, far less expensive operation. They either have little control over their current operations or staff or they have all been complicit in a huge cover up, so they need to try and live with fewer and better staff. The whole operation needs to cost us far less, and most importantly, far greater scrutiny by Parliament. If there are concerns about them, there has to be Parliamentary time given to debate issues and if they want exemptions from legislation they have to ask and give readons again openly in Parliament. None of that will mean anything but Parliament doing what its supposed to do and was designed to do when the Constitutional Monarchy was established in the first place.

100% agree.

Did I not say that there are all sorts of reasons why the data might be different? Why not quote that post where I mention many of the aspects in yours.

I think if the results were reversed you'd probably have a long list of reasons why YouGov weren't credible when it's just a different methodology, type of question, and so on.

Certainly not
I just stick to facts and stats and always check out companies before I believe what they are pumping out.

It’s no different from labs telling us a product is safe. Check and see whose paying that lab before you believe them
The same goes for newspapers, is there a bias . Be aware before you believe
Its just the wise thing to do

Does either polling company publicly share what questions they ask?

Yes YouGovn do.

particularly for political, social, and topical surveys published in the public domain.

• Publicly Released Data: For polls published on their website, in the media, or in their "daily agenda" results, YouGov routinely provides the full question text, response options, fieldwork dates, and sample sizes.
• Methodology Disclosure: They typically include information on the survey's demographic weighting (e.g., age, gender, education, past voting behavior) alongside the results.
• Daily Questions: For their weekday "daily agenda" questions, they release the final, weighted results—including the specific questions asked—the following afternoon.
• Transparency Standards: As a member of the British Polling Council (BPC), YouGov adheres to rules requiring the disclosure of methods and questionnaires.
• Exceptions: For private, bespoke, or custom research conducted for specific clients, the release of the questions is at the discretion of that client.

While they generally provide the full text, they may occasionally provide summaries in articles, but the underlying "survey results" documents usually contain the precise wording.

A 2023 Savanta poll showed a 52/34 split when asking,
"Should Britain have a monarchy or an elected head of state?"
However, when asked
“Should Britain keep the monarchy or abolish the monarchy?", 60% answered "keep," and only 29% answered "abolish".
The choice between "monarchy vs. elected head of state" can feel more abstract or political than a direct "keep vs. abolish" question, potentially influencing undecided voters.

It's interesting because on the balance of it, I find the YouGov question more emotive. It feels more final and catastrophic than the Savanta question. The term 'abolish' feels a bit harsh and describes a finality of the constitutional role. The Savanta question only describes the removal of the Royal Family directly, but not the role.

So it would seem to me that a greater number of people would indeed be content to see the Royal Family removed, provided the constitutional role was preserved, albeit with an elected HoS. So the Savanta seems to be more accurately weighing the underlying concept of whether you want a Royal family itself or not.

The YouGov question may not be as accurately weighted. After closer inspection it would appear to be describing the removal of two concepts and not one: 1. The abolishment of the Royal Family as well as 2. The abolishment of the constitutional role.

Looks like it's time for this again ...