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?

I wasn’t aware anything had been confirmed re the civil settlement
apart from
the sale of the Swiss Chalet

Where / by who has it been confirmed ?

Maybe Google it?

https://apple.news/ARe0YxH7dRNO__nEg-FB-ng

As I said on the other thread. who did contribute then? If QE2 didn't pay it all, who did?

Yanbu, the new revelations are far worse than I personally had ever thought. I cannot find a crumb of respect for any of them. The whole thing should be abolished (and I didn’t feel that way before all this).

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what an elected head of state would be in this situation.

There are countries like France and the US where the person known as the president is also the one with real executive power in the country - the person popularly known as the ‘leader’.

Then there are countries like Ireland and Germany with a prime minster-type role who runs the country, plus a figurehead president as head of state who does all the fancy formal stuff a monarch would otherwise do. That person is generally a respected elder statesperson who has a good record in public service and isn’t too divisive.

This is the kind of president the UK would need. A Trump or Macron as president would never happen in this system because the PM is already an executive leader. A more interesting question would be which unifying British figure would be able to fill that role - they don’t necessarily have to have a political background.

If having a Monarchy is that constitutionally important and William doesn't want to do anything but Earthshot ( and of course, the football) then there is no reason why, even as an interim measure the Monarch could not just act as a Ceremonial Head of State eg - Two state funded houses- country and city, only the Head of State and spouse funded, no children, cousins, siblings etc involved- they have no role in the Constitutional element. The President of Germany doesnt need to be prepared for the role from toddlerhood, and still have 8 people to help them do their job.They are still family, so could turn up to events, balcony waving, do some charity work etc but for 99% of the rest of the time they do what they like. But the Duchies need to be rolled into the Crown Estate and they and their whole household need to be scrutinised properly and openly in Parliament. I suspect that would not be popular with them. Especially not giving up the oodles of cash and the subservience.

@RainbowBagels- see this is the sticking point for the “slimmed down royal family” for me, it always seems to mean less extended family being working royals /doing charitable works representing the monarch, it never means returning some of the land and properties to the state/being sold off. It’s always the monarch will have just as much but support fewer people and the country will have fewer people working for them.

@DrPrunesqualer

There was no profit from the sale of the Swiss chalet .

The public have been allowed to believe whatever looked best for WindsorPR . We definitely were given the impression that it all came from the queen .Now we hear differently.
This is about paying off Epstein victims . We have a right to know the truth and in detail .

It seems enduring the Windsors as head of state involves constant coverups . We deserve better .

David Attenborough - well known much loved wildlife conservationist
Judi Dench - type much loved actress or actor
Tim Peake - done something amazing in the stem field that brings the UK into the world media or Maggie Aderin-Pocock because I love her.
Someone from the business or legal world not known to be political (have strong links to one party) I like that the royals are supposed to be non political.

DA is my vote I think.

I don’t believe the royal family per se are unpopular, Andrew is, but, regardless of everything, he is a relatively minor royal in terms of succession

He's 100 years old in three months time, I think that might be a bit much lol
(claim to fame, I worked with him back in late 70s, lovely man)

There are many others out there who could do a far better job than what we've got now.

If that's the case, why does a yougov poll show support at only 62%. You would expect it to be 80-90% surely...
I think they are getting more and more unpopular by the day

RF making themselves unpopular with local taxpayers - "A council has said it will not support any more state visits after the costs of hosting Donald Trump at Windsor Castle last year were not reimbursed.
The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead said it had spent at least £350,000 on visits in 2025, including that of French president Emmanuel Macron in July.
The council said the same funding could have paid the salaries of nine primary school teachers for a year." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86yqlg4vzdo .
I would have thought this was the sort of thing the sovereign grant was meant to cover rather than the local council.

State visits are organised at the behest of the government. I agree the local council shouldn't pay but I think that central government should bear the cost, not the Sovereign Grant.

And the government are quietly losing references to the king, which seems a good start - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/38184625/labour-ditch-his-majesty-snub-king-charles/

The costs should be covered directly from government as it’s a state visit, it shouldn’t be a local council expense or a deduction from the Sovereign Grant.

I read about this in the Telegraph of all places, then read a few btl comments! Messing with "our traditions" apparently!

What the fuck we were doing having HM Government in the first place is beyind me! It belongs to a very long ago age.

Another anachronism is Royal Mail with the monarch's cyphers on the branding. That should be UK Mail too. Same with stamps and the monarch's head. Money. Same. And so on.

What is the breakdown of that YouGov poll? Is it the over 60's shoring up support?

I was going to ask the same question.

I was delighted to see the change to UK government
More of this please

It’s medieval nonsense like HM government royal assent / consent etc that leads directly to the Windsor / Epstein cover ups

What the fuck we were doing having HM Government in the first place is beyond me! It belongs to a very long ago age

Unfortunately, @BoxingHare, it really is "his government": https://www.ucl.ac.uk/social-historical-sciences/constitution-unit/constitution-unit-publications/constitution-unit-explainers/what-royal-prerogative

You'll be told by royalists that powers are largely exercised by ministers rather than the monarch, and that our constitution means they can really do very little, but we don't have a proper constitution and the ones doing very little are those in parliament, who should be holding these people to account and won't

By saying nothing, or close to nothing, the Royal Family are totally complicit as far as I am concerned. I mean what are they hoping will happen? It'll go away, or by wheeling Kate and William out at a few primary schools. we'll forget that they are essentially harbouring a suspected sex offender.

I've commented before, and stand by this, if anything positive came out of this (and obviously would be of no consolation to the actual victims) it will be the downfall of the monarchy.

Well let's hope it's the downfall of the monarchy.

The question Republic asked was “what would you prefer for the Uk?” And the results were Monarchy 45%, elected head of state 32%, don’t know 24%.