The first proper state visits to England were those of the Emperor of Russia and the King of Saxony to London in 1814.
The Allied sovereigns visit to England occurred in June 1814 to celebrate the peace following the defeat of France and abdication of Napoleon I in April 1814. Tsar Alexander I stayed with his sister, Grand Duchess Catherine, who was the Duchess of Oldenburg.
Welcome to Part 2 of The Role of the British Monarchy, Popularity and Future Discussion. The previous thread can be found below.
The role of the British Monarchy, Popularity and Future discussion (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=89710.0)
An Ipsos poll taken among Americans about a week ago has some interesting data about the BRF.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/quarter-americans-say-prince-harry-their-favorite-royal
This poll finds that while about one fifth of Americans believe it would be better if the British monarchy was abolished, a plurality, about two in five, says abolishing the monarchy would make no difference at all. Although, opinions around abolishing the monarchy vary based on perceptions of certain members of the royal family. Americans who favor Duchess Meghan Markle (28%) or Prince Harry (23%), for example, are more likely to say it would be better to abolish the monarchy than those who favor Prince William (13%). Perhaps not surprisingly, Americans who favor King Charles III or do not favor Prince Harry are most likely to say abolishing the monarchy would make things worse (20% for both).
When asked which members of the British royal family they like most, a plurality (25%) of Americans say they like Prince Harry, followed by Princess Kate Middleton (22%), Prince William (17%), Duchess Meghan Markle (12%), and King Charles III (8%). Notably, those against abolishing the monarchy are more likely to say they like Princess Kate Middleton, Prince William, or Prince Charles the most versus those in favor of abolishing the monarchy. Americans who are baby boomers or older are more likely to say they like Prince William or Princess Kate Middleton the most versus Gen Xers or millennials and Gen Zers.
Without making respondents choose between family members, though, nearly the same amount of Americans has a favorable opinion of Prince Harry (41%) versus Prince William (40%). More Americans (47%), however, say they have a favorable perception of Princess Kate Middleton, who also tops favorability for Duchess Meghan Markle (35%) and King Charles III (25%). Of note, baby boomers and older are more likely to have a favorable opinion of Prince William (49%) or Princess Kate Middleton (57%) than Gen Zers and millennials (33% and 43%, respectively). Additionally, Americans with children in their household (53%) are more likely to have a favorable opinion of Prince Harry than those without (35%).
Ipsos is one of the most serious surveys in the USA, interesting the Waleses are popular/up there. They rarely go.
Do other monarchies concern themselves with American popularity?
American's have no more say over the BRF than they do over the Swedish Royal family.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on January 22, 2023, 02:09:51 PM
Do other monarchies concern themselves with American popularity?
American's have no more say over the BRF than they do over the Swedish Royal family.
I dont see that British monarchy concerns itself with what the Americans may think, but the other monarchies are not well known enough in the US for Americans to have any opinion on them.
Ex Colony
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on January 22, 2023, 02:09:51 PM
Do other monarchies concern themselves with American popularity?
American's have no more say over the BRF than they do over the Swedish Royal family.
For the most part I can believe that other monarchies are not interested in what Americans' opinions are on their monarchies as it doesn't affect us in the least. I am surprised that Americans were even asked in a poll if the British monarchy should be abolished. :blink: That's just illogical IMO. IMHO even those North American nations that are constitutional monarchies ie: Canada should really only be asked if they as a nation want to continue to have the British monarch as their Head of State and not if the monarchy should continue in the UK.
We do have some parts of the country with a higher population of people who have ties to nations with monarchies and sometimes those royals will visit that region. However it's historically been the British monarchy and for a little while Monaco that has received the most press coverage. Spanish language TV will sometimes cover big events in Spain like Felipe and Letizia's wedding.
Because they're likely to be unknown, there's a number of royals from reigning houses who attended American universities in part because they could be somewhat anonymous as really few people knew who they were.
Royals who attended American secondary schools and/or universities for undergraduate or graduate work: Prince Albert, King Abdullah, CP Hussein, Princess Iman, CPss Victoria, King Phillipe, King Felipe, CP Frederik and CP Haakon.
KCIII, the PoW and the PssR narrate a short video on the Investitures that they carry out throughout the year. Since the death of the late QEII, they are the only royals who carry out Investitures.
https://twitter.com/Gertsroyals/status/1626596237024825348?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
QuoteKing Charles, Prince William & Princess Anne narrate video about Investiture ceremonies.
The three are the only UK Royals who currently host the large Investiture services.
You Gov UK poll for March showed a slight rise in popularity for members of the BRF and the overall view of the monarchy.
Kate Middleton and Prince William most popular UK royals | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1749879/kate-middleton-prince-william-popularity-royal-family-poll)
QuoteThe poll, carried out between March 18 and 20, asked 1,983 adults in Great Britain which opinion they had of each Royal Family member, with the answers available ranging from ?very positive? to ?very negative? and ?don?t know?.
Prince William, who is currently visiting Poland, topped the chart, with 72 percent of the respondents saying they had either a "very" or "fairly" positive opinion of him, against 18 who said they see him negatively.
QuoteOverall, the Royal Family increased its popularity by one percent over the past few months, the poll suggested and saw the percentage of people saying they had a negative opinion of it going from 34 to 30 percent.
The institution of the monarchy in general also fared better than in January, with positive answers going from 54 to 58 percent while the negative ones decreased from 37 to 32 percent.
Current rankings:
1. William
2. Catherine/Anne
3 Charles
4. Edward
5. Camilla
I didn't see Sophie listed in the poll, though IMHO she should be included. Those at the bottom of the polling are no longer performing royal duties so I don't know why they're included.
Every member bar Andrew apparently got a bit of an uptick, with Anne becoming quite a favourite. Don?t know why YouGov keep insisting on putting non working royals up in these surveys though, and also not including Sophie.
My i pad is playing up a bit, but I did manage to capture this page which I thought quite interesting in a general overview. Not glowing figures for a new monarch though.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/6xeg5h7mi1/RoyalFamily_Opinion_2012toPresent_W.pdf
Don?t know what thread this is suitable for but
Royal family 'on brink of collapse' as it's 'abolishing itself', new report claims - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/royal-family-on-brink-collapse-29722774)
This was originally reported in the Sunday Express today
The royal family is on the "brink of collapse" and in danger of "abolishing itself", a new report has claimed.
King Charles III risks becoming "too distant" from the nation after a drop off in the number of public engagements, it adds.
The report, from thinktank Civitas, claims death, scandal and resignation are blamed for a 40 per cent drop in engagements in the past decade.
It further predicts if junior royals don't do more to support King Charles then the monarchy could easily "collapse".?
Civitas argues against slimming down the monarchy too much as the Kents are expected to retire after the Coronation, the Gloucesters may follow them and that leaves working royals dominated by people in their 70s and 60s, with too few members to plug the gaps, and fewer and fewer engagements being seen to be done.
The report from think tank Civitas makes very good points. Now I believe that KCIII and the rest of the BRF have known for years that the elderly Kents and the Gloucesters would one day retire and that ultimately the number of working royals would be reduced. Ultimately I believe it's going to come down to will the British public be satisfied with a smaller Royal Family if it saves money or will they want to see an increase in working royals by adding one or both of the York sisters even though that might require more funding?
Even under the best circumstances, Charles only has 2 children to the QEII four. Plus Charles doesn't have the extended famiy either. It's inevitable the numbers will go down. That's just a fact of life.
The Royal Family means much more to the country than just the number of ribbons they cut.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 16, 2023, 01:00:58 PM
Even under the best circumstances, Charles only has 2 children to the QEII four. Plus Charles doesn't have the extended famiy either. It's inevitable the numbers will go down. That's just a fact of life.
The Royal Family means much more to the country than just the number of ribbons they cut.
The Public want them in place because by and large they have done a good enough job and a president would cost more. They don't need to see them appearing at XYZ town to open the baby clinic there, as long as they see that they are doing some charity work, appearing occasionally at some big event and looking glitzy, and appearing here and there to shake hands. THe public certainly dont want to pay more than they have to, to support the RF... and IMO are content to accept that the days of a lot of royals doing a lot of events are over.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/20/14/70046391-0-image-a-4_1681996659616.jpg)
Interesting to me is the question 'what should Camilla be called?' 36% Queen Consort and only 14% Queen Camilla
An Ipsos survey --
The Princess of Wales has overtaken Prince William as the most popular Royal in the first poll of its kind since the late Queen's death.
The latest Ipsos favourability poll suggests that the Princess is the most liked member of the family, followed by her husband, the King's grandchildren and the Princess Royal.
The Duchess of Sussex was among the least popular family members on 10 per cent, along with the Queen Consort who also attracted only 10 per cent of mentions by those surveyed.
More than a third of the people surveyed said they liked Kate the most on 38 per cent, followed closely by Prince William on 34 per cent.
King Charles was the fifth most liked Royal, voted for by 20 per cent of respondents, followed by Prince Harry on 14 per cent and Prince Edward on 11 per cent.
Around 18 per cent said they liked no member of the Royal family.
The Telegraph: Most and least popular royals revealed (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/04/28/kate-princess-wales-prince-william-most-popular-royals/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1682639265-1)
Ipsos isn?t regarded as particularly accurate and I continue to believe that non working members of the RF shouldn?t be represented in these polls.
However, taking it for what it is
Most popular royal revealed in new Ipsos poll | UK News | Metro News (https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/28/most-popular-royal-revealed-in-new-ipsos-poll-18690172/#:~:text=In%20a%20survey%20of%204%2C000),then%20Princess%20Anne%20at%2025%25.
I linked this newspaper because the Telegraph is behind a paywall.
These are not exactly glowing figures for the new King and Queen. And once more, I don?t think Sophie Edinburgh is included. Why not?
Some of the least popular members included Charles at 20%, Harry at 14%, Prince Edward at 11% and Meghan Markle and Camilla at 10%.
Unsurprisingly, Andrew took the last place spot with only 4% of people saying he is their favourite royal.
Around 18% of those surveyed said they did not like any members of the royal family.
@Curryong-I too am surprised that the Duchess of Edinburgh was not mentioned while non-working family members like the three Yorks (Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie) and the Sussexes are included. I'm astonished that the King's grandchildren (Princes George, Louis, Archie/Princesses Charlotte, Lilibet) are even noted.
I have to wonder if this is the type of poll where people were simply asked "Who is your favorite royal?" and "Who is your least favorite royal?"
I'd like to see the questions that were given to the 4,000 who participated.
The amount of polls before a coronation is astonishing
1 May, 2023 all in a diagram
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/05/02/01/70449737-12034731-image-a-2_1682988270670.jpg)
Sorry if this belongs elsewhere, but I thought it interesting as far as the future of the monarchy is concerned.
Princess Anne: slimmed-down royal family ?doesn?t sound like a good idea? | Princess Anne | The Guardian (https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/02/princess-anne-slimmed-down-royal-family-doesnt-sound-like-a-good-idea)
It?s not at all strange to me that Anne wouldn?t see the slimming down as a good idea, as it might directly affect her.
I also wonder how it would work, if the Prince and Princess of Wales don?t step up to do the amount of engagements that members like Anne do on an annual basis. Charles and Camilla are older. William doesn?t have any siblings to help the way Charles did.
I agree with it based on optics and fiscal responsibility, but is it feasible in reality?
I posted her full interview at her board/thread
@Curryong Lord Ashcroft (partly in behalf of the British monarchy/King Charles) conducted his own poll throughout the realms.
Australia wants to be a Republic but stay in the Commonwealth according to him.
Here's a lengthy article.
Shock poll shows six out of 14 nations would vote to remove Charles as their head of state | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12039227/Shock-poll-shows-six-14-nations-vote-remove-Charles-head-state.html)
The smaller islands don't want to be a republic.
His investigation has the Caribbean islands mostly sympathetic with Meghan and Harry, although William and Kate reign supreme in popularity there.
Lord A also says that King Charles has a titanic job with primarily the 14 realms. Don't know what else he can do or what Lord A thinks, the King has publicly congratulated and accepted graciously all realms going R and staying in the Commonwealth.
^I can definitely see this happening. Every nation should have the right to choose who they want their head of state to be.
They have a right to choose. Noone's forced them to stay wiht the monarch as head of state. the Commonwealth is a voluntary association of countries.
Quote from: Amabel2 on May 03, 2023, 07:02:53 AM
They have a right to choose. Noone's forced them to stay wiht the monarch as head of state. the Commonwealth is a voluntary association of countries.
As it's voluntary and there are nations that were never part of the British Empire who are now members, then IMHO that refutes the claims that the Commonwealth is "Empire 2.0."
Apart from Harry, who is making this claim?
^Not sure if this is what TLLK is referring to, but I found this online:
What is the Commonwealth if not the British Empire 2.0? | Commonwealth of Nations | The Guardian (https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/17/commonwealth-british-empire-britain-black-brown-people)
The Hardest working royals of the last decade. Look where Kate is placed, just in front of Harry who left over three years ago!
Hardest-working royal is revealed (but fifth place is unexpected!) | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/galleries/article-12073557/Hardest-working-royal-revealed-fifth-place-unexpected.html)
But while Prince William (1,704) and Kate (1,024) are now two of the most visually prominent royals, they actually carried out fewer engagements than the lesser-known Duke of Gloucester (2,056) and Duchess of Gloucester (1,031) respectively.
The Duke of Kent has also made a huge contribution to royal life despite not often being as noticed as others - having carried out 1,538 engagements in a decade.
The hardest working royal of the decade might surprise you | GoodTo (https://www.goodto.com/entertainment/royal-news/the-hardest-working-royal-of-the-decade-might-surprise-you-and-no-its-not-princess-anne)
Further link, as first one failed.
Engagements by royals over past 10 years
King Charles = 4,854
Princess Anne = 4,693
Prince Edward = 3,155
Queen Elizabeth II = 2,721
Prince Andrew = 2,289
Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh = 2,253
Queen Camilla = 2,084
Duke of Gloucester = 2,056
Prince William = 1,704
Duke of Kent = 1,538
Prince Philip = 1,057
Duchess of Gloucester = 1,031
Kate Middleton = 1,024
Prince Harry = 1,009
Princess Alexandra = 830
Meghan Markle = 179
Honestly I'm not surprised that those who have been working royals for decades and have scores if not hundreds of patronages/appointments/presidencies would be at the top of the list of the busiest royals. :shrug: Also it should be noted that more than one of the royals mentioned in the list were not considered to be full time working royals during the last decade: PoW/PssoW/DoS/DssoS so I'm not sure if we can compare them to KCIII, PssR or any other royal who has been a full time member for decades. Nor would I want to compare the late Queen's elderly Kent cousins who have had serious health issues over the past decade and required extensive rest periods.
When you read the Court Circular, typically you'll discover that their entries include that the individual royal is the Royal Patron of the organization that is being visited or being involved in a meeting. Those who have acquired scores or hundreds of patronages tend to be very busy. Also HLM had tasked her children with representing her at various foreign and domestic visits in the last years of her life, so I'm not surprised that their numbers are higher.
Patronages: KCIII-400 +, PssR 300+, QC-90+, DoE-70+, DssoE-70+, PoW-40, PssoW -25, DoG-150, DssoG-70+, DoK-90+, PssA-100+
Just took a look at the BRF tally of engagements so far this year, or at least till the end of May, their numbers and their League Table.
HRH The Princess Royal ? 191
HM The King ? 155
HM The Queen Consort ? 64
HRH The Prince of Wales ? 54
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh ? 54
Vice-Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence ? 53
HRH The Duke of Gloucester ? 47
HRH The Princess of Wales ? 45
HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh ? 32
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester ? 31
HRH The Duke of Kent ? 28
HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honorable Lady Ogilvy ? 2
As usual, none of them exactly bursting a boiler with engagements etc, after half the year gone, and in fact second after William is Tim Laurence who spends much of his time accompanying his wife to many of her engagements. He is not really on the BRF roll as a working royal though his presence at these engagements are mentioned in the CC. After Kate, with the exception of Sophie, whose workload must NEVER be seen to exceed that of the Prss of Wales, (same regarding William and Edward) are persons in their late 70s and 80s who are being kept on for the time being but (at least in the case of Alexandra,) are in such bad health that their engagement tally is not likely to exceed what it is now.
So, starkly, those in the prime of life, their forties, are trailing quite badly people in their mid to late 70s. The King is 75 this year, Camilla will be 76 in a couple of months, and Anne leads the pack at 73 this August. The King and Queen have performed just over 200 engagements between them, and the Wales?s just over 100 between them. Less than a three quarters of Anne?s total. Workhorses indeed!
And, btw, if the senior royals follow the late Queen?s yearly calendar, most of August will be holiday time up in Scotland.
It's bursting a boiler, since they don't retire at 66, official and legal retirement age in the UK.
Quote from: wannable on June 01, 2023, 11:10:39 AM
It's bursting a boiler, since they don't retire at 66, official and legal retirement age in the UK.
Most senior royals, bar the monarch can retire whenever they wish to. None of them have an electric prod at their backs telling them they must go on to the age of 90+. The Duchess of Kent hasn?t been on the royal roster for decades.
And although Britain has no tradition of abdication even the monarch could retire if he/she so wishes. The monarchs of Spain and the Netherlands have done so. Just because Alexandra and the Duke of Kent and theGloucesters haven?t retired it doesn?t mean they will be forced to carry on their handful of royal engagements per year until death if they don?t wish it. PP didn?t. The Kents and Gloucesters could retire tomorrow with the King?s blessing.
It?s notable that none of the Kents or Gloucesters? children rushed to join the royal roster though, and none of the late Queen?s grandchildren have done so, bar one. It?s extremely doubtful that the Edinburghs? children will be joining in, either. And probably neither Charlotte nor Louis will do so. A private life is much preferred.
You Gov's most recent survey on the following royals: KCIII, QC, PoW, PssoW, DoS, DssoS, PssR, DoE.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/352czzbxah/Internal_RoyalFavourability_230608.pdf
Highest to lowest in favourability: Prince of Wales-75%
Princess of Wales-74%
Princess Royal-73 %
King Charles III-62%
Duke of Edinburgh-56%
Queen Camilla-46%
Duke of Sussex-28 %
Duchess of Sussex-21%
Duke of York-7%
^Nothing shocking at all there.
^^^Nope and as expected the breakdown of age/socio-economic/political affiliation and region yielded the usual results.
Yep. And it looks like from the working royals, everyone except Camilla has gained in popularity for the most part. Not bad. I see the bit about how people feel about the royals and monarchy in general, but I gotta say, I?m not thrilled about the fact that non-working royals are included in the poll. I?d be curious to see a control poll, if you will, where those individuals aren?t mentioned.
Look at the graph for the approval rating of the institution of monarchy in general though. It?s 55%, much less than was seen in the previous reign.
As for non working royals, I?ve said so many times here that I don't know why YouGov keeps including them, especially as two have been gone for nearly three years, that I sound like a broken record. It makes no sense. And why Sophie keeps being left out is another mystery. Do they think people wouldn?t know her? Perhaps, but Edward isn?t exactly a household name either. And Camilla isn?t really improving either, as Queen Consort those figures are dire.
^That?s my point. Non-working royals have no business being on there because they?re no longer members of the institution. They?re members of the family, but not the Firm. And the ones listed are exceedingly unpopular, but they don?t represent the monarchy. It?s not the fault of anyone listed, it?s the fault of YouGov for continuing to poll on them in relation to the monarchy.
I?m not really sure why Sophie keeps getting left out. I think it?s a poor job done by YouGov.
I don?t know whether it would change one way or another, (that?s why I?m interested) but I would like to see more consistent polling that reflects what the monarchy actually consists of in 2023. To ask someone?s opinion about members who aren?t in the firm and then ask them how they feel about the monarchy as a whole could muddy their opinion on something that has nothing to do with the other.
@Curryong and
@HistoryGirl2 -Yes I wish that the Sussexes and Andrew were excluded as they are no longer part of the working group. While YouGov might decline to include the Gloucesters and Kents, at least Sophie deserves to be in the survey.
@HistoryGirl2- I did wan to point out that Pollsters did ask for favorability on two categories related to the monarchy as a whole in the survey. (Keep in mind that the survey includes both April and June 2023 results.
1. The Royal Family-Total Positive for June 2023-60%
2. The Monarchy as an institution-Total Positive for June 2023-58% (It had been 55% in April prior to the Coronation.)
^Yeah, I know, but my point is that those people aren?t part of the monarchy and any inclusion of them in a survey that contains the question could potentially influence their opinion one way or another on the benefit of a monarchy.
I?m not saying it 100% does or doesn?t because I truly don?t know, but I would like to see that moving forward because only including working royals is more of an honest portrayal about what the monarchy is.
Surveys and polls are weird and at times unreliable precisely for that reason. How you present a question and the context you provide is a very important factor in determining what the answer will be.
Quote
Surveys and polls are weird and at times unreliable precisely for that reason. How you present a question and the context you provide is a very important factor in determining what the answer will be.
Agreed. You Gov has a pretty good reputation, but the way the question in presented and the context definitely has an impact.
I don?t believe that any British person would muddle up feelings about the Sussexes and Andrew with how they feel about the monarchy in this sort of survey. I don?t believe non working members should be on there full stop. However while the late Queen was alive Andrew?s scandal was at its height in the last couple of years and the Sussexes have been gone really since 2019.
Yet YouGov surveys always showed the popularity of the monarchy as a whole right up to the Queen?s death last September as in the 60s to 70%s. Now it?s in the mid 50s. (This is of course discounting the Jubilee years when it got up into the 80s.)
In theory a change of monarch shouldn?t alter things so notably but it obviously has, in this survey anyway, with the Funeral and the brief excitement of the Coronation over. Charles was never as popular as his mother or his sons. That was shown year after year. And Camilla, how ever much she has been praised by the media, has never really been taken to the British people?s hearts. There will always be Diana as the ghost in the background with this couple and their figures show it.
^^Yes, and if they?re interested in polling about non-working members, that poll should be done separately, in my opinion.
Quote from: Curryong on June 23, 2023, 12:11:24 PM
I don?t believe that any British person would muddle up feelings about the Sussexes and Andrew with how they feel about the monarchy in this sort of survey. I don?t believe non working members should be on their full stop. However while the late Queen was alive Andrew?s scandal was at its height in the last couple of years and the Sussexes have been gone really since 2019.
I cannot argue this outright because as I?ve stated above, I truly don?t know the answer one way or another. But one thing I do know is that what people should perceive as fact and what they actually perceive are things that oftentimes differ. I won?t assume that everyone who was polled follows the monarchy closely because most people don?t. So, I cannot assume they are aware that there are non-working and working members of the RF.
That?s why I believe it very important for pollsters to relay the information as simply and as factually as possible from the start to limit any form of confusion on the part of the people being polled. I see no reason to include 3 members of the family that are not part of the institution and exclude a member that is, and then ask how they feel about the monarchy at the end.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on June 23, 2023, 12:11:40 PM
^^Yes, and if they?re interested in polling about non-working members, that poll should be done separately, in my opinion.
I cannot argue this outright because as I?ve stated above, I truly don?t know the answer one way or another. But one thing I do know is that what people should perceive as fact and what they actually perceive are things that oftentimes differ. I won?t assume that everyone who was polled follows the monarchy closely because most people don?t. So, I cannot assume they are aware that there are non-working and working members of the RF.
That?s why I believe it very important for pollsters to relay the information as simply and as factually as possible from the start to limit any form of confusion on the part of the people being polled.
But if people were unaware that there was a difference between working and non working members of the RF and the disapproval of the non working members muddled the survey numbers then surely that would have come through in the figures for surveys in 2020, 2021 and 2022. They didn?t. They showed the monarch Elizabeth II as popular or second most popular, and the monarchy?s approval in the 60s and 70%s. This is not so in this survey w
Where Charles or the consort or the monarchy is concerned. And I do not believe that the methodology or questions asked of respondents has drastically changed since September last year. That would be bizarre.
^I cannot speak to what has been done in the past because that involved different circumstances, all of which I believe important in its own context.
I can only speak to the poll that is being included here. This is not me unilaterally stating that including non-working members for sure affected how people view the monarchy as an institution. This is me saying that when doing a poll, only pertinent information should be included. This would be different if open-ended questions were being asked and people could write or explain what they mean when they answer, but that?s not the case.
Polling is tricky in the best of circumstances, I don?t personally believe it should be made even more difficult by including information that is not pertinent. Those individuals are no longer members of the institution, and in my opinion, should not be included in polls that discuss perceptions of the institution, unless the questions are direct. An example being: ?How do you feel about the institution now that Prince Andrew is no longer a working member?? Otherwise, I don?t consider feelings about him in general relevant.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/352czzbxah/Internal_RoyalFavourability_230608.pdf
The question that was asked of the respondents is printed on the poll results. Starting with King Charles the respondents were asked ?Thinking about the royal family, for each of the following please say whether you have a positive or negative opinion of them?? That is not an unfair or open-ended question in my estimation. Starting with King Charles it asks a specific question.
Here's an article that I found to be a bit of a surprise. According to a recent Gallup poll, the Prince of Wales and King Charles III are more popular in the U.S. than POTUS Biden and former POTUS Trump as well as several other prominent public figures.
15 Newsmakers: Prince William Most Popular, Putin Least (https://news.gallup.com/poll/509387/newsmakers-prince-william-popular-putin-least.aspx)
Prince William More Popular With Americans Than Biden or Trump (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-william-more-popular-americans-joe-biden-donald-trump-gallup-poll-1818748)
QuotePrince William is more popular in America than President Joe Biden and Donald Trump after 59 percent viewed him positively in a new Gallup poll.
The future king was even more popular than Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a survey asking U.S. adults their view of 15 prominent figures conducted between July 3 and July 27.
William was liked by 59 percent and disliked by 22 percent giving him a net approval rating of +37, while Zelensky was liked by 57 percent and disliked by 29 percent giving him a net rating of +28.
By contrast, Biden was liked by 41 percent and disliked by 57 percent, putting him on -16, while Trump was liked by 41 percent and disliked by 55 percent, putting him on -14.
^ I had actually posted the GALLOP survey a few days ago in the Coffee Klatch board, Current events and news of the world discussion thread because it is not commonwealth or monarchy but the USA.
It's not great for the USA when a King and the Heir apparent are more trusted in the eyes of their citizens to unify versus their own people.
Quote from: wannable on August 12, 2023, 10:31:06 PM
Nobody in the world beats or are even close to the United Kingdom with its pomp and ceremony - Military too - the milestones, the celebrations, the special occasions, the remembrance, the poppy day, the opening of a new military fillintheblank, the MOD knows how to use their British Royals for PR and Marketing.
Yes, that?s certainly what the royals are supposedly their for. Milk the traditions and PR and marketing in the hope of bringing in tourists in great numbers. Funny how France and Italy who have had no royal family for over a hundred and fifty years in France?s case and well over seventy years in the case of Italy manage perfectly well tourism wise without them.
And most British people aren?t ecstatic about the pomp and ceremony attached to the royals, witness the outcry about costs for funerals, Coronations, weddings and the like. It?s people who don?t live there or pay taxes there that get all shiny-eyed about the monarchy.
Most British people are not anti monarchist. Spreading misinformation that most is false. They are a minority.
Quote from: wannable on August 13, 2023, 03:20:08 AM
Most British people are not anti monarchist. Spreading misinformation that most is false. They are a minority.
I did not say that most British people are anti monarchist. What I said in my post was that it is people who live outside Britain who get starry eyed about the monarchy. And that is the truth.
Most British are in fact ambivalent about the monarchy. They don?t bother about it much one way or the other.
Quote from: Curryong on August 13, 2023, 12:32:24 PM
I did not say that most British people are anti monarchist. What I said in my post was that it is people who live outside Britain who get starry eyed about the monarchy. And that is the truth.
Most British are in fact ambivalent about the monarchy. They don?t bother about it much one way or the other.
It' valid to change ones mind about what was said. I am just correcting, IF UK Citizens in its majority dislike pomp and ceremony it would be said and done. The firm is way too careful with ''all'' they do - to just ignore and do a Marie Antoinette.
William, Catherine and Charles are above 70 % of approval in ref the job, role they are each doing.
Daily Mail U.K.
@DailyMailUK
Most Brits now say Harry should be stripped of his place as 5th in line to the throne and blocked from ever becoming King, new poll shows Most Brits now say Harry should be stripped of his place as 5th in line to the throne and blocked from ever becoming King, new poll shows | Daily Mail (https://trib.al/YusYb4U)
Never heard of Delta Poll and the fact that the Fail has commissioned this ?poll? makes it a hundred times more iffy. If it?s YouGov it?s reliable otherwise not, where I?m concerned.
It's a UK firm specialized in politics (According to the British Polling Council, top five reliability, the UK GOV website has published some of their findings from time to time - Both Tory and Labour govs). This is their first royal survey. They are recommended in UK poll library (yougov is also listed)
Quote from: wannable on August 13, 2023, 12:41:56 PM
It' valid to change ones mind about what was said. I am just correcting, IF UK Citizens in its majority dislike pomp and ceremony it would be said and done. The firm is way too careful with ''all'' they do - to just ignore and do a Marie Antoinette.
?And most British people aren?t ecstatic about the pomp and ceremony attached to the royals, witness the outcry about costs for funerals, Coronations, weddings and the like. It?s people who don?t live there or pay taxes there that get all shiny-eyed about the monarchy.?
That is what I said, and it was the truth. With the last Coronation did every town, city and village in the UK do something big to commemorate the day? No they didn?t.
And I know from news from Britain from relatives and friends there that many people just treated it as a day off work and did their own thing.
They weren?t running around waving Union Jacks and worshipping Charles and Camilla or the rest of the royals. They might have watched some of the Coronation on TV and then went to the pub or out for the day with their families. The idea that all the British people absolutely adore all the BRF is a delusion held by foreigners. You obviously haven?t been out on the streets of any big urban centre in Britain hearing citizens criticising the royals for costing the British tax payer. I have.
That is misinforming, IF it were ''a majority'', the BRF would not have a coronation as such. They did downgrade expenses which was widely reported, including the non use of tiaras or coronets by their own family and foreign royalty. The latest report about the coronation was the amount of millions - it is easy to track with the Treasury Department, which was also posted in the RIF.
Quote from: wannable on August 13, 2023, 01:06:59 PM
That is misinforming, IF it were ''most'', the BRF would not have a coronation as such. They did downgrade expenses which was widely reported, including the non use of tiaras or coronets by their own family and foreign royalty.
The full costs of that Coronation published yet. Best to wait. I stated that most British people aren?t ecstatic about pomp and ceremony. And they?re not. I was born there at a time when most were and were very deferential about the RF. Those days have gone. And go to any major urban centre in Britain and if the RF comes up in conversation (which it doesn?t that often) you may hear some things that would change your mind, especially in London and cities in the North of England and in Scotland.
Quote from: wannable on August 13, 2023, 01:02:21 PM
It's a UK firm specialized in politics (According to the British Polling Council, top five reliability, the UK GOV website has published some of their findings from time to time - Both Tory and Labour govs). This is their first royal survey. They are recommended in UK poll library (yougov is also listed)
This firm is a quite new polling firm, less than ten years old, and do not specialise in royalty topics or in framing questions on them. YouGov does and has. And the fact that the Fail is linked to this make that poll very very questionable.
Again, IF a majority or most are not estatic, the 1000+ year old firm will not do a Marie Antoinette. Underestimating the job of the firm in conjunction with the government as incompetent - who can't read the room - is ludicrous.
Polling firms questions are well studied before pulling it out there. Polling firm specialized in Politics should find it easier related to the Monarchy, which is not polarizing.
Now we know how fabulously wealthy Charles is, why can?t he pay for his own coronation? | King Charles coronation | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2023/apr/29/charles-coronation-pay-king-uk-taxpayers)
The reactions of people to the Coronation just before it was held meld in exactly with what I was hearing from relatives and friends in the UK. And on the other forum an Australian who was on a cruise with quite a lot of midfleaged and elderly Brits, exactly the sort of demographic you would think would be lapping up news of the Coronation said exactly the same thing. ?Don?t care, and let Charles pay for it. He?s got plenty of money!? Lots of yawning when the Coronation was mentioned. Not a great look for a new monarch, and if that demographic was disinterested you can guess what those 18 to 30 were thinking!
The ''reactionary'' groups used for toppling or making a strong point that actually ''makes'' a change of direction did not happen. They are a minority that could not steer the ship.
Usually steering and making a majority change should happen between the point of doing it (article Sat 29 Apr 2023 08.00 BST) immediately within 12 hours and run it for a week - meaning people out in the streets and not leaving.
******
i.e. Macron and his retirement ''age'' working bill has been stalled. The reactionary groups have won a 'battle'' (not considered a war because it is 1 item the population disagreed with, not an entire institution - which would then be a war), this caused any foreign visit to stall, like KCIIII visit, which has been reprogrammed to happen very soon - Sept 2023.
*****
NOTE: For what it's worth, I personally read and respect minority group thoughts, but I give it also the 'proportion' they merit, I do not do a USA with giving a minority thought (s) a huge platform that is unpopular with a ''majority'', thus making a depressive state of affairs in every corner of the US to such an extent that a bit more of a 'spark' can bring something terrible to happen at this point in time.
Too late to edit and add, reading multiple financial and political French sources, the battle won vs the government plan to up the age retirement is very short term. The government have several fronts they have to smartly tackle with their French citizens and the illegal immigrants.
To make a quick example these French experts have agreed upon, IF the UK 'lowered' its retirement age that France actually has, the UK would not survive a 'trimester'. That is how serious France is at the moment. The government has to be unified no matter of their partisan affiliation to fix the several 'fronts' they are facing, the illegal immigrants problem is being solved in France, but it throws the problem to the UK. Why? well the French does not have any bonuses for illegal immigrants (they had a heavy participation in the mini riot/reactionary groups), so the French did a marketing/PR telling them that in the UK they have a gazillion bonuses, from free housing, food, one year of half salaries, help to find jobs, etc. They are moving to Blighty.
Quote from: wannable on August 13, 2023, 02:15:46 PM
Too late to edit and add, reading multiple financial and political French sources, the battle won vs the government plan to up the age retirement is very short term. The government have several fronts they have to smartly tackle with their French citizens and the illegal immigrants.
To make a quick example these French experts have agreed upon, IF the UK 'lowered' its retirement age that France actually has, the UK would not survive a 'trimester'. That is how serious France is at the moment. The government has to be unified no matter of their partisan affiliation to fix the several 'fronts' they are facing, the illegal immigrants problem is being solved in France, but it throws the problem to the UK. Why? well the French does not have any bonuses for illegal immigrants (they had a heavy participation in the mini riot/reactionary groups), so the French did a marketing/PR telling them that in the UK they have a gazillion bonuses, from free housing, food, one year of half salaries, help to find jobs, etc. They are moving to Blighty.
I don?t know what you mean by ?bonuses?, but the idea that the UK is some kind of paradise for illegal immigrants has been going on for twenty five years to my knowledge. And it hasn?t needed French input though I have no doubt that French officials discourage illegals in their country. People smugglers tell lies that people want to hear.
In reality the advice below is from British Govt pamphlets printed in many languages.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/risks-of-illegal-migration-to-the-uk#full-publication-update-history
(Note. Exceptions to the Illegal Immigration Act passed a couple of years ago are sometimes loosened in the cases of females escaping Afghanistan, Hong Kong residents and those from the Ukraine seeking entry.
?If you make it to the UK, the realities may be different to what you expect, for example:
Asylum seekers are only allowed to work in the UK if they have not had a decision on their claim for over 12 months. This must be through no fault of their own. If you are able to work, you can only do the jobs on the Shortage Occupation List.
It is a criminal offence to work in the UK without the right to do so. Migrants working illegally can be imprisoned for up to 6 months. Wages from working illegally can be seized as the proceeds of crime if someone knows or has reasonable cause to believe a person is working illegally.
If an employer is found to be employing someone illegally, the employer may be fined or face prosecution.
Only those with lawful immigration status can rent private accommodation. It is a criminal offence for landlords and agents to knowingly let property to an illegal migrant.
Migrants in the UK illegally are not able to access public funds. Those without lawful immigration status may also be charged if they require hospital treatment or secondary health care whilst in the UK. Outstanding payments for medical treatment can also result in further immigration applications being refused.
Other services, like bank accounts and driving licences are also restricted if you are in the UK illegally.? End quote.
People smugglers tell these illegal migrants otherwise.
https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get
Quote from: wannable on August 14, 2023, 11:37:35 AM
https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get
It is a very very long process to apply for asylum support and there is absolutely no guarantee that it will be approved when you do get to the front of the queue. That is not what people smugglers tell their ?clients?.
And many illegal migrants do not apply for any of the above, and instead get crowded unfit accommodation and work for long hours with employers of their own race or similar, and are completely exploited. There are tons of those cases that are publicised in British news outlets all the time.
The idea that illegal migrants automatically get to live in the lap of luxury if they manage to get to England is a myth, though some racist Britons prefer to swallow the cool aid and complain in the comments sections of the Fail and like tabloids about all the luxuries these people supposedly enjoy.
And yet the best freebie in the world!
The United Nations do not want the UK to implement ''offiially'' the illegal migration bill. Source: United Nations, date: July 2023
^ Transfering ilegals from mainland Europe (France example) to the UK is not a solution. None of the band aid solutions implemented by European countries have solved the problem, it only transfers it to a neighbour.
Cameron Walker
@CameronDLWalker
NEW: Prince William, Princess Anne and Princess Catherine are the top three royals that the British public have a positive opinion of, new @YouGov figures show. Almost a year into King Charles' reign, Prince Andrew, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle remain bottom of opinion polls.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5LF6JXWgAAptKB?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5LIAGCXAAAVxN4?format=jpg&name=small)
A big boost for King Charles III too 👑
Most Britons think His Majesty is doing a good job as king (59%), compared to only 17% who say he is doing a bad job.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5LIhXzXkAATjZz?format=jpg&name=small)
I am not surprised that William and Catherine are in the top three of the most favorable royals. Thrilled for Anne that she is in the number 2 slot. The rest of the positions do not surprise me either.
The BRF do need to keep a watch on their younger generation if they wish to continue as a constitutional monarchy.
Just three in 10 young people think Royals good for Britain, YouGov poll finds (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/09/04/yougov-poll-young-people-monarchy-royal-family-bad-britain/)
Quote from: TLLK on September 04, 2023, 05:14:31 PM
I am not surprised that William and Catherine are in the top three of the most favorable royals. Thrilled for Anne that she is in the number 2 slot. The rest of the positions do not surprise me either.
The BRF do need to keep a watch on their younger generation if they wish to continue as a constitutional monarchy.
Just three in 10 young people think Royals good for Britain, YouGov poll finds (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/09/04/yougov-poll-young-people-monarchy-royal-family-bad-britain/)
Stellar, I suppose, that the monarch romps in at fourth, with his Consort at the bottom of the working royals tally. The Diana effect, at least in part, working once again. As well as age and seeming eccentricities where Charles is concerned.
And once more, non working royals (but only the Sussexes and Andrew) are included in this list, with Sophie, and the Gloucesters and the Kents left off it. Why? And if non working royals are to be included appearently, why aren?t the York sisters present, and Lady Louise Edinburgh?
Considering that Harry and Meghan?s favourability goes up with younger respondents and the bad publicity they constantly receive from the British media, their positions are hardly a surprise. Neither, at least to me, is the fact that more and more Britons under 30 don?t care about the monarchy. That figure has been sliding down for decades, masked by polling done at Jubilees and Royal Weddings.
JAN MOIR: Since the Queen died, I've struggled to see what the point is of the Royal Family any more. Is that wrong? | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12547193/jan-moir-queen-royals-macron.html)
Me too, Jan Moir, me too. And this is probably the only time I?ve ever agreed with this woman.
?Since the Queen died, I've struggled to see what the point is of the Royal Family any more. Is that wrong?
Once this dignified, dutiful, much-loved matriarch left us for the great palace in the sky, she took the last drop of regal charisma with her, along with my devotion. All we are left with now is the well-meaning but essentially ho-hum next generation, the second tier on the crumbling cake, the monarchical subs' bench.?
After dinner, Charles made a speech about the significance of Britain working with France to tackle climate change and honouring the asparagus season mere hours after Rishi Sunak announced he was putting the brakes on Britain's financially ruinous ? not to say crazy ? rush to net-zero emissions.
There was further embarrassment when, in a historic address to the French parliament, the King called global warming an 'existential challenge' and called for a 'sustainability agreement' with France. Fine words, but after the British Government U-turned on green targets, Charles must have been feeling very green indeed. And this was more than just unfortunate timing, it perfectly emphasised increasing royal irrelevance.
And then, of course, there is Queen Camilla. What I am thinking is, do we really have to put the 76-year-old through all this torture?
Camilla trundled through Paris like a woman expecting to face a guillotine at the end of every day. She looked terrified most of the time, and when she wasn't looking terrified she was battling to keep her hat on, fighting to keep her hems down and avoiding being patronised by Madame Macron.
The First Lady of France fussed with Camilla's evening cape on Wednesday and then ? unforgivably ? made her play ping-pong during a cringeworthy publicity event yesterday. Camilla does her best, of course she does, but she always has the air of someone who ponged her ping a very long time ago. Someone who would always rather be somewhere else: preferably at home, feet up, ciggie lit, dog on lap, stiff gin to hand as she riffles through the latest issue of Horse & Hound.?
?Then Prince William appeared in front of an audience that included Bill Gates, UN climate envoy Mike Bloomberg and former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern ? or as I like to call them, people with nothing better to do.
They certainly must have wished they were on an earthshot the hell outta there when William began speaking.
'I think if we remark on how pessimistic and doom and gloom everything is, even though there is a healthy dose of that needed... it doesn't provoke the reaction from us humans that we would like,' he blithered.
Honestly. Who writes this banal guff for him?
Then he went to inspect some oyster beds ? don't ask me why.?
The bickering posts have been removed. Please do not inquire as to why any member or guest chooses to participate in this forum. Thank you.
The photo in this article made me laugh. It was quite clever of Republic's members to plan and quickly stage the photo. However there isn't the necessary space between the participants so it doesn't read "NOT MY KING" but rather "NO TMYKING." :hehe:
Anti-monarchy group Republic sneak into Buckingham Palace to stage protest right under the nose of the royals | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12552641/Anti-monarchy-group-Republic-sneak-Buckingham-Palace-stage-protest-right-nose-royals.html)
Update of the Counsellors of State for the United Kingdom. There are now officially seven who can act in this role: Queen Camilla, The Prince of Wales, Princess Beatrice, The Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Royal. The Dukes of Sussex and York are still officially on the list, but it is unlikely that they would be called upon in the near future.
The royals who can act as Counsellors of State, standing in for The King when needed ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/the-royals-who-can-act-as-counsellors-of-state-standing-in-for-the-king-when-needed-193431/)
QuoteCounsellors of State stand in for the Monarch if they are temporarily unavailable, either through being out of the country or for short term health reasons, like an operation.
The Regency Act of 1937 stated that the Monarch?s spouse and the first four adults in the line of succession could be called on to be Counsellors. That meant that, following the accession of King Charles III, the role could be fulfilled by Queen Camilla, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex, the Duke of York and Princess Beatrice. How
Two people must exercise the role together ? it can never be carried out by one person on their own. That led to discussion about the viability of the situation given that Prince Harry lives overseas and has stepped back from royal duties while Prince Andrew has withdrawn from public life following a court case.
In November 2022, King Charles wrote to the House of Lords asking it to consider making an amendment to the Act to add Princess Anne and Prince Edward to the list of people eligible to act as Counsellors of State.
The Bill to change who could take on the role was given Royal Assent, meaning it is now law, on December 6th 2022. It took just 22 days to make the changes.
Since then, seven people have been able to act as Counsellors of State.
The Telegraph's Camilla Tominey shares her views on the first year of King Charles' reign.
King Charles has pulled off a miracle succession, despite Harry's criticism | Royal Insight - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdYspuX_PU&list=PLJnf_DDTfIVBv5JIlO5ih5bNVPrI6fyVv&index=1)
QuoteThe King has managed to steer the Royal family through choppy waters over the past year depsite controversy, says Camilla Tominey, The Telegraph?s Associate Editor.
From the way he reacted to the public outpouring of grief following the death of his mother, to executing a faultless tour of Germany, the transition has been largely seamless.
#KingCharles #Royal #Harry
The King?s approval rating has also held up despite very personal criticisms made about him by Prince Harry in his memoir, Spare.
?As captain of the ship, the King has managed to steer the good ship Royal through pretty choppy waters and is sailing into calmer seas,? Camilla says.
However, obstacles could lie ahead, with the possibility that Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, could publish her own memoir.
The Royal family also faces the difficult challenge of maintaining the monarchy?s relevance in an increasingly polarised world, where social media has taken over.
In this episode, Camilla analyses how successfully the King and Queen have conducted their duties over the past year since the death of Queen Elizabeth, and what is likely to lie ahead.
NEW: Would you favour Britain becoming a Republic or remaining a Monarchy?
Remaining a Monarchy: 66%
Becoming a Republic 25%
Don't know: 9%
Ipsos: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-prefer-britain-remain-monarchy
Queen Elizabeth II of England delivered speech in French during 1964 visit
Queen Elizabeth delivers speech in French during Quebec 1964 visit - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L3_9BdgMXM)
Bristol University axes the National Anthem from graduation ceremonies amid students' claims it is 'old-fashioned' and 'offensive to some' | Daily (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12839925/Bristol-University-axes-National-Anthem-graduation-ceremonies.html)
?Some students at the 147-year-old university have suggested the National Anthem was culled because it is 'irrelevant', 'old-fashioned' or might even be 'offensive to some'.
It comes just weeks after the university vowed to remove slave trader Edward Colston's emblem from its logo, after his statue was toppled during a Black Lives Matter protest in the city in June 2020.
Layla Daynes, 21, told The Sun: 'The monarchy isn't really relevant to my generation, so it wouldn't be missed.'
They aren?t the first educational institution to do this and they certainly won?t be the last. There have been moves afoot at other colleges and universities.
It's a common occurrence in America as well. Supposedly people are 'triggered' lol -
I think it says more about the students then anything else. They're in for a surprise in the real world.
Oh that is for darn sure, they think they know it all now at their age and in college they can do as they please......I think the real world will kick them down quite a few pegs before they know what hit them.
William is third and Catherine second, behind the late Queen.
Kate Middleton and Prince William feature in top 5 most popular royals - full list - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/kate-middleton-prince-william-feature-31799712)
YouGov latest royal favourability results (6-7 Feb) -
Prince William: 77% positive view (+3 from 13-15 Jan) -
Catherine: 74% (+4) -
King Charles: 66% (+3) -
Camilla: 50% (+2) -
Prince Harry: 33% (+5) -
Meghan: 27% (+4) -
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1755567183957016731?s=20
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on February 08, 2024, 09:05:57 PMYouGov latest royal favourability results (6-7 Feb) -
Prince William: 77% positive view (+3 from 13-15 Jan) -
Catherine: 74% (+4) -
King Charles: 66% (+3) -
Camilla: 50% (+2) -
Prince Harry: 33% (+5) -
Meghan: 27% (+4) -
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1755567183957016731?s=20
I am curious to see what the spring quarter will look like for the BRF. Especially as the Queen has taken on many of the King's public engagements.
This latest survey is an extremely strange one. Why not just have a survey of the working royals, in which case where are Princess Anne, the Edinburghs, Gloucesters and the Kent siblings? Or, if YouGov intended to pit non working royals against working ones, where are Prince Andrew, Fergie, the York Princesses, the Tindalls and the rest?
Why pluck out the Sussex couple and pit them against the Waleses and the King and Queen (the figures aren't exactly brilliant still for Camilla or Charles anyway) with two of those on the survey battling serious health conditions and having a great deal of public sympathy.
If the object of this exercise was to show how unpopular two non working royals are against only four who are working royals and two of those battling serious illness (and Kate's cancer was not then known) then YouGov has succeeded. If however the object was to be fair to all the members of the RF then it's a big fail.
This company needs to stop pitting the Sussexes against the senior working royals years after the couple stopped being working royals and left GB altogether, and imo just have surveys with the King, Queen, the Waleses, the Prss Royal, the Edinburghs, Gloucesters and Kents, in other words the working RF, instead of carrying out completely illogical polling of this sort.
If there was a Scandinavian YouGov company then that quick survey would be akin to asking Swedes to match Prss Madeleine and her husband up against her siblings and parents when Madeleine has been a private citizen for years. Or doing the same in Denmark with Joachim and Marie pitted against his brother, sister in law, and aunt and widowed mother. Fair?
The Princess of Wales and her husband are popular across the generations.
With rampant speculation about Kate Middleton's wellbeing coming to a screeching halt following the Princess of Wales' revelation that she has cancer, a new YouGov survey finds that she is now the most well-thought-of royal among the public.
Three quarters of Britons (76%) say they have a positive view of the Princess of Wales, up six points since the start of the year.
Similarly popular is husband William, at 73%, although more people have a negative view of the Prince of Wales (21%, compared to Kate's 15%).
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49089-kate-middleton-now-uks-most-popular-royal
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1777636963572498680
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 09, 2024, 11:50:11 AMThe Princess of Wales and her husband are popular across the generations.
With rampant speculation about Kate Middleton's wellbeing coming to a screeching halt following the Princess of Wales' revelation that she has cancer, a new YouGov survey finds that she is now the most well-thought-of royal among the public.
Three quarters of Britons (76%) say they have a positive view of the Princess of Wales, up six points since the start of the year.
Similarly popular is husband William, at 73%, although more people have a negative view of the Prince of Wales (21%, compared to Kate's 15%).
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49089-kate-middleton-now-uks-most-popular-royal
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1777636963572498680
Thank you for sharing this information.
To be honest I don't see any surprises in the poll outcome.