Royal Tour: The Republican Perspective and Articles

[PrincessOfPeace]

What a glorious time to be a monarchist in New Zealand. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have breathed new life into the Royal Family both in Britain and around the world.. Her Majesty's Realms are alive and well.

New Zealand monarchists are no longer the decorative-plate collecting, tea-towel toting fuddy-duddies of yore.

Chloe Oldfield, the vice-chairwoman of Monarchy New Zealand, is just 21. She is excited about this month's royal tour by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and said many young people were similarly enthusiastic.

There had been a "huge resurgence" in the popularity of the royals, the Wellingtonian told Fairfax Media.

Being able to relate to the younger generation of down-to-earth royals, such as Prince William and Catherine, was a driving force.

Their wedding in 2011, and the birth of their son, Prince George, last year, had generated further warmth towards the monarchy, Oldfield said.

More: Changing face of monarchists | Stuff.co.nz

[PrincessOfPeace]

LONDON/SYDNEY — He may still be in nappies but Prince George embarks on his first official tour this weekend as Britain's younger royals ride a wave of popularity that is expected to dampen republican movements in Australia and New Zealand.

The eight-month-old prince, third-in-line to the British throne, will accompany his parents the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on a three-week tour of the two former British colonies.

More: British Prince's First Tour Stifles Australia, New Zealand Republicans

[PrincessOfPeace]

Back in the days when an Australian leader brazenly put his hand on the Queen's back and a royal visit was dismissed by the media as "an image fading", the so-called "captive republic" appeared on the verge of finally breaking free of the shackles of the British monarchy. But today's Australians, it seems, have come to like their chains.

Fifteen years since the nation conducted a heated debate about the republic that ended with a bitterly fought constitutional referendum, the topic is greeted with a profound indifference. At last year's federal election, a party representing republicans received just 2,997 votes – far less than that received by the pirate party, the sex party or a party for smokers' rights.

As around the world people conduct national struggles and vie for greater independence, Australians have been snuggling ever closer to their foreign head of state. A poll in February found support for a republic was at 39 per cent – a 20-year low. Meanwhile, the impending and eagerly awaited visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who will spend almost three weeks in Australia and New Zealand with young Prince George, has generated intense interest.

More: Royal tour: Is Australia embracing the monarchy again? - Telegraph

[Limabeany]

In another potentially awkward moment, a leading New Zealand politician also warned yesterday it was 'inevitable' the country would become a republic.

Former deputy prime minister Sir Don McKinnon, who was also secretary general of the Commonwealth for eight years, said the country had been moving to renounce the Royal Family 'for a long time'.

'There are 54 countries in the Commonwealth, only 16 are realms [where the Queen is head of state], and I can tell you now that one Caribbean publicly, and three Caribbean privately, are probably going to give up the relationship with the monarchy when the Queen dies. So it is a diminishing group of countries and the important thing is for us to openly and candidly debate the issue,' he said.

Asked when New Zealand might go down the same road, Sir Don added: 'I don't know when....[but] I think it is inevitable.

Read more: Duke and Duchess of Cambridge branded 'irresponsible' over a £260 car seat which has been installed 'facing outwards' in the royal limo | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Limabeany]

The comments are much more revealing than the editorial... It does explain the empty streets greeting them today...

Editorial: Young royals get chance to impress Kiwis - National - NZ Herald News

[mod]Moved to this thread.[/mod]

[Orchid]

Nice editorial balance posed in this topic.
Double post auto-merged: April 07, 2014, 10:42:56 PM

That's what a monarchy must do to continue its survival - that is, appeal to the next generation/s. William and Catherine can do that through image control and that's a reason for the institution putting them on tour, particularly in areas with republican murmurs.

[Limabeany]

[mod] For ease of posting, all threads related to Republicanism and the Tour of the Cambridges have been merged here. [/mod]

[Orchid]

I think we've lost some context in the merge as they've merged in date/time order but never-mind.

[Limabeany]

 :willnavy1: Oh, no! Fortunately, it's early on... A few more posts and  :random38: But, how does one prevent this?

[Orchid]

I'll send you a PM, but no harm done... as you say, it's early in the thread  :random35:

[PrincessOfPeace]

Republican cause takes heavy knock in poll

Support for an Australian republic has collapsed to a 20-year low, with just 39.4 per cent of Australians saying they support a republic.

Support was lowest among older Australians and Generation Y voters, with people aged 35 to 65 most supportive of abandoning the monarchy.

An exclusive ReachTEL poll of more than 2100 Australians, conducted on Thursday night for Fairfax, shows 41.6 per cent oppose the country becoming a republic; 19 per cent had no opinion on the issue.
Poll conducted by phone, 6–7.30pm, Thursday January 30, 2014. Sample size: 2,146. Margin of error: +/- 2.1%.

Poll conducted by phone, 6–7.30pm, Thursday January 30, 2014. Sample size: 2,146. Margin of error: +/- 2.1%.

Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy national convener David Flint said the findings were a ''time bomb'' for the republican movement, with support among 18 to 35-year-olds at 35.6 per cent. Only those over 65 had a lower rate of support (30.7 per cent) for a republic.

More: Republican cause takes heavy knock in poll

[Orchid]

Interesting sample poll results. 
Among the sample, the "for" vs "against" percentage is fairly even with just 2.2% dividing the camps.  As in the UK, it's the  19% who have no opinion / are passive to either political regime which interests me just as much.

Curiously, the article (in a somewhat sensationalist tone) asserts that support for a republic has "collapsed to a 20 year low".  What were the support statistics from a similar sample poll previous to this poll then?  Does anyone know? 

[PrincessOfPeace]

Why don't republicans cite poll numbers? There must be republican polling firms. Surely if the republican movement is so robust republicans would be shouting from the roof tops.

Fact is republicans don't like polls because they show there movement is dead in the water.

[Limabeany]

I don't think the Republican movement in the Commonwealth is a lost cause as you seem to think, many are simply biting their time until the Queen dies... The allegiance today seems to be more to the Queen than to the Crown...

[PrincessOfPeace]

Republicans are loathed to conduct polls because they show the same results of the Monarchist Press.

Here is one of the few polls conducted by 'The People's Paper'. the Guardian and surprise surprise, even with fiddling with the results the numbers are clear, the few republicans in Britain are a dying breed

Among all the gifts that will be presented to the Queen for her Diamond Jubilee, perhaps this will be most treasured.

The monarch's popularity is at its highest for at least 15 years, a poll has found, with affection for the Windsors rising following the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's wedding last year, and ahead of the Jubilee.

Sixty-nine per cent believe the country would be worse off without the Royal Family. Only 22 per cent think the opposite, that Britain would be better off without them.

The 47-point margin between the two positions is the biggest recorded on any of the 12 occasions pollsters ICM have asked the question since 1997.

The results are somewhat ironic given that the poll was commissioned by the traditionally pro-republican Guardian newspaper.

More: In Jubilee year, royal popularity rating hits 15-year high... which must rankle with the republican paper behind poll | Mail Online

[Lady Adams]

Republicans are loathed to conduct polls because they show the same results of the Monarchist Press.

Here is one of the few polls conducted by 'The People's Paper'. the Guardian and surprise surprise, even with fiddling with the results the numbers are clear, the few republicans in Britain are a dying breed

What does this have to do with New Zealand's Republicans?

[PrincessOfPeace]

Windsor has said we are allowed to stray off topic as long as it is close to the topic of the thread. I just provided some republican context.

[Limabeany]

[mod]This tour, however, and the reports of the perspectives Down Under is a great opportunty to learn about that for all members. There is Republican thread for GB, let's keep these threads focused on NZ and Australia only for the duration of the Tour to avoid having these threads become duplicates of other threads. :thanks: [/mod]

[PrincessOfPeace]

Fair enough Limabeany  :thumbsup:

[Blue Clover]

Good questions asked in this thread! I am curious to see what impact this very long tour with have on the issue and the polls.

[Orchid]

Why don't republicans cite poll numbers? There must be republican polling firms. Surely if the republican movement is so robust republicans would be shouting from the roof tops.

Fact is republicans don't like polls because they show there movement is dead in the water.

I've yet to see any evidence which substantiates the "fact" that republicans dislike polls and dislike them because they evidence a dead movement. From my experience, the availability of polling statistics varies from source to source, instance to instance, both in the context of pro-monarchy and pro-republican samples.

What's more, if we return to the original article which claims that support for an Australian republic has "collapsed to a 20 year low", this implies that previous republican-based poll results have indeed been available by which to measure the purported recent decline in support.  It was the availability of these previous polls that I was enquiring after so as to see for myself how sharp the decline has been.

-...I am curious to see what impact this very long tour with have on the issue and the polls.

Indeed, it would be interesting to see a comparison between the January poll results cited in the earlier article [for example] and a poll conducted after the tour. 

I'd be curious to know how ReachTEL determined their demographic for the Australian poll.  Covering a wide age range was clearly a factor, but I wonder if area and its political constituency had an impact.  As with all polls, I do wish this information would be made available for a thorough analysis of results, otherwise polls are just used subjectively to support a desired view/outcome.

[PrincessOfPeace]

The previous polls conducted in Australia have been by polling firms and newspaper, republican groups don't like to commission polls on the monarchy because the results show lack of support.

Look at what happened when The Guardian did it in 2012, as sighted above.

[Orchid]

The previous polls conducted in Australia have been by polling firms and newspaper, republican groups don't like to commission polls on the monarchy because the results show lack of support.

It's a sweeping generalisation and a subjective interpretation to suggest that because the mainstay of polls in Australia are commissioned by newspapers and research firms, that this means republican groups "don't like" to commission polls and don't like to do so because of the results.  Polls are knowledge/insight and that's always invaluable irrespective of the results.  No organisation consciously likes to function under the philosophy of ignorance is bliss.

A more objective analysis of who instigates polls would be linked to the costs involved – republican organisations are not high-revenue organisations and so cannot necessarily commission expensive polls like the high-revenue earning newspapers and funded research firms who need polls to generate headlines and trade/income.  Polling is a business after all. What's more, republican funds (from my experience) tend to be channelled into campaigns, staffing, literature, etc rather than polls.

Look at what happened when The Guardian did it in 2012, as sighted above.

I see that a high-revenue earning newspaper commissioned a survey on the republican mood and that it yielded (from a pool of 1,002 people) a majority support in favour of the monarch, 69:22. The Guardian commissioned the survey to gage a sample political mood to write about. But why do you feel the commission and results support your interpretation that "republican groups don't like to commission polls"? The Guardian's report was accurate and objective with no reference to regret or not repeating the process in the future: Guardian 2012 ICM survey article

What I have noticed with the link you provided is that it is a report by pro-monarchy newspaper, the Daily Mail. It isolates the statistics to exclaim: "69% believe we would be worse off without the royal family".  "22% think Britain would be better off without them".  They play up the percentages for pro-royalists effect (fair enough, it serves their agenda)... but not once do they refer to the open-endedness of the" worse off/better off" question that ICM used and the impact of this upon the interpretation and ultimately the answers of those surveyed. It's a significant point that the Guardian at least acknowledge.

The mail goes on to say the "Figure was 48% around [the] time of Diana's death in 1997" implying a simple surge in popularity. But there's a difference between a rebalancing of acceptance/popularity following a controversial decline in support and a natural change in generational perspectives/support, and a surge in popularity due to a growing political desire for monarchy. These nuances, despite their imperativeness, are never discussed or analysed and so it's all too easy to simply claim that people are just pro-monarchy and the republican movement is waning. 
This can be felt in the Mail's line, "Affection for the Windsors [is] rising". Where exactly have levels of "affection" been measured/ascertained? The ICM survey certainly didn't ask if people regarded the royal family "with affection". And so this is an interpretation of the percentages by the Mail, and it's misleading. Support/acceptance doesn't inarguably equate to affection. I point this out because people seem to accept newspaper reports as gospel - using them to support various claims - without actually unpacking the subjectivity, bias and leads in the writing.

If we're to engage in these debates with the hope of gaining a truer picture as possible of our political climes, then we must embrace every nuance of surveys and the social climate in which they're operating in order to evaluate the meaning of the results as objectively as possible. Otherwise, we're picking out what we want to present to serve [or worse, "prove"] our own subjective agenda, and in that process the pursuit of accuracy is lost and we're all just arguing "sides" without any meaningful purpose.

[Lady Adams]

^^ Wow, great post Orchid!  :notworthy:  :flower:

I found this quote as it relates to the discussion interesting:

Sir Don, 75, a former deputy prime minister and foreign secretary of New Zealand under the conservative National Party, spent eight years as Commonwealth Secretary General.

He predicted that his country, which is already discussing removing the Union Jack from its flag, would not be the only one of the current 15 overseas realms to ditch the Crown.

"I can tell you now that one Caribbean publicly, and three Caribbean, privately are probably going to give up that relationship with the monarchy when the Queen dies," he said.

"So it is a diminishing group of countries, and the important thing is for us to openly and candidly debate the issue."
Prince George and parents fly into New Zealand on first royal tour | Royal | News | Daily Express

[Orchid]

That's generous of you, Lady Adams, thank you.

His prediction is certainly interesting, not least because it invites an open discussion on the future of a monarchy within certain cwc's for the next generation. 

I suppose these opinions will begin to emerge throughout and immediately after the tour, given William, Kate and George's presence there is primarily to generate interest and support in the "next generation royals".