The Role of the British Monarchy, Popularity and Future discussion part 2

[TLLK]

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."

[Amabel2]

Apart from Harry, who is making this claim?

[HistoryGirl2]

^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

[Curryong]

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

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

Further link, as first one failed.

[Curryong]

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

[TLLK]

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+

[Curryong]

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.

[wannable]

It's bursting a boiler, since they don't retire at 66, official and legal retirement age in the UK.

[Curryong]

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.

[TLLK]

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%

[HistoryGirl2]

^Nothing shocking at all there.

[TLLK]

^^^Nope and as expected the breakdown of age/socio-economic/political affiliation and region yielded the usual results.

[HistoryGirl2]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[HistoryGirl2]

^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.

[TLLK]

@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.)

[HistoryGirl2]

^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.

[TLLK]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[HistoryGirl2]

^^Yes, and if they?re interested in polling about non-working members, that poll should be done separately, in my opinion.

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.

[Curryong]

^^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.

[HistoryGirl2]

^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.

[Curryong]

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.

[TLLK]

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

Prince William More Popular With Americans Than Biden or Trump

Prince 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.

[wannable]

^ 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.