October 30, 2020 - 11:48am
Younger readers might be unaware but there was a time when the royal family was deeply unpopular, hated even. During the 1990s their standing plummeted, amid divorces and affairs, reaching its nadir in 1997 with the death of Diana. The institution was seen as outdated — an anachronism in the modern world and something that would surely die out.
Yet since then it has enjoyed something of a miraculous turn-around, helped no doubt by a talented PR team, but also reflecting its unifying appeal. British republicanism has once again faded into a niche interest.
This is not just some instinctive forelock-tucking on behalf of the British; there are huge, tangible benefits to having a constitutional monarchy, compared to often unstable republics in which winners take all.
There is also the argument that, as Britain becomes more diverse and faith in shared institutions and political norms fade, we’ll need the royals more than ever. Yet I’d be prepared to forecast that in the coming years the royal family will face huge problems – existential problems.
If you look at the most recent popularity polls, you can see two immediate issues.
Overall Royal favourability since March:
The Queen: +71 (+2)
William: +65 (-4)
Kate: +62 (+5)
Philip: +28 (+3)
Charles: +24 (-7)
Camilla: +1 (-5)
Harry: +1 (-19)
Meghan: -26 (-18)
Andrew: -73 (-2)https://t.co/RxSuczKP81 pic.twitter.com/YfZjOMTIV6— YouGov (@YouGov) October 28, 2020
Firstly, Andrew, who is currently on -73 popularity, which makes him about as well-loved and admired as the coronavirus. The scandal involving the Duke of York is likely to drag on, by which time who knows what will be revealed about his behaviour.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeEverything which genuine Conservatives hold dear is under mortal threat and why? Because official Conservatives have proved cowardly and inadequate where they have not been actively traitorous – witness the craven witterings of “Steve” Baker on the subject of BLM. It is above all over migration, an issue which cuts to the heart of Conservative politics, that they have wobbled and collapsed. Over free speech they are shifty, over education myopic and confused, over culture deeply indifferent. The result is a society undergoing a demographic and ideological shift, towards hard left, utopian bigotry for reasons eminently open to challenge when they started. Our “Conservatives” merely averted their gaze. Only with Mrs Thatcher did they discover the glimmerings of a world picture and even then it was in danger of being narrow and pragmatic, cut off from the foresight and insight which characterises persons of broader, Tory conviction.
Your points are correct and must be obvious to our ‘Leaders’, thus you have to conclude that they are deliberately following the same path as the rest of the Western World, otherwise they would do something about it.
Australia had an illegal immigration problem so they solved it. Even they then sacked the prime minster that had delivered such success.
They do this regularly, so I doubt that you can conclude anything from a Prime Minister of Australia being sacked.
“…. towards a hard Left?” An electorate which couldn’t bring itself to vote for even a moderate left-winger!
The shift towards the hard left is becoming apparent in the actions of the unelected heads of institutions across the spectrum; universities, museums, media, charities etc and is all the more dangerous because they are beyond the censure of the voter.
Parliament is not the problem, except inasmuch as the party at present in power does not appear to have the will to deal with the problem and the ‘opposition’ would be actively furthering the rot.
Prince Andrew has never been particularly popular and like the Markles is largely irrelevant. So why give them such prominence in an article which almost entirely ignores the fact that those in the immediate line of succession are doing broadly OK?
Could the end by nigh for the royal family? Nope.
We look at out neighbours and see the alternative.
Harry definitely seems to have acquired Stockholm Syndrome, as opposed showing Conjugal Empathy.
The circus across the Atlantic provides about 100 reasons why a Monarchy is helpful. Now if we could somehow get to grips with a coherent Second Chamber, that’s the better question!
We tolerate them because other options are worse, and they do give a boost to the tourist industry!
Monarchy constrained by a parliamentary system is without doubt the best way of governance ever to exist on earth. Americans think their system is better but its not and will not last. The threat as always for 1400 years is Islam and the prize is the same. Freedom or submission. Same with woke and all systems that religate the human soul to a collective.Humans like all primates need a hierachy for a peaceful and rewarding life.
.
We Yankees have been puzzling over our British cousins and the monarchy since, oh, 1776 or thereabouts. We have no dog in this fight anymore, but the drama is entertaining to watch! What baffles me is how a seemingly intelligent and admirable monarch like Queen Elizabeth II could have such mediocre and even risible progeny. If this keeps up, the monarchy probably has no future. But, we’ve been saying that since 1777… and look how that prognosis turned out!
Thailand provides a useful perspective. The transition from a dignified, widely respected monarch, to his -how to put this – strange son, has brought out the anti-monarchists, mostly young, in full force, to the streets. This in a country where disrespecting the monarchy is against the law.
If Britain removes the monarchy this country will go to shit. We tried to be a republic a few centuries ago, it did not end well. Give the monarch more power and scrap democracy.
I like and support our constitutional monarchy. However it’s clear that Charles would enjoy less popular support. I was struck by the example of the King of Norway who only accepted the role last century in the condition that the people were consulted in a referendum. This gave him the monarchy great legitimacy. Maybe in a modern democracy we need to do something similar. A once in a lifetime popular endorsement before a new sovereign is crowned or the opportunity for the population to opt for a republic. Just a thought.
That’s a very interesting idea. Or maybe just pass down the line of succession: “Charles, no; William yes”?
The advantage of a good monarch of the British sort is that they are a part of our shared identity. Ceremonial presidents are pointless, and the last few years have shown the advantage of having a Prime Minister vs. elected President.
“Could the end be nigh for the royal family”. No.
The monarchy and tourism is a myth – visitors to the palaces of France and Russia do not require a sitting tenant. The cost to the state of Cornwall alone is millions and Charles is clearly quite mad. The monarchy should end with the demise of Elizabeth – they are expensive, undemocratic, bigoted and unnecessary. Hopefully the second house will follow suit.
The most successful lie put abroad by Mr. William Hamilton (MP, in case you have forgotten him) is that the Monarchy is in some way expensive. The Crown is in fact less expensive than comparable Heads of State (where they are not also Head of Government). I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that Cornwall costs millions; the Duchy actually pays the expenses of the Heir to the Throne. Your observation about Prince Charles is rude, and unsubstantiated.
I could agree with most of that, but why “bigoted”?
A bigot is one who insists on their rightness and is intolerant of others. Charles offers unjustified expert opinion on climate change, architecture, numerous aspects of public policy/planning and repeatedly interferes with the process of government, none of which he is qualified or entitled to do. Anyone else would be ignored; he is a buffoon. Oliver isn’t quite right, I am occasionally rude about Charles and his family, but not unsubstantiated. The crown costs £345M a year in the royal grant alone; Charles did 519 hours of work for that in 2019. The proceeds of Cornwall belong to the state, they are not to be used for his pocket money. (These are current data and nothing to do with Mr Hamilton)
Are you non-British or is just ignorant? Cornwall is not a state, it’s a county. The Duchy of Cornwall is a separate entity from the county and owns land up and down the country. If you can’t even get some basic facts right, why should anyone take your views on the matter seriously?
I certainly hope so. The idea that they generate money is a complete falsehood. The land that has been stolen from the British people is what generates the money, and it still will do and we’ll not have to pay millions in tax to them every year once they are gone. Get them on the dole with everyone else who doesn’t work, isn’t that right, conservatives?
oh dear. Back to history class for you. What an ignorant comment.