| Support for the monarchy 09:30 - Apr 21 with 2272 views | DJR |
Despite the media going into overdrive in support of the monarchy with its coverage of the Queen's death, and its constant promotion of Kate and the cuties and denigration of Harry and Meghan, interesting to see that only 52% of the country think the monarchy is good for the country.
Just think what the position might have been but for the pro-monarchy over-kill?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11995197/Boost-King-exclusive-MailOnl
Nevertheless, the Mail is painting its polling as great news. |  | | |  |
| Support for the monarchy on 22:30 - Apr 21 with 1843 views | Oldsmoker |
After such a successful stint as Man Utd manager, Sir Alex Fergusson set such a high bar that all who succeeded him would be seen as a failure.
I was pleased that Manures dominance had ended.
Maybe Brenda was the Royal Familys Sir Alex.
OK - It's the same team but I think the new guy is no Brenda.
I think the nation senses it too. |  |
| |
| Support for the monarchy on 07:51 - Apr 22 with 1761 views | DJR |
| Support for the monarchy on 22:30 - Apr 21 by Oldsmoker |
After such a successful stint as Man Utd manager, Sir Alex Fergusson set such a high bar that all who succeeded him would be seen as a failure.
I was pleased that Manures dominance had ended.
Maybe Brenda was the Royal Familys Sir Alex.
OK - It's the same team but I think the new guy is no Brenda.
I think the nation senses it too. |
That's absolutely right, and probably explains why the media have gone into overdrive because they know it too. | | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:07 - Apr 22 with 1732 views | Churchman |
What’s interesting is that the Mail presented 52% as a ringing endorsement of the monarchy. I would describe the support as lukewarm, not ‘strong public support’.
Is it more the absence of a decent alternative?
Maybe I’m biased. I’ve never been a a supporter of the monarchy. Nothing personal towards the individuals, it as a principle just doesn’t seem right to me.
But hey ho, 52% is a majority so there it is. |  | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:15 - Apr 22 with 1724 views | bluelagos |
Social attitudes change.
Just a matter of time, especially when you look at the support for a republic among youngsters.
Will be uncomfortable for the older generation, the royal family play the role of a comfort blanket for many, just look at the upset for many when Lizzie passed.
If you'd asked me a year ago I wouldn't have expected a republic in my lifetime. Now I defo see it happening in another 20 years... |  |
| |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:31 - Apr 22 with 1694 views | Churchman |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:15 - Apr 22 by bluelagos |
Social attitudes change.
Just a matter of time, especially when you look at the support for a republic among youngsters.
Will be uncomfortable for the older generation, the royal family play the role of a comfort blanket for many, just look at the upset for many when Lizzie passed.
If you'd asked me a year ago I wouldn't have expected a republic in my lifetime. Now I defo see it happening in another 20 years... |
I don’t know, since the Civil War and the 1660 Restoration, when the power and position of the monarch moved towards to what we see today, popularity for it has ebbed and flowed.
When Victoria pitched up after a succession of oddballs, she was deeply unpopular until Albert remodelled it. Most of our so called ‘traditions’ stem from him.
I think it may well go sooner than 20 years, with the inevitable break up of the U.K. in the next few years, the role of monarch will look ever more anachronistic in my view. | | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:47 - Apr 22 with 1666 views | Freddies_Ears |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:07 - Apr 22 by Churchman |
What’s interesting is that the Mail presented 52% as a ringing endorsement of the monarchy. I would describe the support as lukewarm, not ‘strong public support’.
Is it more the absence of a decent alternative?
Maybe I’m biased. I’ve never been a a supporter of the monarchy. Nothing personal towards the individuals, it as a principle just doesn’t seem right to me.
But hey ho, 52% is a majority so there it is. |
It isn't the first time the Mail has misrepresented 52% as being an overwhelming endorsement... |  | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:53 - Apr 22 with 1656 views | Ryorry |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:31 - Apr 22 by Churchman |
I don’t know, since the Civil War and the 1660 Restoration, when the power and position of the monarch moved towards to what we see today, popularity for it has ebbed and flowed.
When Victoria pitched up after a succession of oddballs, she was deeply unpopular until Albert remodelled it. Most of our so called ‘traditions’ stem from him.
I think it may well go sooner than 20 years, with the inevitable break up of the U.K. in the next few years, the role of monarch will look ever more anachronistic in my view. |
For what? President Boris? 😱
If a scheme were enabled which gave the presidency to some worthy community stalwart nominated and voted for by local people for say a 2-year stint each, I'd buy that, but it'd never happen of course. [Post edited 22 Apr 2023 8:54]
|  |
| |
| Support for the monarchy on 09:07 - Apr 22 with 1638 views | fab_lover |
I firmly believe that the media is a reflector, not a director. They print the stories they know their readership want to read.
In 20-30 year's time their readership will have changed - the Boomers will be pretty much dead, my generation (X) are mostly less invested in the monarchy, I don't see a Republic in my lifetime, however a more European-style monarchy where the non "ruling" members of the family get less press coverage and the monarch themselves is less visible is the way things should go.
What this country needs more is constitutional change. Break the link between Church and State, get rid of prelates in the House of Lords, State opening of parliament, all that archaic nonsense.
Oh, and the Royals should be properly taxed, of course. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Support for the monarchy on 09:27 - Apr 22 with 1601 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:53 - Apr 22 by Ryorry |
For what? President Boris? 😱
If a scheme were enabled which gave the presidency to some worthy community stalwart nominated and voted for by local people for say a 2-year stint each, I'd buy that, but it'd never happen of course. [Post edited 22 Apr 2023 8:54]
|
The thought of President Boris is probably the best reason for maintaining the current set up.
However no reason why Houses of Parliament couldn’t be turned into a full blown tourist attraction and something else built on a less grand scale elsewhere. No House of Lords but a much smaller second chamber elected in a similar way to how MEP’s were elected. Would also cut the numbers in House of Commons by at least a third. |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 09:41 - Apr 22 with 1578 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:53 - Apr 22 by Ryorry |
For what? President Boris? 😱
If a scheme were enabled which gave the presidency to some worthy community stalwart nominated and voted for by local people for say a 2-year stint each, I'd buy that, but it'd never happen of course. [Post edited 22 Apr 2023 8:54]
|
| |
| |
| Support for the monarchy on 09:46 - Apr 22 with 1566 views | Plums |
| Support for the monarchy on 09:07 - Apr 22 by fab_lover |
I firmly believe that the media is a reflector, not a director. They print the stories they know their readership want to read.
In 20-30 year's time their readership will have changed - the Boomers will be pretty much dead, my generation (X) are mostly less invested in the monarchy, I don't see a Republic in my lifetime, however a more European-style monarchy where the non "ruling" members of the family get less press coverage and the monarch themselves is less visible is the way things should go.
What this country needs more is constitutional change. Break the link between Church and State, get rid of prelates in the House of Lords, State opening of parliament, all that archaic nonsense.
Oh, and the Royals should be properly taxed, of course. |
Have I read that correctly? You don't think Rupert "When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice" Murdoch is a director of UK policy and public opinion?
I'm afraid I beg to differ. |  |
| |
| Support for the monarchy on 11:06 - Apr 22 with 1486 views | ronnyd |
| Support for the monarchy on 09:27 - Apr 22 by Pinewoodblue |
The thought of President Boris is probably the best reason for maintaining the current set up.
However no reason why Houses of Parliament couldn’t be turned into a full blown tourist attraction and something else built on a less grand scale elsewhere. No House of Lords but a much smaller second chamber elected in a similar way to how MEP’s were elected. Would also cut the numbers in House of Commons by at least a third. |
If and when the Palace of Westminster is flnally closed for the repairs it desperately needs, it would be a good time to move the Commons to a purpose built facility. Scrap the Lords and then, on completion of Westminster, open it up as a museum. | | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 11:06 - Apr 22 with 1487 views | brazil1982 |
It's not only 52% of the country. It's 52% of the 1500 adults answering an online questionnaire, it's negligible numbers for a 14 page spread!
God save the King. |  | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 11:09 - Apr 22 with 1477 views | Churchman |
| Support for the monarchy on 08:53 - Apr 22 by Ryorry |
For what? President Boris? 😱
If a scheme were enabled which gave the presidency to some worthy community stalwart nominated and voted for by local people for say a 2-year stint each, I'd buy that, but it'd never happen of course. [Post edited 22 Apr 2023 8:54]
|
Or President Raab! That of course is the question. What to replace it with. Your idea is as good as any. | | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 11:57 - Apr 22 with 1425 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Support for the monarchy on 11:09 - Apr 22 by Churchman |
Or President Raab! That of course is the question. What to replace it with. Your idea is as good as any. |
Not much to choose between President Raab and President Dowden. | |
| |
| Support for the monarchy on 09:43 - Apr 23 with 1278 views | DJR |
| Support for the monarchy on 09:27 - Apr 22 by Pinewoodblue |
The thought of President Boris is probably the best reason for maintaining the current set up.
However no reason why Houses of Parliament couldn’t be turned into a full blown tourist attraction and something else built on a less grand scale elsewhere. No House of Lords but a much smaller second chamber elected in a similar way to how MEP’s were elected. Would also cut the numbers in House of Commons by at least a third. |
The model to follow would presumably be a Parliamentary Republic.
This is what Wikipedia says about Parliamentary Republics.
"A parliamentary republic is a republic that operates under a parliamentary system of government where the executive branch (the government) derives its legitimacy from and is accountable to the legislature (the parliament). There are a number of variations of parliamentary republics. Most have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government holding real power and the head of state being a ceremonial position, similar to constitutional monarchies."
In the case of many Parliamentary Republics, the head of state is appointed by the Parliament (German), not the people (Ireland). In some cases a two-thirds majority or more is required.
Imposing a two-thirds majority would presumably rule out someone like Johnson, but if further safeguards were required, a limitation could be put in place to rule out anyone who had served in Government or the Shadow Cabinet in the last 10 years.
Such a system would presumably end up with a position more like that which operates in relation to the appointment of the Speaker, with someone felt appropriate to represent the country being appointed as head of state. [Post edited 23 Apr 2023 9:45]
| | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 10:46 - Apr 23 with 1218 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Support for the monarchy on 09:27 - Apr 22 by Pinewoodblue |
The thought of President Boris is probably the best reason for maintaining the current set up.
However no reason why Houses of Parliament couldn’t be turned into a full blown tourist attraction and something else built on a less grand scale elsewhere. No House of Lords but a much smaller second chamber elected in a similar way to how MEP’s were elected. Would also cut the numbers in House of Commons by at least a third. |
Had the then Prince Charles been visiting his favourite Uncle, Lord Mountbatten, for a boating holiday on the wrong day, we would now be ruled by King Andrew.
Let that sink in! | | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 15:04 - Apr 23 with 1141 views | Ryorry |
| Support for the monarchy on 10:46 - Apr 23 by ArnoldMoorhen |
Had the then Prince Charles been visiting his favourite Uncle, Lord Mountbatten, for a boating holiday on the wrong day, we would now be ruled by King Andrew.
Let that sink in! |
No we wouldn't - Andrew would either have been quietly persuaded behind the scenes to renounce it by the late Her Maj and/or others, giving some diplomatic explanation - "health" or whatever; or an "accident" would have happened ... | |
| |
| Support for the monarchy on 15:05 - Apr 23 with 1134 views | pointofblue |
52-48? Again?! | |
| |
| Support for the monarchy on 15:22 - Apr 23 with 1100 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Support for the monarchy on 15:04 - Apr 23 by Ryorry |
No we wouldn't - Andrew would either have been quietly persuaded behind the scenes to renounce it by the late Her Maj and/or others, giving some diplomatic explanation - "health" or whatever; or an "accident" would have happened ... |
We will have to disagree on that- trashing Andrew's reputation is entirely consistent with the way The Palace treats Spare bloodlines- see Harry and Meghan, whereas Pegging Prince William is allowed to go full on Dominic Raab at his brother and still receives all the backing.
Had Charles died, and Andrew been in line to succeed his mother, then they would've backed him.
(Male Primo Geniture was only repealed with regard to Charles' kids' generation onwards, so Anne was below Andrew and Edward in the line of succession.) | | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 16:20 - Apr 23 with 1020 views | Ryorry |
| Support for the monarchy on 15:22 - Apr 23 by ArnoldMoorhen |
We will have to disagree on that- trashing Andrew's reputation is entirely consistent with the way The Palace treats Spare bloodlines- see Harry and Meghan, whereas Pegging Prince William is allowed to go full on Dominic Raab at his brother and still receives all the backing.
Had Charles died, and Andrew been in line to succeed his mother, then they would've backed him.
(Male Primo Geniture was only repealed with regard to Charles' kids' generation onwards, so Anne was below Andrew and Edward in the line of succession.) |
Yeah I disagree!
I think you underestimate the power & will of the late Her Maj when running the family firm.
They'd have drawn the line at at someone who the vast majority of the public believes is a paedophile, and who has zero public respect. | |
| |
| Support for the monarchy on 16:35 - Apr 23 with 993 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Support for the monarchy on 15:05 - Apr 23 by pointofblue |
52-48? Again?! |
And similarly, the BBC are focusing on the 52%. |  |
| |
| Support for the monarchy on 16:38 - Apr 23 with 986 views | DJR |
| Support for the monarchy on 16:20 - Apr 23 by Ryorry |
Yeah I disagree!
I think you underestimate the power & will of the late Her Maj when running the family firm.
They'd have drawn the line at at someone who the vast majority of the public believes is a paedophile, and who has zero public respect. |
I agree with that.
The monarchy relies upon public support, and with it currently being only 52%, they would have had to get rid of Andrew. He would in any event not have been the only Royal to step aside from the top job. [Post edited 23 Apr 2023 16:38]
| | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 16:49 - Apr 23 with 959 views | WD19 |
| Support for the monarchy on 16:35 - Apr 23 by Swansea_Blue |
And similarly, the BBC are focusing on the 52%. |
Should they be focussing on the (noisy) less than 1 in 4 that are keen on a Republic?
Typical British poll. Nobody wants anything and wants to moan about everything.
Rule Britannia. |  | | |
| Support for the monarchy on 20:32 - Apr 23 with 872 views | HARRY10 |
| Support for the monarchy on 09:07 - Apr 22 by fab_lover |
I firmly believe that the media is a reflector, not a director. They print the stories they know their readership want to read.
In 20-30 year's time their readership will have changed - the Boomers will be pretty much dead, my generation (X) are mostly less invested in the monarchy, I don't see a Republic in my lifetime, however a more European-style monarchy where the non "ruling" members of the family get less press coverage and the monarch themselves is less visible is the way things should go.
What this country needs more is constitutional change. Break the link between Church and State, get rid of prelates in the House of Lords, State opening of parliament, all that archaic nonsense.
Oh, and the Royals should be properly taxed, of course. |
The so called 'boomers', anyone over 30 it now seems, are NOT so enthralled as you might imagine. Those in their seventies are of the hippy generation. The 60's.
Those under 30 are far more conservative than previous generations, so on that basis, they would supposed to be pro royal Whereas I believe it is more one of indifference.
If some bloke (as Steptoe and Son) wants to take his horse and cart out, get another bloke wearing a dress to perform some mambo jumbo, again so what ? However the royal family will remain, but their relevance will continue to diminish.
For all the Ruritanian splendour of the day, it will merely draw the spotlight to why a country that can afford this expensive buffoonery, cannot afford to treat its sewage properly, fill the huge number of potholes, provide dental care for its patients, get the trains to run on time, provide hospital treatment (7m procedures on the waiting list), sort out long term health care and pay so many what they are owed and due.
Both the Russian and French royal families were overthrown, partly due to the glaringly obvious disparity between their lives and wealth and that of the sans culottes.
Sure, there'll be loony righties deluding themselves that they are somehow part of this. No more, than the animals staring through the window on the final page of Animal Farm.
If it is any measure I have yet to see any talk of street parties up and down the country or any organised parties/events outside of the official stuff in London on the day. No doubt there will be plenty of drinking, and plenty watching it on the TV. But that would be the same for a public execution
And you don't have to be a history buff to be aware of what happened to a previous King Charles in that regard (we just happened to act long before France and Russia). | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
