The Monarchy

[ProfessorDavey]

On the coronavirus thread there has been a side-discussion about the monarchy.

A couple of days ago yougov released new polling on the subject:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/12/03/how-do-britons-future-royal-family-succession?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=royal_family_future&fbclid=IwAR3vlfdTEIQGEMPNzOJ9pLFsH5mTBd1J_9tci7EbzEhL-vmg-8H1KeeZhvA

In line with previous polling there is about a two thirds/one third split in favour of keeping the monarchy after the Queen - but after that the answers get rather interesting. More people want William to become the next King (41%) than want Charles (37%). So nominally people are in favour of a hereditary monarch, yet they don't actually want what a hereditary monarchy implies, that you get the monarch dictated by the line of succession.

The other interesting thing is that none of the three plausible scenarios once the Queen dies (Charles becomes King; William becomes King; we no longer have a monarchy) receive majority support (i.e. over 50%). The closest at 41% is that William becomes King. So whatever happens a majority wont have favoured that option.

[SusanDoris]

Interesting and a good idea to  have this. I was thinkiing further about the William and Kate visits. If people felt so strongly against it, then presumably they would have refuse to meet them, even if given the opportunity to do so. The ones who did meet them  will have it to talk about.
Regarding the succession, those who say they want William to be king and not charles are not going to have their wishes fulfilled. It just doesn't work that way. William would presumably not want it either as he knows the system well. Charles will turn out to be a reasonably good sort of king no doubt and the ones who thought William should be king will have to learn more about the system and I bet they'll be quite happy with the way things run anyway.

And that's quite enough waffle for one day!

[Gordon]

I say just get rid of the whole anachronistic nonsense at the earliest opportunity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting and a good idea to  have this. I was thinkiing further about the William and Kate visits. If people felt so strongly against it, then presumably they would have refuse to meet them, even if given the opportunity to do so. The ones who did meet them  will have it to talk about.

I'm not sure it really works like that. In the past when I've been asked to attend an event with a VIP it isn't always clear who that might be, for security reasons. So the people who met William and Kate may have merely been asked by their employer (for example in the NHS settings) whether they'd represent their organisation in meeting an important visitor. Only once they'd agreed would they actually find out who that visitor was, and by that stage it would be pretty difficult to tell your employer to bog off in their request. And it would be pretty difficult for a care home resident not to be present when they visited, for obvious reasons.

And regardless, even if the individuals had an easy way to opt out, how would we know. All we'd see would be the people happy to meet them not those that refused. Ans I also suspect that there is a huge chasm between those who would actively refuse to meet a Royal and those that would actively seek them out. I think the middle ground majority would be perfectly happy to meet them (regardless of their monarchist or republican tendencies) if asked to do so in their normal course of work, education, care etc, but wouldn't in a million years go out of their way to meet a Royal (for example by hanging outside a hospital where a Royal was visiting etc).

[ProfessorDavey]

Regarding the succession, those who say they want William to be king and not charles are not going to have their wishes fulfilled. It just doesn't work that way. William would presumably not want it either as he knows the system well. Charles will turn out to be a reasonably good sort of king no doubt and the ones who thought William should be king will have to learn more about the system and I bet they'll be quite happy with the way things run anyway.

I think that is correct - it is really muddled thinking to be in favour or a hereditary monarchy but then want a say in who becomes King by opining that someone who isn't first in line should become monarch. You can't really have it both ways.

But I think we will see this time and time again, due to the length people live these days. Charles' problem isn't really that he is fundamentally unpopular (he was very popular in his 20s and 30s) - his problem is that he's simply been around too long - time has chipped away at his popularity (not least because of certain events) and people frankly have become bored of him as the never-quite (or not-yet) King.

But if Charles lives to the same age as his father, then William will be looking at another 28 years before he becomes King, and also plenty of time to blot his popularity copy book and similarly become the endless, never-quite (or not-yet) King. By then, of course George will be 35 and likely riding the crest of a popularity wave, perhaps newly wed with a young family himself.

So while today people want William rather than Charles - fast forward to 2048 and with Charles coming to the end of his reign and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same people want George to become King, not William. It is simply a tendency to want someone young and fresh, not old and stale.