Among 18 to 24-year-olds, only 30% say the monarchy is “good for Britain”, compared with 77% among the over-65s.
The survey of more than 2,000 adults in Britain comes as the first anniversary approaches of the death of Queen Elizabeth II.
The pollsters found that overall, 62% want to keep the monarchy.
But they report a “remarkable difference between generations”, with younger people much less supportive on remaining a monarchy and more sceptical about the Royal Family representing good value for money.
For King Charles, as he approaches his first year on the throne, 59% of people thought he was “personally doing a good job”.
The pollsters say there has been a broadly consistent picture of “overall positivity towards the monarchy”, but there is also a sizeable and rising minority who are opposed.
deleted by creator
Canadian here, what does the king/queen of England actually do? If it’s anything actually important it seems wild to me that it’s based on just being born or marrying in to a certain family. If it’s not important, than why the fuck waste the resources to support them in the manor you do? I don’t get it.
While they head up various charities and ‘good work’ as such, their value to the UK is really now only in tourism. People like travelling to the UK to see some of its history given that it is still ‘current’, so there are palaces to see, ceremonial stuff like changing of the guards. If we didn’t have that, it would be one less reason to even travel to Britain I guess, and tourism is a large part of our GDP (over £130 billion). Reasons are, I imagine, diminishing…
When the Queen was alive, there was a very subtle soft power over Parliament because some Prime Ministers absolutely did not want to sit in front of her during their weekly audiences describing what a shambles they were making of the job and how they were failing people. I might be wrong, but I don’t feel Charles has that same presence, so that has diminished too.
We haven’t had a king of England since 1702, so they are probably doing very little.
They leech, that’s it.
I’m not a fan of monarchy but I see one value in britain’s monarchy: they are the keeper of the constitution and protect the people against their leaders abuse in a sort of benevolent dictatorship. They have no interest in weighing on one side or another because that’s the only power they have, they cannot gain more. They are, literally, bred and raised for this role.
That’s my (positive side) view of it but I’m sure it’s totally imperfect and I don’t mean that it outweighs the cost and problems it creates
Personally, in Norway, I’m fine with having a monarch, except for the unelected part and the hiring of their family. The monarch should be the only one being paid/having their expenses covered. Substitutes get paid for the time substituting.
Just hold a vote every now and then to prove that they have support. Polls are a poor substitute for elections.
I have no objections to keeping a member or two of the Royal Family around to get the tourists in and a low 6 figure salary would pay for itself. However, them retaining power and large swathes of the countryside/seafloor is something I strongly object to.
That’s a demographic timebomb for.the Royal Family. My only surprise is that support isn’t lower.
I wonder what the 26-64 demographics want.
Unless people change their mind as they get older
It was often said people get more reactionary as they grow older because they start gaining assets that a naughty Labour government could steal (I’d you read the Tory press) but: a) I didn’t observe that in my Dad and his friends and b) those younger generations are looking at never getting those assets. The latter might just give up on thinking they can change things but they’re largely going to be disaffected by The System for most of their lives.
