> Among 18 to 24-year-olds, only 30% say the monarchy is “good for Britain”, compared with 77% among the over-65s.
Could that be related to those who have more experience and understanding of what the Monarchy does. They probably been to more events and had more direct exposure.
Generally people are less likely to be supportive of what they don’t know about and what they haven’t dealt with.
Probably because younger people are, arguably for the first time in 2000 years, worse off than the previous generations.
In a time when resources are cut to the bone and the cost of living is going up, it’s a little hard to stomach a family being propped up by the tax payer to oh so graciously live a life of luxury as a “service” to the nation, with their only credentials being that their ancestors were bigger bastards and better at murdering than mine were.
The paid monarchy should consist of the king, William, and William’s eldest rugrat. All other hangers on shouldn’t be part of the civil list. No exceptions. Once Williams brats are adults, the spare and the 3rd one should pay their own way.
Good stuff, hope this trend holds as they age, and finally send the Windsors off to Coventry.
I just don’t see the benefits of transitioning our system of government. Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands are enviable in many senses, and they operate under constitutional monarchies. If it was evident that this system holds countries back then I would be supportive, but the evidence seems to suggest the contrary.
It would cost a lot of money and would be fraught with opportunities for political meddling with how it would put the constitution on the table, and at the end of it we’d have, what… a head of state that still costs money to employ, protect and transport around the world but has none of the 1,000 or so years of cultural significance behind them?
And if people think an elected head of state wouldn’t cause controversy and division then I will just broadly gesture at the history of politics
If we have to have a head of state, then it may as well be the monarchy. It does need to be slimmed down though. And if they could out the sexual predator and stop protecting him, then all the better.
The royals are a public business that profits more than they take. The queen’s jubilee only boosted our economy out of recession and people who think they do knowing are uneducated hooligans. They cost 80m a year and in 2017 they brought in 1.7b. That’s almost a 20x increase in profits.
When I was a kid the Monarchy seemed such an obvious “thing to be scrapped”. Now I’m strongly in favour of keeping it…it just seems so much better than any other system. It’s a weird historical fluke glitch has given us a system which sounds nuts but works great. The selection of head of state being arbitrary nonsense is part of the _strength_ of it.
Without it we’d currently have President Boris.
In a grand strategy video game, this would be ‘meta’.
Let them keep the titles but all the income from ‘their’ lands etc goes to the state.
Give them a normalish salary (say 50k pa) and state protection. That’s it.
Let’s have a referendum on whether an elected democracy is good. I mean, it’s far older than our monarchy and old = bad.
If it’s a purely ceremonial role, as proponents claim, we should have a Labrador as the head of state.
They also claim that the monarchy drive tourism, but arguably with a dog on the throne the allure will be far stronger.
What about diplomacy? Labradors are second to none in their ability to make friends.
If there is some political decision making involved then a dog isn’t appropriate, but nor is an inherited title. The head of state should be elected.
So the BBC are only concerned with people over 65 or under 24 it seems – at least for that article.
I prefer the idea of a Federal Republic with a Presidential Head of State – similar to Germany.
I like the Monarchy from a historical perspective but quite frankly they whole idea of an elitist family group being born into the position of the head of state is so outdated as to be embarrassing.
What does that say to the voting populace? The only way to rise to the very top is to be born into it. The only problem is that none of the major political parties support changing the status quo.
I’m 56 BTW.
I doubt people really care about removing them
It’s definitely in the vanarama conference league of urgent problems to be solved right now.
Should compromise, his majesty some nobhead called charlie, long live the king
I thought I was anti-monarchy but my kids generation would seemingly have them hanging from a tree.
Personally, I would get rid of them tomorrow. Let them cosplay as gods chosen people and wear all the funny hats they like but it is an institution that should have burned a long time ago. There is a sickness in this country and these idiots are at the root of most of it.
Well, yes. The younger generation is not becoming more conservative as they get older, despite the stereotype. They are staying or becoming more liberal. The sharp inequality going on just proves the need for change.
The older I get, the more I dislike the monarchy. As a kid I had no real opinion on it all.
Fob them off and open up the palaces.
I will even argue it’s the wwii that makes the monarch still relatable and likeable because of their war speech. Now that we have a wealth distribution problem, they are exactly representing the privileged class, which is the reason why the new generation is not so keen on them.
18 comments
> Among 18 to 24-year-olds, only 30% say the monarchy is “good for Britain”, compared with 77% among the over-65s.
Could that be related to those who have more experience and understanding of what the Monarchy does. They probably been to more events and had more direct exposure.
Generally people are less likely to be supportive of what they don’t know about and what they haven’t dealt with.
Probably because younger people are, arguably for the first time in 2000 years, worse off than the previous generations.
In a time when resources are cut to the bone and the cost of living is going up, it’s a little hard to stomach a family being propped up by the tax payer to oh so graciously live a life of luxury as a “service” to the nation, with their only credentials being that their ancestors were bigger bastards and better at murdering than mine were.
The paid monarchy should consist of the king, William, and William’s eldest rugrat. All other hangers on shouldn’t be part of the civil list. No exceptions. Once Williams brats are adults, the spare and the 3rd one should pay their own way.
Good stuff, hope this trend holds as they age, and finally send the Windsors off to Coventry.
I just don’t see the benefits of transitioning our system of government. Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands are enviable in many senses, and they operate under constitutional monarchies. If it was evident that this system holds countries back then I would be supportive, but the evidence seems to suggest the contrary.
It would cost a lot of money and would be fraught with opportunities for political meddling with how it would put the constitution on the table, and at the end of it we’d have, what… a head of state that still costs money to employ, protect and transport around the world but has none of the 1,000 or so years of cultural significance behind them?
And if people think an elected head of state wouldn’t cause controversy and division then I will just broadly gesture at the history of politics
If we have to have a head of state, then it may as well be the monarchy. It does need to be slimmed down though. And if they could out the sexual predator and stop protecting him, then all the better.
The royals are a public business that profits more than they take. The queen’s jubilee only boosted our economy out of recession and people who think they do knowing are uneducated hooligans. They cost 80m a year and in 2017 they brought in 1.7b. That’s almost a 20x increase in profits.
When I was a kid the Monarchy seemed such an obvious “thing to be scrapped”. Now I’m strongly in favour of keeping it…it just seems so much better than any other system. It’s a weird historical fluke glitch has given us a system which sounds nuts but works great. The selection of head of state being arbitrary nonsense is part of the _strength_ of it.
Without it we’d currently have President Boris.
In a grand strategy video game, this would be ‘meta’.
Let them keep the titles but all the income from ‘their’ lands etc goes to the state.
Give them a normalish salary (say 50k pa) and state protection. That’s it.
Let’s have a referendum on whether an elected democracy is good. I mean, it’s far older than our monarchy and old = bad.
If it’s a purely ceremonial role, as proponents claim, we should have a Labrador as the head of state.
They also claim that the monarchy drive tourism, but arguably with a dog on the throne the allure will be far stronger.
What about diplomacy? Labradors are second to none in their ability to make friends.
If there is some political decision making involved then a dog isn’t appropriate, but nor is an inherited title. The head of state should be elected.
So the BBC are only concerned with people over 65 or under 24 it seems – at least for that article.
I prefer the idea of a Federal Republic with a Presidential Head of State – similar to Germany.
I like the Monarchy from a historical perspective but quite frankly they whole idea of an elitist family group being born into the position of the head of state is so outdated as to be embarrassing.
What does that say to the voting populace? The only way to rise to the very top is to be born into it. The only problem is that none of the major political parties support changing the status quo.
I’m 56 BTW.
I doubt people really care about removing them
It’s definitely in the vanarama conference league of urgent problems to be solved right now.
Should compromise, his majesty some nobhead called charlie, long live the king
I thought I was anti-monarchy but my kids generation would seemingly have them hanging from a tree.
Personally, I would get rid of them tomorrow. Let them cosplay as gods chosen people and wear all the funny hats they like but it is an institution that should have burned a long time ago. There is a sickness in this country and these idiots are at the root of most of it.
Well, yes. The younger generation is not becoming more conservative as they get older, despite the stereotype. They are staying or becoming more liberal. The sharp inequality going on just proves the need for change.
The older I get, the more I dislike the monarchy. As a kid I had no real opinion on it all.
Fob them off and open up the palaces.
I will even argue it’s the wwii that makes the monarch still relatable and likeable because of their war speech. Now that we have a wealth distribution problem, they are exactly representing the privileged class, which is the reason why the new generation is not so keen on them.