1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

YouGov poll shows that Britain is bored with its royal family

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Vince_Ulam, May 20, 2018.

  1. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Shock poll: Royal love affair is over

    [​IMG]

    'A YouGov poll published today shows the public's love affair with the Royal Family is at an end. The results give a clear picture of widespread disinterest in the Royals and a lack of enthusiasm for Saturday's royal wedding.

    [...]

    Key findings include:
    • 66% are not interested in the Harry and Meghan wedding
    • Most will have a normal weekend (60%) or will be working on Saturday (10%)
    • 57% believe the Royals should pay the full cost of the wedding, including the cost of policing and security
    • Asked if, given the choice, they would want to contribute their own taxes to the wedding, 76% said no.
    [...]

    "We're constantly being told that the nation loves the Queen and the Royal Family - clearly that's not true."

    "We're told this weekend's wedding is a national celebration. Clearly that's not true."

    "And we're told the monarchy's future is secure. This poll suggests that is in doubt."

    "The royals are running out of fresh ideas and big PR opportunities - now the real debate about this rotten institution must begin."
    '
    Republic.org, 14th May 2018.

    Are you happy that your taxes paid for this weekend's royal wedding? Is there truly any point to this bloated family when Britain could have a president at much less cost and to more purpose?
     
  2. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    Judging by the huge crowds yesterday and the viewing figures I'd have to say that the polls are wrong.
     
    BelleDuJour, lexus300, xmal and 7 others like this.
  3. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    You'll get relatively large television viewing figures for anything you plaster across multiple networks but the audience will always be niche.

     
  4. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    towncryer likes this.
  5. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    I expect that most of these were women.
     
    towncryer and nomad like this.
  6. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    It is not fashionable to admit you like the RF but words are cheap....the actions of many yesterday do indicate a curious fascination still of the rich and privileged by the masses....even if they will deny it and hurl abuse at me for accusing them of that.

    For me it is more considering how these people tend to live until they are 300 years old and that yes, maybe the stresses of a working life of the masses does kill?

    Let the Royals be but maybe lower the working week to 3 days??
     
  7. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    Not sure I'd want a President to replace the RF, to be honest.
     
  8. nizebaby

    nizebaby Star commenter

    Your point, exactly?
     
  9. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    Prince Harry
    •Volunteered for 2 tours of Afghanistan.
    •Set up Invictus games helping wounded service personal.
    ° Numerous unpaid charity volunteer appointments all over the world.

    Royal Family
    •Family brings in 400 million a year in private revenue that under the “ sovereign act 2011” the government keeps £360 million of.
    •Family brings in £1.8 billion per year in tourism.
    •Country better off by £2.1 billion a year.

    Remind me how the wedding is waste of tax payers money ?
    ° The wedding is paid for by the Royal heritage and private funding not the tax payer and that includes her dress!
    ° The tax payer pays for the public security not private security. The same way the tax payer pays for public security at football matches etc.
     
  10. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Jonathan, from time 2:23, has a couple of great ripostes to the argument from tourism:

     
  11. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    I've always wondered how they estimate the numbers of viewers and listeners.
    If I turn the TV on, I could be watching something alone, or with with mr.jubilee, or with other members of the family.
    I suspect that they extrapolate from the feedback of a small sample of viewres and listeners.
    I don't tend to lend too much credence to results from questionnaires. I've ticked enough boxes myself on questionnaires, where none of the options really applied but I wanted to complete it to be entered into a prize draw.

    My father signed up for some radio questionnaires years ago after he had retired. He felt important having his opinions noted. He would tune into a programme and then leave the room. He would then tick boxes and post off his weekly reports. I think he felt that they would know if his radio was switched off as he got cross if he found that someone had gone into the empty room and switched off the radio. With the radio on he felt that he could claim to have listened to the programme and he didn't need to specify that it was only for a few seconds or a couple of minutes.
     
    needabreak likes this.
  12. JL48

    JL48 Star commenter

    Some of us were busy yesterday, but recorded it and watched it later yesterday or today.

    Loved it :)
     
    needabreak, colpee and sparklepig2002 like this.
  13. Pageant

    Pageant Occasional commenter

    really don't like Charles or Camilla but as far as I'm concerned the Royals are just fine and I love the pageantry that draws the crowds. It's tradition and it should stay - even though I hope Charles will never be king. And ....... no one from YouGov asked me. (can't imagine having a president instead - it's bad enough that Charlie has opinions .....)
     
    needabreak and monicabilongame like this.
  14. artboyusa

    artboyusa Lead commenter

    Polls eh? When have they ever been wrong?
     
    needabreak and lexus300 like this.
  15. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

  16. elder_cat

    elder_cat Established commenter



    I don't class myself as a 'Royalist'. But it's a bit more palatable than having to contribute to the long term accommodation costs for banged up drug lords and gangsters :(



    Even allowing for the actual figures being touted as not necessarily being completely accurate, it seems having a President might not work out much cheaper in the long run :eek:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/20/tru...his-first-year-exceed-13-million-dollars.html

    All told, the president has amassed $13,533,937.28 in total first-year travel costs, the organization found.
     
  17. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    So factoring down for the UK... roughly 6 times smaller economy, 6 times smaller population... smaller land area...

    So it'd be roughly $2-3million per annum? circa £1.85 million

    And according to this : https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/871564/queen-elizabeth-travel-costs-taxpayer : the Royals cost us £4.5 million per annum in travel costs...
     
  18. CheeseMongler

    CheeseMongler Lead commenter

    I'm not "bored" with the royal family, I quite like having them. Doesn't mean I watched the wedding though. It's the wedding part that put me off.
     
  19. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    Because you don’t agree with it eh?
     
  20. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    Because you loathe democracy?
     

Share This Page