62% of Britons think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, with 22% saying the country should move to having an elected head of state instead.
84% of Conservative voters say the monarchy should continue & 9% say we should have an elected head of state.
Labour voters are 48% in favour of a monarchy and 37% in favour of a head of state.
33% of 18 to 24-year-olds favour a monarchy & 31% a head of state.
While the majority of Britons have consistently been in favour of continuing the monarchy, there has been a decline over the last decade, from a high of 75% in favour of a monarchy in July 2012, to 62% in May 2022.
Young people have lost favour in a monarchical system over the last decade.
In 2011, when YouGov first started tracking the issue, 59% of 18 to 24-year-olds thought the monarchy should continue in Britain, compared to just 33% in May 2022.
Is the institution of the monarchy good or bad for Britain?
56% of Britons feel that the institution of the monarchy is good for Britain, although this percentage has also fallen since December 2012, when 73% of the public saw the monarchy as a good thing for the country.
Eight in 10 Conservative voters (80%) see the monarchy as being good for Britain, compared to 44% of Labour voters.
Three-quarters of Britons aged 65 and older (74%) say the same, compared to just 24% of 18 to 24-year-olds.
Will Britain still have a monarchy in 100 years’ time?
Over the past decade, there has been a shift in opinion about what the monarchy will look like in the future.
Britons are now split on whether the country will still have a monarchy in 100 years’ time.
In 2011, two-thirds of Britons said they thought there would still be a monarch in 100 years’ time, while just 24% said there would not be one.
In May 2022, 39% say the institution will still be around in a century, & 41% say it will not.
The British public’s perception of the importance of the monarchy may be affected by proximity to a Jubilee: in 2011, 71% saw the monarchy as being less important to Britain than they were in 1952; in May 2022, 56% of Britons thought the royal family has become less important.
Even those who feel that the monarchy should continue in Britain are agreed that the royal family play less of an important role today than they did 70 years ago (50%), while just 16% see them as more important and 27% think there has been no change.
Are Britons still proud of the monarchy?
Britons have become more embarrassed of the monarchy over the last decade: 18% now say they are embarrassed of the Crown, compared to just 8% in 2012.
47% say they are proud of the monarchy today - a drop from 57% in 2012.
70% of Conservative voters say they are proud of the monarchy.
34% of Labour voters say they are proud of the monarchy, 28% embarrassed, & 35% neither.
61% of Britons aged 65+ are proud.
23% of Britons aged 18-24 are proud, 28% embarrassed & 30% neither proud nor embarrassed.
Is the royal family good value for money?
The royal family is funded by the ‘Sovereign Grant’ (formerly ‘Civil List’), with the Queen normally receiving 15% of the Crown Estate profits & the rest going to the government. In 2020/21, the Crown Estate generated £269m in profit.
A majority of the public (55%) think that the royal family are good value for money, with 30% saying they are bad value for money.
This figure has declined since the Diamond Jubilee, however, when close to two-thirds (64%) saw the royal family as being good value for money.
75% of Conservative voters see the royal family as good value for money.
41% of Labour voters say they are good value, & 44% see them as bad value.
69% of Britons aged 65+ say they're good value.
34% of 18 to 24-year-olds say they're good value & 36% say they are not.
80% of those who think the monarchy should continue in Britain think the royal family are good value for money, 10% say they are bad value.
13% of those who think the country should have a head of state think the royal family are good value for money, 79% say they're bad value.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Boris Johnson appears to have had a secret meeting with billionaire Peter Thiel - perhaps the most fanatical of the libertarian Oligarchs and co-founder of the controversial US data firm Palantir, the year before it was given a role at the heart of the UK’s pandemic response.
The hour-long afternoon meeting on 28 August 2019 was marked “private” in a log of Johnson’s activities that day and was not subsequently disclosed on the government’s public log of meetings.
Elon Musk has been amplifying far-right accounts again, including Tommy Robinson, Rupert Lowe, and numerous anonynmous known #disinformation superspreader accounts like 'End Wokeness'.
Let's examine the context for yesterday's march in Richard Tice's constituency, #Skegness.
After decades of neglect, Skegness (pop 20K), stands out on key socio-economic markers on national averages: residents are older; whiter; lower full-time employment; higher rates of few/no qualifications; and concentrated deprivation - it's far-more deprived than most of England.
History repeatedly teaches us that burdening already struggling communities is a recipe for disaster.
These communities have been crying out for help for DECADES, but successive UK Govts have largely ignored their pleas, and continued to increase inequality, which harms us all.
🧵 @Rylan Asylum seekers coming here aren’t technically "illegal." International law (the 1951 Refugee Convention) allows people to seek asylum in any country regardless of how they arrive or how many countries they pass through, as long as they're fleeing persecution or danger.
Allow me to explain why asylum seekers aren’t “illegal”, and how misinformation and nasty demonising and scapegoating rhetoric by certain politicians and media, including news media, has made some British people less welcoming of asylum seeekers.
@Rylan
People fleeing war, torture, or persecution have the legal right to seek asylum.
The 1951 Refugee Convention, which the UK helped write, says anyone escaping danger can apply for asylum in another country no matter how they arrive: claiming asylum isn't a crime.
Farage's illiberal, immoral, & unworkable authoritarian plan involves ripping up human rights laws forged after WWII, which protect British people, & wasting £billions of UK taxpayers' money, giving some of it to corrupt misogynistic totalitarian regimes. theguardian.com/politics/2025/…
Leaving the #ECHR, repealing the Human Rights Act and disapplying international conventions
The UK would be an outlier among European democracies, in the company of only Russia and Belarus, if it were to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Opting out of treaties such as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against torture and the Council of Europe Anti-Trafficking Convention would also be likely to do serious harm to the UK’s international reputation.
It could also undermine current return deals, including with France, and other cooperation agreements on people-smuggling with European nations such as Germany.
The Society of Labour Lawyers said the plan would “in all likelihood preclude further cooperation and law enforcement in dealing with small boats coming from the continent and so increase, rather than reduce, the numbers reaching our shores”.
Farage said he would legislate to remove the “Hardial Singh” safeguards – a reference to a legal precedent that sets limits on the Home Office’s immigration detention powers – to allow indefinite detention for immigration purposes. This would be highly vulnerable to legal challenge.
Many of the rights protected by the ECHR and the Human Rights Act are rooted in British case law, so judges would still be able to prevent deportations, even without international conventions.
Reform UK’s grotesque far-right mass deportation plan is not just economically and socially illiterate (Britain an ageing population and low birth rate) rely on striking “returns agreements” with countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea and Sudan, offering financial incentives to secure these deals, alongside visa restrictions and potential sanctions on countries that refuse.
These are countries where the Home Office’s risk reports warn of widespread torture and persecution.
It would risk the scenario of making payments to countries such as Iran, whose regime the UK government has accused of plotting terror attacks on British soil.
The Liberal Democrats called the payments “a Taliban tax”, saying the plan would entail sending billions “to an oppressive regime that British soldiers fought and died to defeat”. They said: “Not a penny of taxpayers’ money should go to a group so closely linked to terrorist organisations proscribed by the UK.”
A reminder of the one, viewed 310,000 times, for which she was jailed, which urged people to burn down asylum seeker hotels after the #Southport attack - which had nothing to do with asylum seekers.
While all these tweets of Connolly's were made before her incendiary post, they don't say which year they were posted.
They can be accessed here, via The Wayback Machine, which has archived more than 916 billion web pages.
Connolly's tweet (top right) was in response to the tweet on the left, which criticised Laurence Fox for posting an upskirt photograph of Narinder Kaur.
The next one (right centre) was Connolly asking Kaur if she had 'flashed her gash'.
Aided by the billionaire-owned UK news media (Mail, Sun, Times, Metro, TalkTV and GB "News"), populist politicians push a cynical, divisive, and dangerously irresponsible false narrative that Britain is 'lawless'.