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
The BBC isn’t perfect — but it’s ours. As coordinated attacks on its independence intensify, I warn that if we don’t defend it now, we may lose more than a broadcaster — we may lose a cornerstone of British democracy...
As a long-time critic of the @BBC, let me spell it out: what we’re seeing right now isn’t organic outrage — it’s a sophisticated coordinated campaign by ideological enemies and commercial competitors to undermine the BBC’s independence and funding.
If you can’t see that, you’re being played — and that’s exactly the point.
Let’s start with Michael Prescott, author of the dodgy dossier leaked exclusively to The Telegraph, who is a PR man and former political editor at Murdoch’s Sunday Times.
Many of the crimes Goodwin cites are still under investigation, misreported, or involve UK citizens, not “illegal migrants.” The Huntingdon suspect is British-born — yet he cites it as evidence of “mass uncontrolled immigration.”
There is no factual link between the Huntingdon attack and migration.
In fact, once you control for age and sex, non-UK nationals are slightly LESS likely to be in prison than UK citizens — and for violence and robbery, non-citizens are under-represented. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/comm…
Shameless opportunist Rupert Lowe is the most dangerous and most extreme MP in the UK.
His latest stunt is a letter to the PM that strongly implies the knife attack on a train was the product of “mass immigration” and “Islamic extremism”. It had *nothing* to do with either.
The incident was reported as NOT terror-related and the suspects BRITISH BORN at around 8:30 am: by @BBCNews 8:32; @Guardian 8:34; @SkyNews 8:36;
@ITVNews 8:38.
Lowe published his letter strongly implying it was 'Islamic extremists' on @X at 08:41. It quickly gathered 1M views.
Lowe is a modern day Oswald Mosley, shamelessly normalizating far-right discourse.
His letter is political malpractice: it mixes fear, plausible deniability, and ineffective proposals that would shred civil liberties and wreck lives, all while offering zero credible evidence.
A handful of selfish sociopathic billionaires and the populist politicians and media they fund have deliberately divided and radicalised millions of people across the world, solely to protect their wealth and power.
They claim to want to help “save children” while spreading distrust of experts, reputable journalism, climate science, and vaccines — which have saved over 100 million children since 1974.
By dividing the public, they protect their wealth and power.
Rather than justify how their wealth was earned, these elites cultivate scepticism of their critics and of expertise itself.
This deliberate erosion of trust shields their interests while undermining the science that saves lives and protects our planet.
Robert Jenrick closed his Conference speech with: “Let’s build this NEW ORDER. Let’s TAKE our country back.” Hitler's “New Order” was a vision for an Aryan-led Europe which involved exterminating or enslaving “undesirable” minorities.
In Britain, a group of prominent MPs—including Nigel Farage, Lee Anderson, Rupert Lowe, Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman—are normalising far-right discourse through three recurring frames/themes: invasion, scapegoating for cultural destruction, and demographic replacement.
Let's talk about chainsaw enthusiast, Musk buddy, and darling of the global free-market right, Javier Milei.
Let’s look at which UK politicians and news media have been most effusive in their praise for him, and at whats happened to Argentina since he was elected in 2023.
Milei’s election as President of Argentina in November 2023 was met with enthusiasm from right-wing news media and populist politicians who praised his libertarian, anti-establishment platform as a model for radical economic reform.
Support was often framed in the context of Thatcherite principles, with Milei seen as a disruptor against "socialism".
1. Kemi Badenoch celebrated Milei as a "template" for her own potential Government, aspiring to be "Britain’s version of Javier Milei".