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
A multibillion-dollar scheme that exchanges cash from drug and gun sales in the UK for crypto—digital tokens hiding users’ identities—has enabling “sanctions evasions and the highest levels of organised crime, including providing money-laundering services to the Russian state”. theguardian.com/politics/2025/…
In 2023, the hedge fund co-founded by GB "News" owner Paul Marshall, who employs 60% of anti-Net Zero Reform UK's MPs, had £1.8 BILLION invested in fossil fuel firms.
Harborne (who has Thai citizenship under the name 'Chakrit Sakunkrit) also makes money from fossil fuels.
I and countless others are sick to death of the billionaire-funded Reform UK propaganda machine, GB “News”, and their decontextualised ‘facts’ that would make Goebbels blush.
Let’s examine the claim that “one quarter of foreign sex offenders come from just five countries”.
Yes, the raw data comes from a genuine Ministry of Justice (MoJ) prison census, but the way it’s being weaponised is deeply misleading.
The statistic sounds explosive, and deliberately so: a factoid engineered to sound like a revelation of hidden danger.
The right-wing information pipeline: a cherry-picked fragment of official data stripped of context, laundered through an opaquely funded “think tank” that isn't a think tank, amplified by billionaire-funded media, and weaponised by opportunistic politicians for electoral gain.
In the September 2025 @SkyNews Immigration Debate, chaired by Trevor “Muslims are not like us” Phillips, Reform UK’s head of policy Zia Yusuf made a series of inaccurate and highly misleading claims about migration, and more recently, on @BBCNewsnight, about social housing.
These assertions are easily disproved with publicly available data, but often go largely unchallenged on air, despite being about some of the most sensitive and polarised issues in politics.
Yusuf started by claiming that UK net migration “last year” was “about a million.”
When a newspaper repeatedly publishes misleading, distorted, or outright inaccurate stories, the public expects independent regulators to step in.
What if I told you the editor responsible for these stories is now in charge of writing the very rules that govern press ethics?
Privately educated Chris Evans, editor of The Daily Telegraph since 2014, has—since January 2024—simultaneously served as Chair of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, the body that drafts, reviews, and rewrites the ethical rulebook that the UK press is meant to follow.
Evans holds this regulatory role at a time when his own paper is producing more factual corrections and clarifications than almost any other major UK outlet — with an overwhelming concentration in politically weaponised right-wing themes.
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.
Growing numbers of people are angry and disillusioned with the political establishment.
Desperate voters are easy prey for manipulative populists—as they were in Germany in the 1930s.
But the problem isn't immigrants or religious minorities. It's always wealth distribution.
The story of wealth in Britain over the past eight decades since WWII is not one of ‘the invisible hand’, but of deliberate policy choices—choices that once built one of the most equal society in modern history, but now sustain one of the most unequal in the developed world.
Data tracking wealth distribution from 1945 to 2025 reveal a striking U-shaped curve: a rapid reduction in wealth inequality after World War II, making Britain one of the most equal countries on earth by the mid 1970s, followed by an unbroken rise.