NEW analysis has found that King Charles’ popularity is the monarchy's worst in decades.
A Savanta poll in November found that more than a third of people want to replace King Charles with an elected head of state.
People’s preference for the monarchy stands at 52% versus 34% of people who want to ditch the institution, according to the survey.
This sparked a debate, with campaign group Republic saying support for getting rid of the monarchy was now at “record” levels.
READ MORE: Petition to strip Prince Andrew of Scottish title passes milestone
Now, analysis of historic data by Newsweek shows that this polling may actually be “significantly worse” than previously thought, and even compared to the past few decades – including the popularity slump in the post-Diana era. The analysis also found that it affects a different section of society.
The monarchy had a dip in popularity just before Princess Diana’s death – with an Ipsos poll finding that 39% of people felt Britain would be worse off without a royal family.
This improved shortly after, before an even further slump in 2000 – with between 25% and 30% believing the UK would be better off without the monarchy.
A resurgence followed with the romance and wedding between Kate and William but the current crisis since the late Queen’s death and the fresh controversy around Prince Andrew's connections to the paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein is more complex.
The Newsweek analysis noted that millennials, now in their late 20s and 30s, have not moved right politically the same way past generations have – in part due to the 2008 financial crisis and current cost-of-living crisis – and now are more likely to be critical and sceptical of those with great and/or inherited wealth.
Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy group Republic, told Newsweek: "A lot of it has to do with the scandal and changing attitudes around social issues and issues of social justice and historic justice and that sort of thing which has thrown a spotlight on the royals in relation to Prince Andrew and Harry and Meghan.
"A lot of it is just about changing attitudes and I think the long-term trend of people losing interest has made it easier for people to turn against. If people are younger and middle class they are more likely to be taking seriously things like the environment and social justice and Me Too and Black Lives Matter and that sort of thing.
"They look at the monarchy and they just can't see themselves reflected back in that."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel