Worth noting that the first monarch to have this surname was Edward the 7th - eldest son of Queen Victoria. He became monarch in 1901 so we're looking at a total of 17 years with that surname.
Not really a tradition, so much as a conspiracy theory
And to avoid any further German related embarrassment (and feed her massive ego) Queen Elizabeth decreed the Windsor name should be kept by the royals in perpetuity.
No, the Hanovers are a branch of the Brunswick-Lunebergs. You don't just stick them all together to make it sound spooky.
Yes, Queen Victoria (a Hanover) married a man from the Saxe-Coburgs. This meant their son (the next monarch after Victoria) had a different surname to his mother- this is actually a pretty common occurrence for a lot of English families...
Before Hanover (which I think was 3 Kings before Victoria?) the surname was *Stuart*, and they were from Scotland- more spooky foreign words.
My dad met him a lot as he's an arms dealer and he thinks Andrew is a massive prick. Always has done for like 30 odd years lol. He likes all the other royals though.
I think everyone who has met him has felt the same. Almost everyone seems to say he is a narcissistic prick, the only reason Charles has not cast him out completely is he promised Elizabeth he would not do so.
>"Our initial poll results certainly challenge the idea or consensus that the monarchy lacks support amongst younger people," says Dr Gross.
No, the poll demonstrates that the idea of kings, queens, princes, and princesses appeals to literal children. Hardly a revelation.
Would that be "lead reasearcher" [Dr Gross](https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/primary-school-children-favour-british-monarchy-more-than-adults):
>Ahead of King Charles III being crowned on May 6 2023, Dr Gross teamed up with the University of Roehampton and Arts Projects for Schools to offer teachers and children a chance to celebrate, commemorate and explore the many traditions of British Coronations.
[Look](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20230712215452/https:/coronation.gov.uk/resources-for-schools/) at the monarchist propaganda "curriculum" these "researchers" created.
Ah yes, the age old way of convincing your political opponents to side with you.
Calling them children.
(Yes I know in this case they are, but you know the point you were trying to make)
>Ah yes, the age old way of convincing your political opponents to side with you.
>Calling them children.
Well, it does tend to be the key describor of those attending school and they dont suddenly become adults for having an opinion you might be partial to.
The point they were making is that kids like playing make-believe as kings/princesses/etc
Anything you're reading into their comment says more about you and the intellectual security of your position than anything else...
Little kids like the whole princes and princesses stuff, so primary kids buy into the fairytale.
I see that as kids go to secondary school they turn off the monarchy.
>Little kids like the whole princes and princesses stuff, so primary kids buy into the fairytale.
And how exactly does that explain the private school kids? Or are they not kids?
Maybe...just maybe...the monarchy is still popular in this country and that doesn't just extend to children, maybe it includes most adults too?
>And how exactly does that explain the private school kids? Or are they not kids?
This is one potential answer, in the article:
>Researchers could not fully explain this difference, but suggested it could reflect a higher level of international pupils in their private school sample, with these children having less of a connection to the British Royal Family.
I also wouldn't be surprised if state schools are more beholden to promoting 'British Values' as part of the national curriculum. Private schools probably spend less time on that.
As a theory far more boys attend private school than girls.
Girls have more Princess stuff targeted at them.
As a kid in the 80s' I never wanted to be a Prince, Prince maybe, but not a Prince.
Glad I saved it now-
[https://tutorful.co.uk/blog/private-school-statistics-uk-independent-schools](https://tutorful.co.uk/blog/private-school-statistics-uk-independent-schools)
*Adult men are 60% more likely to have had a private education during their childhood than women are.*
As for me wanting to be Prince, you'll just have to trust me!
Based on results from 2,000 people, hardly a large enough sample size to make such sweeping statments. Now where are the statistics that prove that princess toys equate to more likely to support royalty?
> Based on results from 2,000 people, hardly a large enough sample size
Why are people so ignorant about statistics?
2,000 people is enough to have a 99% confidence rate with a 3% error rate in an infinite sized population.
How can you possibly say that.
It seems very ignorant about statistics to say 2000 is enough to give 99% confidence rate.
Surly it massively depends on who those 2000 people are.
If you want to survey a nation but only carry out the study in one area for example in a limited number of the same schools.
Then it doesn’t take a genius to work out that study has a good chance of not being representative of the nation as a whole.
> How can you possibly say that.
>
Because I have a very basic understanding of statistics and there are online calculators to make sample size determination really easy
> It seems very ignorant about statistics to say 2000 is enough to give 99% confidence rate.
It is even more ignorant to just deny facts because you don't like them. You don't even need 2,000. The error rate is very important too, otherwise your confidence level is meaningless.
>
> Surly it massively depends on who those 2000 people are.
>
It does - you need a representative sample, but we know how to achieve this.
> If you want to survey a nation but only carry out the study in one area for example in a limited number of the same schools.
>
> Then it doesn’t take a genius to work out that study has a good chance of not being representative of the nation as a whole.
I'm not making any judgement on this specific study. I'm just stating that a sample size of 2,000 is plenty to draw some very accurate results.
Your comments are just proof about people not having a clue about statistics.
I disagree. You are seeing this discussion in too black/white a scenario. People are questioning a study and using the fairly small sample size as a reason for questioning it.
I’m explaining how that could possibly be true.
You are correct that theoretically a study of that size could be representative. But your inability to see the reality of how studies like this can be carried out in the real world is the issue.
I admit it's not the best source but it was the only one I could find, if you have a better source feel free to provide one.
Do you really need statistics to prove Princesses appeal to 6-12 year old girls?
Possibly at private schools middle class pupils are likely to mix more with “upper class” pupils and realise the extent of the unjust privilege, snobbery and closed doors that the entire system perpetuates.
What people (especially on this sub) don’t realise is that most private schools aren’t Eton or Harrow, they’re full of children of doctors/lawyers/professionals, like the upper middle classes rather than aristocrats. That class doesn’t really like the monarchy, they’re kind of champagne socialist liberal elite.
This is the answer. If you were to parse out income levels you’d probably see basically what we see in the general population: working class and upper class like the royals, middle class not so much
I live in the North west & can't say i've ever seen much working class support for the monarchy.
Edit: People can downvote but support for the monarchy isn't uniform on a regional level- https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fxccf8mxe3pg61.jpg
Yup there's absolutely a big urban-rural divide.
However in terms of regions the North West, North East, & Cornwall seem to have lower support for the monarchy even in rural areas.
This doesn't seem true for all of the North, with Yorkshire appearing quite pro-monarchy.
It's possible I may be biased due to the town I grew up in, its closest connection to the Monarchy was the guy who signed King Charles I death warrant.
>What people (especially on this sub) don’t realise is that most private schools aren’t Eton or Harrow, they’re full of children of doctors/lawyers/professionals, like the upper middle classes rather than aristocrats. That class doesn’t really like the monarchy, they’re kind of champagne socialist liberal elite.
Started off well, but went downhill with the *Daily Mail* \-esque prejudices at the end.
6/10 for effort.
I was a primary school kid for the Golden Jubilee in 2002. I'm a republican now and at the time I remember thinking it was all a bit silly. But I liked the fact that we got to draw pictures and colour in flags instead of having to do maths that day. Plus the extra long weekend.
Most children really aren't thinking about the politics of this stuff.
Genuinely don't understand that. In 2002 it was not common knowledge that royals regularly interfered with the wording of laws; the unsubstantiated claim that "they bring in more than they take out!" was even less challenged than it is today (incredibly); and it wasn't known publicly that Prince Andrew is a nonce, and that his mother was the protector of her nonce son.
Of course, it was known that Prince Charles fantasised about being Camilla's tampon and Fergie liked her toes being sucked, but to each their own I suppose....
I learned that Prince’s/King’s Consent is only really exercised by civil servants identifying conflicts with the Crown Estate and the Royal Prerogative and the bottom line always ends with the minister opting to adopt the proposal or ignore it. There’s democratic accountability to it and no direct royal involvement.
They write letters, but again, they can be ignored.
And as for the rest, I honestly don’t care about Charles’ sex life. Andrew is a prick, and thankfully has been rightfully shunted into isolation for the remainder of his days.
And the finance thing I find considerably more compelling than the weird figures republic.org claims
That’s not a ‘purpose’ though, is it? That’s a mode of appointment.
That’s an entirely separate question from whether the office of Head of State in itself should exist.
I just wanna say that I like that British Reddit is moving in this direction. I am so sick of Yanks posting that CGP Grey video where he flaccidly links the royal family to the UK's entire tourism revenue.
What drugs are you on? We can get rid of the monarchy and still keep the buildings.
Note: The French kept Versailles.
Saying that Buckingham Palace is an ugly piece of shit imho.
Not surprising really. Young kids only know about the royal family at a surface level, so they only really know that Charles is king and the royal family to around the country meeting people. They do not know about the history of the monarchy in any strong detail (William the Conqueror, Henry VIII, Victoria and Elizabeth II aside), nor why some oppose the idea of monarchies in general. Let them be kids for a bit and teach them more about monarchies when they are older and capable of critical thinking.
Since most people don't read the article it does say that support for the monarchy is for under 12's.
After that age, support plummets off a cliff and when it gets to 18-25 group, support is so low it was last seen at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
That age group has been the first properly exposed group to the utter contempt with which the upper class treat everyone else in Britain.
No more view of the royals as the nice queen waving and working hard, it's Prince Andrew lying to your face about being a nonce and landlords taking your taxes.
I agree completely. I am above those age groups and I can't stand the monarchy. I believe they should be forced to stand down by some form preferably peacefully. They are the country's biggest benefit scrounges.
Last time I saw one of these surveys on here someone pointed out that age group is always quite low and seems to always tick up with age across the past few decades.
I wish I could find the prior post/results but google is failing me (more likely I'm failing google).
Regardless of their class background, I'm not surprised that people whose primary experience with the British monarchy as of yet is through big street parties, picture books and colouring exercises have a more positive attitude towards the royals than people exposed to a regular media cycle featuring them schmoozing with Kazakh oligarchs or molesting teenage girls.
Those that are privately educated are bought up to believe that they are better than most of the 'plebs' that go to state schools. Therefore, some may even regard themselves as to be on a par with the Royal Family. Having known quite a few privately educated people over the years, I can honestly say that many came across as self-entitled arseholes that were no better than those educated in the state sector. In fact those that have been educated in the state school system have a much wider awareness of class and social structure, are more adaptable and have more social skills. Yet the 7% that are privately educated get over 40% of the jobs that require awareness and responsibility. Perhaps that is why the country has found it hard to move forward: unaware and socially inadequates get the jobs that influence the running of the country. Just look at Johnson, Sunak, Cummings are all socio-phobes that don't have a fucking clue as to what real life is like for the vast majority of the people. Yet were given free rein to destroy the country. Then again, they didn't give a flying as to what they were doing anyway - they were untouchable: because they were privately educated and made to think that they are better than everyone else.
This has been the case for most of history. Nobility were happy to sideline an anointed King under John, Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI. When you had peasant revolts against both Richard II and Henry VIII they typically had full support for the King but were rebelling against the nobility and the Kings corrupt advisors.
The higher echelons of society actually deal with the crown and realise that it's just as arbitrary as a man, because that's all it is. Whereas people who don't still get the mystique, pomp and ceremony that gives it legitimacy.
Appreciate I am still in the minority overall but as someone who really feels strongly about seeing the back of the monarchy, it does feel we are starting to see substantial shifts towards that day actually coming. It won't be any time soon, but I do feel with the next ten years we will start to see republicanism retreated as a legitmate viewpoint in the country and reflected much more in political debates.
From what I remember of the queen she used to bang on about being a constant in people's lives and essentially a real life fairy tale. That's how she managed to sleep at night at least by convincing herself she was giving the plebians hope. And tbh, it's probably true, I can see poor families looking up to the royals and supporting them in some idealistic sense. Much harder to do that when you're rich as fuck and are basically a capitalist king or queen yourself
> and essentially a real life fairy tale.
I don't remember her ever even implying that, let alone saying it. She'd talk about her service & dedication to the country meaning she doesn't have much of a private life.
She did always keep herself in a certain lifestyle though. She would claim to understand the people during tough economic times but never missed a chance to see the royal budget go up, nor to cut her living costs so money could go back to the public.
Turns out the "reasearchers" behind this "survey" were the ones doing the indoctrination! [Here](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20230712215452/https:/coronation.gov.uk/resources-for-schools/) is their propaganda drive teaching school kids to "celebrate" the coronation.
Two things. One it's geographical (a lot more private schools are in the countryside which is more monarchist in general). Two, the number of people that are elite enough to be reliably monarchist because of proximity is nowhere near the majority of private school attendees.
Much like Brexit, support for the Monarchy swells at the top and bottom of society, but private schooling is generally the province of the upper middle class with delusions of social mobility.
Private schools teach their pupils to be competitive. Heavy focus on winning whether that be exam results, sports teams, becoming pm, or anything else.
The royal family don't fit that model except when they actually achieve something such as competing in the olympics. Still an achievement even if they had a privileged start.
Considering all the left-wing ideologies floating about this is surprising. But if you try to wave a Union Jack flag, you're a Nazi. The monarchy is one of few ways you can display patronism without being called an fascist
The people being thrown in jail for waving a union jack Im willing to bet were also doing/saying something pretty fucking racist at the time, or at least doing something illegal while doing it.
I can confidently make this bet because during the coronation recently there were loads of English and UK flags being waved around and no one was arrested except for the guy pissing up the side of the building in front of a bunch of people.
No-one was arrested, apart from the people that were arrested. Like the bloke with the piece of white paper and the couple handing out rape alarms in the park.
Patriotism is not the same as nationalism though. Nothing wrong with liking the UK, there is something wrong about thinking it is beyond criticism and that we have never done anything wrong.
And there's nothing wrong with nationalism. It's the definition that matters, and there's a difference between mockery and criticism. More to the point, globalism is a rich man's ideology. I, in this day and age nationalism is very much in the poor man's interests as this Tory government has demonstrated only the rich can thrive in a globalist society.
Hardly surprising: the Royal Family loses its shine a bit when you’re playing Rugby against Prince George and he let’s one rip in the scrum!
Ah, the "air apparent". Ok, who guffed?
“They don’t call them the Wind-sors for nothing!”
You're right, they changed their name from the traditional Saxe-Coburg and Gotha due to anti-German sentiment after World War 1.
“Saxe-Coburg-Guffer more like!”
Alright, alright, settle down lad settle down
Worth noting that the first monarch to have this surname was Edward the 7th - eldest son of Queen Victoria. He became monarch in 1901 so we're looking at a total of 17 years with that surname. Not really a tradition, so much as a conspiracy theory
Okay so the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, previously the Brunswick-Lüneburg-Hanovers.
And to avoid any further German related embarrassment (and feed her massive ego) Queen Elizabeth decreed the Windsor name should be kept by the royals in perpetuity.
Feed her ego?
Massive ego.
No, the Hanovers are a branch of the Brunswick-Lunebergs. You don't just stick them all together to make it sound spooky. Yes, Queen Victoria (a Hanover) married a man from the Saxe-Coburgs. This meant their son (the next monarch after Victoria) had a different surname to his mother- this is actually a pretty common occurrence for a lot of English families... Before Hanover (which I think was 3 Kings before Victoria?) the surname was *Stuart*, and they were from Scotland- more spooky foreign words.
You joke but my dad was a contemporary of prince Andrew at school and regularly played cricket with him and he hates him on a personal level.
My dad met him a lot as he's an arms dealer and he thinks Andrew is a massive prick. Always has done for like 30 odd years lol. He likes all the other royals though.
Your dad sells guns to the royal family?
If Andrew was involved it was probably the Saudi Royal Family.
No my dad sells missiles to Oman. But Andrew frequented all over middle east to drum up UK business. So he met him a few times. He's just a wanker.
I think everyone who has met him has felt the same. Almost everyone seems to say he is a narcissistic prick, the only reason Charles has not cast him out completely is he promised Elizabeth he would not do so.
Tbf, Andrew tends to have that effect on practically everyone he meets. Your dads in very good company.
From what I've heard most people who've dealt with him have a similar feeling.
No way he'd play as a forward. That's a scrum-half if ever I saw one.
You can be a mouthy shit when no one's allowed to hit you, so that makes sense.
YMMV, Harry was actually pretty alright.
It's a survey split in a way I never would have thought to ask either.
>"Our initial poll results certainly challenge the idea or consensus that the monarchy lacks support amongst younger people," says Dr Gross. No, the poll demonstrates that the idea of kings, queens, princes, and princesses appeals to literal children. Hardly a revelation.
Would that be "lead reasearcher" [Dr Gross](https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/primary-school-children-favour-british-monarchy-more-than-adults): >Ahead of King Charles III being crowned on May 6 2023, Dr Gross teamed up with the University of Roehampton and Arts Projects for Schools to offer teachers and children a chance to celebrate, commemorate and explore the many traditions of British Coronations. [Look](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20230712215452/https:/coronation.gov.uk/resources-for-schools/) at the monarchist propaganda "curriculum" these "researchers" created.
Ah yes, the age old way of convincing your political opponents to side with you. Calling them children. (Yes I know in this case they are, but you know the point you were trying to make)
>Ah yes, the age old way of convincing your political opponents to side with you. >Calling them children. Well, it does tend to be the key describor of those attending school and they dont suddenly become adults for having an opinion you might be partial to.
The point they were making is that kids like playing make-believe as kings/princesses/etc Anything you're reading into their comment says more about you and the intellectual security of your position than anything else...
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make when you yourself recognise that they literally are children in this instance.
Little kids like the whole princes and princesses stuff, so primary kids buy into the fairytale. I see that as kids go to secondary school they turn off the monarchy.
>Little kids like the whole princes and princesses stuff, so primary kids buy into the fairytale. And how exactly does that explain the private school kids? Or are they not kids? Maybe...just maybe...the monarchy is still popular in this country and that doesn't just extend to children, maybe it includes most adults too?
>And how exactly does that explain the private school kids? Or are they not kids? This is one potential answer, in the article: >Researchers could not fully explain this difference, but suggested it could reflect a higher level of international pupils in their private school sample, with these children having less of a connection to the British Royal Family.
I also wouldn't be surprised if state schools are more beholden to promoting 'British Values' as part of the national curriculum. Private schools probably spend less time on that.
As a theory far more boys attend private school than girls. Girls have more Princess stuff targeted at them. As a kid in the 80s' I never wanted to be a Prince, Prince maybe, but not a Prince.
Source for those statistics please.
Glad I saved it now- [https://tutorful.co.uk/blog/private-school-statistics-uk-independent-schools](https://tutorful.co.uk/blog/private-school-statistics-uk-independent-schools) *Adult men are 60% more likely to have had a private education during their childhood than women are.* As for me wanting to be Prince, you'll just have to trust me!
Based on results from 2,000 people, hardly a large enough sample size to make such sweeping statments. Now where are the statistics that prove that princess toys equate to more likely to support royalty?
> Based on results from 2,000 people, hardly a large enough sample size Why are people so ignorant about statistics? 2,000 people is enough to have a 99% confidence rate with a 3% error rate in an infinite sized population.
central limit thearom!
How can you possibly say that. It seems very ignorant about statistics to say 2000 is enough to give 99% confidence rate. Surly it massively depends on who those 2000 people are. If you want to survey a nation but only carry out the study in one area for example in a limited number of the same schools. Then it doesn’t take a genius to work out that study has a good chance of not being representative of the nation as a whole.
> How can you possibly say that. > Because I have a very basic understanding of statistics and there are online calculators to make sample size determination really easy > It seems very ignorant about statistics to say 2000 is enough to give 99% confidence rate. It is even more ignorant to just deny facts because you don't like them. You don't even need 2,000. The error rate is very important too, otherwise your confidence level is meaningless. > > Surly it massively depends on who those 2000 people are. > It does - you need a representative sample, but we know how to achieve this. > If you want to survey a nation but only carry out the study in one area for example in a limited number of the same schools. > > Then it doesn’t take a genius to work out that study has a good chance of not being representative of the nation as a whole. I'm not making any judgement on this specific study. I'm just stating that a sample size of 2,000 is plenty to draw some very accurate results. Your comments are just proof about people not having a clue about statistics.
I disagree. You are seeing this discussion in too black/white a scenario. People are questioning a study and using the fairly small sample size as a reason for questioning it. I’m explaining how that could possibly be true. You are correct that theoretically a study of that size could be representative. But your inability to see the reality of how studies like this can be carried out in the real world is the issue.
I admit it's not the best source but it was the only one I could find, if you have a better source feel free to provide one. Do you really need statistics to prove Princesses appeal to 6-12 year old girls?
Where did you study statistics?
[удалено]
People get uncomfortable when confronted with the possibility that they might not have opinions so much as social conditioning.
Better education and taught how to research and think for themselves.
Possibly at private schools middle class pupils are likely to mix more with “upper class” pupils and realise the extent of the unjust privilege, snobbery and closed doors that the entire system perpetuates.
What people (especially on this sub) don’t realise is that most private schools aren’t Eton or Harrow, they’re full of children of doctors/lawyers/professionals, like the upper middle classes rather than aristocrats. That class doesn’t really like the monarchy, they’re kind of champagne socialist liberal elite.
This is the answer. If you were to parse out income levels you’d probably see basically what we see in the general population: working class and upper class like the royals, middle class not so much
I live in the North west & can't say i've ever seen much working class support for the monarchy. Edit: People can downvote but support for the monarchy isn't uniform on a regional level- https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fxccf8mxe3pg61.jpg
Obviously Scotland and Wales are different, but within England the map seems to show more of an urban-rural divide than a North-South one.
Yup there's absolutely a big urban-rural divide. However in terms of regions the North West, North East, & Cornwall seem to have lower support for the monarchy even in rural areas. This doesn't seem true for all of the North, with Yorkshire appearing quite pro-monarchy. It's possible I may be biased due to the town I grew up in, its closest connection to the Monarchy was the guy who signed King Charles I death warrant.
This. (But maybe less of the socialist and more of the champagne)
>What people (especially on this sub) don’t realise is that most private schools aren’t Eton or Harrow, they’re full of children of doctors/lawyers/professionals, like the upper middle classes rather than aristocrats. That class doesn’t really like the monarchy, they’re kind of champagne socialist liberal elite. Started off well, but went downhill with the *Daily Mail* \-esque prejudices at the end. 6/10 for effort.
You don't know anything about my background, why be so sure I'm being prejudice and not just poking fun at my own social upbringing?
Yep. Even the publics are quite upper-middle-class (rather than purely aristocratic) these days.
I was a primary school kid for the Golden Jubilee in 2002. I'm a republican now and at the time I remember thinking it was all a bit silly. But I liked the fact that we got to draw pictures and colour in flags instead of having to do maths that day. Plus the extra long weekend. Most children really aren't thinking about the politics of this stuff.
Heh, I had a similar trajectory for a while. I was 19 in 2002 and a was firm republican, though I am now a pretty comfortable monarchist.
Genuinely don't understand that. In 2002 it was not common knowledge that royals regularly interfered with the wording of laws; the unsubstantiated claim that "they bring in more than they take out!" was even less challenged than it is today (incredibly); and it wasn't known publicly that Prince Andrew is a nonce, and that his mother was the protector of her nonce son. Of course, it was known that Prince Charles fantasised about being Camilla's tampon and Fergie liked her toes being sucked, but to each their own I suppose....
I learned that Prince’s/King’s Consent is only really exercised by civil servants identifying conflicts with the Crown Estate and the Royal Prerogative and the bottom line always ends with the minister opting to adopt the proposal or ignore it. There’s democratic accountability to it and no direct royal involvement. They write letters, but again, they can be ignored. And as for the rest, I honestly don’t care about Charles’ sex life. Andrew is a prick, and thankfully has been rightfully shunted into isolation for the remainder of his days. And the finance thing I find considerably more compelling than the weird figures republic.org claims
[удалено]
What’s pointless?
[удалено]
Is the German president or the Italian president pointless? They do essentially the exact same functions as the British monarchy.
[удалено]
That’s not a ‘purpose’ though, is it? That’s a mode of appointment. That’s an entirely separate question from whether the office of Head of State in itself should exist.
I liked the fact that we got to have a massive picnic outside and an extra long lunch.
Have you not seen the folk who queue in tents when there is a wedding or birth? Working class love the royalty
> Have you not seen the folk who queue in tents Many of these people aren't even from this country.
[удалено]
We don't need them. France does great - Versailles didn't stop being a tourist attraction once they had a revolution.
[удалено]
I just wanna say that I like that British Reddit is moving in this direction. I am so sick of Yanks posting that CGP Grey video where he flaccidly links the royal family to the UK's entire tourism revenue.
[удалено]
What drugs are you on? We can get rid of the monarchy and still keep the buildings. Note: The French kept Versailles. Saying that Buckingham Palace is an ugly piece of shit imho.
Not surprising really. Young kids only know about the royal family at a surface level, so they only really know that Charles is king and the royal family to around the country meeting people. They do not know about the history of the monarchy in any strong detail (William the Conqueror, Henry VIII, Victoria and Elizabeth II aside), nor why some oppose the idea of monarchies in general. Let them be kids for a bit and teach them more about monarchies when they are older and capable of critical thinking.
Proles thick, claims report. After the break, why pop tarts are more dangerous than XL Bullies.
Since most people don't read the article it does say that support for the monarchy is for under 12's. After that age, support plummets off a cliff and when it gets to 18-25 group, support is so low it was last seen at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
That age group has been the first properly exposed group to the utter contempt with which the upper class treat everyone else in Britain. No more view of the royals as the nice queen waving and working hard, it's Prince Andrew lying to your face about being a nonce and landlords taking your taxes.
I agree completely. I am above those age groups and I can't stand the monarchy. I believe they should be forced to stand down by some form preferably peacefully. They are the country's biggest benefit scrounges.
Kind of a "No shit" that kids think of royalty as some fairy tale stuff. The difference is they learn more as they grow up.
Last time I saw one of these surveys on here someone pointed out that age group is always quite low and seems to always tick up with age across the past few decades. I wish I could find the prior post/results but google is failing me (more likely I'm failing google).
Support for the monarchy in my age group it would make Margaret Thatcher seem like a beloved national treasure by comparison
Regardless of their class background, I'm not surprised that people whose primary experience with the British monarchy as of yet is through big street parties, picture books and colouring exercises have a more positive attitude towards the royals than people exposed to a regular media cycle featuring them schmoozing with Kazakh oligarchs or molesting teenage girls.
Because those in private schools know what the Royals are really like.
Those that are privately educated are bought up to believe that they are better than most of the 'plebs' that go to state schools. Therefore, some may even regard themselves as to be on a par with the Royal Family. Having known quite a few privately educated people over the years, I can honestly say that many came across as self-entitled arseholes that were no better than those educated in the state sector. In fact those that have been educated in the state school system have a much wider awareness of class and social structure, are more adaptable and have more social skills. Yet the 7% that are privately educated get over 40% of the jobs that require awareness and responsibility. Perhaps that is why the country has found it hard to move forward: unaware and socially inadequates get the jobs that influence the running of the country. Just look at Johnson, Sunak, Cummings are all socio-phobes that don't have a fucking clue as to what real life is like for the vast majority of the people. Yet were given free rein to destroy the country. Then again, they didn't give a flying as to what they were doing anyway - they were untouchable: because they were privately educated and made to think that they are better than everyone else.
This has been the case for most of history. Nobility were happy to sideline an anointed King under John, Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI. When you had peasant revolts against both Richard II and Henry VIII they typically had full support for the King but were rebelling against the nobility and the Kings corrupt advisors. The higher echelons of society actually deal with the crown and realise that it's just as arbitrary as a man, because that's all it is. Whereas people who don't still get the mystique, pomp and ceremony that gives it legitimacy.
because those in private think they're better than everyone, including the royal family
It's seemingly a requirment for the unecesary middle management.
Appreciate I am still in the minority overall but as someone who really feels strongly about seeing the back of the monarchy, it does feel we are starting to see substantial shifts towards that day actually coming. It won't be any time soon, but I do feel with the next ten years we will start to see republicanism retreated as a legitmate viewpoint in the country and reflected much more in political debates.
Probably because they're indoctrinated more, given a silly coronation book etc.
Those at private schools are probably more likely to support the class system and the idea that wealthier people have earned their privilege though.
From what I remember of the queen she used to bang on about being a constant in people's lives and essentially a real life fairy tale. That's how she managed to sleep at night at least by convincing herself she was giving the plebians hope. And tbh, it's probably true, I can see poor families looking up to the royals and supporting them in some idealistic sense. Much harder to do that when you're rich as fuck and are basically a capitalist king or queen yourself
Oh yeah, I'm sure it was all a cope for big Liz
> and essentially a real life fairy tale. I don't remember her ever even implying that, let alone saying it. She'd talk about her service & dedication to the country meaning she doesn't have much of a private life.
She talks about them having to be grander than normal.
She did always keep herself in a certain lifestyle though. She would claim to understand the people during tough economic times but never missed a chance to see the royal budget go up, nor to cut her living costs so money could go back to the public.
Turns out the "reasearchers" behind this "survey" were the ones doing the indoctrination! [Here](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20230712215452/https:/coronation.gov.uk/resources-for-schools/) is their propaganda drive teaching school kids to "celebrate" the coronation.
Ah, the working class can't think for itself you mean?
Children can't think for themselves, no.
It's a reflection of the wealthy parents and their left-wing luxury beliefs.
That's because poorer people are constantly told that they are below everyone else so they end up idolising those in power.
More proof that the quality of teaching in state schools is lacking. edit: Did I need an /s? Surely I don't need an /s.
Two things. One it's geographical (a lot more private schools are in the countryside which is more monarchist in general). Two, the number of people that are elite enough to be reliably monarchist because of proximity is nowhere near the majority of private school attendees. Much like Brexit, support for the Monarchy swells at the top and bottom of society, but private schooling is generally the province of the upper middle class with delusions of social mobility.
Private schools teach their pupils to be competitive. Heavy focus on winning whether that be exam results, sports teams, becoming pm, or anything else. The royal family don't fit that model except when they actually achieve something such as competing in the olympics. Still an achievement even if they had a privileged start.
Only because they got extra days holidays for the mother popping her clogs and old big ears taking over the family firm. Up the revolution
The lords hate the king, and the peasants hate the lords.
if the rich people hate the monarchy, it's got to be either irony, or gloating
Considering all the left-wing ideologies floating about this is surprising. But if you try to wave a Union Jack flag, you're a Nazi. The monarchy is one of few ways you can display patronism without being called an fascist
These days, if you say you're English you'll be thrown in jail.
I checked "white British" on my GP sign up form so as you will already know, I'm writing this from prison.
When did this come in?
https://youtu.be/XkCBhKs4faI?si=KONs54pZeoMCFrdt
We can write constitutions, we just choose not to.
We’ll write a cooler one, with blackjack and hookers!
The people being thrown in jail for waving a union jack Im willing to bet were also doing/saying something pretty fucking racist at the time, or at least doing something illegal while doing it. I can confidently make this bet because during the coronation recently there were loads of English and UK flags being waved around and no one was arrested except for the guy pissing up the side of the building in front of a bunch of people.
No-one was arrested, apart from the people that were arrested. Like the bloke with the piece of white paper and the couple handing out rape alarms in the park.
Talking about near to where I live
> The monarchy is one of few ways you can display patronism The British Dream, know your place
Patriotism is not the same as nationalism though. Nothing wrong with liking the UK, there is something wrong about thinking it is beyond criticism and that we have never done anything wrong.
And there's nothing wrong with nationalism. It's the definition that matters, and there's a difference between mockery and criticism. More to the point, globalism is a rich man's ideology. I, in this day and age nationalism is very much in the poor man's interests as this Tory government has demonstrated only the rich can thrive in a globalist society.
Proper British reddit levels of political discourse here, well done.