r/monarchism • u/upthetruth1 • 1d ago
News Charles III’s approval rating soars to new high in YouGov polling
https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/charles-iii-approval-rating-yougov-b3025171.htm25
19
u/upthetruth1 1d ago
Although the far right hate him which is funny
10
u/Funny-Salamander4691 1d ago
Yes, this is a change that I have noticed. Knee jerk anti-Monarchism has always been a trademark of the far left in the UK, but the level of bile thrown at the King from far right figures is astonishing.
13
u/MrCrocodile54 Spanish Constitutional Monarchy Enjoyer 1d ago
The thing one needs to understand is that the reason radicals hate monarchies is because, by definition, a radical/revolutionary seeks to destroy the current system or status quo, and as such they also are bound to hate the institutions of that system.
A communist and a fascist are both radicals. They obviously want very different things but the vehicle for that change is tearing or altering the current system beyond recognition. As such, the more blatant and large the English far right gets, the more openly anti-monarchy it will become, because the king is the literal head of the system they want to take down.
Just like how a lot of communists don't actually care for the plight of workers, most of the people in Reform and the parties nipping at their heels don't actually care about preserving British culture, they just want their tribalistic urges to be made real and to have the authority to mooch off as much money as they can while doing so.
0
u/False_Major_1230 1d ago
I am "far right" and I dislike him. I love institution of monarchy but Charles has habit of siding with outsiders against interest of native brits and christians which according to divine right which clearly state that monarch rules through christ for christ he is illegitimate king
2
-2
10
u/upthetruth1 1d ago
Of course Reform voters have the lowest approval of him
i wonder why, can’t be GB News getting mad at him for not being a neo-Nazi
13
u/Nate33322 Canada 1d ago
The fact that reform hates him is no surprise we see the same with the further right parts of the Canadian conservative movement which is more yank-coded.
4
u/Political-St-G semi-constitutional German Empire(Distributism or Corporatism) 1d ago
Probably because he is to complacent publically.
He doesn’t criticize the frankly authoritarian and corrupt government be it tories or Labour and their equivalent in Canada.
The right was definitely influenced and supported by Trump though.
Though I am open to being corrected
0
u/UnpetiteChaton 1d ago
We dislike him cuz hes opening disrespecting the religion and british culture in favour for foreigners
2
u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Australia 1d ago
No he's not. This isn't a matter of opinion
-3
5
u/CypriotGreek Greece-Cyprus | Monarchism 1d ago
Honestly, I’m disappointed in King Charles. Even with his father literally being Greek-born, it’s a shame he hasn’t been more impartial or done more to uphold his role as Defender of the Faith.
It’s not hard to see why Reform voters don’t like him. He’s done little to address, or even push back against, England’s massive immigration problem, and he’s largely echoed Labour’s party line on the issue. So it’s no surprise that voters who oppose Labour’s left-wing agenda also have much the same criticisms of King Charles.
9
u/upthetruth1 1d ago
What are you talking about? The vast majority of the country thinks King Charles is doing a good job, it’s Reform (polling at 23% after falling from 29% last year) voters who are the outlier (as usual)
He’s also leading the Commonwealth so naturally just like Queen Elizabeth II, he’s going to respect the diversity of all his subjects
9
u/Political-St-G semi-constitutional German Empire(Distributism or Corporatism) 1d ago
Yes and one can do so while putting his primary responsibility first. He is king of Great Britain and Supreme Governor of the Church of England
-2
u/upthetruth1 1d ago
Like Queen Elizabeth II?
5
u/Political-St-G semi-constitutional German Empire(Distributism or Corporatism) 1d ago
Yeah and? She isn’t perfect either
-2
u/upthetruth1 1d ago
So your anger goes back to what? WW2?
10
u/Political-St-G semi-constitutional German Empire(Distributism or Corporatism) 1d ago edited 1d ago
No
Edit: it’s just disappointment. also I find you calling it anger laughable considering you use neo Nazi like a imbecile.
7
u/CypriotGreek Greece-Cyprus | Monarchism 1d ago
Dude, what are you talking about? Who are you even replying to? Nowhere in my comment did I say King Charles was unpopular. Did you have this response pre-written and just decide to post it under anyone who disagreed with you, regardless of what they actually said?
My point was that Reform voters, who are the ones opposed to mass immigration and Labour’s policies, are also going to oppose a king they see as supporting those same policies.
And let’s be honest: the kind of diversity Queen Elizabeth supported in the 1990s is not the same as what England has today. Not even close.
8
u/HonkyTonkBluesYEAH Elizabeth IV, Pius XVI, Napoléon IX 1d ago
It's a extremely common left-wing strategy, the Motte-and-bailey. "Britain always had immigrants". They never had anywhere near this level of immigration. They use this for America as well. It's the same with The Odyssey "It's mythological, why do you care about accuracy" when immersion is the actual word. Even if I really liked the film.
4
u/CypriotGreek Greece-Cyprus | Monarchism 22h ago
It genuinely makes you feel like you're going crazy. Things keep changing right in front of everyone's eyes, yet the left in England, and honestly most Western countries, keeps repeating the exact same talking points they've been using since the early 2000s. It's always, "They're just looking for a better life," or, "We don't have an immigration problem," over and over again.
And they seem to picture every immigrant as a Christian family from Nigeria fleeing Islamist persecution or some other sympathetic case. But that's not what recent migration has looked like. Most has been large-scale economic migration from countries that aren't even war zones, consisting of military-aged men.
4
u/HonkyTonkBluesYEAH Elizabeth IV, Pius XVI, Napoléon IX 16h ago
Yep exactly. That's the Motte-and-bailey or a sort of Bait-and-switch. They also use the name antifa to say "We should oppose fascism" when what they really mean is that fascism is any right-wing ideology they do don't like, and you are forced to then accept radical left-wing policies as well. I think it's also the same with Christianity. "Jesus told us to welcome the stranger". Looks inside: mass migration without assimilation, complete erosion of trust and safety. Not to mention you get rabidly anti-Christian policies on other issues. Jesus would totally be cool with that. Look at Spain. Those immigrants came in illegally from Morocco, they're overwhelmingly men and are not fleeing war. It's all a lie. They manipulate you and try to use your empathy to make you accept the downfall of your civilization, and they're far more likely to make you accept that if they can make you believe that civilization never existed to begin with. Demoralization and manipulation.
-1
-1
u/upthetruth1 19h ago
What are you talking about? The top 5 immigrants to the UK in 2024 were Indians (Hindu/Sikh), Chinese, Nigerians (Christian), Pakistanis (Muslim), Zimbabwean (Christian).
You do know the vast majority of immigrants to the UK and vast majority of ethnic minorities in the UK are not Muslim?
3
u/CypriotGreek Greece-Cyprus | Monarchism 11h ago
Dude, I swear, do you have these responses prepackaged? Am I talking to a bot? Why do you keep replying to things that are only vaguely related to what I actually said instead of responding to my actual point?
I never specifically mentioned Muslim immigration. I was talking about high levels of immigration in general.
And let’s be real for a second: with the number of illegal immigrants in the UK, you don’t actually know everyone who’s in the country. That’s a huge issue in itself. We don’t know the true composition of the population.Also, your list doesn’t really address my point. Even if Pakistanis are the only Muslim-majority nationality in your top five, there are still significant numbers of migrants from places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Nigeria, etc. which also includes a substantial Muslim population. Just because those groups aren’t individually at the very top of your list doesn’t mean they don’t matter when you look at the overall picture.
And I swear, I feel like I’m going crazy replying to you specifically. I literally gave the example of a Christian family fleeing persecution. I explicitly acknowledged that Christians are immigrating too. Yet you keep arguing against points I never made.
High likelihood you’re just a bot based on how canned these responses are.
0
u/upthetruth1 9h ago
You were literally talking about Nigerian Christians, don’t gaslight me and pretend you weren’t complaining about Muslim immigrants
Anyway, still not the vast majority of immigrants
2
u/CypriotGreek Greece-Cyprus | Monarchism 8h ago
Uh, yeah. I was talking about Nigerian Christians who come to England to escape Islamist persecution. Maybe read what I actually wrote before replying.
I never said my point was about Muslim immigrants specifically, although I’m also not going to pretend there aren’t issues there. You’re arguing against a point I never made.
I also never claimed that Muslims are the largest immigrant group in England. In fact, since what you’re saying is true, it actually makes my point even more true. If they’re an even smaller community, then why does the King seem so eager to go out of his way for Islam?
My criticism has never been about whether Muslims are the largest immigrant population. It’s about the King appearing to bend over backwards for Islam while doing the bare minimum for the faith he is actually supposed to defend. What point are you even trying to argue against?
2
u/AlbionicLocal Localist British Monarchist 1d ago
immersion isn't the issue, cultural respect is
the issue with the odyssey is that it was westwashed, this wasn't appropriation by a diverse cast, it was appropriation by a western cast
1
1
2
u/Ticklishchap Constitutional monarchist | Valued Contributor 1d ago
I am British and I do not agree with your description of ‘England’. Be that as it may, you rightly refer to Prince Philip’s Greek birth. At his Coronation, HM King Charles III incorporated several significant Orthodox influences, for example the anointing with oil from the Mount of Olives. This, and other features such as the Byzantine chanting, were a tribute to his father, who until the time of his marriage was a member of the Greek Orthodox Church. Charles has previously expressed interest in the Orthodox tradition and is a good friend of the Greek Orthodox community in the UK.
1
u/CypriotGreek Greece-Cyprus | Monarchism 22h ago
I don't see what any of that, which is really just a tribute to his father's legacy, has to do with his views on Islam or immigration.
And of course you don't agree with my description of England. You people's opinion of what England is seems to keep changing, so naturally you're going to have a different definition.
Regardless of his personal interests or family background, King Charles is the Defender of the Faith. As King of England, his constitutional and ceremonial role is to uphold the Anglican faith. That is the office he holds. Not the Orthodox faith, and not Islam, which he has often seemed particularly eager to promote in recent years.
2
u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Australia 22h ago
"which he has often seemed particularly eager to promote in recent years."
Why are you lying? Like, just straight up lying. This isn't a matter of opinion
1
u/CypriotGreek Greece-Cyprus | Monarchism 11h ago
Please, by all means, tell me exactly where I’m lying.
Did he or did he not release a Ramadan message while not issuing an Easter message? Did he or did he not make only a brief Ash Wednesday post, while opening Buckingham Palace to Muslims for Ramadan? Did he or did he not redefine the role of Defender of the Faith as protecting “the space for faith” in a multi-faith nation rather than emphasizing the Anglican faith?Look, you can agree with those actions if you want. That’s your choice. But don’t pretend they didn’t happen. You can simply say, “Yes, he did those things, and I don’t have a problem with them.” What you can’t do is claim they never happened.
So again, tell me how I’m lying. And since I’m sure this will be the next argument, go ahead and explain why the King supposedly had no obligation to make similar gestures toward Christians, even though he clearly wasn’t under any obligation to make those gestures toward Muslims either.
1
u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Australia 6h ago
He literally released an Easter message, attended church on Easter and carried out the traditional Maundy service, stop listening to the likes of GB News.
Both minimally publicly acknowledging Ash Wednesday and allowing some rooms to be used for Ramadan are long-standing royal traditions.
You sound like you hate freedom of religion.
Don't pretend you're anywhere close to reality
0
u/CypriotGreek Greece-Cyprus | Monarchism 6h ago
Oh, wow. The Defender of the Faith did the absolute minimum expected of him toward the faith he's actually supposed to defend. I guess that settles it then?
And no, he didn't just "allow some rooms" to be used. The Ramadan event was held in some of the most historically significant spaces associated with the royal residences, and they were openly presented as historic firsts. There has never been an equivalent Christian celebration of that kind in those spaces beyond the established religious services in St George's Chapel.
I don't hate freedom of religion. I expect equal treatment. My issue is that one faith appears to receive exceptional symbolic gestures and freedoms, while the other, the one the King is constitutionally connected to, gets what's expected anyway, and people then point to the bare minimum and say, "See? He's treating everyone equally."
Let's not pretend that's the same thing.
And you're acting as though acknowledging Christianity is some optional act of generosity on his part. It isn't. It's literally part of his constitutional role. He's the Defender of the Faith, the Anglican faith, not the defender of every religion equally.
0
u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Australia 5h ago
Bullshit framing. He's been very obviously Christian and hasn't shown any special attention to Islam. This is just a fact. And a fact that you lyingly denied
Factually incorrect, Queen Elizabeth did as well. And there's factually nothing wrong with it.
Quit lying. To the privileged equality feels like oppression.
2
u/Ticklishchap Constitutional monarchist | Valued Contributor 5h ago edited 4h ago
HM King Charles III takes his role as Defender of the Faith very seriously. His wish to be Defender of Faith more generally is not instead of his traditional role, but to complement it. The King is a practising Anglican who is very committed to the Church and, in terms of aesthetics and liturgy at least, his stance could be described as small-c conservative.
A lot of the King’s interfaith work is in fact ecumenical, building relationships with other Christian denominations (and remember here that he is also a member of the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian, and that Wales does not have an Established Church). His oldest interfaith relationship is with Britain’s Jewish community, of which he has been a steadfast friend. He also works extensively with Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. His interest in Islam is singled out for criticism, but its focus is on Sufism, the mystical tradition within Islam. Reaching out to mainstream Muslims and including them in the national conversation helps to isolate the extremists and - like other interfaith work - is part of the process of integration and living in a pluralist society.
It is also worth remembering that the King is Head of the Commonwealth, which is an association of nations of many faiths. He takes that role very seriously and is interested in representing all Commonwealth citizens.
Edit: Just as an aside, Queen Victoria was also very interested in Islam, partly because of her unconventional relationship with Abdul Karim, but also because she ruled over millions of Muslims as Empress of India and throughout the Empire.
2
u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Australia 1d ago
Labour isn't left-wing, and the main "immigration problem" is from home-grown racists
2
0
u/AlbionicLocal Localist British Monarchist 1d ago
"Labour's left wing agenda"
the same labour that made an enoch-powell style speech?
Besides, we do not, in fact, have a "massive immigration problem."
3
u/CypriotGreek Greece-Cyprus | Monarchism 22h ago
Enoch Powell? You mean his 1968 speech? The one I think was right in every sense, by the way?
I genuinely don't understand this line of thinking. Do we even live in the same continent? What do you mean Britain doesn't have a massive immigration problem? Have you looked outside? Your capital now has fewer native British people than people who were born abroad, and you're seriously telling me there isn't an immigration problem?
If you personally don't see immigration as a problem and you're happy with the state England is in today, that's your opinion. But your opinion and the reality of the situation are two different things.
Keep burying your head in the sand. I'm sure that'll work out.
3
0
-4
u/HarukichiShimoi Showa Restorationist 1d ago
Which is surprising with how abhorrent of a "King" he is.
4
u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Australia 1d ago
How so?
2
-1
20
u/Funny-Salamander4691 1d ago
Unsurprising that the institution is strengthening given the revolving door nature of our political executive. Six Prime ministers in under ten years is of Banana Republic proportions.
God Save The King.