SGUK Episode: 168
The Crown in Crisis: Republic Rising – The Public Pulls Back the Curtain
Introduction
This week’s podcast continues in the mini series of The Crown in Crisis. This episode looks at the continuing rise of the Republic movement and how increasingly the public are beginning to pull back the curtain on the UK Monarchy, and things are not as they assumed would be continued for decades. Far from it in fact, and what they are beginning to realise each time the metaphorical curtain is pulled back, there is no denying some aspects, and slowly but surely, there is growing recognition of the unofficial contract between Monarchy and all forms of media in the UK. Some nations have been criticised in other parts of the world for monarchy and/or government interfering with its nations media, and thankfully, sections of the UK are beginning to realise some of the games being played here, and likewise how much of the population is being played too, in terms of what they see in the press and in televised news programmes, and how near or far it all is, to actual reality. I have stated many times in most podcasts about UK Monarchy and the hold it has on the members of the Royal Family who reside in Crown accommodation, and who carry out a few Royal visits as part of earning their keep etc., and when all is said and done, those stalwarts of the working Royals, do a far better job than some of the those labelled as Senior Working Royals. One day, the truth will all come out, and it will begin when the government of the day, finally realises that they can and should reduce the funds supplied to the Monarchy family each year. The number of Working Royals amounts to single figures, not double, and there are less of them now than ever before, and if you look at the tasks that are classed as Working Visits/Hours, they are drastically less than in previous years, and when one looks at individual performances, it is beyond embarrassing. In my opinion, those figures are being generous, so heaven knows how paltry the actual figures are.
It is no longer possible to continue to hide behind excuses for disappearing every month, for Rest and Relaxation, when in the last 2 ½ years, some of those Seniors have yet to reach the 6 month mark, in terms of working days, but the R&R has already surpassed that figure in 2025. If someone who is officially part of the Working Royals is so unwell, that more days are lost and than actual active working days, then serious consideration should be paid to the cost of this pick and mix approach to turning up for the odd hour or two. Someone with such poor health, should be assessed as part of an employers responsibility towards safeguarding policy and practices, and in all honesty turning up for sporting events, and waving, is not work, and if the Monarch wishes to class it as that, it does not amount to half a day, and as a member of the UK public, I ask the question, what are we paying for? Working hours account for less than six months in 2025, and a higher total of lost days the previous year. I am sure with all the priority given to senior Royals, unless you are a person of colour, only favourable treatment is given, and nothing negative or questioning can be said publicly because of their protected status. That most likely explains why the so called miscreants who broke into the hospital database in 2024, and likewise the Spanish newspaper Reporter who was adamant that her version of events and circumstances were vastly different to what was being and continues to be written in UK press, yet no legal action has been mentioned in any part of UK media, even though it was stated by the Kensington Palace, that would be the next course of action. Worth stating here, that King Charles has worked more hours than other Senior Royals, and he too is unwell.
Meghan and Harry have always worked around the clock, both before they met, and since they became a couple. When Meghan married into the family, there were no funds provided for Meghan, and they were never provided. Yet, the BRF sent Meghan and Harry all over the place, including abroad whilst heavily pregnant at the time, and also to countries, when the first baby was born. No payment for expenses either. Just the daily onslaught of gutter level racist language and articles several times a day. UK media were the first real advertisements for Hate for Hire, and they embraced it shown by their daily content in their tabloids. Drove Meghan to suicidal ideations, and despite Royal Human Resources meeting with RRs frequently, and being informed of Meghan’s worsening condition, (receipts exist for that just in case anyone is in doubt) the Royal Reporters doubled down on their oppression. It appears that Royal HR do not worry about such things as Data Protection, or maybe that is another framework that the BRF are allowed to be exempt from. One day we will all find that out. The list of BRF exemptions to legal requirements for everyone else, is growing.
So one Princess is paid for doing considerably less, and has a condition that is selective when it takes it toll, but is paid vast sums, and uses much of it to have costumes made that are identical to Meghan. Years of receipts exist on that one, long before the stylist who was the one responsible for sorting out the items of clothing, yet another element paid for by the UK taxpayer. Meghan had no such luxury funding, not even for her wedding gown. Everything Meghan has she paid for herself. The UK Monarchy family still retain Meghan’s wedding dress and have it on display in a variety of locations. The sheet audacity. According to the BRF Meghan is not family and was never a working Royal. Strange how her wedding dress has been around the world on display, arranged by the BRF and is now back on UK soil I understand. How strange that a person who is not family (despite marriage to one of the King’s sons) and also was not considered a working Royal on all the venues and places that the Monarch sent Meghan and Harry – leaves many questions. The world has been watching and continues to watch this institution crumble before everyones eyes. Self inflicted damage. As always, performative actions are the staple action in that set up. As more and more members of UK public, metaphorically pull back the curtain shielding the BRF, and more and more becomes so plain to see, when you know what to look for. Royal Human Resources informed Meghan that they could not seek out any medical help for her suicidal ideation, because she was not listed as a Working Royal, or listed as a member of the Royal Family either. The Spencer family came to the rescue, and the history books will print that fact and many more, and no one is going to be surprised in the future, that Harry and Meghan walked away from a toxic environment and the forms of abuse that was dished out frequently.
Just like to point out, Meghan and Harry have done more working hours in a week, than some members of the Senior Royals club have managed to do in two years. Now because the foundation of the Monarchy is crumbling, you all want Harry and Meghan to return to attract the global press. Appear for photo opps and then launch something or another, and pretend to know what you are all talking about, and then you will all disappear and expect H&M to carry your loads. The sheer audacity! You wanted them unalived – because you thought all the spotlight would be on you once they were out of the picture – there is more than one occasion when that was made abundantly clear, but now because the optics don’t look how the Royalists would like, you want them to return and be treated like slaves, but smile and shake hands in front of the camera. Those days are over. Harry may wish to speak to some of you, because you are his family, but I know that Meghan values herself and her peace way above photo opps for the UK Royals. You may or may not see her on UK soil in the future, and if you do, it will be rare. You had nine years to try and at least redeem yourselves. Everything from hereon in, relates to the optics that the UK wants to achieve. I think you will find that the many of the moving parts in any venue or environment that UK Monarchy and its pals in the Royal Rota inhabit in future years, will be the increasing number of tumbleweeds rolling about.
Let’s have a look at the framework of this podcast, and explore what themes are becoming stronger with each passing week.
Surging Republican Sentiment in the UK and Commonwealth
- Explore the growing support to Republicanism, where calls for an elected head of state are becoming more pronounced.
- In Britain, republican sentiment has largely focused on the abolition of the British monarchy, rather than the dissolution of the British Unionor independence for its constituent countries. In Northern Ireland, the term “republican” is usually used in the sense of Irish republicanism. While also against the monarchy, Irish republicans are against the presence of the British state in any form on the island of Ireland and advocate creating a united Ireland, an all-island state comprising the whole of Ireland. Unionists who support a British republic also exist in Northern Ireland, but they do not call themselves republican.
- There are republican members of the Scottish National Party(SNP) in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales who advocate independence for those countries as republics. The SNP’s official policy is that the British monarch would remain head of state of an independent Scotland, unless the people of Scotland decided otherwise.[4] Plaid Cymru have a similar view for Wales, although its youth wing, Plaid Ifanc, has an official policy advocating a Welsh republic.[5] The Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Greens both support an independent Scottish republic.[6][7][8]
- Specific events or shifts in opinion that have contributed to this trend.
Not my King Protests, Poll Trends and Scottish and Welsh Sentiment
- The rise of movements like Not My King and their influence on public discourse.
- Graham Smith, chief executive of the group Republic, told co.ukhe believes the tide is turning in favour of abolition following the accession of Charles to the throne.
- ‘I think it’s the absence of the Queen that’s the main factor,’ said Graham earlier this week.
- ‘She was the monarchy for most people. Even while she was on the throne, there was a lot of scandal and concerns around all the other royals – particularly Charles, William, Harry and Andrew – and she was the heat shield that deflected all of that.
- ‘That caused people to hold back a little bit, but I think without her there, people look at Charles and think, who is this guy?’
- During a debate in the SNP leadership election earlier this year, two of the three candidates – including eventual winner Humza Yousaf – said explicitly they were republicans.
- A recent poll showed just three in 10 Brits consider the monarchy ‘very important’, a historic low, while 45% said either it should be abolished, was not at all important or was not very important.
- The monarchy as a whole “has long enjoyed broad, albeit declining, support among Britons, even if several of its individual members have not”, said Time
- Just over half (54%) of people in Britain believe that it is “very” or “quite important” for Britain to have a monarchy, according to a major British Social Attitudes survey, conducted by the National Centre for Social Researchin 2023. This is a dramatic decline from 86% in 1983, but it’s worth noting that only 16% of those surveyed actually think the monarchy should be abolished entirely.
- “Modern monarchy no longer depends on divine grace, but the consent of the people,” said Robert Hazell, professor of government and the constitution at University College London, in a 2022 paper for the Institute for Government. He warned that if public support continues to decline, the government might come under pressure to reduce funding for the royals, as has happened in Spain.
- Unique perspectives like Scotland and Wales where calls for independence or weakened ties to the Monarchy may be stronger.
- Scots to get a vote on ending monarchy if nation becomes independent
Rise of Grassroots Campaigns and Truth Telling Podcasters
- Let’s discuss how grassroots movements and independent content creators are influencing public opinion.
- In the digital age, social media has emerged as a powerful tool for social change, influencing public opinion and mobilizing action on a global scale. From grassroots movements to large-scale campaigns, social platforms have enabled voices to be heard and communities to unite for common causes.
- One of the earliest and most significant examples of social media’s impact on social change is the Arab Spring. In 2011, activists across the Middle East and North Africa turned to platforms like Twitter and Facebook to organize protests and spread awareness about their fight for democracy. These digital tools not only helped in mobilizing people locally but also attracted global attention that put pressure on governments to address the demands of their citizens.
- Multipost Digital’s powerful analytics and content management tools can significantly enhance the effectiveness of social movements. By analyzing engagement and reach, organizers can optimize their strategies in real-time, ensuring their message resonates widely and deeply
- Key figures or platforms in this space and their impact on the conversation around the Monarchy.
- Social media has radically transformed the way people engage with politics and geopolitical issues. Platforms such as TikTok, X (formerly known as Twitter), and Instagram have emerged as crucial arenas where political debates unfold, ideologies are shaped, and global issues are framed. The brevity of content, ease of access, and visual appeal have enabled these platforms to reach millions, if not billions, of users globally, altering traditional methods of political engagement. The article explores how these platforms influence political views and shape perceptions of geopolitical events, with a focus on the dynamics that enable them to have such far-reaching effects. Reference sources listed at the end of this article.
- The relationship between social media and politics is not new, but the rise of platforms like TikTok, X, and Instagram has magnified their impact. The speed at which content circulates, the ability to generate viral movements, and the democratic nature of these platforms have all contributed to their power. This article examines the unique features of these platforms that allow them to sway political views and highlights the consequences of their role in shaping public opinion on global issues.
- The Digital Era and Political Information Consumption
- Political discourse is no longer limited to conventional media such as newspapers, television, or radio. The rise of social media platforms has expanded the scope and nature of political dialogue, democratizing access to information while simultaneously fragmenting it. Whereas traditional media was regulated and often subjected to stringent editorial guidelines, social media is largely decentralized, allowing anyone to share content, sometimes without checks for accuracy or authenticity (Zhuravskaya, Petrova, & Enikolopov, 2020).
- A defining feature of social media is the use of algorithms to tailor content to individual users based on their preferences and prior engagements. This personalization of content has major implications for political engagement. By selectively curating content, algorithms often create “echo chambers” where users are repeatedly exposed to similar viewpoints, limiting exposure to diverse political perspectives (Cinelli et al., 2021). As a result, political views become polarized, and consensus on geopolitical issues becomes harder to achieve.
- Moreover, the format of these platforms, characterized by brevity and emphasis on visual content, encourages the consumption of bite-sized pieces of information, which are often oversimplified or sensationalized. This can distort complex geopolitical issues, reducing them to digestible narratives that may not capture the nuance of real-world politics.
Declining Royal Engagement Numbers and Public Fatigue
- The decline in public engagement with Royal events and appearances.
How this may reflect broader public fatigue or disillusionment with the Monarchy.
- The number of public appearances made by the Britain’s royal family fell sharply in the year leading up to March 2025, according to a new report.
- The drop reflects the impact of cancer diagnoses for two of the monarchy’s most high-profile figures — King Charles III and Catherine, the Princess of Wales and the annual sovereign grant report, published by Buckingham Palace on Monday, showed the family carried out more than 1,900 engagements in Britain and overseas.
- That figure is down from 2,300 the previous year, and well below the 3,200 events Queen Elizabeth II and her relatives handled before the pandemic.
- The report offers a yearly breakdown of royal finances and public responsibilities. It gives a snapshot of how illness and transition have affected royal duties.
- Though the palace has not released new health details, the effects are evident.
- The reduced number of appearances signals a shift in the monarchy’s public face during a challenging period for its leading members.
- Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.
Meghan and Harry – As Accidental Catalysts for Reform
- How their departure from Royal duties and subsequent actions have inadvertently fuelled discussions about reform.
- The British monarchy, an institution that has stood the test of time for over a millennium, now finds itself facing a pivotal moment in its storied history.
- Once revered as a bastion of tradition and continuity, the monarchy is grappling with challenges that threaten its very foundation.
- The grandeur of royal ceremonies, which once captivated the nation, now feels increasingly out of touch with contemporary values, particularly among younger generations who prioritize meritocracy and equality.
- The passing of Queen Elizabeth II, who defined the monarchy for more than seventy years, has ushered in an era marked by uncertainty and change.
- Her reign was characterized by unwavering dedication and service, qualities that endeared her to countless individuals.
- However, her death has left a significant gap, and her successors are now tasked with navigating a vastly different landscape, raising the question: can the monarchy evolve to meet the demands of the 21st century, or will it become a relic of the past?
- Modern expectations call for a monarchy that embodies transparency and accountability while staying aligned with societal values.
- Striking a balance between preserving tradition and embracing necessary change has become crucial.
- The House of Windsor, once synonymous with stability and decorum, now finds itself under the relentless scrutiny of modern media.
- The royal family is exposed to unprecedented levels of public examination, with every gesture and statement analyzed through a critical lens.
- This intense media spotlight has revealed cracks in the royal facade, as scandals and controversies that once remained behind palace walls have become front-page stories.
- The departure of Prince Harry and Meghan Sussex from royal duties sent shockwaves throughout the monarchy, igniting discussions about its relevance in a rapidly changing world.
- Their decision to step back not only exposed internal rifts but also highlighted pressing issues such as mental health and racial dynamics within the royal sphere.
- King Charles vision for a streamlined monarchy and commitment to environmental issues signal a desire for modernization. However, he must navigate public perceptions and the lingering shadows of past controversies.
- Harry and Meghan’s fairy-tale wedding initially appeared to herald a new era for the monarchy. The world watched as they exchanged vows in a ceremony that blended royal customs with modern elements, symbolizing a shift towards inclusivity.
- Their genuine warmth and commitment to causes resonated with younger audiences, as they championed mental health, women’s rights, and environmental sustainability. Yet, beneath the surface of their glamorous public image, tensions brewed within the royal family.
- Meghan, facing invasive media coverage and feelings of isolation, struggled to find support within the institution. Their unprecedented decision to step back from royal duties, dubbed “Megxit,” sent shockwaves through both the monarchy and the public.
- This bold move underscored their yearning for independence and a life beyond the royal spotlight.
- The couple’s subsequent interview with Oprah Winfrey, wherein they discussed allegations of racism and lack of support, further intensified the already fraught atmosphere.
- The revelations shared during the interview painted a picture of a deeply divided family, one that seemed disconnected from the realities of modern life.
- Public reactions varied widely, with some expressing sympathy for Harry and Meghan, while others criticized the monarchy.
- This dialogue ignited a global conversation about race, mental health, and the monarchy’s role in today’s society.
- As the royal family navigates these turbulent waters, the story of Harry and Meghan serves as a powerful reminder of the complexities inherent in royal life.
- Their departure laid bare the vulnerabilities of an institution struggling to maintain its relevance while honoring its rich traditions.
- The future of the British monarchy hangs in the balance, poised between the weight of its illustrious past and the demands of a rapidly evolving present.
- Will it adapt to the changing landscape, or will it fade into history?
- As the world watches, the House of Windsor faces a defining moment, one that could reshape its legacy for generations to come.
How the British Monarchy Lost Its Power
This was a fairly long newspaper article. Reference is listed at the end of this blog. I have just posted below the final paragraph. The article itself is well worth a read.
- Yet Burke was wisely far ahead of his time in grasping that his country’s future lay with the “honourable connection” of party politics rather than court favoritism, and prescient in warning that the best way to steer Britain away from either royal tyranny or popular revolution was to reform the system. As an older man, his experience in that fight led him to reflect on those dangers as they lay across the English Channel. Modern conservatism owes Burke much for his reverence for prudence and tradition, but these cannot be severed from his dedication to reform and his devotion to principled partisanship.
Psychology Note: Cognitive Dissonance and Generational Awakening
- Let’s explore the concept of cognitive dissonance as it relates to shifting perceptions of the Monarchy.
- Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced when a person holds two conflicting beliefs or when their actions don’t align with their beliefs.
To reduce this uncomfortable feeling, people often change their thoughts or justify their behavior to make everything feel more consistent.
For example, when people smoke (behavior) and they know that smoking causes cancer (cognition), they are in a state of cognitive dissonance.
- Cognitive dissonance happens when there’s a clash between what we believe and how we act. For example, if you value healthy living but smoke cigarettes, your mind feels uncomfortable because your behavior doesn’t match your belief. This inner conflict creates tension, pushing you to either change your behavior, adjust your beliefs, or find a way to justify the difference to feel better.
- When our attitudes and actions don’t agree (called dissonance), we feel uncomfortable and try to fix it by changing something.
- The theory doesn’t say these fixes always work, just that people try to reduce their discomfort. Researchers have studied this idea a lot and found different things that affect how people change their attitudes.
- How younger generations are driving a “generational awakening” questioning long-held traditions and seeking reform.
- Riding the Cycle of History Toward Transformation
- Why does it seem like we’re living in turbulent times, as if society is on the edge of a profound shift? According to the Strauss–Howe generational theory, we’re entering a critical phase where history’s cycles demand transformation—forcing each generation to face its defining moment in the march toward renewal or collapse.
The Strauss–Howe generational theory, crafted by historians William Strauss and Neil Howe, suggests that history is cyclical, moving in repeated patterns roughly every 80 to 100 years. This cycle, referred to as a “saeculum,” consists of four distinct phases or “turnings”: the High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis. Each turning has a unique character, shaped by societal attitudes and collective generational personalities that influence the events, values, and behavior during that era.
The first turning, known as the High, is characterized by a period of optimism, unity, and rebuilding after a crisis. Typically, society experiences rapid progress and confidence in its institutions. After World War II, for example, the United States entered a High phase, marked by the Baby Boomer generation growing up in an era of economic expansion and national solidarity. This phase reflects a collective feeling of renewal, where institutions are strong and there is a widespread belief in the power of social organization.
The second turning, Awakening, sees a shift away from this collective unity, as people begin to question societal norms and the status quo. This period is usually characterized by a push for greater personal and spiritual expression, often leading to social movements that challenge established norms. The 1960s and 1970s in the United States, marked by the counterculture movement, civil rights activism, and questioning of authority, exemplify the Awakening phase. Generationally, the Baby Boomers—who grew up during the High—now became young adults, advocating for more personal freedom and social change.
Following the Awakening comes the Unraveling, a phase where societal institutions begin to weaken, and a sense of individualism overshadows the collective good. This phase often sees political polarization, a decline in institutional trust, and an overall skepticism toward authority. In the United States, the late 1980s through the early 2000s align with the Unraveling. During this time, society experienced economic deregulation, cultural fragmentation, and growing divides in political and social perspectives. Generation X, often known for their independence and skepticism, came of age during this time.
The fourth and final turning in the cycle is the Crisis, a period marked by upheaval and transformation, where societal structures are challenged and ultimately rebuilt. During a Crisis, conflicts—whether social, economic, or geopolitical—escalate, leading to substantial change. Strauss and Howe argue that the current era, which began with the 2008 financial crisis and continues through global challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, reflects this Crisis phase. In such times, societies often experience heightened risk but also the possibility of significant reform. This Crisis period, the theorists suggest, will give birth to a new High, beginning the cycle anew.
That brings us to the end of this weeks podcast. Hopefully you have found some food for thought, and if you wish to know more about these topics, you will find more details on each topic listed as the Framework for this podcast, in the Reference Sources below.
Ivy Barrow 200725.
Reference Sources
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23601456.herald-poll-independent-scotland-keep-monarchy/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20563051241296256
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20563051241296256
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/how-the-british-monarchy-lost-its-power/
https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/Cognitive-Dissonance-Intro-Sample.pdf