Canadians Split on Monarchy, Dump It I Say

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Time to debate about dumping the monarchy. Let's elect a GG.

Monarchy leaves Canadians deeply split - The Globe and Mail

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:31 PM
Monarchy leaves Canadians deeply split

Gloria Galloway

Canadians are divided about whether they want a monarch as head of state, a new poll suggests.

A survey conducted by Angus Reid in advance of next month’s visit by the Queen suggests that 33 per cent of Canadians are happy to have a king or queen while 36 per cent would like an elected head of state. One in five respondents said they don’t care one way or the other.

Still, half of the Canadians surveyed said they support reopening Canada’s constitutional debate to discuss the possibility of replacing the Queen with someone who is elected. One third were opposed.

The poll also suggests that Canadians have three clear favourites in the Royal Family. They are Prince William, who was held in high regard by 70 per cent of respondents the Queen, who was admired by 69 per cent, and Prince Harry, who was given a thumbs up by 63 per cent despite his occasional brushes with controversy.

Prince Philip was given a favourable rating by 48 per cent of those surveyed, Prince Charles was approved by 40 per cent, Kate Middleton by 31 per cent and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, by 24 per cent. Two-in-five Canadians said they hold an unfavourable opinion of both Charles and Camilla.

Sarah Ferguson, who was recently caught in a tabloid sting as she tried to sell access to her ex-husband, Prince Andrew, was not listed in the survey.
When asked who they would prefer as monarch after the Queen, almost two-in-five respondents say they would prefer to have William as king. Prince Charles was picked by just 22 per cent.

The online survey of 1,005 randomly selected Angus Reid Forum panelists that was conducted May 17 to May 18 is expected to accurately reflect the views of all Canadians within 3.1 percentage points.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Easier said than done, I don’t see it happening. It will need a constitutional amendment. It takes a very broad public support to amend the constitution. According to this poll that support just isn’t there.

I would think at least 70% of Canadians should want to abolish the monarchy before constitution is amended and it becomes a reality. We are far away from that, and may not get there for decades (if ever).
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Monarchy does have certain advantages over a republic. For one thing, the monarch can stand above partisan politics; a president simply drowns in it.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
The essence of conservatism:

"If it works, don't fix it."

It works fine.

What if it works, but it could be better? The definition of progressivism.

That said, I still think a monarchic system has advantages over a republican model and so would not be progressive in the least. I'm just pointing out though that I don't believe we ought to satisfy ourselves with mediocrity just because ti works. The horse and buggy work too, so are you going to go back to that just because it works?

Now we also have to make distinctions between kinds of monarchy. The British model is based first on religion and secondly on heredity.

Many rules of succession can exist depending on the country. Another form that exists is elective monarchy:

Elective monarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Easier said than done, I don’t see it happening. It will need a constitutional amendment. It takes a very broad public support to amend the constitution. According to this poll that support just isn’t there.

I would think at least 70% of Canadians should want to abolish the monarchy before constitution is amended and it becomes a reality. We are far away from that, and may not get there for decades (if ever).

Where does it say the GG has to be called the GG? Give it another name and let it gradually evolve to a wholly Canadian institution.

Funny how in Canada some things cannot be changed without the mightiest of constitutional efforts, like this. Yet it is not that radical. This does not seem that democratic to me.

Monarchy does have certain advantages over a republic. For one thing, the monarch can stand above partisan politics; a president simply drowns in it.

In some countries the prez is also a figurehead, which is what we should have.

The current GG supports a blase loser attitude. The white wine set that appoints the GG also thinks the masses ought to be pleased with simply showing up at the Olympics, placing 48th and saying, "I'm very happy, I achieved a personal best." Thanks to Own the Podium, Canadian athletes will no longer say such nonsense. If they don't have a chance at winning, they can stay home and have great experiences with their friends and save the public some money.

The BC Games and Canada Games are about mass participation and fun. I support them as mass participation is great. The Olympics however, are about big business, big bucks and winning. It is elitist but the best compete. The GG is simply not in this league I'm afraid. Time to go, the world has passed the GG by.

Governor General to Open the 2009 Canada Games in Prince Edward Island
Governor General to Open the 2009 Canada Games in Prince Edward Island

August 12, 2009

OTTAWA — Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, will officially open the 2009 Canada Games. The opening ceremony will be held at Credit Union Place in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, on Saturday, August 15, 2009, at 1 p.m. (local time).
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
So what would be the difference between an elective Constitutional Monarch and a figurehead president, except for the duration of their term?
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
What if it works, but it could be better? The definition of progressivism.

That said, I still think a monarchic system has advantages over a republican model and so would not be progressive in the least. I'm just pointing out though that I don't believe we ought to satisfy ourselves with mediocrity just because ti works. The horse and buggy work too, so are you going to go back to that just because it works?

Now we also have to make distinctions between kinds of monarchy. The British model is based first on religion and secondly on heredity.

Many rules of succession can exist depending on the country. Another form that exists is elective monarchy:

Elective monarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm glad you're on board, but no monarchy at all, no king, no queen, no royalty. The person you want is a president or, say, Semi-Maximum Leader.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
You have to consider though that the main purpose of a figurehead is to command the loyalty of the people into a personification of the country. A president who changes every few years won't be as effective in this respect as a monarchy. But again, an elective monarchy is an option. It would save money on elections since we'd have one election every generation for the monarch. Owing to the duration of the reign, that monarch could command loyalty. But of course we'd want to elect a monarch who can command loyalty, which would most likely mean one who's already made great moral achievements in his or her life.

As an aside, one thing I find strange though is that though I do not at all consider myself a conservative and reject the notion of 'if it ain't broken, satisfy yourself with mediocrity', I still think monarchy is preferable to a republic owing to other rational factors beyond just blind unthinking tradition.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
You have to consider though that the main purpose of a figurehead is to command the loyalty of the people into a personification of the country. A president who changes every few years won't be as effective in this respect as a monarchy. But again, an elective monarchy is an option. It would save money on elections since we'd have one election every generation for the monarch. Owing to the duration of the reign, that monarch could command loyalty. But of course we'd want to elect a monarch who can command loyalty, which would most likely mean one who's already made great moral achievements in his or her life.

As an aside, one thing I find strange though is that though I do not at all consider myself a conservative and reject the notion of 'if it ain't broken, satisfy yourself with mediocrity', I still think monarchy is preferable to a republic owing to other rational factors beyond just blind unthinking tradition.

Argh!!! Elected is fine, but the monarchy part is unworkable. It is not rational nor progressive as the idea of a monarchy is dated. An elected monarch is a king or queen, which Canadians do not want because we do not have a homegrown royal family made on our soil.

There are no successful modern examples of elected monarchies. Quit the idea.

Be realy progressive and go for a new Canadian head of state who may be called a president and may be only a figurehead. I am fairly conservative myself, replacing the GG is not that radical since the holder of the job does nothing of significance in our modern world.

So what would be the difference between an elective Constitutional Monarch and a figurehead president, except for the duration of their term?

The latter would be a homegrown Canadian political appointee. The fiction that the queen could intervene in our affairs would be finished. We would cut links with the House of Windsor in our political affairs. We must do this ourselves, the crown from England/Britain/Europe will never on its own reduce its power in another country. We must wrest it away, doing so is a sign of political maturity.

The idea that perhaps, someone from another country could intervene in our affairs is a political blunder for Canada. It creates the feeling that from somewhere else on Earth is a legitimate source of political power over us. This violates the principle of a free, independent country and citizens need not put up with this.

This influence exists because right now soldiers in the armed forces and politicians take an oath to the queen and not Canada or Canadians. This has to be corrected for our continued political development. I think it is a bigger problem for the government than for the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: s_lone

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Honestly I do not want a totally free country. I'd rather maintain ties with England as such a symbolic figure also helps to strengthen bonds between our countries.

Another advantage with a monarchy is that a monarch can be shared between more than one country, unlike a president, and so can also serve to build bridges between countries as is the case between certain Commonwealth countries.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Honestly I do not want a totally free country. I'd rather maintain ties with England as such a symbolic figure also helps to strengthen bonds between our countries.

Another advantage with a monarchy is that a monarch can be shared between more than one country, unlike a president, and so can also serve to build bridges between countries as is the case between certain Commonwealth countries.

I am not particularly fond of monarchy. However, it seems to work fairly well, and there is no reasonable alternative (at least none that most people agree upon). So my opinion is, leave well enough alone.

If we didn’t have monarchy in Canada, I would be opposed to its introduction. But since we already have it, I need a very good reason to get rid of it. I haven’t come across any such reason.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
WE have an elected Prime Minister and parliment. I fail to see the need for anything else. We don't need fancy titles and useless hangers on squandering our tax dollars. The thought of having some unelected inbred foreigner as head of our country is embarrassing.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I don't think this would be a good time to spend a whack of money on fixing something that more-or-less works. I say leave it as is but change the electoral and campaign systems.
 

Knowzilla

New Member
Apr 15, 2010
21
2
3
WE have an elected Prime Minister and parliment. I fail to see the need for anything else. We don't need fancy titles and useless hangers on squandering our tax dollars. The thought of having some unelected inbred foreigner as head of our country is embarrassing.

Since when did Canadians elect a Prime Minister? I'm pretty sure the only people who saw the name of the current Prime Minister (Harper) and every other past Prime Minister on the ballot paper, were only the electors in their electoral district, only a small percentage of the entire electorate.

Prime Ministers are not elected. They are appointed. Harper was only elected as a MP, he became Prime Minister through appointment by the Governor General, as he was the leader of the largest party in the Commons.

Furthermore, as for Parliament, since when was the Senate elected? Their members are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

And don't forget, countries cannot have only a Prime Minister and Parliament. They need a head of state. Whether a Monarch, President, or dictator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wulfie68

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
Count me in the "not excessively fond of the Monarchy, but not ready to dump it crowd". Multiple posters on this thread have hit on the reasons, including Knowzilla, Anna, and SJP.

1) How will we replace it? This ISN'T a simplistic question but rather a very large one that encompasses many facets, not the least of which, as SJP pointed out, would be a constitutional re-vamp... and lets not kid ourselves: once constitutional discussions are broached for ANY reason, there are a whole lot of issue that will be raised by the provinces and other stakeholders (i.e. aboriginal groups).

2) Are we prepared to swallow the cost? Anna hit on this but again, its something people never think about when they talk about getting rid of the Monarchy. All our government letterheads, insignias, decals, many signs all become out of date and in need of replacing. It might be viewed as a nice way to stimulate printing and signage providers but it is an unnecessary expenditure at this time.

3) What criteria and mechanism do we use to determine our new head of state? Knowzilla just pointed out how ridiculous it is that the PM be considered our head of state, based on the method of selection used to fill the post. The head of state is NOT just the head of the government.

This is a rather emotional issue for some. The Monarchy is perceived as being one of our primary differences from our American cousins, part of that hard to define Canadian culture. Its hard for me not to see some validity in the anti-monarchy side, as the notion of someone else that I have no way to influence or make my views known to, "ruling" over me is disturbing on some levels. But for the anti-Monarchists to ever achieve their goal, they need to come up with a complete and balanced plan, including mechanisms and costs... and then convince the country it is truly something that is in our best interests.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Prime Ministers are not elected. They are appointed. Harper was only elected as a MP, he became Prime Minister through appointment by the Governor General, as he was the leader of the largest party in the Commons.

That is true indeed; we don’t elect the Prime Minister, that is done by the Parliament, after the election. Usually the head of the majority party become the PM, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be so. In theory, the majority party could dump their leader after the election, elect a new leader and make him the PM.

Indeed, the majority party could make absolutely anybody they want the PM. He doesn’t even have to be an elected MP. He could be a senator. Or if he isn’t a senator, no problem. After the majority party elects him the PM, one of the MPs (someone for a very safe seat) from the majority party resigns, PM runs in his place and gets elected.

So Preston Manning, Bill Vanderzalm, anybody could become the PM, it is for the majority party to decide.

It is not widely known, but Canadians really don’t have any say as to who becomes the PM, that is entirely up to the majority party.