Poll: Most Canadians don't care about upcoming royal wedding

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Sounds like a good time to me to start dumping the monarchy in Canada. We would save millions.

Most Canadians Indifferent to Monarchy and Royal Wedding | Angus Reid Public Opinion

Polls


(12/30/10) - Most Canadians Indifferent to Monarchy and Royal Wedding

Most respondents believe Prince William’s wedding day should not be a holiday in Canada.




The share of Canadians who want the country to remain a monarchy in the future has dropped significantly, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,016 Canadians, one-in-five respondents (21%) want Canada to remain a monarchy, down 15 points since an Angus Reid Public Opinion survey conducted in July, following the Queen’s visit to Canada.
Significantly larger proportions of respondents would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state (32%, +2) or are simply uninterested in the matter (29%, +8).

Three-in-five respondents (64%) would like to see a Canadian serve as the nation’s head of state, although only half of respondents (49%) are in favour of reopening Canada’s constitutional debate to discuss the possibility of replacing the monarch with an elected head of state.

The Royals
Prince William has surpassed his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, in popularity with the Canadian public. This month, 60 per cent of respondents hold a favourable opinion of Prince William, while 56 per cent feel the same way about the current monarch. Her husband, Prince Philip, is liked by only two-in-five respondents (40%). Half of Canadians (51%) have a positive opinion of Prince Harry. Kate Middleton, Prince William’s fiancée, is viewed favourably by 43 per cent of Canadians. Prince Charles (30%) and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (18%), are the least liked members of the Royal Family.

After Queen Elizabeth II
When asked who they would like to have as monarch in the event Queen Elizabeth II dies or abdicates, Canadians select Prince William over Prince Charles by more than a 2-to-1 margin (33% to 14%). However, a more than a third of Canadians (35%) think there should be no monarch after Queen Elizabeth II.
Canadians are not unique in their preference for the second-in-line to ascend the throne. A survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion in November showed that almost half of Britons (48%) would prefer to have Prince William as King, while a third (33%) favor Prince Charles.

Interest in the Royal Family and Upcoming Royal Wedding
Seven-in-ten Canadians (70%) report being “not too interested” or “not interested at all” in both the British Royal Family (70%) and the upcoming wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton (69%). Their wedding day—April 29, 2011—has been declared a national holiday in the United Kingdom. More than half of Canadians (58%) oppose taking the same course of action in Canada.

Analysis
The drop in support for Canada remaining a monarchy is not directly related to a rise in “republicanism.” The true cause of the severe fluctuation is the lack of interest in this issue, particularly among respondents aged 18 to 34. However, a gender gap is developing on this question. While women are divided, men favour having an elected head of state over a monarch by a 2-to-1 margin.
The survey also shows that fewer Canadians hold favourable views on several Royal Family members. However, despite the perceived lack of enthusiasm in the upcoming wedding, the proportion of respondents who express a favourable opinion of Kate Middleton increased by 16 points since July—placing her above Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.
Our previous surveys on the monarchy in Canada can be accessed here:

September 2007 / March 2008 / October 2009 / November 2009 / May 2010 / July 2010
Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
Sounds like a good time to me to start dumping the monarchy in Canada. We would save millions.

In all your posts you have yet to show how these millions would be saved and how we would avoid the billions it would take to change everything away from a monarchy. You keep trumpeting the same song, but it doesn't have any melody...
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,282
479
83
59
Alberta
In all your posts you have yet to show how these millions would be saved and how we would avoid the billions it would take to change everything away from a monarchy. You keep trumpeting the same song, but it doesn't have any melody...

We would certainly save millions changing all our coins, oh wait that would cost more. Re-badging and naming our military units would save millions, oh wait that would cost more. Changing all those flags and crests would save money, oh wait that would cost more. Yes it would save billions eradicating our historical link to the United Kingdom and the Monarchy.

With all the money we save after we spend more we can sink it into Quebec Separtist revisionist historical ventures.

Big Thumbs Up from the Industrial Military Complex!!!
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
First of all the reason the monarchy remains, is that we are a left over of the old British
Empire. Of course you know why the monarchy exists to this day right? There was an
experiment that disposed of the monarchy and in its place society got a visit from our
old friend Oliver Cromwell. Five years later, the good ole Monarchy looked pretty good
and the Royal Family remained warts and all.
The other thing that we don't think about is that many on these boards claim we are not a
democracy, and those who claim that are technically right. Canada is in fact a Constitutional
Democracy, which means we have the a form of democracy but we are subject to the
Monarchy in principal if not in everyday practice.
The other caution here, is that in order to dump the monarchy, we would in fact have to open
the ah.... yes the ah...Constitution. Once that Pandora's Box is opened all kinds of things
get discussed and would end up dealing with all the stuff left over from the Trudeau Days.
Does anyone really want to go there? I know people say not is not so we would deal with the
single issue and close the book again. Ya Right, every time we open that book we spend a
decade or two in heated debate and bad feelings for all, by all. I personally would rather put
up with the Monarchy than open that constitutional book of human misery.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
In all your posts you have yet to show how these millions would be saved and how we would avoid the billions it would take to change everything away from a monarchy. You keep trumpeting the same song, but it doesn't have any melody...

Saving those millions. We bid on the Commonwealth Games which we spend millions on for third rate competion with third world countries. There's always some city who wants this, and now with outta sight security costs, we might actually win them. But it looks like we'll get lucky and due to their high cost and low return they may never come to Canada. According to this CC link I posted: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/93816-huge-1-7-billion-halifax.html

Are those enough millions for you? It would even get to billions.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
There are so many flaws in the "saving millions" argument that you continue to spew, dumpthemonarchy.

An elected head of State would cost more. An elected head of State would undoubtedly have a greater legitimate role in intervening in the affairs of the country, he or she would need much more staff, versed in policymaking and electoral politics. The costs of the head of State's office would skyrocket. The ceremonial functions of the position would nonetheless continue, at around the same cost, with an elected head of State instead of the Queen's representative. Remember, we do not pay the day-to-day costs of the monarchy, only the costs of the vice-regal offices (which would have to be continued under another form, after an expensive changeover and more expensive staffing needs). The idea holds no water whatsoever.

Remember, too, that recognising Her Majesty as Queen of Canada is not a prerequisite for membership in the Commonwealth of Nations; even if we severed ties to the monarchy, Canada would undoubtedly remain a member of the Commonwealth anyway, just like the dozens of other countries that are Commonwealth countries without a sovereign.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
There are so many flaws in the "saving millions" argument that you continue to spew, dumpthemonarchy.

An elected head of State would cost more. An elected head of State would undoubtedly have a greater legitimate role in intervening in the affairs of the country, he or she would need much more staff, versed in policymaking and electoral politics. The costs of the head of State's office would skyrocket. The ceremonial functions of the position would nonetheless continue, at around the same cost, with an elected head of State instead of the Queen's representative. Remember, we do not pay the day-to-day costs of the monarchy, only the costs of the vice-regal offices (which would have to be continued under another form, after an expensive changeover and more expensive staffing needs). The idea holds no water whatsoever.

Remember, too, that recognising Her Majesty as Queen of Canada is not a prerequisite for membership in the Commonwealth of Nations; even if we severed ties to the monarchy, Canada would undoubtedly remain a member of the Commonwealth anyway, just like the dozens of other countries that are Commonwealth countries without a sovereign.

You ignored the part in the post about the expensive and useless Commonwealth Games. Those potential millions and possibly billions are a fact. That means you lost the money part of the argument. Why anyone in Canada wants to be associated with the CW any more is simply beyond me. You can't even call them a useless talk shop, because they have nothing to say. The world is changing and budgets are getting tighter, we have to shed our involvement in dated world organizations-which cost millions.

We need an elected head of state like we need a Senate-not at all. We could do without for a while and see what happens. The PM knows right now he is the head of state and the head of the govt. Try not to ignore political reality. Cut the queen and GG, save millions.

There's no linear logic out there that states that if we dump the monarchy, we will get more expensive govt. Just speculation.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Saving those millions. We bid on the Commonwealth Games which we spend millions on for third rate competion with third world countries. .

So, you're saying the best reason to dump the monarchy is because that would mean we would leave the commonwealth and therefore save money by not being involved in the Commonwealth Games.

I'm surprised you don't have the ear of every single Canadian with reasoning like that. Flawless, that is.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
So, you're saying the best reason to dump the monarchy is because that would mean we would leave the commonwealth and therefore save money by not being involved in the Commonwealth Games.

I'm surprised you don't have the ear of every single Canadian with reasoning like that. Flawless, that is.


As the world keeps getting smaller, perhaps in would be more beneficial than detrimental to be allies of "third world" countries.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
There are so many flaws in the "saving millions" argument that you continue to spew, dumpthemonarchy.

An elected head of State would cost more. An elected head of State would undoubtedly have a greater legitimate role in intervening in the affairs of the country, he or she would need much more staff, versed in policymaking and electoral politics. The costs of the head of State's office would skyrocket. The ceremonial functions of the position would nonetheless continue, at around the same cost, with an elected head of State instead of the Queen's representative. Remember, we do not pay the day-to-day costs of the monarchy, only the costs of the vice-regal offices (which would have to be continued under another form, after an expensive changeover and more expensive staffing needs). The idea holds no water whatsoever.

Remember, too, that recognising Her Majesty as Queen of Canada is not a prerequisite for membership in the Commonwealth of Nations; even if we severed ties to the monarchy, Canada would undoubtedly remain a member of the Commonwealth anyway, just like the dozens of other countries that are Commonwealth countries without a sovereign.

WE already have an elected head of state called the Prime Minister. As well as elected representatives. That is all we really need. Anything else is just expensive window dressing.
 

Elder

Electoral Member
Jan 15, 2011
193
0
16
New Westminster, BC, CA
Down with the monarchy. The Royal family is a serious drain on taxpayers both in Canada and especially the UK. Their time is long past and since they no longer serve a purpose - why must we continue to pay for their lavish upkeep?

Do not care about the wedding it is non-news.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Down with the monarchy. The Royal family is a serious drain on taxpayers both in Canada and especially the UK. Their time is long past and since they no longer serve a purpose - why must we continue to pay for their lavish upkeep?

Do not care about the wedding it is non-news.

It's a sword that cuts both ways I guess- they probably generate a little money and create a little employment and when they come to Canada a lot of people go flitting off across the country to see them and dump a little money into the hospitality industry. As for what practical use they are - I'd say minimal. (like a lot of us)
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
The prime minister is not elected.

He is appointed by the Governor General, in the Queen's name, based on the person best able to command the support of a majority of members of the House of Commons -- the only body on the federal scene in Canada that is elected. It would be a huge mistake to give the prime minister the power to determine whether he, himself, is governing respectful of constitutional norms; to do so would open the door to the prime minister being able to say "You know what, I know that our budget was defeated, but I'm the head of State -- I've decided not to invite another person to form a government."
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,282
479
83
59
Alberta
So, you're saying the best reason to dump the monarchy is because that would mean we would leave the commonwealth and therefore save money by not being involved in the Commonwealth Games.

I'm surprised you don't have the ear of every single Canadian with reasoning like that. Flawless, that is.

TennPenny, I know we don't often agree, but I would like to commend you publicly for this brilliant rebuttal.

It was chock full of wit, sarcasm, dry humor and in me it invoked first a smile then laughter.

Well done Sir!

Golf Clap!
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
I fam very much looking forward to the wedding, a very nice young couple. The monarchy is just
fine, I am proud of them, glad we have them, they are not a drain on anything.

The behavior of ths wonderful couple proves to me that they have moved forward from the older
monarchy, a little more casual, and more connected with one's everyday life, they will be
a delight as the king and queen someday, don't know if charlie will ever be king, seems like
they are going to leap over him and move on to the next person, we'll see.

Maybe some would prefer the taliban wandering around our country, trying to drag all of us back
to the good old days, when women were beaten for nothing, and the men treated like slaves by the
countries leadership.

Or, how about a hitler type, charming type, completely insane, and tripping over his own arrogance
till it killed him.

We have our independence, and a little icing on the cake, with the monarchy, and it keeps a keen
eye on our government, who have to stay within the laws of our country, or they will be 'turfed'
out by the monarchy, and I'm glad to have them.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
The prime minister is not elected.

He is appointed by the Governor General, in the Queen's name, based on the person best able to command the support of a majority of members of the House of Commons -- the only body on the federal scene in Canada that is elected. It would be a huge mistake to give the prime minister the power to determine whether he, himself, is governing respectful of constitutional norms; to do so would open the door to the prime minister being able to say "You know what, I know that our budget was defeated, but I'm the head of State -- I've decided not to invite another person to form a government."

SO who died and made the governor general boss? Name one PM that was not elected.