Smallc Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 It seems that the Canadian people ave very indifferent to the Crown and Prince Charles in particular. I don't remember the exact numbers. The poll can be seen on the new and very well done CBC News: The National. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 It seems that the Canadian people ave very indifferent to the Crown and Prince Charles in particular. I don't remember the exact numbers.The poll can be seen on the new and very well done CBC News: The National. Golly, they'll be in trouble next election. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 I know, it isn't really politics (although it does have political implications), but there's nowhere else to put it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 It seems that the Canadian people ave very indifferent to the Crown and Prince Charles in particularWhat that means is Charles will have no problems claiming his title as the King of Canada since no Canadians have no interest in the constitutional debates required to get rid of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 That's true...and probably good in its own way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 It seems that the Canadian people ave very indifferent to the Crown and Prince Charles in particular. I don't remember the exact numbers.The poll can be seen on the new and very well done CBC News: The National. It's hard to say much without the poll at hand, but since the Dominion Institute began surveying people about their knowledge of Canada, I've come to trust the results of polls on the monarchy's popularity less and less (and yes, the irony of using polls to dismiss polls is not lost on me!). In other words: how can we take seriously the results of a poll on the subject of which Canadians have been shown to know nothing about? Republicans in Canada - the about 27 of them - have always called for an open debate on the subject of the monarchy. To that, I generally say, if they want to disturb the indifference, bring it on, because I believe in something Dalton Camp said fifteen or so years ago: But for all those who don't want the Queen there are easily as many who don't want a President and even more who certainly would not want one if they knew who it would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 From the Adrienne Arsenault report that broke this story: "Canadians pay more to support the monarchy on a per capita basis than the British do" That and we're footing the bill for Prince Charles to tour the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 From the Adrienne Arsenault report that broke this story: "Canadians pay more to support the monarchy on a per capita basis than the British do"That and we're footing the bill for Prince Charles to tour the country. And your point is...? Who else do you think would pay for our Royal Familiy? Brazil? And what of the cost difference? The UK doesn't have eleven separate governments, covers a total area less than Newfoundland and Labrador, and has a population twice the size of ours. Even then, the British Crown costs them $1.26 per person. And our Canadian Crown? $1.53 for each of us. Yes, a whopping 27 cent difference! Rise up o people and overthrow this abboration that steals food right from the mouths of our babes! Ugh. Are we really going to see the country go down to appease a bunch of dull, money-grubbing misers who won't be happy until they have president Scrooge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/26/...arles-poll.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 On CBC this morning they said "20% of Canadians wouldn't go to hear Prince Charles speak, even if he was nearby." The monarchy is, in my view, settling into the perfect role for them: a nice family whose faces appear on our money for some reason, a reminder of our past, for better or worse, and how far we have come and some kind of b***shit irrelevant link to our history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 I would like to see a poll about G.W.Bush! This is funny because the Queen has about as much relevance as the US president, perhaps less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Ah, the irrelevantistas have arrived. Irrelevantista: Boo! Waste of money! Irrelevant! Grumble, grumble... Rational individual: And your relevant alternative is? Irrelavantista: Boo! Waste of money! Irrelevant! Grumble, grumble... Ooooh! American Idol is on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 The Queen is our head of state. Until that is changed we OWE her our allegiance and loyalty. We will pay for her visits and wine and dine the Royal Family with as much grace and respect as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 I agree with Jerry. I often wonder "why" we as a people have a hard time defining who we are, And the small things that do define us, we make it our hobby to destroy them, make them irrelevant, or slag them... I'd be interested to find out how much it would cost the government and tax payers to change our form of government, and everything that goes with it....just to get rid of the Queen as our figure head... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 I'd be interested to find out how much it would cost the government and tax payers to change our form of government, and everything that goes with it....just to get rid of the Queen as our figure head... It would probably cost the government an election and the taxpayers billions. For the nation, it would probably result in worse as mischief makers would want to throw everything but the kitchen sink into Constitutional talks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 It would probably cost the government an election and the taxpayers billions. For the nation, it would probably result in worse as mischief makers would want to throw everything but the kitchen sink into Constitutional talks. Nonsense! We already know what problems we have and face, that means that we can fix them. I would suggest that the right way to do it is through Provincial Constitutions first. Clean up those as and when the people of the provinces see fit to do so and once that process is complete then a federal exercise could be undertaken. This need not be an exercise in futility, bent on division and exploitation. It could be the way to improve our democracy and our government in a manner that would benefit the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 The Queen is our head of state. Until that is changed we OWE her our allegiance and loyalty. We will pay for her visits and wine and dine the Royal Family with as much grace and respect as possible. Do you think telling them they're irrelevant is the way to do this, Jerry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Do you think telling them they're irrelevant is the way to do this, Jerry? They are not relevant in terms of how this nation determines to govern itself. They are very relevant however in terms of their interactions with our government. The Crown is a state of fact for this nation, we have a Queen as our head of state. That head of state plays no role in our politics or government however. So in a true sense, the Crown has no relevance to Canadians since it can neither propose nor impede any legislative effort. The agent of the Crown in Canada, The Govenor General has limited power and authority over the government of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) I agree with Jerry. I often wonder "why" we as a people have a hard time defining who we are, And the small things that do define us, we make it our hobby to destroy them, make them irrelevant, or slag them... Close. We make it our hobby to destroy and slag some of them; an arbitrary and hypocritical selection that leaves the French civil code, habeas corpus, French and English languages, parliamentary democracy, police system, and other things in tact, but targets the Royal Family as "foreign" and "irrelevant". Is it the remnants of 1960s neo-nationalism? Is it a sign of a celebrity-obsessed culture that lifts people up purely to rip them apart and knock them down? A population totally ignorant of its own history and modern civics? All of the above? I'd be interested to find out how much it would cost the government and tax payers to change our form of government, and everything that goes with it....just to get rid of the Queen as our figure head... Billions. Tens of billions, at least. The Australian political elite has been using taxpayer money to push a republic for twenty years now, and they're still not stopping, even after a failed referendum on the subject ten years ago. For us, it would take successive constitutional conventions to come to an alternative suitable to the federal government and all provinces, as well as to the First Nations; if that isn't practically impossible, it would definitely be a project that would outlast governments in all jurisdictions, prolonging the process even further, as republican ministries are replaced with ambivolent or monarchist governments and then restored again... The chances of the 12 planets aligning at the right time are essentially nil. [sp] Edited October 27, 2009 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 The agent of the Crown in Canada, The Govenor General has limited power and authority over the government of the day. The Governor General does not get that limited power out of thin air. Without the Crown, there's no Governor General; so, if you feel the viceroy has relevance, you feel the monarchy does as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 What that means is Charles will have no problems claiming his title as the King of Canada since no Canadians have no interest in the constitutional debates required to get rid of him. Indeed, it's status quo by virtue of Mexican standoff. After Mulroney was essentially castrated after two attempts at amending the Constitution, there won't be a PM for a generation or more who would have the guts to open it up for even something mundane like Senate Reform, let alone who gets to be head of state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 I'd like to see the Monarchy restored to its original purpose, to keep the government off the people's backs and keep it honest. Or was the latter supposed to be the Church's job? In either case, someone's not doing their job. As Jerry say's; They are not relevant in terms of how this nation determines to govern itself. Funny, I would have thought it was the people who were supposed to determine how we'll be governed. Not WHO will govern us but HOW. These are two completely different things in my opinion. We've never had a chance to even do our job yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 I'd like to see the Monarchy restored to its original purpose, to keep the government off the people's backs and keep it honest. Yeah...that's original Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 This need not be an exercise in futility, bent on division and exploitation. But it will likely be. I suspect some people will do whatever to get their issues entrenched in the Constitution and block everyone else's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Easy solution: an omnibus bill by a Tory majority to eliminate both the Queen/Crown and the CBC. Secret Agenda! The monetary comparisons of costs to the British and Canadian purses for the monarchy are misleading. In the UK, the very existence of the Crown also generates tons of revenue, tourists do pay to see the pomp and ceremony, royal activities and sites are a huge draw. Not so in Canada, nobody comes here to see the GG or her properties or ceremonies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.