Majority of polled Canadians had a two-word response to King Charles' throne speech
There has been much ballyhoo about this week's Royal visit and, more importantly, King Charles III's throne speech, heralded by many as a defining moment in Canada's constitutional history that reinforces our sovereignty.
However, an Angus Reid Institute online poll last week discovered that Canadians are largely indifferent about the monarch's speech to open Canada's 45th parliament. Asked if they were excited or didn't care, 83 per cent of respondents chose the latter.
Regionally, more people were chuffed about the King's speech in Ontario (21 per cent) and Atlantic Canada (20 per cent) while Quebecers, unsurprisingly, were the least excited (10 per cent).
Even though Canadians would appear to be largely disinterested in the goings-on in Ottawa, 37 per cent see the first speech delivered by a monarch since Queen Elizabeth II in 1977 as a 'good thing' (37 per cent) and not a 'bad thing' (23 per cent).
But even among that positive cohort, 58 per cent conceded indifference to what would occur in the Canadian Senate on Tuesday.
'It should be noted, however, that a plurality (40 per cent) say they 'aren't sure' quite what to make of the whole endeavour,' Angus Reid reported.
Broken down by sex and age group, women in the 55-plus demographic led the way in judging it to be good (45 per cent), followed by their male counterparts, who, along with men aged 35-54, led the way in deeming it bad (32 per cent).
Meanwhile, a majority (62 per cent) of 18- to 34-year-old women were unsure or couldn't say one way or another.
The poll of 1,685 adults between May 20 and 23 also probed them on their views of the sovereign and the monarchy's relationship to Canada now and in the future, noting that views 'have been steadily declining over time.'
The King's own favourability has changed little in the years since his coronation, currently sitting at 29 per cent, though his unfavourability has declined from 54 per cent in April 2022 to 43 per cent in this round of polling.
Data also suggests that despite Charles being King of both Canada and the U.K., only 19 per cent view him as such and more women than men, across all age groups, regard him as solely British royalty.
Angus Reid also explored the King's favourability and Canada's future as a monarchy through a political lens and found that more Liberals than Conservatives had a positive opinion (39 per cent to 28 per cent) and think Canada's constitutional monarchy should be maintained 'for generations to come' (39 per cent to 30 per cent).
'Under Carney, Liberal support for Canada's system of constitutional monarchy has rebounded,' the firm wrote, highlighting the Prime Minister's trip to Buckingham Palace where he extended the official invite.
Political affiliations aside, more Canadians (40 per cent) disagree with maintaining the status quo than don't (30 per cent), while a quarter were on the fence.
Save for a brief bump upon the late Queen's passing and her son's coronation, support for a long-term constitutional monarchy has been continually declining since 2000, when it sat at 46 per cent. In 1978, per Environics, support was gauged at 55 per cent.
As an online poll, there is no margin of error.
The Governor General just undermined the King of Canada
The King is here to do the most kingly thing of all
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says Nato allies ‘very close' to raising defence spending target to 5%
The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said Nato allies were 'very close, almost near consensus' to an agreement to significantly raise targets for defence spending to 5% of GDP in the next decade. The Trump administration official indicated he expected the increased target to be agreed at a summit in The Hague later this month – and confirmed that the headline figure was to be split into two parts. 'This alliance, in a matter of weeks, will be committing to 5%: 3.5% in hard military and 1.5% in infrastructure and defence-related activities. That combination constitutes a real commitment,' he said. Hegseth was speaking at a press conference at Nato headquarters in Brussels after the morning session of an all-day meeting of defence ministers from the 32-country transatlantic military alliance. 'I'm very encouraged by what we heard in there,' Hegseth told reporters. 'Countries in there are well exceeding 2% and we think very close, almost near consensus, on a 5% commitment to Nato.' Nato's current target level for military spending, agreed at a summit in Cardiff in 2014, is 2% of GDP, but Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that European allies and Canada do not spend enough compared with the US. In an attempt to avoid Trump wrecking the first Nato summit of his second term, the alliance's new secretary general, Mark Rutte, proposed a 3.5% plus 1.5% target, though there is some ambiguity about the target date. Initial reports suggested that Rutte wanted allies to hit the target from 2032, though earlier this week British sources suggested the date could be 2035. Sweden's defence minister said he would like to see the target hit by 2030. Only Poland currently exceeds the 3.5% target for hard military spending at 4.32%, according to Nato figures, while the US defence budget, the largest in the alliance, amounts to 3.4% of GDP, at $967bn (£711bn). The UK spends 2.33% of GDP on its military, but has pledged to increase that to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% some time in the next parliament. Earlier this week the prime minister, Keir Starmer, declined to set a firm date for the UK achieving 3% as he unveiled a strategic defence review. Related: Why is defence such a hard sell? The same reason Starmer is struggling in the polls | Martin Kettle Rutte will visit London on Monday to meet Starmer before the summit. Downing Street said the prime minister and the secretary general would 'talk about how we ensure all allies step up their defence spending now in order to respond to the threats that we face now'. Germany's defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said Berlin would need up to 60,000 additional troops to meet new Nato targets for weapons and personnel. 'We are stepping up to our responsibility as Europe's largest economy,' the minister said on Thursday. Germany, which currently spends 2.12% of GDP on defence, had been singled out by Trump as a laggard in spending, though until Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Berlin had been reluctant to be a leader in European military spending, partly due to the memories of the militarism of the second world war.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from County Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy. She made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill said, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable US. Hill, 59, is perhaps the best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and the retired general Sir Richard Barrons. She said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national after living in the US for more than 30 years. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill said, arguing that Putin saw the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia was already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she said, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber-attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill said, was that 'Russia is at war with us'. The foreign policy expert, a longtime Russia watcher, said she had first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the west,' she said. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill said events since had demonstrated 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believed that Ukraine had already been decoupled from the US relationship, Hill said, because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it came to defence, however, she said the UK could not rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the cold war and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's longstanding assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgment in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and the defence secretary, John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey, however, and she said she had met the prime minister only once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill was not drawn on whether she had advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead: 'The advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting.' She said simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She added that unlike his close circle, Trump had 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she said. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. She noted that Reform UK had won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and that the party's leader, Nigel Farage, wanted to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) before his falling-out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she said. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steelworks and coalmines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she said, arguing that Britain needed to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill said, was about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she said. Hill said she saw that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US had contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort', she said. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that's because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' she said. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalled that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
King Charles, Prince Harry at point of 'no turning back' as monarch refuses reconciliation: expert
As King Charles prepares to put on a united front with his family at this year's Trooping the Colour, the monarch and estranged son Prince Harry are nowhere near ending their rift. "There is no turning back," British royals expert Hilary Fordwich claimed to Fox News Digital. "King Charles remains tender towards his son but can't risk communication," she shared. "Prince William now has absolutely no interest in mending fences. Those close to the king say he [shouldn't] make peace with Harry in a way that would burden Prince William's future reign. The animosity is so deep that William has shut the door on Harry. Charles is not willing to go against his heir's wishes." King Charles, Prince Harry's Painful Feud 'Damaging' Monarch's Reign As Gutted Son Remains Furious: Expert "Everything comes down to trust and the lack of it," Fordwich added. Fordwich's comments came shortly after insiders told People magazine that the monarch, who is battling an undisclosed form of cancer, is hesitant to reconnect with his son. Many royal observers believe it's the monarch who should take the first step in igniting a royal reconciliation. Read On The Fox News App "The underlying issue is trust," royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith told the outlet. "The king and William don't trust Harry and Meghan with any kind of confidential conversation." Insiders told the outlet that the king, 76, isn't surrounded by palace aides urging him to reconcile with his son. Meanwhile, William is said to have "no interest" in extending an olive branch. "There is not a good angel in [the king's] ear to say, 'Be a good dad and make the first move,'" royal author Valentine Low told the outlet. Fox News Digital reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment. WATCH: PRINCE HARRY LOOKING TO RECONCILE WITH KING CHARLES, ROYAL FAMILY Fordwich claimed that Harry has crossed such a deep line in Charles's eyes that it's been difficult for the king to forgive his son. Sources close to Harry previously claimed to People magazine that Charles won't respond to his letters or phone calls. "It's Harry's criticisms of Queen Camilla [in his memoir, 'Spare'], as well as his broader attacks on the family and institution, which have seriously crossed a line for the king and those closest to him," Fordwich claimed. "The king is now so puzzled by Harry's constant revelations. It's now beyond sensitive to discuss, so he avoids all interaction regarding the subject. He is so kind but overwhelmed and has quite enough on his plate to deal with, without all this from his son." Harry's troubled relationship with his family and the U.K. establishment has played out in public for years – in books, interviews, TV programs and the courts. Harry and his wife, Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, stepped back as senior royals in 2020, citing the unbearable intrusions of the British press and a lack of support from the palace. That same year, they moved to California. Since the couple's royal exit, they have aired their grievances and made blistering allegations against the royal family. Harry's explosive 2023 memoir, "Spare," was stuffed with private details and embarrassing revelations. Click Here To Sign Up For The Entertainment Newsletter Harry's rift with his family burst into the open once more with a raw interview he gave to the BBC in May after losing a court case over his security. In a long and at times emotional conversation, Harry said he wanted reconciliation. He admitted that his father, who is battling an undisclosed form of cancer, won't speak to him. "Harry's ill-timed recent interview on the BBC highlighted the lack of trust between them publicly," royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams told Fox News Digital. "He seemed to believe his father could and should solve the issue of security, which he insists he and his family should have." "The rift, sadly, seems likely to remain toxic as there is no mutual trust between them," said Fitzwilliams. "Hopefully, it will not worsen as the Sussexes could give further interviews or possibly write more about the feud, something that is invariably remunerative for them." Low told People magazine that despite Harry's call for peace on the BBC, his comments were seen as another blow to the royals. During the interview, Harry, who has met his father only once, briefly, since his diagnosis early last year, said, "I don't know how much longer my father has." "It wasn't meant to be an attack, but it would be seen as one," said Low. "It makes Charles reaching out even harder." Royal expert Ian Pelham Turner told Fox News Digital that the royals take great pride in protecting their public image. They've maintained the late Queen Elizabeth II's motto of keep calm and carry on. Like What You're Reading? Click Here For More Entertainment News "The royals play a positive role to the cameras," he explained. "[But] behind the scenes, they allegedly are constantly bickering with each other… King Charles has a past reputation for not making advances on difficult decisions." A source recently claimed to Us Weekly that William was "absolutely appalled" by Harry's comments to the BBC about their father's health. The insider claimed that the 42-year-old feels like Harry stooped "so low." Royal experts previously told Fox News Digital that William is fiercely protective of Charles. The source also told the outlet that it's unlikely that the feuding brothers will reunite while their father is still alive. "The funeral of Charles would be the first time that courtiers would imagine [them reuniting]," said the insider. "I can't imagine William would invite Harry to his coronation." Despite infrequent updates from the palace about his health, Charles has returned to a full slate of public duties. During his sit-down with the BBC, Harry held out little hope of another meeting with his father. "The only time I come back to the U.K. is, sadly, for funerals or court cases," he said. Fitzwilliams said that Charles must address his ongoing rift with Harry, 40, as it remains a dark cloud over his reign. "We are now less than a fortnight away from Trooping the Colour, which celebrates the monarch's birthday," he said. "King Charles can surely congratulate himself on negotiating a year where he has worked so hard and achieved a great deal despite battling cancer." "The one area that remains problematic is the rift with the Sussexes. He has only seen Prince Harry once after his diagnosis and then fleetingly." Back in 2024, Christopher Andersen, author of "The King," claimed to Fox News Digital that the king is still unable to forgive his son for casting Camilla as the villain in "Spare." "I think people have to realize that the one thing that Charles finds unforgivable is criticism of Camilla," said Andersen at the time. "There's no criticism of Camilla," Andersen claimed. "And unfortunately for Harry… Harry said some pretty devastating things about her. He made it clear that he felt she was… the villain in the piece. I think that still bothers the king, and I don't know that it will be easy for him to [forgive]. I don't think they'll ever forgive Harry for that." WATCH: PRINCE HARRY'S JABS AT QUEEN CAMILLA UNFORGIVABLE FOR KING CHARLES: EXPERT "[He's] on his own," Andersen added, referring to the Duke of Sussex. In televised interviews to promote the book, Harry accused his stepmother, 77, of leaking private conversations to the media to burnish her own reputation. He accused members of the royal family of getting "into bed with the devil" to gain favorable tabloid coverage, singling out Camilla's efforts to rehabilitate her image with the public after her longtime affair with his father. "That made her dangerous because of the connections that she was forging within the British press," Harry told CBS ahead of his book launch. "There was open willingness on both sides to trade information. And with a family built on hierarchy, and with her on the way to being queen consort, there was going to be people or bodies left in the street." The Duke and Duchess of Sussex reside in the wealthy coastal city of Montecito with their two young article source: King Charles, Prince Harry at point of 'no turning back' as monarch refuses reconciliation: expert
