# To be or not to be Royal...that is the question.



## Gino (10 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with calling what it used to be known as, just as long as you realize and make sure people don't mistake your post for meaning the RCN is still in existence.


You may be right, but there are still a lot of people who want RCN back.  We may be unified, but the term Canadian Navy is continually used in official documents.  Once you grant the term Navy, then Royal must surely follow, for are we not still the Queen's service, are our warships not still Her Majesty's?  This would be a perfect initiative for the Navy's Centennial.  I'm not optimistic, but if enough people stand up, maybe it can happen.  Then if we can put RCN after our names, we can dispense with those !@#$  (N)s after the lieutenant and captain ranks.


----------



## axeman (10 Feb 2006)

what about the royal for the army and the air force then?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2006)

There never was a Royal Canadian Army.

Personally I think there are better things to worry about then whether or not we have a Royal in front of our elements. How about new equipment? Not to be ignorant to those that did serve in the RCAF and RCN but personally I think it would be a waste to revert back to the old titles. Most serving members in those elements were not in during Unification and the ones I have talked to over the years could care less if they were part of the "Royal" Canadian Navy or not. I am just proud to have Canada on my epualets and sewn on the shoulder of my tunic.


----------



## Gino (10 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> There never was a Royal Canadian Army.


Very true, but all regiments got to keep their Royal designations, if applicable.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I think there are better things to worry about then whether or not we have a Royal in front of our elements. How about new equipment? Not to be ignorant to those that did serve in the RCAF and RCN but personally I think it would be a waste to revert back to the old titles. Most serving members in those elements were not in during Unification and the ones I have talked to over the years could care less if they were part of the "Royal" Canadian Navy or not. I am just proud to have Canada on my epualets and sewn on the shoulder of my tunic.


Easy for you to say, mate.  Is that a Royal Canadian Dragoons badge I see as your avatar?  Don't worry, there's lot's of very high priced help worrying about equipment, while almost no one gives a damn about customs and traditions.  Why would reversion, be  a waste?  It could be done as economically as possible.  We change organizations and designations frequently and no one seems all that concerned about waste.  I'm proud to wear Canada flashes as well, and that certainly wouldn't change.  Unification was a kick to the sack for the navy and we have been treated as second class citizens by the "green machine" ever since.  It's no wonder the average sailor may not be too concerned about the navy's Royal heritage when it's been watered down so much over the years.  But why is it that I still see young sailors with tattoos that say RCN?  Who wants to say that they belong to "Maritime Command"?  The response from most Canadians would be, "huh?".


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2006)

Personally I have no idea why the army regiments got to keep their Royal Designations while the RCAF and RCN lost theirs but I would have been just as proud to have been a Canadian Dragoon as I was as a Royal Canadian Dragoon. Having the Royal designation does not make you any better then anyone else. I am sure in a few years when the CSOR has been around it matters to them whether or not they had the big capital R in front or not.

As for the high priced help worrying about the equipment we all have seen what foul ups they make in equipment procurement all the time. Myself and others have to use this equipment everyday on deployments and on exercises so I think we have a right to be concerned on what we use.

Yes agreed Unification was a kick in the sack for the Navy and Air Force but whats done is done. There are also a lot of people in the CF and in Canada that would love to see our ties with the monarchy severed. Don't they have a say?

In closing I am proud to be part of the Canadian Navy that emerged from the Royal Canadian Navy.


----------



## FSTO (10 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I have no idea why the army regiments got to keep their Royal Designations while the RCAF and RCN lost theirs but I would have been just as proud to have been a Canadian Dragoon as I was as a Royal Canadian Dragoon. Having the Royal designation does not make you any better then anyone else. I am sure in a few years when the CSOR has been around it matters to them whether or not they had the big capital R in front or not.
> 
> As for the high priced help worrying about the equipment we all have seen what foul ups they make in equipment procurement all the time. Myself and others have to use this equipment everyday on deployments and on exercises so I think we have a right to be concerned on what we use.
> 
> ...



We are not quite at Canadian Navy yet. It's been Canada's Navy on most of the promo stuff I've seen.

Timeline for the names of the Naval Service (Which I think is the name of the bill creating the RCN)

RN
RCN
Maritime Command
Canada's Navy (C'sN)
Canadian Navy? (CN) seagoing railway
Canadian Forces Navy? (CFN) sounds like a TV station
Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) Thats better


----------



## Gino (10 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I have no idea why the army regiments got to keep their Royal Designations while the RCAF and RCN lost theirs but I would have been just as proud to have been a Canadian Dragoon as I was as a Royal Canadian Dragoon. Having the Royal designation does not make you any better then anyone else. I am sure in a few years when the CSOR has been around it matters to them whether or not they had the big capital R in front or not.
> 
> As for the high priced help worrying about the equipment we all have seen what foul ups they make in equipment procurement all the time. Myself and others have to use this equipment everyday on deployments and on exercises so I think we have a right to be concerned on what we use.
> 
> ...


Jesus wept, you're a republican.  That explains your attitude.  I won't even delve into the issue of oaths of allegiance, then.  Many complain that adherence to customs and traditions, minimal as it may be, merely detracts from our real operational focus.  Seems to me that we used to be able to give adequate focus to both.  It also sounds to me like you can attest from your equipment concerns (which I share) that we have allowed our heritage to be lost without necessarily gaining much in return.

As Milton said, "When we cannot measure the things that are important, we ascribe importance to the things we can measure".


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I have no idea why the army regiments got to keep their Royal Designations while the RCAF and RCN lost theirs but I would have been just as proud to have been a Canadian Dragoon as I was as a Royal Canadian Dragoon. Having the Royal designation does not make you any better then anyone else. I am sure in a few years when the CSOR has been around it matters to them whether or not they had the big capital R in front or not.



The reason is that on unification the separate services ceased to exist:



> There is no doubt that the [Canadian] military, until a short time ago, have not, had the support they deserve. Equipment has become elderly and sometimes obsolete and the manpower allocation has been insufficient. The upheaval caused by the passing of the *Canadian Forces Reorganization of Act of 1 February 1968* caused a drop in efficiency and in the effectiveness of the Command and Control of the forces which has only been restored recently with the functioning of the new commands. *Under the Act, the Navy, Army and Air Force ceased to exist as legal entities* and between 1968 and 1973 the total regular armed forces strength was' reduced from 120,780 to 82,000. By 1977 the total was only 78,000, far too small to meet all the requirements placed upon them.
> The reorganization was carried out in two phases, the first was termed "integration" and involved the grouping of the former services under a common command structure and the second, "unification", was the creation of a single service. All members were issued with the same uniform and came under the control of a single personnel branch. The common uniform is still worn although it is noticeable that various embellishments and titles have started to appear. - Colonel Norman L. Dodd, The Defence of Canada, The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal, Vol. 108, No. 1, January 1978



Apparently there was no precedent, or effort to create one, to have some portion of the Navy or Air Force retain the "Royal" designation at the time.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2006)

No, I am a Canadian that puts other matters before titles that do little. Whether my oath is to the Queen or the Prime Minister all that matters to me is doing my job for Canada.

Gino, I am just curious were you in the Navy at the time of Unification?


----------



## Gino (10 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> No, I am a Canadian that puts other matters before titles that do little. Whether my oath is to the Queen or the Prime Minister all that matters to me is doing my job for Canada.
> 
> Gino, I am just curious were you in the Navy at the time of Unification?


Doing your job for Canada and the Queen are the same thing.  The PM may have certain democratic legitimacy, but his authority stems from being invited to form a government as the Queen's First Minister because he commands the confidence of the Commons.

I was not in the Navy during unification, I merely got to suffer through the aftermath.  Thank you very much, UFO crackpot Paul Hellyer.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I think there are better things to worry about then whether or not we have a Royal in front of our elements. How about new equipment?



That's not a very good argument.  You're suggesting that returning Royal to the navy's name would detract from the resources used to procure equipment.  But DHH doesn't procure equipment, does it? 



> Not to be ignorant to those that did serve in the RCAF and RCN but personally I think it would be a waste to revert back to the old titles.



Only if we burn the old letterhead instead of just using it up -- too easy.



> I am just proud to have Canada on my epualets and sewn on the shoulder of my tunic.



Me too.  (It's just like they had it in the RCN, by the way.)



> There are also a lot of people in the CF and in Canada that would love to see our ties with the monarchy severed. Don't they have a say?



As a matter of fact, those in the CF don't.  It's a violation of their oath (and a service offence if one is rude about it, as rather a lot of republicans are).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2006)

Well I will have to agree to disagree with you folks, whether we have Royal or not does not make us a better Navy. Having the people there that take pride in their jobs is what makes us a good navy. Sorry but arguing for a name change when we should be worrying about other things is just a waste of time.


----------



## Gino (10 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well I will have to agree to disagree with you folks, whether we have Royal or not does not make us a better Navy. Having the people there that take pride in their jobs is what makes us a good navy. Sorry but arguing for a name change when we should be worrying about other things is just a waste of time.


Names can be very important and a source of service pride.  They provide a living connection to those who went before and sacrificed so much.  Are you suggesting that trying to regain some of our lost (stolen, rather) heritage and being operational are mutually exclusive?  Your logic eludes me.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2006)

Being a member of the CF and the Canadian Navy is very important and a sense of service pride to me. I believe wearning the uniform of your country will always provide a source of connection to those that provided the ultimate sacrifice. I don't need to have a Royal in front to know whats in my heart.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2006)

Btw split off to avoid hijacking the original topic.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Being a member of the CF and the Canadian Navy is very important and a sense of service pride to me. I believe wearning the uniform of your country will always provide a source of connection to those that provided the ultimate sacrifice. I don't need to have a Royal in front to know whats in my heart.



It's one element in the whole thing, though.  We might just as easily say that you don't need a navy blue jacket either -- red would do as well.  But both the uniform and the name of the Service are parts of the naval culture.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2006)

I would not leave the navy if they changed colours of my uniform. Naval culture adapts with the times, sometimes for the worse. How often do you see the good naval traditions these days? make and mends (maybe at sea if you are lucky), sliders (if you are very lucky and even rarer since the last marlant Commander came on scene) and the rum ration (I had it once in my 12 years in the navy). The navy used to have the mantra of work hard play hard, now its just work hard. You want the younger generation to get into the naval culture more then you have to give them something they can look forward to. No kid on a duty watch looks forward to Colours and Sunset, few enjoy the Bosn call. These days you have to make things worthwhile for them. Look at all the guys today that just serve their initial contract and get out. Whats their common reason to get out "too much BS", Mr McKay you might not see it from your end but we see it more and more from our end.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Feb 2006)

I agree with ex-dragoon here,

The airforce is no different.  Changing back to RCAF will do nothing for our retention problems.  the royal title will not attract more pilots and retain the ones we have.  It doesnt motivate our overworked technicians one bit. We already wasted enough money bringing in our own "identity" with these stupid blue name tags and ranks.  Then we wasted more  with blue t-shirts to wear with CADPAT ( thus defeating the purpose) in the name of Moral and tradition. Comander 1 CAD didnt like being refered to as CAD so everything had to be changed to  1 can air div.......how much did it cost to do everything over ?

We serve in the unified canadian Armed Forces ( yes, ARMED !!) and instead of longing for the old pre-unification days, its long time to make things work for the better.  Re-naming the services ( than no longer legaly exist) will do nothing to increase combat power, nothing for recruiting/retention and would be nothing more than some officer's PER browny points.

What will improve things you ask ? I am willing to bet that new fighters, LRPA. transports and helicopters on the ramps of canada's air bases would.  I am sure that a fleet of working submarines would do wonders with attracting and, more importantly , retaining sailors.  PMQs that actualy cost less than civilian housing, A canex that sells cheaper than the civilian market, overseas postings.........those are things from the old days that would do wonders.


----------



## Gino (11 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I would not leave the navy if they changed colours of my uniform. Naval culture adapts with the times, sometimes for the worse. How often do you see the good naval traditions these days? make and mends (maybe at sea if you are lucky), sliders (if you are very lucky and even rarer since the last marlant Commander came on scene) and the rum ration (I had it once in my 12 years in the navy). The navy used to have the mantra of work hard play hard, now its just work hard. You want the younger generation to get into the naval culture more then you have to give them something they can look forward to. No kid on a duty watch looks forward to Colours and Sunset, few enjoy the Bosn call. These days you have to make things worthwhile for them. Look at all the guys today that just serve their initial contract and get out. Whats their common reason to get out "too much BS", Mr McKay you might not see it from your end but we see it more and more from our end.


I might since I've got enough years in that I can easily leave if they piss me off too much.  That being said, I agree that the service is more important than the colour of the uniform.  I also agree that much of the fun has been taken out of the navy, but a lot of that is due to the current international climate and lack of funding.  Force protection, which I admit is mostly necessary, has taken much of the enjoyment out of foreign port visits.  But, if having our young sailors pay respect to our ensign by performing the ceremony of colours is an example of a dissatisfier, then there is something fundamentally wrong with their attitude that really needs to be addressed.  There is far less of that sort of BS, as you call it, in the navy than there used to be.  Our carriers and cruisers used to parade guards and bands at colours.  I'm guessing you wouldn't have enjoyed that.  I realize our sailors work hard at sea, but getting every Friday afternoon off while alongside is not a God given right the way some people think.  I think we give our sailors adequate recompense with a guaranteed two day weekend when on duty, Sunday routines and modified daily routines.  Perhaps people's expectations are too high these days.  The navy is not a soft berth, but that's why it's called "serving your country (and Queen)".


----------



## Sailing Instructor (11 Feb 2006)

So here's my belief about the CANADA shoulder titles that will stir up the pot: they're aesthetically unpleasing.

I have one old RCN admiral who agreed with me, but I do not have the history books here to mention his name.  Take my word on it. (Stand by for a ref when my laziness ceases.)

This is not some anglophilic claim that goes hand-in-hand with the pre-1910 debates on whether to have a navy or not, this is simply a claim based on the look of the uniform.  The naval uniform has historically had fewer thingys on it than the army (who are always telling you everything about the particular soldier), so the absence of words from our clothes fits right in with that (and the CANADA on the buttons is small enough not to affect my aesthetic desires).

Hopefully now there would be no confusion 'twixt the RN and Canadian navy, seeing as we've other differences, not the least of which is 10 maple leaves on our cap badge.

But, as to the actual question: I am ambivalent.  I used to be pro- 'Royal Canadian Navy' but after looking at the history of anglophilia and nationalism, perhaps the nationalists deserve this tidbit.  Then I can safely stuff a handkerchief up my cuff and say, 'Canadahr.'


----------



## mdh (13 Feb 2006)

> But, as to the actual question: I am ambivalent.  I used to be pro- 'Royal Canadian Navy' but after looking at the history of anglophilia and nationalism, perhaps the nationalists deserve this tidbit.  Then I can safely stuff a handkerchief up my cuff and say, 'Canadahr.'



I'm glad someone noted the political aspect of this debate. The term "royal" was associated with the anglophone majority (the naval debates mentioned above took place during an eruption of neo-imperialist sentiment in English Canada preceding the Boer War and leading up to 1914) - and the military was considered very much an anglo-dominated institution by Quebec nationalists (especially when seen against the history of the Conscription Crisis in both the First and Second wars).  Ex-Dragoon and Aesop081 make the finer point that going back to the past is not an option (and I'm someone who grew up in an RCAF family) - and for all the sturm and drang about unification we ought to look on its positive benefits - we actually have the potential for inter-arms cooperation that was probably unthinkable in the old military system - certainly the mobility for individual members has been improved so that tankers can become sailors and vice versa - a situation that would been practically unheard of in the past. We need to make the current system work better and continue to look to the future - if there's too much BS (as ex-dragoon suggests) for the ORs, then it's something we need to eliminate by instituting far reaching and dramatic reforms. 

cheers, mdh


----------



## Gino (13 Feb 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> I'm glad someone noted the political aspect of this debate. The term "royal" was associated with the anglophone majority (the naval debates mentioned above took place during an eruption of neo-imperialist sentiment in English Canada preceding the Boer War and leading up to 1914) - and the military was considered very much an anglo-dominated institution by Quebec nationalists (especially when seen against the history of the Conscription Crisis in both the First and Second wars).  Ex-Dragoon and Aesop081 make the finer point that going back to the past is not an option (and I'm someone who grew up in an RCAF family) - and for all the sturm and drang about unification we ought to look on its positive benefits - we actually have the potential for inter-arms cooperation that was probably unthinkable in the old military system - certainly the mobility for individual members has been improved so that tankers can become sailors and vice versa - a situation that would been practically unheard of in the past. We need to make the current system work better and continue to look to the future - if there's too much BS (as ex-dragoon suggests) for the ORs, then it's something we need to eliminate by instituting far reaching and dramatic reforms.
> 
> cheers, mdh


Thirty-eight years after the RCN ceased to exist, the navy is still an anglo-dominated institution.  Have you thought that it might have been more than the name and the uniforms?  Perhaps there's a lack of awareness of the navy in Quebec?  Perhaps it's the fact that almost all Francophones in the navy must be able to operate in English because it is the international language of maritime operations and NATO interoperability.  Unification did practically nothing for service cooperation other than streamline some of the admin tail and this was happening anyway with integration.  We are far behind our counterparts in the UK and US, who have separate services, when in comes to "jointness".  Don't even get me started on your BS theory.  Talk about the tail wagging the dog.  Perhaps we should check and see which sailors don't like wearing uniforms and then we can eliminate them through far reaching and dramatic reforms.  After all, we wouldn't wanted unsatisfied service personnel.  You must be joking.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

> Perhaps we should check and see which sailors don't like wearing uniforms and then we can eliminate them through far reaching and dramatic reforms.  After all, we wouldn't wanted unsatisfied service personnel.  You must be joking.



Oh please....: spare us the semantics, what does this have to do with being in the (Royal) Canadian Navy?


----------



## Gino (13 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Oh please....: spare us the semantics, what does this have to do with being in the (Royal) Canadian Navy?


I believe you must mean dramatics.  To answer your question, nothing.  I was merely responding to the suggestions from you and mdh that we should look at eliminating customs and traditions to keep sailors happy.  That was the essence of what you gents meant by getting rid of BS, wasn't it?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

So what is your great plan to keep sailors happy Mr. Wisdom?



> I believe you must mean dramatics.



You are correct thanks for the correction.


----------



## mdh (13 Feb 2006)

To answer your question, nothing.  I was merely responding to the suggestions from you and mdh that 





> we should look at eliminating customs and traditions to keep sailors happy.



Actually I was addressing the issue from a broader perspective - quality of life, career progression, opportunities for increased responsibility (admittedly a tad off topic) - that sort of thing. 

As for eliminating customs and traditions, depends on which ones you're talking about; a lot of naval traditions have evolved over the last century, no?

And as for the tail wagging the dog, if that means I'm concerned about what's going on with the NCO corps, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

To re-address the original point of the thread, I don't think restoring "royal" would have quite the impact you seem to suggest in transforming the morale, demeanour and outlook of the CF's rank and file.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

> To re-address the original point of the thread, I don't think restoring "royal" would have quite the impact you seem to suggest in transforming the morale, demeanour and outlook of the CF's rank and file.



Exactly.


----------



## Gino (13 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So what is your great plan to keep sailors happy Mr. Wisdom?
> 
> You are correct thanks for the correction.


Hey, I don't claim to have all the answers, but I really dislike the knee-jerk reaction that some people have that all we have to do is water down all those things that make us unique and different from civilians in order to for everyone to be happy.  We've been doing that for forty years and I honestly don't think sailors are any happier now than they were then.  Tell me what the major dissatisfiers are in the navy, besides Colours and going away to sea, and maybe I can come up with something.  Not that anyone would listen.

At any rate, to get back to the original argument, getting our "Royal" back might not make a huge difference to the rank and file, but there are some it would give great pride to.  Is that worth nothing?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

Pride is always worth something, that was never my point, my point is we could be proud of our Navy whether or not there was a Royal attached to the title or not.


----------



## Gino (13 Feb 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> And as for the tail wagging the dog, if that means I'm concerned about what's going on with the NCO corps, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.


What I really meant was that we used to expect our people to adapt and internalize the values of the institution.  Now it would appear that some people think it should be the other way around.  Once you accept that premise, it's a few short years from having everyone wearing ponytails and smokin' dope while wearing coveralls and ballcaps for all occasions.


----------



## Gino (13 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Pride is always worth something, that was never my point, my point is we could be proud of our Navy whether or not there was a Royal attached to the title or not.


Yes, but I for one would be prouder with, and I know I am not the only one.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

Sorry Gino you might wish for the days of flogging around the fleet were back but I don't, it never accomplished anything.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> Yes, but I for one would be prouder with, and I know I am not the only one.


Then to each their own, does not make either us the better sailor then the other by having a differing view.


----------



## Gino (13 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sorry Gino you might wish for the days of flogging around the fleet were back but I don't, it never accomplished anything.


Did I say anything of the sort or that could even be remotely interpreted as such?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

Well we were talking about customs and traditions...the Royal Navy did it for years before stopping back in the late 1700s, just illistrating some customs and traditions are useless.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

I am not sure why you cannot respect the fact I don't share your view we would be a better navy if we had the Royal attached.


----------



## Gino (13 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am not sure why you cannot respect the fact I don't share your view we would be a better navy if we had the Royal attached.


It' not that, it's probably the underlining republican sentiment that I believe you alluded to in an earlier post that I have a very difficult time respecting.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> It' not that, it's probably the underlining republican sentiment that I believe you alluded to in an earlier post that I have a very difficult time respecting.



Whether I am a republican or not, its of no concern of yours dude. I know where my duty lies and thats with Canada.


----------



## Gino (13 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Whether I am a republican or not, its of no concern of yours dude. I know where my duty lies and thats with Canada.


Perhaps not, but you wanted to know.  Just never forget your oath.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

I would not be still in if the service never meany anything to me Gino so spare us the holier then thou atitiude.


----------



## FSTO (13 Feb 2006)

I've been reading this thread with a little interest.

For the past few years when a course at Sea Div graduated we would form the class up in the Drill Shed, their name would be called and they would come fwd to recieve their certificate. Pretty lame. There was a fear here that soon they would be given the certificate in class.

Soooo, with the initiative coming from the PO1 rank and above (all of them who joined well after the unification wars) the graduating class (one has already gone through this) did a full parade with rifles, cutlass (Top Student as parade Cdr), gaiters, etc. Very sharp and looking like a Navy should. Also the Drill Shed P1 got the Naval saluting guns back from the cadets, refurbished them, has the QL5 trained to shoot them and we'll be firing them during Battle of Atlantic and when required at the Base. After some arm twisting and bitching from a few folks, parade appointments will carry swords during Divisions. We also have the gun carriage refitted to allow us perform the funeral cortage when required.
All these initiatives are bringing some pride back in the ratings, and at Sea Div at least we have one of the lowest rates of charges and disciplinary problems at the school.
So as you can see, traditions are making a comeback albeit rather slowly.

As for lack of jointness prior to unification. When we had the Sea Fury's and Banshees of the RCN Fleet Air Arm, every year the squadrons would go to Rivers Manitoba and carry out close air support training with the Army at Shilo (mainly because the RCAF was to busy with its head stuck in the clouds to worry about the ground pounders (FSTO personnal opinion)).


----------



## Gino (13 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I would not be still in if the service never meany anything to me Gino so spare us the holier then thou atitiude.


I'm thinking we should give this a rest before one of us posts something they will regret.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

FSTO any word when they will start bring those traditions back out here?


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Feb 2006)

I wonder if they'll bring back the Stadacona train. [double time, all the time].


----------



## FSTO (13 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> FSTO any word when they will start bring those traditions back out here?



I do not know. All that it took out here was for the Sea Div Cdr and Sea Div CPO to support the initiative. 
What started the change was a Bosn grad parade that went bad and the Fleet Buffers got together with the Sea Div CPO and they said that a screw up like that should never happen again.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

Hopefully I will get out there sometime again to witness that.


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Pride is always worth something, that was never my point, my point is we could be proud of our Navy whether or not there was a Royal attached to the title or not.



Fair enough, but the Royal is one of the bricks in the wall.  Lose too many bricks and it's all over.  We've lost a bunch since the '60s.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but the Royal is one of the bricks in the wall.  Lose too many bricks and it's all over.  We've lost a bunch since the '60s.



Which means its up to us to start our own traditions or modify what we have to get people interetsed. FSTO showed a prime example.


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Which means its up to us to start our own traditions or modify what we have to get people interetsed. FSTO showed a prime example.



It takes many decades for bricks to cure.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> It takes many decades for bricks to cure.



Have to start some place and I think it would be worth it.


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Have to start some place and I think it would be worth it.



But we already started hundreds of years ago, and have a lot of good bricks already.  We should use those instead of breaking them at every chance and then trying to make new ones.


----------



## Navy_Blue (14 Feb 2006)

I mentioned this in Ex's post.  There is a deffinate appeal to the "Royal Canadian Navy."  The name "Canadian Navy" lacks something.  In WWII when our navy helped make history it was "Royal."  I think as our centennial approaches in 2010 it should be something that could be looked into to mark 100 yrs.   The word Royal doesn't just connect us to a Queen or King it connects us to a naval tradition which started all our naval traditions.  This is not the most pressing issue in this outfit tho.  There will be a bugget set aside to celebrate in 2010 to mark the occasion what better time to try for a name change.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2006)

Good point N_B but I think most people should be proud with or without the Royal attached.

Just a point to ponder though, after Unification when the RCN ceased to be our ships are still considered HMC Ships despite the fact we are no longer the RCN....


----------



## RangerRay (14 Feb 2006)

I would like to see the following:

Royal Canadian Navy
Royal Canadian Air Force
Canadian Army

All that would be required is changing the command names.  I'm not talking about going back to pre-unification days.

And bring back the old rank names for the same services while maintaining the current integrated structure.
(Elliot's Curls for the RCN, Airmen and Air Marshals for the RCAF, pips and Crowns for the Army)

Retain the current level of integration.

I would like to see a khaki DEU for the Army rather than the current Green Hornet one.  It doesn't look very different from our American cousins.


----------



## axeman (15 Feb 2006)

its not green hornet  its PISTOL green but ive never seen a green pistol unless you count that poser downtown,,,
 kloshe nanitch ranger


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Feb 2006)

RIFLE green, from the green jackets of the Rifle Regiments.  As for cost, think of all the money being spent to convert to those nifty five digit MOC codes....Talk about money wasted.


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Feb 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Good point N_B but I think most people should be proud with or without the Royal attached.
> 
> Just a point to ponder though, after Unification when the RCN ceased to be our ships are still considered HMC Ships despite the fact we are no longer the RCN....



It was a change in name, that's all.  Canada didn't cease to be a constitutional monarchy because of an organizational change in the armed forces.


----------



## RangerRay (15 Feb 2006)

axeman said:
			
		

> its not green hornet  its PISTOL green but ive never seen a green pistol unless you count that poser downtown,,,
> kloshe nanitch ranger



  ;D

I prefer to call it Green Hornet...



> RIFLE green, from the green jackets of the Rifle Regiments.



Well, my suggestion is that RIFLE regiments keep the RIFLE green for ceremonial tunics, as opposed to scarlet.


----------



## rifleman (15 Feb 2006)

Rifle regiments already wear green for ceremonial purposes


----------



## Sailing Instructor (15 Feb 2006)

The only pure nominal change that could occur (if I am correct in my knowledge of the status of the CF) now is the Queen granting the prefix 'royal' to the CF.  I understand the legal status of MARCOM, &c. as not separate organisations, whereas the CF is separate enough (from, say, DND) to be granted this prefix.  To deduce, from the common use of 'Canadian Navy,' that there is such a corporation legally, is to commit a linguistic error.  Therefore, all those who wish for the titles of RCN & RCAF to be granted are asking for far more than for some clerk to scribble in 'Royal' somewhere.

Traditions brought in for purely tradition's sake will, I think, never stick.  Changing the navy's legal status from MARCOM (& that's not all of what most people would call 'the navy' either, some personnel fall under other COMs) to RCN would go over as well as someone inventing their own catchphrase.


----------



## Gino (15 Feb 2006)

Sailing Instructor said:
			
		

> The only pure nominal change that could occur (if I am correct in my knowledge of the status of the CF) now is the Queen granting the prefix 'royal' to the CF.  I understand the legal status of MARCOM, &c. as not separate organisations, whereas the CF is separate enough (from, say, DND) to be granted this prefix.  To deduce, from the common use of 'Canadian Navy,' that there is such a corporation legally, is to commit a linguistic error.  Therefore, all those who wish for the titles of RCN & RCAF to be granted are asking for far more than for some clerk to scribble in 'Royal' somewhere.
> 
> Traditions brought in for purely tradition's sake will, I think, never stick.  Changing the navy's legal status from MARCOM (& that's not all of what most people would call 'the navy' either, some personnel fall under other COMs) to RCN would go over as well as someone inventing their own catchphrase.


I remember reading quite a while ago that at the time of unification there was discussion as to whether the new name should become the Royal Canadian Armed Forces.  It was apparently deemed unpalatable because the abbreviation would be RCAF and that would be biased towards the air force.  Also, it wasn't looked upon kindly at the time when Trudeau and his friends were very busy trying to remove any symbols that might remind Canadians that they lived in a constitutional monarchy.  I'm sad to say that that unhappy little process has gone on to this day, primarily under the "Big Red Machine".

You may be correct that it would not be legally possible to rename MARCOM as RCN.  I doubt though that it's actually been looked at for a legal opinion.  That being said, do individual regiments that retained their "Royal" actually have any more separate organizational status than MARCOM?  Theoretically, though, if I just started using the term RCN, could anyone claim that this is any more technically incorrect than "Canadian Navy", which has become common usage from flag officers on down.  I believe we even have a new lofficial ogo that says that.


----------



## Phrontis (18 Feb 2006)

A very interesting and lively discussion, to be sure.

Personally, I am very much in favour of a return to the name Royal Canadian Navy.  Nor is it trivial.  I expect I'm preaching to the choir in this forum, but to say that the "Royal" designation doesn't matter is to miss entirely how important customs and traditions are to a naval or military organisation.  (This importance was totally missed by those who overdid the unification move in the 60s, taking away the trappings by which individual arms of the service identified themselves.) It is just these intangibles which make up our naval culture, and it is this culture which reminds us who we are, not the Coast Guard, not BC Ferries, but the Navy. 

To celebrate the Navy's 100th, I'd really like to see them give us back the "Royal".  And a Canadian White Ensign would be nice, so we can stop flying our colours in the backwards manner we now do.


----------



## Navy_Blue (18 Feb 2006)

We fly our colours backwards?  Explain??  ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Feb 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> We fly our colours backwards?  Explain??  ???



I echo that statement
Last I checked the ensign>>rear... jack>> forward.


----------



## Phrontis (18 Feb 2006)

Sorry for being unclear.

I simply meant that in the Canadian Navy we currently fly our national flag aft as our ensign, and an ensign-ish looking flag (the naval jack) forward as our jack.  When we flew the white ensign, it was aft at the ensign staff.  That, to the best of my knowledge, is how all commonwealth navies do it.  We are currently doing what our American neighbours in the USN do (national flag aft, jack forward).

I would like to see a Canadian version of the white ensign: a St. George's cross with a Canadian flag instead of the union jack quartered in the upper lefthand corner.  The proper (in my view) place for this would be aft at the ensign staff, with the Canadian flag flown proudly as our jack forward at the jack staff.

I think such a white ensign would tie together nicely our heritage with our present.  It would be both truly naval and truly Canadian.


----------



## Neill McKay (19 Feb 2006)

Phrontis said:
			
		

> I would like to see a Canadian version of the white ensign: a St. George's cross with a Canadian flag instead of the union jack quartered in the upper lefthand corner.  The proper (in my view) place for this would be aft at the ensign staff, with the Canadian flag flown proudly as our jack forward at the jack staff.
> 
> I think such a white ensign would tie together nicely our heritage with our present.  It would be both truly naval and truly Canadian.



That's a very good idea, and I think you've picked the right design from the two Commonwealth standard forms used.  (The other obvious choice, not really appropriate today, would have been the Union Flag in the canton and a maple leaf on the fly, cf. the Australian and New Zealand white ensigns.  I have a reprint of Jane's Fighting Ships from the Second World War that shows this as being in use in Canada, but it never was to my knowledge.)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Feb 2006)

All of this would be well and good but Ottawa will as usual set up commiittees wasting more and more of DNDs budget on discussions. Yes something special should be done for the 100th but I am not sure that (re)adopting the Royal moniker is necessarily it.

Maybe a better way is making an early purchases of the replacements for the 280s and older CPFs. Thats what we really need.


----------



## Phrontis (19 Feb 2006)

I don't mean to flog a dead horse, and others in this thread have expressed these views already, but you raise an interesting point by suggesting efforts would be better focused on things like new equipment.

I agree that the equipment issue is vital, but that is not to say that the less tangible aspects of being a navy aren't also important.  Around the time when we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Navy in 1985, we were getting back into distinct uniforms, and it provided a huge surge in morale. We also sent the Tattoo across the country, complete with bands, guards, and naval gun run.  These initiatives did nothing to update equipment (at the time we actually had a ship serving in the fleet which had been commissioned as a "_His_ Majesty's Canadian Ship"), but they were excellent ways to contribute to a cohesive and proud identity for everyone serving in the Navy.

Besides which, if I'm not mistaken, a committee tasked with teeing up the 100th anniversary celebrations has already been stood up.  The costs involved in some of the initiatives mentioned in this thread, such as re-adopting the name "Royal", would be relatively inexpensive, particularly if instituted gradually, as documentation and the like needed replacing anyway.  I think the "bang for the buck" on such a move would be well worth it.

We only get one 100th anniversary, and I think it's important to mark it well.


----------



## Navy_Blue (19 Feb 2006)

Would be nice to find someone in the DIN or in the Email Data base involved with the 100th and direct them to this forum.  I might just ask around see who I could dig up.


----------



## Old_navy_062 (3 Mar 2006)

Here is the site for one of the teams responsible for the 100 yr celebration activities.  

http://www.segunart.com/segunartpublicrelationsCNC1.htm

Reading through all the posts on this subject brought to mind the fact that when you constantly refer to your service as "a job", getting a brand new tool box for the anniversary seems just right.  For those of us that have seen more and more of our naval traditions going by the way side out of expediency, laziness or the dreaded PC, a mere title change to RCN would be a good starting point for the traditions of the next century.

I would recommend that a well worded letter to each of our MP's might start the idea going for a private members bill.  This was the process utilized for the CPSM.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Mar 2006)

At risk of dating myself...I joined the CF...Maritime Command in 1977 as an Officer Cadet. We were just starting to try to bring back Naval customs after the devastation and mass resignations of the Unification period. Naval ranks were back, our right to wear Navy Mess Kit with executive curls and there was a general upsurge in morale...we were getting our distinctiveness back.
We groaned about hours on the parade square at divisions etc...but it made us distinctive and secretly proud...we were not soldiers or airmen...we were sailors.
In 84 we got a navy coloured uniform back and trade badges for the NCMs (god I hate that term) and the nineties brought new ships.
I find in the last ten years we are slipping backwards. There is less emphasis on tradition and custom and the lack of knowledge has led to a branch of service that doesn't know how things came to be or have a sense of pride in the accomplishments of generations of veterans.
A lot of our sailors don't know the distinct names for things nautical etc. We have divisions once or twice a year and a lot of people don't know the drill anymore. they sometimes don't fit in their 1As or have not kept them up properly because they live day to day in NCDs and ball caps. People walk around with their hands in their pockets, their hair too long (men and women) and a general lack of pride in their appearance and their branch of service.
What I too saw as "BS" when I was a young recruit, I now see as necessary discipline that helps us to be distinct and more than just a 9-5 job.
I think we should embrace a return to this distinctness...bring back the Royal, the bands, the pomp and circumstance....forget the PC stuff and all the stupid time wasting seminars and identifying minority groups. Keep all the quality of life initiatives and stuff that has improved our lives and give us something besides our flag (which all Canadians are proud of).....esprit de corps is maintained through a sense of specialness and sacrifice.....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Mar 2006)

Thats all well and good but where are the perks and the fun the old timers go on about? If those were still present (you know work hard and play hard like it used to be instead of the work hard and f*ck the boys attitude now) you wwould not have a morale issue. You would see todays sailors embrace the traditions and customs of the past with more gutso. I know I would.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Mar 2006)

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to bring more of the fun back in. Some of that was traditional too. This doing more with less stuff that crept in in the mid to late nineties is still with us. 
Personally I have way too much stuff on my work load to enjoy COTW, PD days, sports days etc...it just takes time away from the in basket full of paper that I'll probably have to come in and do on the weekend....not to mention the multi tude of email that keeps popping up.
Unfortunately a lot of the "work hard play hard" stuff that the old timers refer to revolved around drinking and runs ashore. While I did my share of that stuff as a young un...I must say I don't regret that a lot of that mentality has gone.
I remember a time when an XO said to me, when I joined a ship on a Friday afternoon...."let's see how much rum you can put away there son....and if you don't drink rum you're gay!" That's a tradition that I'm glad is gone (for the most part).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Mar 2006)

Then its up to both commissioned and non commissioned to replace the drinking with something else. I enjoy a few drinks as much as the next guy but my fun does not centre around getting looped out of my mind. Most of us don't want that but if command take the fun away they should endeavour to replace that aspect of the fun with another. They have yet to do so.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Then its up to both commissioned and non commissioned to replace the drinking with something else. I enjoy a few drinks as much as the next guy but my fun does not centre around getting looped out of my mind. Most of us don't want that but if command take the fun away they should endeavour to replace that aspect of the fun with another. They have yet to do so.



I agree...what should they replace it with? All these sports days, open houses, family days are not the answer I don't think...they are just more obligations.
I think we should get back to manageable work loads for each person...the majority of us just have too much paper work to do. Lessen the stupid surveys and consultant driven "projects." when we are posted ashore...I'd love to see us cut down on repetitious stuff too....I was on leave last week but the week before I went on leave I answered the same stuff for three different departments...two of them in NDHQ...was getting a bit much by Friday!

In the eighties on deployments we used to work hard at sea....exercises...one in two was rare but we did it during workups etc. When we were alongside (I was West Coast then) we enjoyed Pearl Harbour and San Diego and other great ports in the Far East and got lots of time off unless we were duty (which was about 1 in 5). I think we need to get people ashore more and enjoy the places they visit.....I took a civie dive course alongside in Pearl Harbour....two weeks!!
The problem is of course the security problems and the ops tempo. It would be interesting to compare with the USN...they certainly spend a lot of time away from home....carriers especially...I think they have the same problems though with work load dissatisfaction.


----------



## Phrontis (6 Mar 2006)

I think you've hit on something there.  Compared to when I first joined, flex programmes, both at sea and for port visits, have gone crazy.  We fill the programme so full that getting everything that is scheduled accomplished becomes a whole-ship evolution, leaving far less free time for the ship's company to relax.

The same thing seems to be happening ashore, where the situation is made worse by the shortage of people at all rank levels.


----------



## warrickdll (6 Mar 2006)

Surely not all these issues can be attributable to not being “Royal” can they? 

The problem with talking about losing traditions is that these were only borrowed traditions anyways. The English didn’t have to have every one of their customs and traditions matched against some foreign navy in order to give it validity, so why must Canadians? 

Yes early Canadian military developments were mere shadows of a larger nation’s; it is the way of all colonies, but the desire to return to RCN, Executive Curls, and other English naval customs just seems to show a lack of confidence in Canada’s ability to think for itself.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Mar 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Surely not all these issues can be attributable to not being “Royal” can they?
> 
> The problem with talking about losing traditions is that these were only borrowed traditions anyways. The English didn’t have to have every one of their customs and traditions matched against some foreign navy in order to give it validity, so why must Canadians?
> 
> Yes early Canadian military developments were mere shadows of a larger nation’s; it is the way of all colonies, but the desire to return to RCN, Executive Curls, and other English naval customs just seems to show a lack of confidence in Canada’s ability to think for itself.



Executive curls are worn by a lot of other nations.....Denmark, Norway, India Australia....The Americans don't have them but they have an identifier above the rank...star for line officers, etc.
The Royal thing is a nod to our history and tradition. It does add a distinctness to our service. I would hate to see them drop the Royal from....RCMP, the RCD and all the other regiments that proudly use the royal moniker....so why can't we in the Navy and Air Force do so also....it doesn't cost anything or very Little to have a little more pride, tradition and source of uniqueness.


----------



## warrickdll (6 Mar 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Executive curls are worn by a lot of other nations.....Denmark, Norway, India Australia....



I may understand it incorrectly but didn't these nations just copy it from the English as well?



> The Royal thing is a nod to our history and tradition. It does add a distinctness to our service.



How many other Canadian Navies are out there that we need to be distinct from? Other nations use Royal, so we're not distinct from them. In fact the Brits don't call it the RBN - so any derived names from that (e.g. RCN/RAN/RNZN) are all just lesser names of RN.



> I would hate to see them drop the Royal from....RCMP, the RCD and all the other regiments that proudly use the royal moniker....so why can't we in the Navy and Air Force do so also....



Well traditionally (as in previously) they were the NWMP but the RCMP takes a lot of pride in that non-Royal heritage. The biggest example of just how little this matters would be the CEF in WWI - operational capability and pride did not disappear because someone was in the nth battalion CEF - they didn't have to have The Royal nth Battalion of the Royal CEF. And, as it has been pointed out, the navy still hangs on to the HMCS part, which would be the equivalent of the Royal in RCD



> it doesn't cost anything or very Little to have a little more pride, tradition and source of uniqueness.



But where is this pride being derived from? Especially since it is hardly a sense of uniqueness. At the time of the RCN creation Canadians thought of themselves as being both Canadian and British; the big decision was whether to have a smaller version of the British Navy for Canadian purposes, or just give Britain money, that is not the way it is now, is it?

And, well... realistically, how long are we going to have an English monarch for? Adding Royal now would probably just be adding to a list of things that are going to have change again in the not-too-distant future.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Mar 2006)

Well I disagree with you but then I think we are from totally opposite poles of the whole question of Republic vs Constitutional Monarchy. I happen to think that we are going to keep the Crown for a long time and we won't become a Republic. Maybe wishful "old fart" thinking but I don't detect a huge upsurge to us getting rid of the crown.

The WW1 Battalions were all renamed or renumbered and they did have morale problems with that. Mainly because it was a militia army...people were proud to be, for instance, from Hastings and Prince Edward Counties....they didn't see themselves as the 19th Battalion or whatever. That's why they changed that in WW2 and kept the individual names of the Regiments.

To me Royal Canadian Navy says..."I'm not an American." We have a different system of government and different loyalties. We are an independent country with strong traditions and heritage in our past and ties to our Commonwealth brothers and sisters with similar pasts...not necessarily in lock step with the Americans.....I don't have a problem with keeping things they way they are now...but a little tradition goes a long way IMHO


----------



## warrickdll (6 Mar 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Maybe wishful "old fart" thinking but I don't detect a huge upsurge to us getting rid of the crown.



Even my "middle aged" thinking agrees with that analysis.



> To me Royal Canadian Navy says..."I'm not an American." We have a different system of government and different loyalties. We are an independent country with strong traditions and heritage in our past and ties to our Commonwealth brothers and sisters with similar pasts...not necessarily in lock step with the Americans.....



I'm not against your intent, but I'd also like the statement to make sense when you replace *Americans* with *British* or *Country X* - none are Canadian.


----------



## Gino (7 Mar 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Surely not all these issues can be attributable to not being “Royal” can they?
> 
> The problem with talking about losing traditions is that these were only borrowed traditions anyways. The English didn’t have to have every one of their customs and traditions matched against some foreign navy in order to give it validity, so why must Canadians?
> 
> Yes early Canadian military developments were mere shadows of a larger nation’s; it is the way of all colonies, but the desire to return to RCN, Executive Curls, and other English naval customs just seems to show a lack of confidence in Canada’s ability to think for itself.


I think the opposite is true.  It shows that we have an insecurity in our own maturity as a nation when we have to change all of our traditions in the vain quest to make them "uniquely Canadian".  Of course, many traditions were borrowed from the RN because we were essentially a subset for many years.  Now that that is plainly no longer the case, I am really pained whenever I see customs and traditions being altered for no apparent reason other than anglophobia or to fit in with the "green machine" way of doing things which is primarily driven by the army.  The USN has many traditions taken from the RN, but you don't see them anguishing over it.  The reason many people want to see a return to those things that you mentioned is the sense of losing our links with our forebearers in the RCN.


----------



## Gino (7 Mar 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> And, well... realistically, how long are we going to have an English monarch for? Adding Royal now would probably just be adding to a list of things that are going to have change again in the not-too-distant future.


Realistically, for many, many years to come.  Hopefully, for as long as Canada exists.  I object to the entire line of thinking that becoming a republic is a natural progression that is inevitable.  Why should that be?  I should also point out that as well as being British, HM the Queen is also a Canadian by virtue of her position as Canada's Sovereign.  I restate my position that,  IAW the NDA, we are "the Armed Forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada".  Shouldn't our name reflect our status?


----------



## warrickdll (7 Mar 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> I think the opposite is true.  It shows that we have an insecurity in our own maturity as a nation when we have to change all of our traditions in the vain quest to make them "uniquely Canadian".



Were the decisions the English/British took the result of a "vain quest" to make them uniquely English/British? I'm sure they made some decisions based on how not to appear French/Spanish/Portuguese/Dutch/Country X. 

But the amount of RN customs and traditions stemming from attempted uniqueness or blazing the trail does not change the fact that many navies have some common themes: Blue uniforms; Chiefs and Petty Officers; Plenty of ice cream (   ); so there is going to be an RN influence on just the basis of a "navy" to begin with. No need to belabour it.



> Of course, many traditions were borrowed from the RN because we were essentially a subset for many years.


Its only borrowed if you plan to give it back. Copied is what happened. The point being that that was as our navy was starting – it was not a set point that must always be returned to.



> Now that that is plainly no longer the case, I am really pained whenever I see customs and traditions being altered for no apparent reason other than anglophobia or to fit in with the "green machine" way of doing things which is primarily driven by the army.  The USN has many traditions taken from the RN, but you don't see them anguishing over it.



Wanting to be distinguishable from the RN or the USN is not necessarily a sign of Anglophobia or Amerophobia/Columbophobia (hmmm... funny words), or even of rampant Canadaphelia (funnier word). If the people creating the RCN had known that Canada would be a fully independent country in the future they would have given it more thought. 

Anyways, unification was a heavy axe on all the elements, so instead of rushing to see how to turn the CF into Historical Re-enactors issued with live ammunition, take the opportunity to be boldly Canadian, and not continuously try to be little brother.



> The reason many people want to see a return to those things that you mentioned is the sense of losing our links with our fore bearers in the RCN.



The problem is the history isn't long enough to see how things are allowed to change - and you take the traditions and customs that make sense. The RN has a long history, so it is apparent that they didn't stick with bare-feet, straw hats, tarred pigtails, men-only dancing, sails, the list is extensive on what the RN does not do that at one time it did. Our navy only sees 100 years, and all of it in the 20th or 21st centuries, so it has a hard time conceiving of the fact that things do change. Time and circumstances have made the RCN an anachronism - not a tradition.

If you feel there is something wrong with the navy it won’t be something wearing wide-legged pants is going to solve. Honouring history does not mean you have to play dress up or wax a mustache (though if it floats your personal boat...– on your own time, and on your own dime).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Mar 2006)

Well said.


----------



## warrickdll (7 Mar 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> Realistically, for many, many years to come.  Hopefully, for as long as Canada exists.  I object to the entire line of thinking that becoming a republic is a natural progression that is inevitable.  Why should that be?


No, not inevitable. You don't have to call it a Republic if you don't want to, so somewhere between having a foreign monarch and having a Canadian, there should be a compromise.



> I should also point out that as well as being British; HM the Queen is also a Canadian by virtue of her position as Canada's Sovereign.



A line of thinking only a lawyer's mother could love.

Well loads of people made a big stink about the GG holding foreign citizenship while also being a Canadian citizen (by virtue of * actually * being a Canadian), and that pressure caused her to denounce that foreign claim (as it rightfully should have). I would expect at least that from the "Queen of Canada".

The Queen is where she is due to the custom of the day. That day has passed, and so should that custom when she is finished with the title. No one is in a rush for that. And this discussion is not wholly determinate on this specific item.



> I restate my position that,  IAW the NDA, we are "the Armed Forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada".  Shouldn't our name reflect our status?



The army is the army with Royal branches, but not all branches, and Royal regiments, but not all regiments. The army is not less than a Royal navy, and neither are the non-Royal branches or regiments lesser than their Royal compatriots. The Royal does not seem to add anything. At all.

The navy has HMCS in front of ships (and bases) - which, if it is "Her Majesty's" ship, and she is the "Queen of Canada", isn't it redundant to add the "Canadian" part? - unless, of course, she isn't Canadian (  ). 

The monarchy issue can be distracting... and unfortunately difficult to avoid regarding the “Royal” question.


----------



## Neill McKay (7 Mar 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Well loads of people made a big stink about the GG holding foreign citizenship while also being a Canadian citizen (by virtue of * actually * being a Canadian), and that pressure caused her to denounce that foreign claim (as it rightfully should have).



If by "loads" you mean "a few journalists and the people who believe them", then you've got it.  If you mean a large portion of the population, measured by something more reliable than a website poll, I'm afraid you'll have some work to do in convincing me.



> The Royal does not seem to add anything. At all.



Being unable to see something doesn't mean it's not there.


----------



## Phrontis (7 Mar 2006)

Although I joined some years ago, I believe the same oath I took swearing allegiance to the Crown is still given by everyone joining the Canadian Forces. The Canadian Navy spent almost 2/3 of its history as the Royal Canadian Navy, including the two world wars and Korea.  I think it would be extremely appropriate to re-adopt the name under which so many served so proudly. 

There is nothing un-Canadian or overly British about it; the RCN was and would still be a uniquely Canadian entity.  Calling it Royal would in no way detract from what it has become, while embracing our heritage and history.

I bet if one could ask every member of the Navy, there would be overwhelming support for calling it the Royal Canadian Navy again.


----------



## RangerRay (7 Mar 2006)

One sure doesn't see so much navel gazing about national identity in the Royal Australian Navy nor the Royal New Zealand Navy...

In both countries, they have the old service names, the old ranks, and "British" style dress uniforms with unique touches, yet I've never heard any of them agonise about their service being too "British".

Even in Australia, which had a referendum on republicanism, I am unaware of any talk to "de-Britishise" their military.

It seems as though our Commonwealth cousins are more comfortable with their heritage and identity than we Canadians.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Mar 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> One sure doesn't see so much navel gazing about national identity in the Royal Australian Navy nor the Royal New Zealand Navy...
> 
> In both countries, they have the old service names, the old ranks, and "British" style dress uniforms with unique touches, yet I've never heard any of them agonise about their service being too "British".
> 
> ...



We have a unique problem that they don't have. We have two founding colonial powers(English and French)  vice one(English). The moves to take Royal and all things British out of our system was to appease our French minority in the mistaken belief that this would convince them that they are part of Canadian society too. (Irony is that the Regiment with the best traditions, red coats, bearskins and regimental mascot is the Royal 22nd.....VANDOOS!)
Paul Hellyer had a big part in this too as he did not like the snobbery and pseudo English accents he encountered in the RCN and RCAF. I did a paper on unification a few years ago and read his accounts of dining on board the Bonaventure with Admiral Brock....he was mortified to be treated and served like royalty by white coated stewards on silver service and table cloths while the ordinary sailors ate below in their messes and slung their hammocks.
His wartime experience of the RCAF and being rejected as air crew to be relegated to the army was not helpful either....later as a minister of the crown he vowed to change it all and  rid the services of, what he saw, as useless old traditions....and didn't he ever eh lads?


----------



## FSTO (8 Mar 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Paul Hellyer had a big part in this too as he did not like the snobbery and pseudo English accents he encountered in the RCN and RCAF. I did a paper on unification a few years ago and read his accounts of dining on board the Bonaventure with Admiral Brock....he was mortified to be treated and served like royalty by white coated stewards on silver service and table cloths while the ordinary sailors ate below in their messes and slung their hammocks.



That thought was complete BS. RCN ships had been retrofitted or new built with actual bunks and cafeterias in the 1950's after the Mainguy report. So in retrospect, Hellyer was hell bent for Liberal Leadership and thought that a huge shakeup of the Military would do the trick. Didn't account for the foppish Trudeau did you, you ET loving Spock freak!   :rage: :rage: :rage:


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Mar 2006)

FSTO said:
			
		

> That thought was complete BS. RCN ships had been retrofitted or new built with actual bunks and cafeterias in the 1950's after the Mainguy report. So in retrospect, Hellyer was hell bent for Liberal Leadership and thought that a huge shakeup of the Military would do the trick. Didn't account for the foppish Trudeau did you, you ET loving Spock freak!   :rage: :rage: :rage:



I read his book...I'm telling you what he said and thought not that I agree with it. 
Trudeau was a big problem but the damage was done when he came to power. Hellyer and Pearson started it all with Unification. Trudeau also tried to reduce the British influences...but the unification act of 1968 (prior to Trudeau) was what killed the three services and their royal affiliations.
Hellyer's vendetta with the military started when he was rejected for Air Crew in the war and reassigned to the Army. He says in his book that he got all the shots needed for Air Force service and was then sent to the Army. When the Doc said he was going to give him exactly the same shots hellyer said "I just had those shots last week in the Air Force" to which the Doc replied "ah yes but these are Army shots." lol maybe they should have given him a massive dose...lol :skull:


----------



## Gino (9 Mar 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> No, not inevitable. You don't have to call it a Republic if you don't want to, so somewhere between having a foreign monarch and having a Canadian, there should be a compromise.


I'm afraid that that is unlikely in the extreme.  If Canada ever ceased to be a Monarchy under the House of Windsor, we would almost certainly become a republic with a president, although that president might very well have a role very similiar to that of the GG.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> A line of thinking only a lawyer's mother could love.


Perhaps, but points of law and definitions are extremely important in these considerations.  Rule of law is one of "da Canadian values" that everyone espouses, isn't it?



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> Well loads of people made a big stink about the GG holding foreign citizenship while also being a Canadian citizen (by virtue of * actually * being a Canadian), and that pressure caused her to denounce that foreign claim (as it rightfully should have). I would expect at least that from the "Queen of Canada".


Since the Queen does not hold citizenship of any kind, she has none to renounce.  The concept of a shared Monarch requires that the Sovereign be Canadian, British, Jamaican, etc concurrently in respect to these different nations.  It works.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> The Queen is where she is due to the custom of the day. That day has passed, and so should that custom when she is finished with the title. No one is in a rush for that. And this discussion is not wholly determinate on this specific item.


Has it really?  I disagree.  She remains Sovereign in accordance with the Canadian Constitution and only an amendment with the unanimous consent of Parliament and all ten provinces can change that.  None of this will change when the Prince of Wales accedes to the Throne.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> The army is the army with Royal branches, but not all branches, and Royal regiments, but not all regiments. The army is not less than a Royal navy, and neither are the non-Royal branches or regiments lesser than their Royal compatriots. The Royal does not seem to add anything. At all.


Once again, a matter of opinion only.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> The navy has HMCS in front of ships (and bases) - which, if it is "Her Majesty's" ship, and she is the "Queen of Canada", isn't it redundant to add the "Canadian" part? - unless, of course, she isn't Canadian (  ).
> 
> The monarchy issue can be distracting... and unfortunately difficult to avoid regarding the “Royal” question.


Some differentiation is required.  Even if we became a republic, God forbid, you can bet that Canadian would be in the titles for our warships.  The British officially use the HM only, but in the past when there were many more monarchies, His/Her Britannic Majesty's Ship was a common usage.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Mar 2006)

CNS (Canadian Naval Ship) works.


----------



## Gino (9 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> CNS (Canadian Naval Ship) works.


Bland and boring.  Perfect for the "Republic of Canada".  I hope I'm happily underground should that day ever arrive.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Mar 2006)

Might be bland and boring but I maintain we have a lot more to worry about in the Navy then whether or not we have Royal in our name. Figure out a way to retain the people we have, recruit and be able to keep more personnel, decent equipment, improve morale. These items will remain light years ahead then whatever we refer to ourselves as.


----------



## warrickdll (9 Mar 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> _Quote from: Iterator on 2006-03-07, 13:56:04
> The army is the army with Royal branches, but not all branches, and Royal regiments, but not all regiments. The army is not less than a Royal navy, and neither are the non-Royal branches or regiments lesser than their Royal compatriots. The Royal does not seem to add anything. At all._
> 
> Once again, a matter of opinion only.



Well, in your opinion, which regiments or branches aren't up to the task because they lack the "Royal" adjective? 



> Some differentiation is required.  Even if we became a republic, God forbid, you can bet that Canadian would be in the titles for our warships.



Sure... I don't think anyone doubts that _(note: Not having a foreign monarch does not automatically mean we would have a Republic, unless we wanted one)_.

Besides, when it comes to decisions about the monarchy I don't think we should get stuck on areas such as: "What would go on the back of a coin?"; "What would a CPO's badge look like?"; or "What title needs to precede the name of a Canadian warship?". 




> The British officially use the HM only, but in the past when there were many more monarchies, His/Her Britannic Majesty's Ship was a common usage.



In the abbreviated format? 

Then, that would be HBMS, which would give us HCMS. But we don't, because the ship is Canadian, while the monarchy is not.


----------



## Gino (9 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Might be bland and boring but I maintain we have a lot more to worry about in the Navy then whether or not we have Royal in our name. Figure out a way to retain the people we have, recruit and be able to keep more personnel, decent equipment, improve morale. These items will remain light years ahead then whatever we refer to ourselves as.


Of course it isn't the uppermost issue of the day and there are bigger fish to fry, but titles, ceremonial and traditions are not of negligable importance either, or we wouldn't have them.  They also have an impact on morale and I still maintain that the majority of sailors would have more pride in the name RCN than MARCOM.  I still see young sailors occasionally who have RCN tattooed on them.  There must be a reason for that.


----------



## Gino (9 Mar 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Well, in your opinion, which regiments or branches aren't up to the task because they lack the "Royal" adjective?


I should have been more specific.  I was referring to your last sentence.   



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> Besides, when it comes to decisions about the monarchy I don't think we should get stuck on areas such as: "What would go on the back of a coin?"; "What would a CPO's badge look like?"; or "What title needs to precede the name of a Canadian warship?".


I agree, the basis of any debate should be whether Constitutional Monarchy serves Canada well as a form of government and whether there would be any benefit to be gained by a change.  I maintain that there would not.




			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> In the abbreviated format?
> 
> Then, that would be HBMS, which would give us HCMS. But we don't, because the ship is Canadian, while the monarchy is not.


I do not believe that it was ever used as an abbreviation per se.  The point is that when there are a number of monarchies that exist, and I don't just mean Commonwealth Realms, there needs to be a way to differentiate the ships of different nations using the HM <blank> Ship format.  The British choose not to use anything, and we and the others do.  That in no way makes us subordinate to them.  Canada has been a monarchy since it was first claimed for the French Crown.  Constitutional Monarchy is the cornerstone of Canada's Constitution.  How many more hundreds of years do we need before you'll admit that it's a Canadian institution?


----------



## Neill McKay (9 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Might be bland and boring but I maintain we have a lot more to worry about in the Navy then whether or not we have Royal in our name. Figure out a way to retain the people we have, recruit and be able to keep more personnel, decent equipment, improve morale. These items will remain light years ahead then whatever we refer to ourselves as.



And yet we all have time to come here and argue about it....  Obviously the Service can afford the discussion without collapsing for lack of staff time and resources.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Mar 2006)

> still see young sailors occasionally who have RCN tattooed on them.  There must be a reason for that.



You also see young sailors get the Union Jack, the British Bulldog, and the skull and crossbones tattooed on them as well. That does not mean they want to be British or pirates. It boils down to a name, a name that does not exist anymore but in history, that you hold very important to you and I do not.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Mar 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> And yet we all have time to come here and argue about it....  Obviously the Service can afford the discussion without collapsing for lack of staff time and resources.



I don't really see your point...


----------



## Neill McKay (9 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I don't really see your point...



So far your best argument has been that we have bigger things to worry about than the name of the navy or similar ceremonial issues.  As I've said before, it need not be an either/or situation: concern for the intangibles of the service doesn't come at the expense of the pointy end.


----------



## RangerRay (9 Mar 2006)

I believe it was Mark Steyn who said:



> Canada is the only country that celebrates its heritage by dismantling it.



Or some such thing.


----------



## Gino (9 Mar 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I believe it was Mark Steyn who said:
> 
> Or some such thing.


He also said about Canada, "there are arguments for a monarchy and there are arguments for a republic, but there are no arguments for a monarchy run by snide little republican twerps inflicting one dreary, boorish slight on the Crown after another".  Sad but true.


----------



## Gino (9 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You also see young sailors get the Union Jack, the British Bulldog, and the skull and crossbones tattooed on them as well. That does not mean they want to be British or pirates. It boils down to a name, a name that does not exist anymore but in history, that you hold very important to you and I do not.


Two completely different things.  The point is that these young lads are looking for a name for their service they can take pride in and other Canadians will understand and recognize.  Maritime Command just doesn't cut it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> So far your best argument has been that we have bigger things to worry about than the name of the navy or similar ceremonial issues.  As I've said before, it need not be an either/or situation: concern for the intangibles of the service doesn't come at the expense of the pointy end.



Again and yet again I don't see tradition as important as operational, capability and morale. I am at the low end of the spectrum so I do see the morale issues that too much tradition causes. Especially the more anal forms of tradition. We are at a work hard mode but we don't get to play hard anymore, sorry you folks on your high horses can't see that.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> Two completely different things.  The point is that these young lads are looking for a name for their service they can take pride in and other Canadians will understand and recognize.  Maritime Command just doesn't cut it.


\
Being part of the CF and Navy is what I take pride in, sorry you cannot.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

If we become the RCN again I will neither oppose nor support it, its just one of those things that happen.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Mar 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> He also said about Canada, "there are arguments for a monarchy and there are arguments for a republic, but there are no arguments for a monarchy run by snide little republican twerps inflicting one dreary, boorish slight on the Crown after another".  Sad but true.



Who is Mark Steyn?


----------



## rnkelly (10 Mar 2006)

I am personally oppose to going back to the old "Royal" titles.  While I'm immensely proud of our history when we had these titles I believe that Canada is now in a position where our military should not be associated with the British.  Also just because the majority of the Forces' members speak english, it doesn't mean that they are English.  I think that point was missed by Gino with the anglophone post.  Perhaps it has to do with being the son of an Irishman but I see having "Royal" in front of the titles as appearing like we are just a division of the British which could be a dangerous appearance for us.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am at the low end of the spectrum so I do see the morale issues that too much tradition causes. Especially the more anal forms of tradition.



Can you tell us more about that?


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Mar 2006)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> I am personally oppose to going back to the old "Royal" titles.  While I'm immensely proud of our history when we had these titles I believe that Canada is now in a position where our military should not be associated with the British.  Also just because the majority of the Forces' members speak english, it doesn't mean that they are English.  I think that point was missed by Gino with the anglophone post.  Perhaps it has to do with being the son of an Irishman but I see having "Royal" in front of the titles as appearing like we are just a division of the British which could be a dangerous appearance for us.



To understand why we think Royal is a good thing in Canada you have to understand that there is such a thing as a Queen of Canada.  The Queen of the UK is not the same thing -- they're two separate offices.  While the same individual holds both jobs (and fourteen or so others), Canada is constitutionally separate from the UK.  Having a Queen doesn't make us a colony, and there's nothing British about being Royal Canadian any more than there is about being Royal Norwegian.

Nor is it a language issue -- the Queen speaks French as well as English, and the Crown's institutions are bilingual.


----------



## Gino (10 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> \
> Being part of the CF and Navy is what I take pride in, sorry you cannot.


I didn't say that, but I note you use the term Navy.  Is that what you tell people when they ask what you do?  If so, you're misleading them.  The Canadian Navy does not exist as a name in any legal sense.  I would like to see that change, and having our status as the Queen's service reflected with a "Royal" would be icing on the cake.


----------



## Gino (10 Mar 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Can you tell us more about that?


Yes, from up on my high horse here I'd like to hear more about these useless, anal traditions that are impeding the Navy's operational effectiveness.  Have you raised your concerns with the chain of command?


----------



## RangerRay (10 Mar 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Who is Mark Steyn?



http://steynonline.com/

He used to have a column with the _National Post_ before the Aspers took over.  In Canada, he now has a column in _Western Standard_ and _Maclean's_ magazines.  He also writes for a number of other newspapers around the world.

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=home
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060213_121138_121138

Edit to add a thread from this board with a Mark Steyn article:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40489.0/topicseen.html


----------



## Trinity (10 Mar 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> Two completely different things.  The point is that these young lads are looking for a name for their service they can take pride in and other Canadians will understand and recognize.  Maritime Command just doesn't cut it.



Ok.. I just read this ENTIRE thread... wondering what was so important.

From an outside, third person point of view of everything I just read.

Gino.. you have shot down other people's thoughts as opinions... and yet you throw your
opinion around like its gold.  Its just your opinion, like its just their opinion.

These young lads are looking for a name to take pride in? Really?  Are you inside their
heads? How can you speak on behalf of every individual like that. You can't.  Its your
opinion on the situation.  And thats OK, but its not fact.

This entire thread.. ENTIRE THREAD seems to be based on my opinion, your opinion, his
opinion, her opinion.  

I'm sure some people would love to be RCN. I'm sure some people would hate it.

But I have seen a lot attacks on eachother that are personal, not factual or of the topic.
(on both sides)

My opinion is this has been the most boring thread I have ever read.. but
thats just my opinion.  

So some people need to lighten up cause there really will be no facts available that
can be tangible enough to make any headway.  Accept that you are on opposite sides
of the fence in matters of opinion.

Can i say opinion any more times....    ??? :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well I will have to agree to disagree with you folks, whether we have Royal or not does not make us a better Navy. Having the people there that take pride in their jobs is what makes us a good navy. Sorry but arguing for a name change when we should be worrying about other things is just a waste of time.



Agreed trinity, I was willing to drop this a month ago


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Agreed trinity, I was willing to drop this a month ago



Before you do, I would like to understand more about how tradition etc. is hindering morale, if you're up for it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Before you do, I would like to understand more about how tradition etc. is hindering morale, if you're up for it.



Why bother Neil? You and Gino have done nothing but dismiss my opinions anyways, why give you more fodder? No, I am done expressing my viewpoint on why its not as important to me why we need or don't need a Royal designation. You just have to look at why naval numbers have been steadily falling. No and its not tradition just look over this thread and you will glean what info you need.


----------



## Scott (10 Mar 2006)

Neill, Gino, get off _your_ high horses and realize that everyone is entitled to their _opinion_.

I happen to think that we should just call the Navy something like Armand, that will piss everyone off and thus will cause little argument.

To your corners for a while.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Mar 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> This would be a perfect initiative for the Navy's Centennial.



If the time and energy expended on this thread had been put into drafting a service paper suggesting it for the Centennial, and then asking for advice in staffing and submission - the "initiative" might already be in motion.

Just some food for thought.


----------



## Scott (12 Mar 2006)

OK, you've all had some time to reflect, I am going to re-open this. It should be noted though that it will disappear again at the first sign of trouble.

Enjoy.


----------



## Gino (12 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> If the time and energy expended on this thread had been put into drafting a service paper suggesting it for the Centennial, and then asking for advice in staffing and submission - the "initiative" might already be in motion.
> 
> Just some food for thought.


It has been brought up at the Centennial Working Group.  I'm told by reliable sources that members turned white as sheets and started making dashes for the exits.  Not auspicious.  As suggested earlier, getting some key politicians on side would probably be the most effective route.


----------



## warrickdll (12 Mar 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> To understand why we think Royal is a good thing in Canada you have to understand that there is such a thing as a Queen of Canada.  The Queen of the UK is not the same thing -- they're two separate offices.  While the same individual holds both jobs (and fourteen or so others), Canada is constitutionally separate from the UK.


If that makes sense to you, or you feel that it should not be contested, then I will not try to convince anyone otherwise in this thread. 




			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Having a Queen doesn't make us a colony, and there's nothing British about being Royal Canadian any more than there is about being Royal Norwegian.


Check out the Norwegian Monarch's site http://www.kongehuset.no/default.asp?lang=eng for how the Norwegians handled the problem in 1905 when becoming independent. 

The Swedish navy's website (http://www.marinen.mil.se/) seems to indicate that the Swedes do not now refer to their navy as "Royal", but just "Navy" (in Swedish though), but their ships use HMS as a prefix. The Royal Norwegian Navy uses KNM (Norwegian abbreviation for Royal Norwegian Navy) as the ship's prefix. There is a prefix list at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_prefix) and there are similar ones at other free sites. 

Some "Royal" navies (e.g. the moarchies of the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway), when writing in English, use the convention R(nation)N and H(nation)MS. Compare that to the former colonial navies HM(nation)S. Perhaps it should have been the CRN (Canadian *Royal Navy*) or the RN of C. If someone is advocating for RCN then maybe they should advocate for HCMS vice HMCS. 




			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Nor is it a language issue -- the Queen speaks French as well as English, and the Crown's institutions are bilingual.



I'm going to guess that the Queen would have been taught French regardless of Canada's official languages. 


Back to "Royal":



			
				Gino said:
			
		

> It has been brought up at the Centennial Working Group.  I'm told by reliable sources that members turned white as sheets and started making dashes for the exits.  Not auspicious.  As suggested earlier, getting some key politicians on side would probably be the most effective route.



Maybe you can skip all that and just go to the Canadian Heritage website and convince them (http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/fr-rf/criter_e.cfm)  . 


> Criteria for Prefix "Royal"
> Criteria applied by the Department of Canadian Heritage in studying requests and preparing the advice to the Governor General:
> 
> An association or organization has to be
> ...


----------



## Gino (13 Mar 2006)

My final words on the subject (in this thread) and let me preface it all with IMHO:

Some people obviously felt I came on too strong in this thread and in going back over my posts I feel perhaps they have a point.  If any of my retorts have been "ad hominem", then I apologize.  That being said, I don't believe my detractors have been without blame, either.

WRT to the lengthy post about this all being opinion.  Of course it is, and as we all know, opinions are like arseholes; everyone's got one, and they all think theirs is pretty good.  When it comes to opinions, most people tend to rationalize their already firmly held beliefs with a set of gathered facts, whether they're willing to admit it or not.

I have spent over 25 years in the service of the Queen, Canada and the Navy.  I know most people in the CF don't really think much about their oath of allegiance and its implications, but I take in quite seriously and literally.  So you will perhaps forgive me if I tend to react a little strongly when the monarchy is criticized.  I also feel the same about the customs and traditions of the Naval Service.  I think that the onus is on any who wish to change them to prove that there is a real and demonstrable value in doing so.  I suppose you could say the same thing about a change back to RCN, but most people I talk to today seem to agree that Unification was a huge mistake.  I know we can't put the genie back in the bottle, and we'll never return to the same service we had before (and in some ways this is a good thing), but perhaps we can keep trying to alleviate some of the most severe damage to service pride and identity that occurred.


----------



## Old_navy_062 (14 Apr 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> My final words on the subject (in this thread) and let me preface it all with IMHO:
> 
> Some people obviously felt I came on too strong in this thread and in going back over my posts I feel perhaps they have a point.  If any of my retorts have been "ad hominem", then I apologize.  That being said, I don't believe my detractors have been without blame, either.
> 
> ...



Well said Gino. I don't think that "ROYAL" should offend anyone that has sworn their oath of allegiance.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Apr 2006)

Here we go again.... :


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Apr 2006)

Stick a fork in it, I think it's done...


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Apr 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39670/post-348808.html#msg348808

I think we're done here for now.  If you have something truly significant to add that isn't already here in the past nine pages, please contact a Mod.


----------

