# Why is it not the Royal Canadian Forces?



## sgt_mandal (28 Nov 2004)

I was just looking around, and noticed the cap badge on my wedge, which reads "Royal Canadian Air Cadets", then I started thinking, If the CCM has Royal Assent (I thinks that's what it's called right?), then Why not the Royal Canadian Forces?


----------



## Inch (28 Nov 2004)

I can't say for sure, but it'd be the Royal Canadian Armed Forces, or RCAF for short, see a problem?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Nov 2004)

Don't you have to go to the Queen to gain Royal assent for a new unit to use the "Royal" in a units name? Considering the CF is an incarnation formed during Unification and not much having to do with the UK I don't see it happening.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2004)

Good question!

We follow the British tradition: there was, since the time of Henry VIII, at least (see: Arthur Herman etc) a Royal Navy â â€œ the sovereign's own, personal fleet, ships built in his/her yards at Chatham, manned by his/her captains, etc.   The British sovereign had only a small army â â€œ some personal foot and horse guards â â€œ the king's _bodyguard_, quite literally, and, alter some artillery batteries.

Most of what we would, today, call the combat arms were private regiments â â€œ raised, when necessary, by dukes and barons if, *big IF[/i], parliament voted the money â â€œ remember it was a chronic inability to understand the simple concept that parliament was sovereign which cost those silly, inbred Stuarts their thrones and their heads.

As late as Crimea the British Army was still a collection of regiments, many still 'private' regiments, activated and brought together as an expeditionary force only when required.   (The Duke of York's reforms, which created the 'modern' army, came later, as a result of the many, many financial and administrative/logistical scandals which plagues the British Army in Crimea.)   There was no attempt, however, to institutionalize the then still evolving regimental system into a 'Royal Army.'   Eventually, after the first South African War, some of the contractors/uniformed civil servants â â€œ like the Army Commissariat â â€œ were brought into the 'real' army â â€œ as corps.   The Royal Navy never did see the logic of that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary â â€œ civilians driving ships which are crewed by professional naval personnel in America and Canada â â€œ still exists and still works well enough, I guess,

In about 1920 the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps were merged and became the Royal Air Force and the RCAF, RAAF, etc.

The armies of the Old Commonwealth still retain the interesting fiction that they are collections of independent regiments â â€œ some more Royal than others â â€œ which serve their sovereign when required but which are not part of a Royal Canadian Forces.

Hope that's near enough to being right for the historians ...
*


----------



## sgt_mandal (28 Nov 2004)

wow, thank you, very interesting read, sir.


----------



## pbi (28 Nov 2004)

I would say that you should have a close look at the entire direction that Canada was taking in the 1960's when Unification was conceived. There was a very conscious effort to make some separation between our colonial past and the way Canada was going to look in the future. Unification, with its shedding of British style rank badges, the loss of the official titles of the Royal Canadian Navy and the RCAF, and the move away from a British style of service dress to the green business suit were all clear signs of this intent. This concept was not really all that new-it had been preceded by things like the search for and selection of a new national flag that bore no immediate connection to the colonial past. It was followed, post-unification, by further efforts such as Trudeau's plan to rename the RCMP to a new desigation without "Royal". (Which failed, obviously).
Since the title "Royal" cannot be assumed-it can only be granted by the Crown-once lost it can only be restored by a significant effort. I doubt we will ever see that effort again. Cheers.


----------



## sgt_mandal (28 Nov 2004)

Just out of curiosity, how many people here would want it to be called the Royal Canadian Forces with the "Royal" back on the army, air force and navy?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Nov 2004)

I think the military has more important things to think about then another name change.


----------



## Acorn (29 Nov 2004)

The "Royal" has never applied to the Army, be it British or any other Commonwealth force. The Navy and Air Force were Royal, but in the Army the title was granted to individual Regiments. As ROJ mentioned this is a British tradition, and it goes back to where the power is vested. A Royal Navy couldn't impose the King's will on land, but an Army could, thus an offshoot of the Magna Carta was a check on the Crown preventing the raising of a private army. Granted, it took about 400 years to take root, and another 300 years to evolve into a sysem we more-or-less recognise today.

Thus a "Royal Canadian Armed Forces" would have no historical basis (the CF is a tri-service organisation) and would usurp the tradition of the Royal Canadian Air Force (the real RCAF.) It's worth noting that while the "Royal" in the RCN and RCAF was dropped in the face of unification and a general anti-royalist attitude in the '60s, the Army was able to retain it's royal traditions. There is something to be said for dispersing the targets.

Royal lives on in the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, the Royal Canadian Dragoons, the Royal Canadian Regiment etc. etc.

Acorn


----------



## madchicken (30 Nov 2004)

I to have always woundered the same thing.   Why is my army cadet corps royal?   And yet the CF is not, or the Canadian Army.   But why are only some regiements royal, and how did they atain that status?   Why arn't the British Columbian Dragoons royal?  -_- Alot of whys is that post...


----------



## Cooper (30 Nov 2004)

There were 2 ways in which regiments attained the "royal" infront of thier name the first is back in the Englsih Civil War all the regiments that sided with the King had "royal" in thier names (this obviously only applies to British regiments, but hold on the part that applies to Canada is coming), thats where the distinction comes from in the first place. The other way is that a regiment distingushes itself in a specific battle and thereby earns that title, such as the Royal Newfoundland Regiment (it was the only regiment to have that honour granted to them for actions in WW1) this is the way that many Canadian regiments got that title, some regiments also got it granted simply through long and illustrious histories not because of specific actions.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Nov 2004)

Royal Regiments are entitled to specific privileges; for example wearing Royal Stewart tartan, or the use of blue facings on dress uniforms.  It's kind of nice to have some variety in these dress distinctions, so I don't complain too much that every unit in the Army isn't Royal.  Besides, its bad enough these days when someone says "I was with the Royals" and you ask if he served in Toronto and then looks at you like you're stupid because he meant the RCR and not the Royal Regiment of Canada.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (30 Nov 2004)

Not having "Royal" in the title I can understand...

...but _why_ did we get ever rid of the "Armed"? We used to be the Canadian Armed Forces...

What, too agressive?   :threat:

 :dontpanic:
A.A.


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Nov 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Royal Regiments are entitled to specific privileges; for example wearing Royal Stewart tartan, or the use of blue facings on dress uniforms.



As an interesting side note the 48th Highlanders have blue facings on our dress uniforms, and we are certainly not a "royal" regiment.  I forget the specifics, but basically when the regiment was stood up, there was a mix up when the unifroms were ordered.  We were supposed to use the yellow/gold facings used by highland/scottish regiments, but ended up with blue and decided to keep them.


----------



## Acorn (30 Nov 2004)

Arctic Acorn said:
			
		

> ...but _why_ did we get ever rid of the "Armed"? We used to be the Canadian Armed Forces...



We did *not* get rid of the "Armed" from "Canadian Armed Forces." We just stopped painting it on our aircraft. It's still in the NDA.

Acorn (the sub-Arctic one)


----------



## Arctic Acorn (1 Dec 2004)

Acorn, 

Nice to hear from a fellow 'nut'...

It certainly may still say that in the NDA, but it has been expunged everywhere else...Somebody went to great lengths to remove the 'armed' from the CAF. From aircraft to stationary to recruiting ads, the term is no longer used. I'd like to know the rationale behind it. 


PS - I should probably change my handle, as I am sadly no longer in the Arctic. I was planning on just removing the 'Arctic' but then _you_ came along... 

"Temperate Acorn", anyone? 

 :dontpanic:
A.A.


----------



## Acorn (1 Dec 2004)

A.A. I don't subscribe to the theory that "someone" made any effort to remove "Armed" from "Canadian Armed Forces." I think it likely just happened due to a desire for brevity. Plus, consider how much we are saving in paint and labour by not painting the "Armed" on everything. And one more thing: our aircraft used to have "CAF" painted on them, which did not mean "Canadian Air Force" though it was often mistaken for that. We had to remove the "A" just to remind the zoomies that they aren't part of an "air force" but part of "Air Command of the Canadian Armed Forces."

Anyway, I think we have better things to get wound up about than the reason why "Armed" isn't often used now. My opinion, worth what you paid for it.

Acorn


----------



## ceemes (3 Dec 2004)

Can you imagine the confusion if the CAF Miltary Police had been granted a "Royal" designation?  We would have two RCMP's in Canada....the Royal Canandian Mounted Police and the Royal Canadian Military Police.....

 ;D


----------



## Limpy (3 Dec 2004)

Returning the Royal as of right now seems out of the question. For one, alot of people in Canada don't even know any history that links us to our colonial past, and two, the cost. Think of all those cap badges that would need replacing. But those cap badges will need replacing at somepoint. For when the Queen dies, if all goes as predicted we should have King Charles. That would bring the need for new cap badges with the KINGS CROWN not the Queens crown. This would be the only chance I can forsee of any lost Royal prefixes being returned. But not likely.


----------



## Echo9 (3 Dec 2004)

The one that burns me is from my own "branch".

Pre '67- Royal Canadian Engineers
Post '67- Canadian Military Engineers

In theory, the change was made because of integrating the RCAF's airfield engineers, and the RCN's fire fighters.   In effect, it dropped a matter of historical significance for no good reason (as the RE's include Air Support within their core mandate).

It also led to the unfortunate CME abbreviation on epaulettes (which more than one clever RE has converted into Cake Munching Elephants- in honour of the more portly members of the branch).



Oh, and as for the general theme, Royal when referring to individual regiments refer to those that were paid for by the Crown (ie. central government), while as someone already rightly pointed out, the other regiments were generally paid for by the nobleman who sponsored them (with parliament helping out in times of war).  Hence why most of the corps (Arty, Engr, Sigs, etc) are Royal- almost by definition they were part of the Kings own army.


----------



## Inch (3 Dec 2004)

Limpy said:
			
		

> Returning the Royal as of right now seems out of the question. For one, alot of people in Canada don't even know any history that links us to our colonial past, and two, the cost. Think of all those cap badges that would need replacing. But those cap badges will need replacing at somepoint. For when the Queen dies, if all goes as predicted we should have King Charles. That would bring the need for new cap badges with the KINGS CROWN not the Queens crown. This would be the only chance I can forsee of any lost Royal prefixes being returned. But not likely.



Actually, that's not entirely true. The 1st Hussars for example have had the same cap badge since pre-WWI. The RCAF on the other hand, did change their crown. Pics at the bottom, Queen's crown is the very bottom.

So while some do change, not all do.


----------



## Acorn (3 Dec 2004)

"King's" and "Queen's" crown is a misnomer. What we know as the Queen's Crown is actually St Edward's Crown. There are a couple of other crowns that can be chosen by the monarch. So, the crown would depend in what Charles chooses. 

I don't have enough heraldic knowledge to get any more detailed, I'm sure someone else knows more.

Acorn


----------



## madeincanada (19 Dec 2007)

The 1st Hussars cap badge doesn't actually have a crown at all, but a Ducal Coronet. When the design was first proposed, it had a crown, but because the White Horse of Hanover was mounted on top of the crown, the King was insulted and rejected it. Apparently nothing is supposed to be mounted higher on the badge than the crown. So 1H kept the horse and ditched the crown.


----------



## CougarKing (19 Dec 2007)

Mandal,

Well, if you apply the same "Royal" nomenclature logic to the Australian Defense Force (ADF), it would already be pretty redundant, since the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) already have "Royal" in their names. The same can be said of the UK and NZ Armed Forces; you don't see the whole militaries of those countries being called "Royal", only their individual services or even some individual units.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Dec 2007)

CD you do realize that mandal asked this back in 2004.


----------



## CougarKing (19 Dec 2007)

My mistake- I didn't read the whole thread- only the initial post. It's still an interesting question and the points brought up in response are interesting as well.


----------



## McG (19 Dec 2007)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Well, if you apply the same "Royal" nomenclature logic to the Australian Defense Force (ADF), it would already be pretty redundant, since the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) already have "Royal" in their names. The same can be said of the UK and NZ Armed Forces; you don't see the whole militaries of those countries being called "Royal", only their individual services or even some individual units.


However, there is only one service in Canada; there is only the Canadian Forces.  Army, Navy and Air Force are all parts of this single combined service.  So, what does not make sense in Australia or New Zealand might make sense in Canada.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Dec 2007)

Personally, I'd rather be The Imperial Canadian Armed Forces.  Imagine the promotion of the current CDS to his current rank within the ICAF

(Cue deep breathing noises)  "You are in command now,* General *Hillier..."


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (19 Dec 2007)

Short answer is that the Crown has never been asked or been moved to make it so.


----------

