# Should the toast to the Queen be omitted from Mess Dinner's



## Hylander_ca (11 Dec 2004)

Just want to see where our loyalties are.....I personally think that we shouldn't.

 :mg:


----------



## vr (11 Dec 2004)

The only time the Toast to the Queen should be omitted is when it becomes the Toast to the King.


----------



## Hylander_ca (11 Dec 2004)

I agree Usul!!

 :mg:


----------



## Infanteer (11 Dec 2004)

Although I'm sure the monarchy has been debated to death on this forum, I'll pipe in.  I find myself becoming more and more republican everyday - perhaps it's time to take a serious look at the utility of the monarchy, just as our Australian cousins have.  Time for the _de facto_ and _de jure_ aspects of our government to be brought in-line with each other.

Now, I will return to the Federalist Papers


----------



## little_mp (11 Dec 2004)

I was born into a British family, and I myself am a British citizen along side of my Canadian citizenship, make no mistake I'm Canadian first  however my dad side of the family is a stirct Royalist Bristish family and you could be shot in my house for saying such a thing    further more I belive the toast to the crown is a part of tradition origonating from the Bristish Army, which the Canadian Army and CFs traditions origionate from, and by taking that away you would be taking away our traditions, and part of the culture which after all is what makes us different from our American brothers, is that we didnt kick the crown out. And as everyone has taken the oath of alligiance, we are all loyal to Queen Elizibeth the second Queen of CANADA! her airs and sucessors, I'll leave it at that.


----------



## McG (12 Dec 2004)

Hylander_ca said:
			
		

> Should the toast to the Queen be omitted from Mess Dinners?


Why?
Mess dinners are not the place to try making political statements.


----------



## Dogboy (12 Dec 2004)

as our government still has the Queen as its head, we must still have due respect paid to her. 
when shes no longer on our money then maybe this will change.
till then God save the Queen and all that stuff. (tho I'm not a royalist at all )


----------



## Hoplite (12 Dec 2004)

So long as we maintain a link to the Monarchy, then it is appropriate for us to toast the King or Queen at our mess dinners.   

Personally, I think it is time to jettison that particular connection.  Make no mistake about it, Britain cast Canada aside to placate both the French and the Americans....and we still came to her defence on two seperate occasions.  All the debts we owe there have been paid in full.....

Add to the fact that the Royal Family is the biggest welfare recipient I can think of, certainly makes a mockery of being important by virtue of birth.....


----------



## loyalcana (12 Dec 2004)

The taxpayer get back much more money from crown lands than they pay out.


----------



## GDawg (12 Dec 2004)

Hylander_ca said:
			
		

> Just want to see where our loyalties are.....I personally think that we shouldn't.
> 
> :mg:



Loyalties? Hmm...You swore an oath of allegiance or took a solemn affirmation, correct?
Well, I do believe that settles where your loyalties lie.


----------



## X Royal (12 Dec 2004)

[quote author=Hylander_ca]
I personally think that we shouldn't.
[/quote]

What are you trying to say?
Shouldn't omit the toast -OR- shouldn't do the toast. I am sure it is being read both ways by others.
And not to put down our junior members but after looking at your profile I find it unlikely that you were ever asked to participate in a toast at a mess dinner. I never experienced a formal mess dinner at the junior ranks mess although it is an idea that could work, but costly (voluntarily only).

Best Wishes

Ps: Keep the toast.


----------



## Hylander_ca (12 Dec 2004)

X Royal

We shouldn't do both...Do NOT omit it from Christmas Dinners and continue to toast the Queen. We should keep it, it is part of who we are as an institution. I swore allegiance to the Crown and my Country.

 :mg:


----------



## little_mp (12 Dec 2004)

Well if it wasn't for the crown we would probably just be an American state today, and the main basis of English speaking Canadians were UEL at one time, that would say something about Canada and Canadians. to be Canada always will have some what of a link to the crown and remember the Queen is the Queen of Canada, as we are independent and we are also a big member of the common wealth, participating in the commenwealth games and so on, its what Canada is our whole countries loyalties are to the crown and I believe as member of the CF your not exactly supposed to be bad mouthing the Royal Family or calling the crown hollow, oh and to add to that, a lot of Canadian regiments are descendants of British regiments. Also to call the Royal Family a big Wellfare trip... Thats way over the line they do a lot for things all around the world, sure they may not have huge political power but remember it was the royal family that fought for banning of land mines and such things, as well if we were to cut off our ties with the royal family well there would go what makes the Canadian army the Canadian army right out the window

 hmm.. remember what the R stands for in RCR or RCA or RHLI or RCAF,RCD, RHFC, ill leave it at that but we all know theres tons more even the Cadets are RCAC or the Mounties what make Canada Canada are RCMP ea thats right Royal showing our ties to the monarch you don't see anything being called Royal south of the border now do you?


----------



## McG (12 Dec 2004)

I_A_N said:
			
		

> hmm.. remember what the R stands for in RCR or RCA or RHLI or RCAF,RCD, RHFC,...


There is no more RCAF.


----------



## Hylander_ca (12 Dec 2004)

MCG,

I think that it was idiotic to change the name and rank system of the RCAF...I for one would like to see it returned to the way it was....Yes even though my element is land.

 :mg:


----------



## darcy175 (12 Dec 2004)

we cant forget our roots our officers are commissioned by the queen so we should still toast the queen at the mess dinners


----------



## bossi (12 Dec 2004)

Hmmm ... well, considering that courtesy of the legal system we now have a disgraceful ruling that it's okay to disobey the command to remove headdress on parade if "you don't believe in it" ... it won't be too long before other rude individuals will refuse to stand up for toasts, etc. ...  (I can see it now - using this pathetic logic, it will be okay to spit on the grave at a funeral because it's your freedom of expression ...)

Yup - another battle honour for the Human Rights Commission and their supporting cast of iconoclasts - another nail in the coffin of military discipline and tradition ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Dec 2004)

You're bang on, bossi.  The bleeding hearts and artistes are firmly in the drivers seat.... SHARP and Son of SHARP were just the beginning.  The army is now a giant petrie dish for social engineering experiments.

Chimo,  Kat


----------



## CE621 (9 Jul 2007)

Way she goes,time for Canada to grow up and stand up on her own,we earned it.While erosion of military traditions is appalling to me,I believe this to be evolution and helps give Canada the full respect she deserves.
To say that keeping a foreign monarch will somehow make us more Canadian and less American is convoluted thinking......like fucking for virginity.The crown is part of our history and that`s where it belongs.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jul 2007)

Interesting.  This topic had basically faded away into history, so to say, and you have have resurrected it with your contradictory comments.  Interesting that you deplore the "erosion of military traditions" which are historical in value, and then say that we should relegate the crown to "our history where it belongs".  Make up you mind, fella.  Do you want to maintain military traditions or not?  

They are part of the historical heritage and traditions of our military units, just as the "Crown" is an important part of 99% of our hatbadges and Unit Crests.  Perhaps it is time for you to do some research into the Canadian Political system to see precisely what role the "Crown" plays in our Parliamentary System.  Apparently you really don't understand that yet.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Jul 2007)

If we decide to ditch the toast then we have to IMO get rid of all the crowns off of our cap badges and remove any title of royal...

So in my opinion, Keep toasting her majesty.


----------



## mover1 (9 Jul 2007)

Hylander_ca said:
			
		

> Just want to see where our loyalties are.....I personally think that we shouldn't.
> 
> :mg:


Are you saying we shouldn't toast or that the toast shouldn't be omitted?

Are you implying that  those with a differing opinion to you should be shot? 

Are you implying that freedom of action is punishable by death via a smiley?

I don't believe in god! But I take my hat off because it doesn't hurt my feelings to show respect for others and their archaic beliefs in a book of folklore.

I still share the magic of Christmas with my children even when the bills come in.

The Queen, monarch of Canada or just a face on my money?

Even though she is a real person (like Jesus or Tom Cruise) I don't think that she is all that she is cracked up to be. (like Jesus or Tom Cruise) nor has very much impact on my life (like Jesus or Tom Cruise) although I am sure she means much more to others (like Jesus or Tom Cruise) and my opinion doesn't matter much as long as I am happy. Nor should I manipulate people to believe in what I believe in.(unlike Tom Cruise)


To Sum Up

IMHO

 Toasting the Monarchy is a tradition that is well established at mess dinners and has become more or less a part of the ACT we put on in order to have a good time at mess dinners.  

Either way pass the wine lets toast.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jul 2007)

CE621 said:
			
		

> Way she goes,time for Canada to grow up and stand up on her own,we earned it.While erosion of military traditions is appalling to me,I believe this to be evolution and helps give Canada the full respect she deserves.
> To say that keeping a foreign monarch will somehow make us more Canadian and less American is convoluted thinking......like fucking for virginity.The crown is part of our history and that`s where it belongs.



Interesting take for an "old tech."

The Crown is indeed part of our history, a proud history. And each time we toast _The Crown_ we are saluting our rich hertitage and traditions, and they are inescapable. Erasing the monarch from the face of Canada will do nothing to change that. The Crown is, and always will be, a part of our Canadian military heritage; no matter how one wishs to slice it.

Next time you're up near Watts Ave, stop in and check us out; please be advised that we have a large picture of the Queen here though. I don't see her leaving any time soon.


----------



## Pte AJB (9 Jul 2007)

I believe in toasting the Crown, for it connects the present with the past. I am a firm believer that you can't know where you're going unless you know where you've been. How silly would it be if PPCLI became CLI and RCR became CR. The Queen as our 'head of state' is a figurehead and not a sovereign, keep the Queen and our traditions.


----------



## Scott (9 Jul 2007)

> Should the toast to the Queen be omitted from Mess Dinner's



NO!


----------



## BernDawg (9 Jul 2007)

Scott:  You beat me to it but I'll add mine any way.

[size=10pt]NO!!


----------



## Cardstonkid (9 Jul 2007)

The average Canadian has little or no use for the Monarchy. Swearing an oath to the queen and her heirs is a debasing of what a personal oath is. (i.e. a personal oath is a commitment of loyalty that gives one no choice but to serve the interests of the individual the oath was made to. Since the Queen nol onger rules or pays wages she is now only a symbol and metaphor of the "law;" she is no longer really a candidate for a personal oath.) 


All that being said Canada has a Queen at its head and there is no appetite in Canada to change this immutable fact. So until the fine people of Canada make a change I will stand and toast the Queen and swear an oath of personal allegiance, because that is the price of being a Canadian soldier and citizen.

Even if Canada were to decline the next King as head of State it would still be prudent to maintain the tradition of the monarchy sans personal oaths in the military. Traditions cannot be purchased and to throw them away is dangerous.

 I'll duck now as there is sure to be some incoming fire.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jul 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> The average Canadian has little or no use for the Monarchy.* Swearing an oath to the queen and her heirs is a debasing of what a personal oath is. * (i.e. a personal oath is a commitment of loyalty that gives one no choice but to serve the interests of the individual the oath was made to. Since the Queen nol onger rules or pays wages she is now only a symbol and metaphor of the "law;" she is no longer really a candidate for a personal oath.)



In your opinion, obviously there are many of us who disagree with you.

"For Queen _and_ Country."


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2007)

Although HM happens to live out of the country, she is in title and in fact the Queen of Canada. As a Sovereign person things like nationality don't apply.

An oath to the Queen also stresses the apolitical nature of the Armed Forces. We are not swearing oaths or pledging allegiance to a political figure but to an enduring embodiment of the State who stands outside of the political realm. In the United States the military swears their oath to the Constitution for many of the same reasons.


----------



## Cardstonkid (11 Jul 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Although HM happens to live out of the country, she is in title and in fact the Queen of Canada. As a Sovereign person things like nationality don't apply.
> 
> An oath to the Queen also stresses the apolitical nature of the Armed Forces. We are not swearing oaths or pledging allegiance to a political figure but to an enduring embodiment of the State who stands outside of the political realm. In the United States the military swears their oath to the Constitution for many of the same reasons.



This is a valid point and should not be dismissed lightly. The quibble I have is that the symbol of the Monarchy is devolved on par with the Beaver, and the maple leaf. They are national symbols that give us a rally point and tradition but the question is do we not debase the value of a toast or an oath if it is to a real person that only has value as a symbol? Wouldn't it be better to swear an oath to uphold the Canadian Constitution rather than to proclaim our allegiance to the Queen and her heirs? It would make more sense and it would sharpen the value and intent of the oath. We could still keep the monarchy and most of the traditions associated with it.


----------



## Pte AJB (11 Jul 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> This is a valid point and should not be dismissed lightly. The quibble I have is that the symbol of the Monarchy is devolved on par with the Beaver, and the maple leaf. They are national symbols that give us a rally point and tradition but the question is do we not debase the value of a toast or an oath if it is to a real person that only has value as a symbol? Wouldn't it be better to swear an oath to uphold the Canadian Constitution rather than to proclaim our allegiance to the Queen and her heirs? It would make more sense and it would sharpen the value and intent of the oath. We could still keep the monarchy and most of the traditions associated with it.



I'm not so sure our friends in Quebec would be happy with that, given that they've never ratified the Charter.


----------



## Loachman (11 Jul 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> The average Canadian has little or no use for the Monarchy.


This is purely because the Average Canadian is disgustingly ignorant about this Nation's history and the Crown's place within it.

I refuse to be reduced to their level.


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 Jul 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> This is purely because *the Average Canadian is disgustingly ignorant about this Nation's history and the Crown's place within it.*I refuse to be reduced to their level.



My bold addition. I think that says it all loachman!


----------



## Greymatters (12 Jul 2007)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You're bang on, bossi.  The bleeding hearts and artistes are firmly in the drivers seat.... SHARP and Son of SHARP were just the beginning.  The army is now a giant petrie dish for social engineering experiments.



The SHARP program was a good idea, and was required as part of implementation of new laws, but its presentation was dreadful.  A bunch of HR types who have no understanding of military culture and psychology.  They didnt even understand the people they were presenting to and got all bent out of shape when we pointed out obvious gaps in their logic.

Back to the Queen.  Want to toast her at dinner?  No problem.  Want to prize our English heritage?  Great.  But I swore my loyalty to my country, not the representative of a somebody else's country.  The age of colonialism is over.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Back to the Queen.  Want to toast her at dinner?  No problem.  Want to prize our English heritage?  Great.  But I swore my loyalty to my country, not the representative of a somebody else's country.  The age of colonialism is over.



I f you think the curent manner in which we swear our oath, or toast the Crown for that matter, has anything to do with the belief that colonialism still exists in Canada you need to do some more research.

We have been an independant sovereign nation for quite some time now.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Back to the Queen.  Want to toast her at dinner?  No problem.  Want to prize our English heritage?  Great.  But I swore my loyalty to my country, not the representative of a somebody else's country.  The age of colonialism is over.



The representative of someone else's country is their ambassador. HRH is the Queen of Canada, and a Sovereign Person who has no nationality (or more correctly is the embodiment of several nations, of which we have the pleasure of sharing). More people need to brush up on history and constitutional law, otherwise they will end up lookinng silly at mess functions and other places..


----------



## observor 69 (12 Jul 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Canada

The Canadian Monarchy is a shared monarchy. This article describes the Monarchy from the perspective of Canada. In the other Commonwealth Realms, the constitutional role of the Monarchy is similar, but the historical and cultural significance may differ. For information on the Monarchy in the other Realms, see Other Realms: Monarchy.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a Commonwealth Realm, with Queen Elizabeth II as its reigning monarch since February 6, 1952. As such she is Canada's Sovereign and head of state and officially called Queen of Canada.

More than you cared to know at link.   

I still think this whole monarchy thing is getting a bit obsolete.


----------



## Greymatters (12 Jul 2007)

Yes, we have been independent for some time now, but not truly independent until 1982.  It is not that colonialism still exists in Canada, it is that some elements of our colonial days still exist in Canada.  Although we are no longer a 'colony', there are still some positions in Canada that serve no purpose but to demonstrate a link back to the founding nation i.e. all the Governor positions.  Traditional and honorable?  Yes.  But what purpose do they serve other than as a showpiece?


----------



## garb811 (12 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> But what purpose do they serve other than as a showpiece?



20 pages of discussion on this topic here:  Retain the Monarchy in Canada?

And no, the toast should most definately not be omitted from Mess Dinners.


----------



## Pte AJB (12 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Yes, we have been independent for some time now, but not truly independent until 1982.



I disagree. We've been a sovereign nation long before that, at the earliest 1867 with the passage of the British North America Act, or at the latest 1931 with the Statute of Westminster. Given Canada's unique Anglo-Franco history, and the continuing Constitutional question of Quebec within Canada, the use of a Constitution as a measure of independence doesn't present the whole picture. 

If one were examining the question from the sole perspective of political expediency, doing away with all ties to the monarchy (ie. the GG) would force Canada to reevaluate it's position vis-a-vis Quebec. Last time that process ended ina Referendum, a slim one at that.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> But I* swore my loyalty to my country*, not the representative of a somebody else's country.  The age of colonialism is over.


Same here.  Canada, being a constitutional monarchy, has a sovereign as head of state.  Our incumbent sovereign is Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada.  If you don't recognise Her Majesty, just look at the reverse of any Canadian coin.  You'll see her in profile.  Check it out someday.  Sure, we have a shared Monarchy with Australia, but that doesn't mean that we are trying to colonise Australia, or that Australia is trying to colonise us....

Also check out this site, aptly titled "The Canadian Monarchy" http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/fr-rf/index_e.cfm


----------



## Greymatters (12 Jul 2007)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> 20 pages of discussion on this topic here:  Retain the Monarchy in Canada?



Looking over what was previously posted, I'd go along with Infanteer's argument, he pretty much sums up my opinion.


----------



## mover1 (13 Jul 2007)

well lets lock this puppy up and put it to bed....


----------



## mysteriousmind (13 Jul 2007)

We should keep the toast...and this, as long as we will swear an oath to the Queen, as long as we will be a member of the Commonwealth, as long as our history has been forge with our English heritage. 

Even if I'm a french Quebecois, I think that is it part of what we are and were we are going.

It is like if we would ask our fellow Americans to stop to use the eagle (perhaps a bad example) but I think that it is important. If i push the button further, allot of every day things we use refer us to the English monarchy.

Stop a toast during a mess diner? common...that is not that long or that painfull.


----------



## geo (13 Jul 2007)

A mess dinner is an opportunity for past, present & future comrades in arms to gather, reminisce, eat drink and be merry, before going back to the task at hand of - to close with & destroy the enemy!... wether real or figurative.

The toast to the Queen, the toast to the Regiment, the toast to our officers (the CME even have a place in our prayer for our officers), the toast to our fallen comrades -  they are all part of who we were, who we are and who we aspire to become.

The decision on the status of the Queen of Canada is a political decision and it is not up to the Canadian forces, her loyal Canadian forces, to decide.  We serve!


Gentlemen, please rise and join me in a toast to the Queen.
The Queen!, God bless her!
 :cheers:


----------



## PrairieBoy (12 Jan 2010)

Gentlemen, I know this topic is old, but it caught my eye. I am an ardent monarchist. At the mess dinners of my Air Cadet Squadron, nothing pleases me more than to toast Her Majesty. Now, some will ask why I am a monarchist. "Mouldy old colonial relic" they will say. I could explain my reasons for being a monarchist, but luckily, I don't have to. This fine fellow has already done it for me: 

http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-monarchy-why-tradition.html

I would cordially suggest that you republicans (as in those that believe in republics as a political system, not members of the American political party) read that article, it lays out monarchist beliefs quite eloquently.


----------



## stealthylizard (28 Feb 2010)

I, _________, do swear (solemnly declare) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD (delete if declaration)

Nothing about Canada or country in that oath.


----------



## Crown-Loyal (2 Mar 2010)

As you can tell by my name I'm a very anti-monarchy  

I don't see why we would change everything so we could have some elected official as our head of state. Prime Ministers divide the country because of political beliefs, the Crown is a rally point for all of Canada as it not political and can represent everyone no matter their belief.

As for the oath. I think maybe you could add something in there about duty to Canada etc, but the Queen is the symbol of our country so, by pledging your allegiance to the Queen, it has to be assumed you are also pledging your allegiance to Canada.

If you think that oath is bad, get a job with CBSA. I think I pledged to be faithful to not divulge information I obtained through working for the  public service.... or something lame like that. Also, someone decided to take the crowns off of all our insignia, and the crown has been a symbol of Custom's authority forever. There are no longer crowns on our dress uniform buttons or cap badge, no crowns on our badges, no crowns on our emblem (originally a portcullis with a crown over top), no crowns on our shoulder flashes.... but obviously none of this bothers me  :-[


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Mar 2010)

Hylander_ca said:
			
		

> Just want to see where our loyalties are.....I personally think that we shouldn't.
> 
> :mg:



Just remember your oath...

Until that changes, I don't think the Queen will be removed from toasts.  Meanwhile in Australia, who in many ways have a bad taste for the for the Poms, the toast is still given at Mess dinners.

OWDU

EDITs to add, I did not notice the 6 yr old date - stupid me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2010)

Crown-Loyal said:
			
		

> , the Crown is a rally point for all of Canada



I'd 'rally' a lot more for a picture of Terry Fox than I would the Crown......


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Mar 2010)

I think the undiscussed part of this question is that if the Monarchy was dispensed with from a Canadian perspective, who would the detractors like us to toast as our head of state.  We've all seen how well loved our Prime Ministers can be.  I suspect that many of the same people who readily suggest abolishing Canadian links to the Monarchy haven't thought through the possible alternatives.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I think the undiscussed part of this question is that if the Monarchy was dispensed with from a Canadian perspective, who would the detractors like us to toast as our head of state.  We've all seen how well loved our Prime Ministers can be.  I suspect that many of the same people who readily suggest abolishing Canadian links to the Monarchy haven't thought through the possible alternatives.



It would likely devolve to something akin to how we toast for the US. Close to the border or when US guests are involved we toast 'To the Office of the President of the United States' not POTUS himself, for exactly that reason.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Mar 2010)

I believe the correct toast is:" The President of the United States ".


----------



## helpup (2 Mar 2010)

I gave an oath as a young pup, to the queen.  Sure you could argue that I was too young to really understand.  However it was an oath and I will abide by it since the understanding at the time was my service to Canada and it's head of state were mutually inclusive ( at the time even more so then now).  As a younger man just entering legal drinking age I also spent many a elbow curl saving the queen ( and fully enjoyed that as well).  Personally I would keep the toast.  If a referendum or political spin changes things in this country WRT to whom the head of state is, I will have to re-evaluate my oath.  Regardless I will always look fondly on it.


----------



## TimBit (2 Mar 2010)

In the privileged space of this forum, I'll say that I am no monarchist, even though my wife is a Brit and she likes the Queen. I don't feel the oath I took, which I intend to respect, ought to make me a monarchist. That being said, I have always argued with ardent republicans (of which my native Quebec is chock-full) that in our parliamentary system, which I would not replace for anything in the world, the Queen would need to be replaced by an appointed President, much like the GG, since an elected president would challenge the legitimacy of the Cabinet which is core to our system. And guess what... that appointed president would still live at Rideau Hall, be surrounded with pageantry, bla bla bla. So really it's four quarters for a dollar.

On the other hand, I am wary of the increasingly bold role currently taken by the GG... but I guess that is an opinion the details of which are best kept to myself  

In the meantime, I'm happy to stand (or stay seated at the moment) for the toast to the Queen, as tradition demands.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Mar 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It would likely devolve to something akin to how we toast for the US. Close to the border or when US guests are involved we toast 'To the Office of the President of the United States' not POTUS himself, for exactly that reason.



The copy of Mess Administration that I have reads as follows:



> Other Toasts - When officers or other distinguished persons, officially representing a foreign state, are entertained at a mess dinner, the following procedure shall be carried out:
> 
> a.  The Loyal Toasts shall be proposed first.
> 
> ...



Even if we dance around the issue and toast "the PM's office", what do we do in another country when our hosts toast our "head of state."


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Mar 2010)

1)  Like the Loyal Toast, so don't see a need to change it (unless kicked out of/pull out of the Commonwealth - pretty remote chance).

2)  If Canada _ever_ became a Republic (don't think it'll happen in my lifetime), how about this as an alternative?

"Ladies and Gentlemen, to Canada".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2010)

,,,,and yes, I should have been clearer in my original post. However.

The key word in my response was 'devolve'. I never said it was right, simply that that is one way I've heard it done. Also, signifigantly, it was from the Americans in the room, because they didn't like the President, but respect the office. I will also add, I've heard it more than once and in different settings. As far as the toasts to POTUS, I likely hear it more than most given my location.

I'm not getting into a pissing match. I know my protocols. Simply providing some input, so spare the lectures please.

It's also not the topic of this thread.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Mar 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'd 'rally' a lot more for *a picture of Terry Fox * than I would the Crown......


Was that a typo for Samantha Fox??  Just checkin'  >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2010)

And while we speak of correct wording, how many add "God Bless Her" as the end of the toast?



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Was that a typo for Samantha Fox??  Just checkin'  >



Or how about Samatha Fox and a bottle of Crown? For the toast of course


----------



## LineJumper (4 Mar 2010)

All this talk of toast makes me think of cheese whiz and philly cream cheese in the packets when hayboxes are full of boiled eggs and ?bacon?..... anyhoo, a toast should be seen as such. A simple salutation, if no crown, then the big furry bison helmet crafted in Wx to signify dark hairy things? I'm no monarchist, but leave some shyte alone for the old guys to try and stay in the know.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2010)

Since the POTUS is the Head of State, it is quite correct to toast "The President" regardless of party affiliation or what you personally think of the current office holder. (To counter any regal aspirations by the office holder, Americans swear their oath to the Constitution, not the President) 

The same applies to HRH Elizabeth II, or at some point in the future HRH Charles III (or William IV), who as Head of State provides an apolitical symbol for all Canadians.

So the question stands; if the Monarch is no longer the Canadian Head of State, who or what would we make the "loyal toast" to?


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Mar 2010)

Walter Gretzky.


----------



## GAP (4 Mar 2010)

Does this whole subject fall into the same category as the changes to O Canada song?


----------



## wildman0101 (5 Mar 2010)

no ,,,, i stand with army vern and geo,,,
god save the queen....  The Crown is indeed part of our history, a proud history. And each time we toast The Crown we are saluting our rich hertitage and traditions, and they are inescapable. Erasing the monarch from the face of Canada will do nothing to change that. The Crown is, and always will be, a part of our Canadian military heritage; no matter how one wishs to slice it.

queen and country (canada)

I f you think the curent manner in which we swear our oath, or toast the Crown for that matter, has anything to do with the belief that colonialism still exists in Canada you need to do some more research.

We have been an independant sovereign nation for quite some time now. 

geo has the right of it also

12:38:52 »Quote A mess dinner is an opportunity for past, present & future comrades in arms to gather, reminisce, eat drink and be merry, before going back to the task at hand of - to close with & destroy the enemy!... wether real or figurative.

The toast to the Queen, the toast to the Regiment, the toast to our officers (the CME even have a place in our prayer for our officers), the toast to our fallen comrades -  they are all part of who we were, who we are and who we aspire to become.

The decision on the status of the Queen of Canada is a political decision and it is not up to the Canadian forces, her loyal Canadian forces, to decide.  We serve!


Gentlemen, please rise and join me in a toast to the Queen.
The Queen!, God bless her!
gentlemen,,,,ladies,,,distinguished comrades,,,honored friends..
fallen comrades,,, the queen...
                   salute
                    scoty b


----------

