# The Royal Prefix



## Limpy (22 Jun 2004)

As many (not enough though) know, when the three forces unified in 1968 the Royal prefix was lost in the   Royal Canadian Navy, Airforce, Engineers and various support services. What I,m wondering is has there ever been anything said about asking Her Majesty to have the "Royal" reinstated in some of these services. Also I would like to ask for some opinions about the Royal prefix.   :fifty:


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Jun 2004)

Its all about customs and traditions, and our hertitage. Nothing wrong with the RCN or the RCAF is there. Here although Australia is moving to a republican mentality (I am not much of a monarchist myself), its still RAN and RAAF, etc for now, and I like the way it is.

If these 'prefixes' were returned to CF, I think it would give more 'esprit du corps' and individual identity of the three services of the CF. 

I would also like to see the rank system of 'pips' returned to the Army, as current CF officer rank is almost identical to Air Force, like our RAAF (and respective types for Air Force and Navy too as it used to be), and the names of rank structure returned also. The Cdn Navy has been using it for some time.

Anyways, my 2 cents worth.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## ags281 (22 Jun 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> If these 'prefixes' were returned to CF, I think it would give more 'esprit du corps' and individual identity of the three services of the CF.
> 
> I would also like to see the rank system of 'pips' returned to the Army, as current CF officer rank is almost identical to Air Force, like our RAAF (and respective types for Air Force and Navy too as it used to be), and the names of rank structure returned also. The Cdn Navy has been using it for some time.



I'd be all for the "Royal" coming back for RCAF, RCN etc. Problem is the three branches are still "officially" united, so it would be more of a headache to get it done than it's really worth. How does Royal Canadian Forces sound? Hmm... on second thought, that sounds kinda dumb, doesn't it?   :-\

WRT the rank insignia, I say keep it the way it is. It's easy to tell from a distance if you have to salute or not. How would you tell the difference between a WO and a Maj if they were in combats? Both would have a crown on the slipon, so it wouldn't be easy: "well you see, one crown has a little extension 0.2 mm long on either side plus..." no thanks. Common rank insignia also simplifies branch interaction because, even if you don't know what to call each other, there is no question who has rank.

Rank titles? Definately go back to the old air force ranks. Wing Commander? Group Captain? Those just sound plain cool, and let you tell who's air and who's army on paper. For the officers it's pretty easy, but with the NCM's you start running into some problems. The old titles (AC, LAC, Cpl, Sgt, FSgt etc) don't match with the current structure, as there is one less rank. I guess you'd have to keep MCpl (or maybe call it FCpl to be consistent?) to maintain equivalent NCM rank progression across the branches.


----------



## Limpy (22 Jun 2004)

I seem to get the feeling these days that since the rank structure of the CF has been with us for so long, people just seem to have gotten used to it. That's if your one of the few still in the Forces that was in before unifacation. The rest of us never really knew any different anyhow. I just think that reinstating the "Royal" would be a tribute to our history and to those that fought under the "Royal" title to secure our freedoms. I strongly believe that having that prefix also helps disinguish us from Americans and tells about our system of government and or historical imperial ties.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jun 2004)

Being in the Navy I can honestly say for me reverting to the old RCN would not matter to me. I am proud to be a member of the CF with or without the Royal Prefix.


----------



## muddywheels (5 Jul 2004)

I'm in the British Army, I'm proud of the ties we have with all members of the Commonwealth, I think the "Royal" is as much part of Canada's history as it is British. I'm also Commando trained, and as the Commando Memorial says "United We Conquer" need I say more about Britain and Canada.


----------



## SFontaine (5 Jul 2004)

I'm quite the Republican personally and think that attaching a crown to everything and making everything Royal this and Royal that is kind of silly. Personally I joined the Army to serve the people of Canada not some powerless figurehead that isn't even Canadian.


----------



## Spr.Earl (6 Jul 2004)

SFontaine said:
			
		

> I'm quite the Republican personally and think that attaching a crown to everything and making everything Royal this and Royal that is kind of silly. Personally I joined the Army to serve the people of Canada not some powerless figurehead that isn't even Canadian.



The "ROYAL" designation is an "HONOUR" bestowed on Unit's for outstanding service to the Crown and their Country and is not given lightly.
It is given by the reigning Monarch in recognition of that service to one's country and the Crown.!

I for one thought it a disgrace when Pierre La Fruit removed it from those Unit's as it erased part of the history of those Unit's as it recognised the Duty they had performed to earn it.


----------



## Ian_M (6 Jul 2004)

Personally I'm all for strengthening our ties to the United Kingdom and am a proud monarchist who's joining up to do his bit for Queen or Country. Therefore I might be a bit biased

The Royal Prefix I think should be re-established because over 100,000 people in the last century fought and died for this country, with many more wounded or who just went to answer the call. They deserve some credit, due to the fact that the vast majority of them died for King and Country, as well as for Canada. The first time the call came (World War One, I'm not counting South Africa because it was done by 1904) we didn't really have a legal option to say no, however many went and fought with some great honor, for the crown.

Regardless of where we are now, we are hear thanks to those people who went and fought, who fought under the title Royal. Its the least we can do to honor their sacrifice is not to forget the instution that they fought to uphold. I for one don't forget the sacrifice that millions made, both on the front lines and at home.


----------



## SFontaine (6 Jul 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> SFontaine said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't aware of that. I apologize. I don't think we should remove our Royal designations but personally we need our own thing. A Canadian thing. Not a British thing.


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Jul 2004)

Question:Which was the only Unit to be awarded the "Royal" designation in WW1?


----------



## Spr.Earl (12 Jul 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Question:Which was the only Unit to be awarded the "Royal" designation in WW1?



For action's during the Battle of Cambrai.

After the battle, the Regiment, and in fact all of Newfoundland, received the glorious news. The Newfoundland Regiment was awarded the prefix â Å“Royal.â ? The War Office stated in a letter dated January 31, 1963, and we quote:

â Å“This is the only instance in which this honour was conferred during the Great War, though other regiments and corps received the title after cessation of hostilities.â ?


----------



## SALH (30 Jul 2004)

Quote: "I wasn't aware of that. I apologize. I don't think we should remove our Royal designations but personally we need our own thing. A Canadian thing. Not a British thing."

Last time I checked my oath was to the Queen of Canada, specifically her majesty, her heirs and successors, not the Canadian Govt.  The chance of me saying some oath to a short sighted republican politician is zippo.  I suggest you reexamine your loyalties my friend.  

Long Live the Queen Of Canada.


----------



## Limpy (1 Aug 2004)

My most greatest feelings about the title "Royal" and our ties with England became soldified after watching an episode of "For King and Empire". The host of the show was at a Canadian grave or graves and the the host read out the insriciption on a grave and it said "Tell England we died for her, and here we lie content". After I thought how could governments screw around with our ties to England when graves like this one depicting giving up ones life for her exist. To me it's like pissing on those graves.


----------



## Scott (1 Aug 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Question:Which was the only Unit to be awarded the "Royal" designation in WW1?



Was it not the RNfldR? For the slaughter at Beaumont-Hammel?


----------

