# Enrollment: Swearing an Oath or Affirmation [merged]



## Pikache (15 Dec 2005)

Went to a swear in ceremony the other day and the words change. 

I, bloggings, do swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada and all her heirs according to law. So help me God.

Now it's more silly and long winded one. Can't recall the exact words.


----------



## DBA (16 Dec 2005)

There was talk and debate of changing the various Oaths but as far as I know they have not yet been changed.


----------



## shaboing (16 Dec 2005)

its not that it has changed, but that is the "non religious" one, the religious one is the long one. either the recruits being sworn in chose that or there was a time issue or something is my guesses. i used the short one


----------



## RRC746 (16 Dec 2005)

you can't say bloggins anymore because theres a dude named bloggins in the forces now, the forces bein all PC and all that you know.


----------



## NavComm (16 Dec 2005)

I'll check when I get home, I have mine framed and I had to swear it exactly as it is on the document. I chose to swear on a bible, so maybe it's different than making a declaration, I don't know.


----------



## kincanucks (16 Dec 2005)

ShaBoing said:
			
		

> its not that it has changed, but that is the "non religious" one, the religious one is the long one. either the recruits being sworn in chose that or there was a time issue or something is my guesses. i used the short one



Yes with the addition of 'So help me God'  the word count really went through the roof.  Neither the Oath of Allegiance nor the Solemn Affirmation have changed in the past twenty years at least.


----------



## NavComm (17 Dec 2005)

Do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.

There it is from my document.


----------



## dk (18 Dec 2005)

NavComm said:
			
		

> Do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.
> 
> There it is from my document.



I was sworn-in last Wednesday. It was exactly same. The only thing that changed between Affirmation and Oath was the "So Help Me God!"


----------



## shaboing (18 Dec 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Yes with the addition of 'So help me God'   the word count really went through the roof.   Neither the Oath of Allegiance nor the Solemn Affirmation have changed in the past twenty years at least.



i never heard the long one so i didn't know it,i was sworn in alone, i just heard it was a paragraph and the short one was a sentence, haha. apparently i was told wrong


----------



## Daidalous (18 Dec 2005)

For the Queen


----------



## boots (18 Dec 2005)

RRC746 said:
			
		

> you can't say bloggins anymore because theres a dude named bloggins in the forces now, the forces bein all PC and all that you know.



I hope he's not hassled too much over it


----------



## cdnsignaller (21 Dec 2005)

Heck, Bloggins should be a 4 leaf general by now for all his dedicated service to the crown LMAO!!!!! :soldier:

I know I blurted out his name on more than one occasion during my tour.


----------



## Cardstonkid (20 Jul 2006)

I am in the process of re-joining the reserves. My employment and family situation makes it possible to rejoin after a long absence. I love my country and I enjoy the military life. I look forward to my return.

Now I know this might seem ridiculous, BUT  I recall having to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and her heirs. Back then I never thought much of it. I know the monarchy is "symbolic" and really means Canada. BUT that is not what the words say. I guess I am a little older and wiser, I now put much more value on the promises I make. Is this oath still made? Does anyone else cringe at the thought of it? Is it possible to just swear an oath to Canada?

I know that in the end I will have to grin and bear the ridiculous historical anachronism, but my word is meaningful and I want it to be treated as such. We can keep the history and the traditions of the monarchy, but in this day and age do we really want to be swearing a personal oath of loyalty to the Queen and her children?


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Jul 2006)

Go here, read the related portions of these threads:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16520.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39670.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42727.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37486.0.html

And those were in a search for "queen oath"  limited to the past 300 days.

For future reference the search page can be found at http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search


----------



## munchies (23 Aug 2011)

can someone please explain to me why i must say an oath declaring myself a tool to the queen? I thought we declared independence from them? Why can't i pledge allegiance to Canada?  

The queen doesnt even do anything. Also, the whole idea of a queen is so 1700. I don't get it.


----------



## cupper (23 Aug 2011)

munchies said:
			
		

> can someone please explain to me why i must say an oath *declaring myself a tool *to the queen? I thought we declared independence from them? Why can't i pledge allegiance to Canada?
> 
> The queen doesnt even do anything. Also, the whole idea of a queen is so 1700. I don't get it.



Yep. That sums it up.


----------



## chrisf (23 Aug 2011)

We didn't declare independence from the crown.

Go re-read your history and report back.

Key words to look up include "Canadian constitution"


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (23 Aug 2011)

One of her titles is still Queen of Canada...

We didn't fight/get independence like the USA, we're a Dominion.


----------



## cnobbs84 (23 Aug 2011)

You may notice we have a Governor General... He is the QUEEN'S Representative to Canada... We are still under the Monarch.


----------



## Container (23 Aug 2011)

munchies said:
			
		

> The queen doesnt even do anything.



She evidently has done more for our way of life than you have.

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/post/718071302/queen-elizabeth-ii-serves-as-a-mechanic-during-world



> In February 1945, Elizabeth II joined the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, as an honorary Second Subaltern with the service number of 230873. She trained as a driver and mechanic, drove a military truck, and was promoted to honorary Junior Commander five months later. She is the last surviving head of state who served in uniform during the Second World War.


----------



## mariomike (23 Aug 2011)

munchies said:
			
		

> can someone please explain to me why i must say an oath declaring myself a tool to the queen?



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47749.0


----------



## munchies (23 Aug 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> She evidently has done more for our way of life than you have.
> 
> http://all-that-is-interesting.com/post/718071302/queen-elizabeth-ii-serves-as-a-mechanic-during-world



she's a puppet, do you really think the government ends at that old hag?LOL


----------



## cnobbs84 (23 Aug 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> She evidently has done more for our way of life than you have.
> 
> http://all-that-is-interesting.com/post/718071302/queen-elizabeth-ii-serves-as-a-mechanic-during-world



High Five! And I never knew that part of history, Thank you


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2011)

munchies said:
			
		

> can someone please explain to me why i must say an oath declaring myself a tool to the queen? I thought we declared independence from them? Why can't i pledge allegiance to Canada?
> 
> The queen doesnt even do anything. Also, the whole idea of a queen is so 1700. I don't get it.


Your opinion of HM The Queen notwithstanding, she is still the head of state of Canada.  Her representative in Canada is the Governor General.

Now, as a member of the Canadian Forces, should you be one or become one, I remind you that it is an offense to use traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty and if convicted would be guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to less punishment. (Section 94 of the National Defence Act).  And the words alleged to have been used may be either spoken, written, or printed.

Just saying.

So, in short, in spite of what the media may say, or what your opinions on HM The Queen are, the fact remains that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and has a sovereign as the head of state.


----------



## munchies (23 Aug 2011)

Am i the only one here that thinks it's really stupid to be doing this? I want to join the army, but it all seems to meaningless. And now they change the name of he air force to ROYAL air force. What's the use in that? Just to make it more appearent to the world that we are englands minions? 

Wh yare e even called canada in this case might as well call us england


----------



## munchies (23 Aug 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Your opinion of HM The Queen notwithstanding, she is still the head of state of Canada.  Her representative in Canada is the Governor General.
> 
> Now, as a member of the Canadian Forces, should you be one or become one, I remind you that it is an offense to use traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty and if convicted would be guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to less punishment. (Section 94 of the National Defence Act).  And the words alleged to have been used may be either spoken, written, or printed.
> 
> ...



That's intense. I guess i shouldnt join the the parading beaver hats


----------



## Container (23 Aug 2011)

munchies said:
			
		

> That's intense. I guess i shouldnt join the the parading beaver hats



Good. We're sad to see you go.....only because we think its an important that somebody keeps an eye on you.....


----------



## Infanteer (23 Aug 2011)

I figured I would be locking this one as soon as I read the title.    :

Muncie, some advice.  It is better to be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt....


----------



## DigitalCurrents (24 Aug 2017)

When I joined, I gave my fealty to the Queen, her heirs and successors by swearing to her picture.  I have co-workers who say they swore fealty to the Canadian Flag.  Was this another option?  Does it vary by recruiting center?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (24 Aug 2017)

DigitalCurrents said:
			
		

> When I joined, I gave my fealty to the Queen, her heirs and successors by swearing to her picture.  I have co-workers who say they swore fealty to the Canadian Flag.  Was this another option?  Does it vary by recruiting center?



There's only one Oath. It is the same everywhere. 

You either swear an oath or make a solemn affirmation. 

Location and decorations are not important.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Aug 2017)

QR&Os: Volume I - Chapter 6 Enrolment and Re-Engagement
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-06.page

6.04- OATH TAKEN ON ENROLMENT

(1) An officer or non-commissioned member who is a Canadian citizen or a British subject shall, on enrolment, take the following oath or solemn affirmation:

"I ......... (full name), do swear (or for a solemn affirmation, "solemnly affirm") that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."
The words "So help me God" shall be omitted if a solemn affirmation is taken.

(2) An officer or non-commissioned member who is not a Canadian citizen or a British subject shall, on enrolment, take the following oath or solemn affirmation:

"I ......... (full name), do swear (or for a solemn affirmation, "solemnly affirm") that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law, in the Canadian Forces until lawfully released, that I will resist Her Majesty's enemies and cause Her Majesty's peace to be kept and maintained and that I will, in all matters pertaining to my service, faithfully discharge my duty. So help me God."
The words "So help me God" shall be omitted if a solemn affirmation is taken.

(3) The oath or solemn affirmation prescribed in this article shall be taken before:

a commissioned officer; or
a justice of the peace.
(M)


----------



## mariomike (24 Aug 2017)

See also,

Swearing an oath to the Queen  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47749.0

Why must i make an oath to the queen if we declared independence from England? 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/102246.0


----------



## RocketRichard (24 Aug 2017)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> There's only one Oath. It is the same everywhere.
> 
> You either swear an oath or make a solemn affirmation.
> 
> Location and decorations are not important.


The Canadian flag and portrait of the sovereign are present during an Oath  or solemn affirmation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harris (24 Aug 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> The Canadian flag and portrait of the sovereign are present during an Oath  or solemn affirmation.



Not true in my Unit.  We do them in front of the Regimental Colours.


----------



## RocketRichard (24 Aug 2017)

Harris said:
			
		

> Not true in my Unit.  We do them in front of the Regimental Colours.


Uh oh. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Uh oh.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Not "uh-oh". While traditionally done, there is no legal or regulatory requirement.


----------



## RocketRichard (24 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Not "uh-oh". While traditionally done, there is no legal or regulatory requirement.




DAOD-5002-1
Setting

7.3 A CO shall ensure that every attestation is conducted in a formal and dignified manner, and that the following items are present:

a framed picture of the Sovereign; and
the Canadian flag or a combination of the Canadian flag and CAF ensign.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> DAOD-5002-1
> Setting
> 
> 7.3 A CO shall ensure that every attestation is conducted in a formal and dignified manner, and that the following items are present:
> ...



And "QR&Os: Volume I - Chapter 6 Enrolment" says nothing about it, so I would take DAOD 5002 to be more as guidance for proper execution, and not legal requirements.

I'll admit, I could be wrong, but I doubt anyone would qualify to be released for "Irregular Enrolment" and have their enrolment voided if there wasn't a picture of the Queen and the national flag present.


----------



## RocketRichard (24 Aug 2017)

Thanks for this Lumber. I'm simply passing on the DOAD reference. Some units in the Army PRes have recently taken over the enrolment ceremonies. The direction is to have the above present. Have a great day. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## trooper142 (24 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> And "QR&Os: Volume I - Chapter 6 Enrolment" says nothing about it, so I would take DAOD 5002 to be more as guidance for proper execution, and not legal requirements.
> 
> I'll admin, I could be wrong, but I doubt anyone would qualify to be released for "Irregular Enrolment" and have their enrolment voided if there wasn't a picture of the Queen and the national flag present.



I have highlighted the important part of the DOAD to emphasize my opinion on the matter. 




> DAOD-5002-1
> Setting
> 
> 7.3 A CO shall ensure that every attestation is conducted in a formal and dignified manner, and that the following items are present:
> ...



The word "Shall" does not confer discretion to the CO, as it is an order. Although you are likely right, and no member is going to be released, not following a DOAD is a service offence; which I will admit is unlikely to result in action, as the offence is minor.

Nevertheless, the DOAD reference is clear, and not having the required items present during the ceremony shows poor planning, poor leadership, and a poor first impression to those who wish to join.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## da1root (24 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> "so I would take DAOD 5002 to be more as guidance..."


Just a quick note on that: "DAOD" stands for "Defence Administrative <b>Orders and Directives</b>"
DAOD's are not a set of "guidance" (suggestions) for members of the CAF to undertake.



> Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces corporate administrative direction is set out in the comprehensive collection of Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) that are issued by or under the authority of the Deputy Minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff.


----------



## Harris (24 Aug 2017)

I agree the DAOD states what it states.

However I'll also argue that if every CO who did not follow to the letter every DAOD and other rules and regulations of the CAF was jacked up for not doing so, there wouldn't be a single one not jacked.  Not saying it's right, but there are a ton of Regimental or other organization traditions that do not necessarily follow every rule as laid down.  Personally since Recruits in my Unit have been enrolled either in the CO's office (without picture and flag) or in front of the Regimental Colours for at a minimum of the last 35 years, and no one has made an issue, I'll assume it's safe to continue doing so.


----------



## da1root (24 Aug 2017)

While I agree you wouldn't see a CO jacked up for not following this particular DAOD, and you wouldn't see someone irregularly enrolled... rules are rules.
As a clerk I've seen plenty of rules not followed through the years, it doesn't mean it's ok - it just means the rules weren't followed.

But ultimately that opens the door to asking who decides which rules are followed and which ones are "soft" rules and ok to break?

Edit Note: Above came across harsh and was not my intent.

The DAOD's have not been in existance for 35+ years, so the CO doing the enrollment may not even be aware of the policy.
It is the "job" of people like the Recruiting NCO and Chief Clerk to know policies, admin orders, etc.

In my experience I have reported to many CO's that weren't necessarily up to date on all the policies, and as their Chief Clerk I explained the rules & regulations to them.
I have yet to report to a CO that when I brought a policy to their attention (DAOD or otherwise) would then ignore the policy/order/directive.


----------



## Harris (24 Aug 2017)

Ack, and I agree to your points.  I am the CO and I'd never know that DAOD was in existence.  Haven't heard anyone else in the Brigade mention it either when swearing in.  The Inf Regiments I know use the Colours.  Now I guess Ill have to find a way to get a current picture of the Queen in a timely manner and add the Canadian Flag to the area near the Colours case.


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2017)

Buck_HRA said:
			
		

> Just a quick note on that: "DAOD" stands for "Defence Administrative <b>Orders and Directives</b>"
> DAOD's are not a set of "guidance" (suggestions) for members of the CAF to undertake.



Hey, I'm not denying that DAODs are "Orders and Directives", and I'm on the same side of the argument as you when it comes to "hard" vs "soft" orders.

However, the way I would look at it is that the DAOD is an order to the CO and the unit on how enrolments shall be conducted, whereas the QR&O establishes what is a legal enrolment and what is not. So long as they speak the correct words and the enrolment is conducted by an officer, you could do the enrolment at Hooters with everyone wearing power-puff girls costumes and the enrolment itself would 100% valid.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So long as they speak the correct words and the enrolment is conduct by an officer, you could do the enrolment at Hooters with everyone wearing power-puff girls costumes and the enrolment itself would 100% valid.



With that context, the RCN makes a lot more sense.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (24 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm not denying that DAODs are "Orders and Directives", and I'm on the same side of the argument as you when it comes to "hard" vs "soft" orders.
> 
> However, the way I would look at it is that the DAOD is an order to the CO and the unit on how enrolments shall be conducted, whereas the QR&O establishes what is a legal enrolment and what is not. So long as they speak the correct words and the enrolment is conduct by an officer, you could do the enrolment at Hooters with everyone wearing power-puff girls costumes and the enrolment itself would 100% valid.




That was my point to begin with, regardless of the order stating a CO shall decorate the room accordingly, much like other Oaths of Office etc., It is the act of swearing the oath that matters and is legally binding.

The last oath I swore, I read off a piece of paper and then signed said piece of paper.

Holds the same weight.


----------

