# A Canadian White Ensign proposal



## Gorgo

I realise this might be a little late as the Naval Centennial did come to an end about 2 1/2 months ago (but maybe we could push it ahead for 2015 and the 50th anniversary of the Maple Leaf flag), but I came up with an idea to introduce a new Canadian White Ensign when I was writing a story over the last month or so.  I'll enclose it with this message to garnish some opinions.

Properly, this flag would be described thus:  _*Argent, a slender St George's Cross azure, the National Flag of the Dominion of Canada in the first quarter proper*_.

Using blue on the cross (the South Africans, after they introduced their new flag in 1994, switched the colour of the cross on their White Ensign to match the green of their flag) would, atop preventing the flag from using WAY too much red, serve two purposes.  One, it harkens back to the old White Ensign and the blue in the Union Jack on the flag, thus linking the past to the present.  Two, it would symbolise the sea and Canada's dependance on maritime trade . . . and the need to have a navy to protect said trade.

And for the cynics, yes it could also pay tribute to Québec as the shade here roughly matches the shade on the background of the _Fleurdelisé_.

My idea for introducing the new Ensign would see it used in the same way the old Ensign was used:  as the maritime war flag of the Dominion.  With it, you no longer need the Maritime Command jack as that would be automatically replaced by the National Flag of Canada (just as Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of them do it).  The Command jack would, in essence, go back to being the personal command flag of the Chief of the Maritime Staff.

Opinions?

(BTW, a big nod to Kuld von Reyn at the *Alternate History* discussion board for doing the graphics work here)


----------



## Edward Campbell

And there is something very, very wrong with the Navy's current _white ensign_?


----------



## Privateer

We have a Navy Jack, which is only flown from the jack staff at anchor, when alongside, etc.  I believe that this proposal is to replace the Canadian Flag as the flag flown when underway, with the Canadian Flag replacing the current Navy Jack.


----------



## Container

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And there is something very, very wrong with the Navy's current _white ensign_?



I love that ensign. I would be upset if it changed.


----------



## Gorgo

Privateer said:
			
		

> We have a Navy Jack, which is only flown from the jack staff at anchor, when alongside, etc.  I believe that this proposal is to replace the Canadian Flag as the flag flown when underway, with the Canadian Flag replacing the current Navy Jack.



As Privateer just said, the current flag people are familiar with is the *Maritime Command JACK*.

For those who DON'T know this, the MARCOM Jack is the flag that is flown at the BOW (in other words, the FRONT end) of the ship, not the STERN (the back end).

When a ship is docked, the Jack is flown from colours at 0800 hours to sunset.  The National Flag serves as the ENSIGN, which is what is flown at the stern of the ship, again raised at 0800 hours at Colours and lowered at sunset.

But when the ship is UNDERWAY AT SEA, the Jack is _*taken down*_ and all that's flown from the ship is the National Flag as the ship's Ensign, either at the stern in calm weather or at the mainmast in more inclement weather.

The _*ONLY*_ time the Jack is flown is (as people will remember from the International Fleet Reviews back last year) is during special ceremonial occasions (such as when H.M.C.S. _St. John's_ served as the Queen's flagship during the Halifax Review).

I've personally got nothing against the MARCOM Jack.  BUT it is NOT the official _*NAVY WAR ENSIGN*_ for Canadian warships bearing the Queen's Commission.  The National Flag of Canada serves as that.  I think that's wrong and requires to be changed.  And believe it or not, a lot of people (especially those who want to get the "Royal" title back into the Canadian Navy) want something similar.

What I proposed at the start of this discussion was just one idea for such an Ensign.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> I've personally got nothing against the MARCOM Jack.  BUT it is NOT the official _*NAVY WAR ENSIGN*_ for Canadian warships bearing the Queen's Commission.  The National Flag of Canada serves as that.



And is this somehow not working or incorrect in a heraldic connotation?



			
				Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> I think that's wrong and requires to be changed.



Why? Is there a justification other than personal preference?



			
				Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> And believe it or not, a lot of people (especially those who want to get the "Royal" title back into the Canadian Navy) want something similar.



Source?  Or is this just your opinion as well? We easily surround ourselves with those who agree with us on opinion-based issues (both in the real world and in on-line interactions), but just because everyone you speak to agrees doesn't mean its necessarily a majority opinion. Or one shared by those who have the authority to make the requisite decisions for change.


----------



## Gorgo

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And is this somehow not working or incorrect in a heraldic connotation?



It does work, but it doesn't match what the Canadian Navy served under from 1910-1965, especially during the Second World War.  Like the Royal Navy (who fly the Union Jack at the bow of their warships and the White Ensign at the stern), the Royal Australian Navy (who fly the Blue Commonwealth Southern Cross Flag [a.k.a. the National Flag of Australia] at the bow and a WHITE version of that flag at the stern of their warships) and the Royal New Zealand Navy (which does the very same type of thing for their warships as their neighbours across the Tasman Sea), I think we should go back to something similar.

Using a national flag as the ensign for a warships and a modified flag as the jack is something the *Americans* have always done, not us.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Source?  Or is this just your opinion as well? We easily surround ourselves with those who agree with us on opinion-based issues (both in the real world and in on-line interactions), but just because everyone you speak to agrees doesn't mean its necessarily a majority opinion. Or one shared by those who have the authority to make the requisite decisions for change.



There is a website that is pressing for both the Navy and Air Force to be restored the *Royal* prefix title.  It's here:

http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com/

If you read earlier posts on that blog, you'll see other proposals for a Canadian White Ensign.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> It does work,



So, why change for the sake of change?



			
				Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> but it doesn't match what the Canadian Navy served under from 1910-1965, especially during the Second World War.



What about the Canadian Navy of 1965 to 2010? Should not those sailors be proud of their service and the flags they sailed under? How does stripping their heritage to return to something _like_ an earlier era (but not actually returning to that previous example) somehow make things better?



			
				Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Like the Royal Navy (who fly the Union Jack at the bow of their warships and the White Ensign at the stern), the Royal Australian Navy (who fly the Blue Commonwealth Southern Cross Flag [a.k.a. the National Flag of Australia] at the bow and a WHITE version of that flag at the stern of their warships) and the Royal New Zealand Navy (which does the very same type of thing for their warships as their neighbours across the Tasman Sea),



What's wrong with not being like all of them?



			
				Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> I think we should go back to something similar.



Which brings us back to discussing this as your personal opinion.



			
				Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Using a national flag as the ensign for a warships and a modified flag as the jack is something the *Americans* have always done, not us.



Does emphasizing that the US does it make it incorrect or evil in some way?



			
				Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> There is a website that is pressing for both the Navy and Air Force to be restored the *Royal* prefix title.  It's here:
> 
> http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com/
> 
> If you read earlier posts on that blog, you'll see other proposals for a Canadian White Ensign.



Like I said, it's easy to congregate with like-minded people, that doesn't imply a majority or a solid rational for change.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Privateer said:
			
		

> We have a Navy Jack, which is only flown from the jack staff at anchor, when alongside, etc.  I believe that this proposal is to replace the Canadian Flag as the flag flown when underway, with the Canadian Flag replacing the current Navy Jack.




OK, flip- 'em around: put the nice, existing, approved, Navy _white ensign_ at the back and fly it when underway or engaging the enemy, etc, and put "Pearson's pennant" at the pointy end. Seems easier than trying to paint the Cross of Saint George blue.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> There is a website that is pressing for both the Navy and Air Force to be restored the *Royal* prefix title.  It's here:
> 
> http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com/
> 
> If you read earlier posts on that blog, you'll see other proposals for a Canadian White Ensign.


There's also a fair bit of opinion opposed to the "Bring Back the Royal Designation" idea:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/16520.0.html

Have to agree with MM on this - to me, the bottom line would be this:


			
				Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> It does work ....


If it isn't broken, why fix it?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, flip- 'em around: put the nice, existing, approved, Navy _white ensign_ at the back and fly it when underway or engaging the enemy, etc, and put *"Pearson's pennant"* at the pointy end. Seems easier than trying to paint the Cross of Saint George blue.


For those too young to remember, here's "Pearson's pennant", courtesy of Wikipedia:


----------



## Journeyman

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> There is a website that is pressing for both the Navy and Air Force to be restored the *Royal* prefix title.


 _~yawn~_ :deadhorse:

I suspect there's probably a website for platypus porn too; that doesn't make it a good idea.


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> _~yawn~_ :deadhorse:
> 
> I suspect there's probably a website for platypus porn too; that doesn't make it a good idea.



...but still a better idea than advocating for labelling our military after an inbred collection of Germans...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

As  a current serving sailor I am proud to serve under the current naval jack lets think of the present and future generation of sailors for a change.


----------



## CountDC

and as another current serving I will side with Ex-Dragoon.


----------



## Neill McKay

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...but still a better idea than advocating for labelling our military after an inbred collection of Germans...



What's that supposed to mean?


----------



## Journeyman

N. McKay said:
			
		

> What's that supposed to mean?


:facepalm:


----------



## JSR OP

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...but still a better idea than advocating for labelling our military after an inbred collection of Germans...



Funny....  the Brit Signalers I worked with in Afghanistan thought the same thing....  Not so much the labelling our military part, more along the lines of the inbred collection of Germans part...


----------



## Pusser

I sense there is a little bit of confusion on the use of naval flags.  Although it has been alluded to somewhat above, I will try to clarify things.

Ensigns are flown at the stern of a warship when alongside or at anchor and usually at the masthead when underway.  International maritime law requires ensigns to be used by all ships (warships or otherwise), but merchant ships usually fly them from the stern at all times.

Jacks are pretty much limited to warships and government auxiliaries and are flown from the bow when the ship is at anchor or alongside.  On certain special occasions, they are flown while underway, but this is rare. 

There are two traditions with respect to ensigns and jacks:

1)  have a unique ensign and use the national flag a jack; or

2)  have a unique jack and use the national flag as an ensign.

Prior to 1965, Canada followed Tradition #1, with a variation.  We used the White Ensign as an ensign and the Canadian *Blue* Ensign a jack (since we technically didn't have a national flag).  Australia and New Zealand used the White Ensign as well and their national flags (which were blue ensigns anyway) as jacks.  The Canadian Red Ensign was only used by merchant ships.  In the early 1960s foreign policy in the Commonwealth Realms (i.e. those that have the Queen as Head of State) began to diverge to the point where it became a concern that one Realm would be involved in a conflict that the other Realms were not, yet their warships all wore the same ensign (e.g. Australia was a combattant in Viet Nam, whereas Canada and the UK were not).  This was one of the driving factors in getting a (new) national flag for Canada and new White Ensigns for Australia and New Zealand.  With the introduction of the Maple Leaf flag, canadian warships used the same flag for both the ensign and the jack (complete with jokes that Canadian ships didn't know if they were coming or going ;D).  The Maritime Command Jack was, therefore, introduced in 1973ish.  for whatever reason, we chose to follow Tradition #2 at that point.

Many nations, including Japan and all the other Commonwealth Realms follow Tradition #1, while Ireland, the US, France and the Netherlands follow Tradition #2.  While it seems that most monarchies follow Tradition #1 and republics Tradition #2, there are exceptions.

Some other interesting points:

1)  When the Naval Service Act was passed in 1910, the Governor General, Lord Grey, proposed a Canadian White Ensign that consisted of placing a green maple leaf at the centre of the Cross of St George on the British White Ensign.  The Admiralty refused the recommendation, maintaining that despite being a national navy, the Canadian Naval Service (eventually RCN) was still part of the Imperial Fleet and so should wear the same ensign.

2)  The large cross on the South African White Ensign turned green in 1952, while it was still a Commonwealth Realm.  At that time the South African flag was used in the canton (vice the Union Jack).

Although I am intrigued by this proposal for a new Canadian ensign, I think the best we could ever hope for would be a swapping of the current ensign and jack.


----------



## Pusser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...but still a better idea than advocating for labelling our military after an inbred collection of Germans...



That's not fair.  You might as well say then that most English people are simply displaced French people, or that only true Canadians are the First Nations...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I would sooner see new ships be commissioned then worry about what our naval jack is.


----------



## dapaterson

I guess I did omit the Greek philanderer from the mix.


----------



## Neill McKay

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I guess I did omit the Greek philanderer from the mix.



All coming together now.

So, you've managed to break your enrolment oath and the Code of Service Discipline in one afternoon, from the comfort and safety of anonymity.  That's pretty disappointing.


----------



## FSTO

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I would sooner see new ships be commissioned then worry about what our naval jack is.



We'll be wearing CADPAT at sea before we see new ships.


----------



## Scott

Is this another style/name debate?

*Oh! It's BOTH this time*

Jesus frigging wept.


----------



## Gorgo

Pusser said:
			
		

> Prior to 1965, Canada followed Tradition #1, with a variation.  We used the White Ensign as an ensign and the Canadian *Blue* Ensign a jack (since we technically didn't have a national flag).  Australia and New Zealand used the White Ensign as well and their national flags (which were blue ensigns anyway) as jacks.  The Canadian Red Ensign was only used by merchant ships.  In the early 1960s foreign policy in the Commonwealth Realms (i.e. those that have the Queen as Head of State) began to diverge to the point where it became a concern that one Realm would be involved in a conflict that the other Realms were not, yet their warships all wore the same ensign (e.g. Australia was a combattant in Viet Nam, whereas Canada and the UK were not).  This was one of the driving factors in getting a (new) national flag for Canada and new White Ensigns for Australia and New Zealand.  With the introduction of the Maple Leaf flag, canadian warships used the same flag for both the ensign and the jack (complete with jokes that Canadian ships didn't know if they were coming or going ;D).  The Maritime Command Jack was, therefore, introduced in 1973ish.  for whatever reason, we chose to follow Tradition #2 at that point.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Although I am intrigued by this proposal for a new Canadian ensign, I think the best we could ever hope for would be a swapping of the current ensign and jack.



Does anyone know why the Maritime Command flag was made a jack in lieu of an ensign?  The Air Force still has their sky blue ensign using the Maple Leaf flag in the canton, so why not make the MARCOM flag that?


----------



## Ex-SHAD

Though this is an interesting proposal, I have to wonder if the issue is already a little passé for most.

Now admittedly, there still are members of the Canadian Forces who long for the old days of White Ensigns, Square rig etc. but when it comes down to it does restoring an ensign or bringing back the executive curl or any other superficial change, help bring back the old RCN?

For most the Royal Canadian Navy was put on life support in 1965 and passed away in 1968. Now admittedly, Hellyer’s new navy definitely wasn’t the right approach and it did do untold amounts of damage to both moral and the fleet at large, but unification is long past and though we definitely should never forgot the courage of the men that came before us, can we forever be consumed by the past?

Instead of focusing on whether or not we need the White Ensign back, we should instead focus on more pressing issues, such as pay, moral, recruitment and equipment. Once those issues are resolved, then by all means the debate about restoring the Navy’s heritage should be brought to the forefront.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> We'll be wearing CADPAT at sea before we see new ships.



I fear you might be right on that.   And as such, I am with Ex-D and Ex-S in that I would prefer to see new ships and other more pressing concerns before a new ensign.  We have put enough time and energy towards bells and whistles already (SSI, CNC pins, E-curl).  While pretty, they don't float worth a damn and a new ensign won't either.


----------



## Halifax Tar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I fear you might be right on that.   And as such, I am with Ex-D and Ex-S in that I would prefer to see new ships and other more pressing concerns before a new ensign.  We have put enough time and energy towards bells and whistles already (SSI, CNC pins, E-curl).  While pretty, they don't float worth a damn and a new ensign won't either.



100 years of tradition unimpeded by progress!


----------



## jollyjacktar

If I have to choose between a new ship and slowing some tradition, I'll go for a ship.  Especially after seeing Preserver following her "refit".


----------



## Michael OLeary

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Once those issues are resolved, then by all means the debate about restoring the Navy’s heritage should be brought to the forefront.



You can't "restore" heritage. Heritage simply exists, what we can change is the attitude we have towards it. Each day we create or sustain the traditions that the service members of tomorrow will look upon as _their_ "heritage."  We can choose to be proud what went before us, that which was created and maintained by our predecessors. We can also choose to be proud of what we have and do today, developing and maintaining that pride so that our own period of service will be looked back upon as equally worthy. Or we can disdain what we do today, pretending that there were "good old days" that were more worthy of our respect than our own service. But even if we do that, dressing up today's service in yesterday's trappings doesn't make us better, it simply shows that we have given up trying to be proud of who we are and what we are doing. Every time someone wants to "restore" heritage they are also saying that something we have, and that many are serving under proudly, isn't worth keeping and should be swept away, replaced by an old version that few remember or will understand why such a change is suddenly "necessary."

While some think they are seeking to restore pride of service by recreating versions of flags and uniforms of the 1940s or 1960s, no-one is looking to restore the pay, (lack of) benefits, living conditions, discipline or service lifestyle. Yet all of those established the conditions under which that much vaunted ship of heritage was laid and launched by those celebrated generations that went before us. Dress doesn't make the man - nor will changing a flag or any other simple attribute suddenly make us better than we are capable of achieving without it. We can be proud of the trappings of our service, but those trappings don't spontaneously generate that pride of service. We have to earn it ourselves, believe in it ourselves, and maintain it ourselves. The Second World War Canadian Navy (or Army or Air Force) didn't achieve excellence because of what flags they flew, they earned it by doing. Let us remember that the CF has been very busy the last few decades, building heritage that doesn't deserve to be swept away or denigrated, not even by subtle suggestions that some of the trappings of our service are less worthy than that which went before.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bravo, Michael!

The Canadian Navy of 2011, the one in which my son serves, is proportionately bigger and, qualitatively, much, much better than the one in which my father served in the 1920s and 1930s. Although the RCN got very big in the 1940s it was not, according to the history I have read, as good as today's Navy in terms of seamanship and tactical skill.

All of the CF has built and is, right now, still building a fine heritage - in operations at sea, on land and in the air - of which we can all be proud today and which future generations will honour. By all means _fiddle_ at the edges by restoring the executive curl and, if the Navy wishes, swapping the flags at the blunt and pointy ends of the boats, but we can honour the men who fought and died in our bigger wars without having to 'restore' things to a pale imitation of an earlier age.











  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                         Australian White Ensign                                                                  New Zealand White Ensign                                                                                       Canadian Navy Jack (today)





 Canadian White Ensign (World War II)


----------



## Sailorwest

Clearly it's time we reverted to the 'Historically important' period between 1968 an 1988 and reacquire our CF green uniforms and traditional and happy CF rank structure of corporal, sergeant, major and colonel. Why give any consideration to the history and tradition of a service that existed prior to that. Many of us joined while 'proudly' wearing the glorious green uniform and we need to revert back to it. The Maritime Command of 1968 had lots of newer ships with other new ships being built and so everyone was happy, happy at the time, right?

Perhaps people don't get it. The unification of the CF into a common rank and uniform, with the doing away of terms like Royal (well for the navy and air force only) was not done to develop and enhance morale for a service going forward. It wasn't to build and develop new traditions. Its only intent was to try and distance Canada and its military from its historical connection with Great Britain. Unification was divisive and abusive towards the people who had served in uniform when it occurred and resulted in huge numbers of members releasing (perhaps another intent of the process). 

What is being proposed by many is to right a horrible wrong. It is not to suggest that the people who wore those crappy uniforms did not do their jobs well or serve the country any less but to recognize that Canada is still a part of the Commonwealth, with a Queen as a head of state and therefore the term Royal is entirely appropriate and should be significantly important in the description of the service. Why the Army was allowed to retain the term in so many of its regimental organizations is beyond me.  Perhaps it was because the revolt that would have occured at those regiments would have actually resulted in a complete destruction of the Army as a viable organization. 

I am interested in knowing what traditions have been established for those of us in a dark blue uniform that people feel are important and that they value going into the future. Anything that I associate with tradition dates from well before 1965 but maybe I'm just being cynical.


----------



## Acer Syrup

Well said Mikey O... That nailed my feelings right on the head.


----------



## a_majoor

Perhaps a bit of a sidebar here, but the reason the Navy and Airforce are "Royal" is they are for the external defense of the realm and thus the perogative of the Crown. The Army belongs to Parliament after Charles I used it to abuse and supress his subjects, so there is no "Royal" Army. The Royal warrent can be awarded to units for outstanding service (or in the old days, because the Colonel could pay a big bribe to the Crown), but this does not change the relationship between the military and Parliament. Even the "Household" troops are not under the direct control of the Crown.

Of course, the relationships hammered out after the English Civil War are no longer in effect (the entire military establishment is under control of Parliament, and the Crown is now a symbolic office), so the loss of "Royal" in Canadian usage is more symbolic as well. We have an intersting thread in Canadian Politics where Edward Campbell has suggested after HRH Queen Elizabeth passes away we create a vacant "Canadian" throne and elect a Governor General as Head of State in a sort of Regency arrangement (I hope I got that right). If that ever comes to pass there will have to be new traditions created to reflect the new arrangements of State.


----------



## Pusser

I would like to add my kudos to Michael's comments as well.  There is a great deal of wisdom there.  Heritage is not a policy statement.  It is an evolution and Canadians of all sorts (sailors and those who wish they were  ) have every right to be proud of what our navy is today and from whence it came.  Unfortunately, our road to this point has not been been entirely evolutionary.  

The RCN was the smallest of the three services at the point of unification and was overwhelmed in the process.  As a result, it also lost the most in terms of heritage.  I would argue that our heritage not only ceased to evolve for a moment, but that it was effectively stolen from us.  We had just lost our flags and then we lost our uniforms and rank titles.  The most galling part was that these particular things did not solve any problems.  They were simply the musings of a whack-job (and his collaborators) who was trying to score political points on his quest to become prime minister.  A failure on all counts!  Don't get me wrong, as much as I hate what happened to our heritage, I will still argue that unification did a lot of good things for the Navy and the CF as a whole.  The CF treats its members better than the RCN did.  If you talk to some of the old guys, who were in the RCN at the time (especially the NCMs), they will tell you that the shift to better treatment was almost instantaneous.  However, I don't think you'll find many who were thrilled with the green uniform or being called "Sergeant."  

Fortunately, due to the efforts of many, the heritage evolution kicked in again fairly quickly and we have seen the reintroduction of things we never should have lost (e.g. rank titles, a uniform of the proper colour, the executive curl (I have to mention that because I love it!)) and the introduction of new things that continue to build our heritage (e.g. our new blue uniforms, our new jack, new badges, etc).

As I said before, heritage is an evolutionary process and it is necessary to let it evolve.  Even the RN of today is very different to that of Nelson's day, but the differences are not confined to technology.  However, problems arise when external influences seek to steal our heritage without a second thought to it's importance.

I would like to see a distinct ensign for the Navy, but that's just my personal opinion and I'm not losing any sleep over it.  I would support it, but I'm not going to put an effort into it.


----------



## 57Chevy

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You can't "restore" heritage. Heritage simply exists........


100%
That was well worth the read and could easily stand as an example of what heritage is all about no matter the service.

Those things past should remain in their state with the exception of being brought forward for 
exposition and the remembrance thereof. Military personnel and people from all walks of life take great pride in the preservation of their heritage. Lets keep it that way.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> Clearly it's time we reverted to the 'Historically important' period between 1968 an 1988 and reacquire our CF green uniforms and traditional and happy CF rank structure of corporal, sergeant, major and colonel. Why give any consideration to the history and tradition of a service that existed prior to that. Many of us joined while 'proudly' wearing the glorious green uniform and we need to revert back to it. The Maritime Command of 1968 had lots of newer ships with other new ships being built and so everyone was happy, happy at the time, right?



The point, which you took such pains to point out that you missed, is that there are not just two choices.  We are not limited to a decision between _"change nothing"_ and _"return to an earlier era."_ There is always the third option of moving forward with change, *justifying it within the context of current need and projecting how it will improve the organizational foundation for further evolution and growth*.  But to argue for change on the sole basis that things were better "before now" is a flawed assumption. If you presume there is no pride in current service (because of Unification or whatever you choose to blame for your dissatisfaction), then changing the window dressing will not change the attitudes you have already allowed to permeate the organization. In this, as in so many things, _you can't go home again._


----------



## Pusser

The Navy isn't what it used to be and never was. - _Old sailor's proverb._

This isn't to say, however, that you can't look to the past in order to form the future.  We don't sacrifice goats on the quarterdeck anymore, because that is no longer appropriate, but that doesn't mean we stop showing reverance to the quarterdeck as a mark of respect to the ship and the service.


----------



## FSTO

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The point, which you took such pains to point out that you missed, is that there are not just two choices.  We are not limited to a decision between _"change nothing"_ and _"return to an earlier era."_ There is always the third option of moving forward with change, *justifying it within the context of current need and projecting how it will improve the organizational foundation for further evolution and growth*.  But to argue for change on the sole basis that things were better "before now" is a flawed assumption. If you presume there is no pride in current service (because of Unification or whatever you choose to blame for your dissatisfaction), then changing the window dressing will not change the attitudes you have already allowed to permeate the organization. In this, as in so many things, _you can't go home again._



So using your logic a futrue MND could come in and change our DEU's, Ensign and name to whatever he/she wants. It all could be somewhat similar  or can be radically different to what was here before but since it would be portrayed as an improvement you would be okay with it?


----------



## Michael OLeary

FSTO said:
			
		

> So using your logic a futrue MND could come in and change our DEU's, Ensign and name to whatever he/she wants. It all could be somewhat similar  or can be radically different to what was here before but since it would be portrayed as an improvement you would be okay with it?



You allude to changes made on whim. I would suggest that, in order to convince those being subjected to the change that it it a worthy evolution, that a rationale with more basis than _"because it looks more like what we used to have"_ would be essential to any change, otherwise it merely creates more potential for bitterness among the current and future generations who must endure it. If the only context used to justify a change is embedded in the past, and based on bitter perceptions of something that happened years before most serving members were born, where is the foundation for them to understand its purpose, and to willingly carry it forward with pride? If you would fault the changes made at Unification because they are perceived to be the decisions of one man foisted upon others, why would you now promote change without justification (in a current context) on a new generation?

By all means promote change - but change in moving forward is something different from trying to revert to something that was, and will be equally unfamiliar to todays young service member.  The energy needs to be put into convincing all that any change is a move forward, not a regression. It should be motivated by the desire to build pride, not to wipe out an era in our history, no matter how much we might dislike elements of it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> Why the Army was allowed to retain the term in so many of its regimental organizations is beyond me.  Perhaps it was because the revolt that would have occured at those regiments would have actually resulted in a complete destruction of the Army as a viable organization.



I brought this point up in another of the many "Bring Back the Royal" threads that have existed; it was ingnored as well. I still side with you SW it is a vaild point IMHO!

Back on topic - I hardly think changing a flag is going to create a mass movement of unrest in the current Navy. Hell the E-Curl and SSI have made little of ripple in my opinion. (I just got my SSI today, signed for and picked up from the RPO)

These descisions should be left up to the service in question to address through the proper channels. Meaning if Air Force wants to be called Royal again; thats a battle the Air Force has to initiate and fight on their own.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I brought this point up in another of the many "Bring Back the Royal" threads that have existed; it was ingnored as well. I still side with you SW it is a vaild point IMHO!
> 
> Back on topic - I hardly think changing a flag is going to create a mass movement of unrest in the current Navy. Hell the E-Curl and SSI have made little of ripple in my opinion. (I just got my SSI today, signed for and picked up from the RPO)
> 
> These descisions should be left up to the service in question to address through the proper channels. Meaning if Air Force wants to be called Royal again; thats a battle the Air Force has to initiate and fight on their own.



Great post Tar.


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> These descisions should be left up to the service in question to address through the proper channels. Meaning if Air Force wants to be called Royal again; thats a battle the Air Force has to initiate and fight on their own.



Ah, but today's Air Command is not the former RCAF; they've enlarged by taking in the fleet air arm and the army's tactical aviation community.

So Maritime Command and Land Force Command also have a part to play in any decision to rename Air Command to the Royal Canadian Air Force or the League of Fantastic Flying Fools or any other name they wish to adopt, as the heritage and history of the Navy and Army is also perpetuated therein.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Those who long for the past are just afraid of the future.

A Monkism.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ah, but today's Air Command is not the former RCAF; they've enlarged by taking in the fleet air arm and the army's tactical aviation community.
> 
> So Maritime Command and Land Force Command also have a part to play in any decision to rename Air Command to the Royal Canadian Air Force or the League of Fantastic Flying Fools or any other name they wish to adopt, as the heritage and history of the Navy and Army is also perpetuated therein.



You list details of subject items that would need to be hashed out should the AF ever want to fight to get the Royal title again. Perhaps I am just a dumb storesman but I fail to see the fig. 4 your trying to hit. I'm not saying the AF should be called the Royal CAF it was just an example. I have no dog in that fight.

If Service "Z" wants "X" then service "Z" must start process for and fight for "X". This comes from within the service don't forget.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Those who long for the past are just afraid of the future.
> 
> A Monkism.



Darn toot'n.  I don't see any new ship's steel being cut in the immediate future.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Darn toot'n.  I don't see any new ship's steel being cut in the immediate future.



Especially now that we are ramping up to election mode.


----------



## McG

FSTO said:
			
		

> So using your logic a futrue MND could come in and change our DEU's, Ensign and name to whatever he/she wants. It all could be somewhat similar  or can be radically different to what was here before but since it would be portrayed as an improvement you would be okay with it?


Congratulations on a fine example of reductio ad ridiculum.  Unfortunately, we are not discussing fallacies in this thread.  Try to be more constructive please.


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> Congratulations on a fine example of reductio ad ridiculum.  Unfortunately, we are not discussing fallacies in this thread.  Try to be more constructive please.



It's not like we haven't had rouge defence ministers before. :  And the likelyhood of the Navy getting a new ensign which has any connection to the RN is a fallacy all in itself.

And I am also getting a little annoyed at Army officers telling the Navy what's good for them.  I know also not constructive, but can you imagine the howls if the RCR was renamed the 15th Infantry Regiment and you were not allowed to wear your red tunic with the white bobby helmet during ceremonial occasions?


----------



## Michael OLeary

FSTO said:
			
		

> It's not like we haven't had rouge defence ministers before. :  And the likelyhood of the Navy getting a new ensign which has any connection to the RN is a fallacy all in itself.
> 
> And I am also getting a little annoyed at Army officers telling the Navy what's good for them.  I know also not constructive, but can you imagine the howls if the RCR was renamed the 15th Infantry Regiment and you were not allowed to wear your red tunic with the white bobby helmet during ceremonial occasions?



If you had actually been reading anything I posted, you might have noticed it had very little to do with the Navy in particular and a whole lot to do with advocating a rational approach to engineering change. Feel welcome to participate, but please try to step up your game and get above the petty insults.


----------



## FSTO

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> If you had actually been reading anything I posted, you might have noticed it had very little to do with the Navy in particular and a whole lot to do with advocating a rational approach to engineering change. Feel welcome to participate, but please try to step up your game and *get above the petty insults*.



Okay I get it, a comment is made that questions the assumption of indifference or outright hostility towards the concept of restoring lost trappings to a proud and dedicated service is tossed away as a petty insult. Meanwhile other members here are allowed to call the Royal Family German inbreds and Greek Pedophiles with nary peep from on high. I loves the hypocrisy of it all. :

As to your point of positive change and that young serving members don't care a whit about what the buttons and bows of the RCN were. When the curl was reintroduced there appeared to be great acceptance from ASlt's and SLt's. In fact the amount of work that Mia's tailor shop in Esquimalt had to do was testament to that acceptance by a younger generation. When they had to pay out of their own pocket to get it done displays a desire from our younger officers to retain what should have never been taken away.
The retro jersey phenomenon in sporting goods is another example of the popularity of looking back while going forward.


----------



## Michael OLeary

FSTO said:
			
		

> Okay I get it, a comment is made that questions the assumption of indifference or outright hostility towards the concept of restoring lost trappings to a proud and dedicated service is tossed away as a petty insult. Meanwhile other members here are allowed to call the Royal Family German inbreds and Greek Pedophiles with nary peep from on high. I loves the hypocrisy of it all. :



Please try to separate the thread of my comments from those of other which I neither supported nor requested. We can either focus on the intent of this thread or permit ourselves to be led astray by inapplicable tangents.

Your petty insults were found in this comment, where you decided to bolster your lack of credible discussion by trying to poke fun at my Regiment.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> I know also not constructive, but can you imagine the howls if the RCR was renamed the 15th Infantry Regiment and you were not allowed to wear your red tunic with the white bobby helmet during ceremonial occasions?



Now, back to heart of the matter:



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> As to your point of positive change and that young serving members don't care a whit about what the buttons and bows of the RCN were. When the curl was reintroduced there appeared to be great acceptance from ASlt's and SLt's. In fact the amount of work that Mia's tailor shop in Esquimalt had to do was testament to that acceptance by a younger generation. When they had to pay out of their own pocket to get it done displays a desire from our younger officers to retain what should have never been taken away.
> The retro jersey phenomenon in sporting goods is another example of the popularity of looking back while going forward.



I have never said that "young serving members don't care a whit about what the buttons and bows of the RCN were", what I have been saying is that changing things for no more justification that "it used to be that way" in a poor argument for change. What about those who like what they have, and have no personal desire to wear something their grandfathers wore, or otherwise used? Do they have no say? Has anyone even asked them?

So the young officers of the Navy accepted the executive curl. Good for them. But was it through good salesmanship of the idea, or do you have credible evidence it was because every 25-year-old Sub-Lieutenant pined for the 1960s imagery of a sailor in his heart?

Is simply turning back the clock on an idea a solid basis of argument that the change of any and all attributes would be received with equal enthusiasm by the upper and lower decks, the latter of which was not involved in your recent example? Is there something wrong with the idea of establishing understanding and gaining support for a proposed change? Or is the simple argument that it undoes some small aspect of Unification or some other point of personal dissatisfaction supposed to be enough that no-one should question an idea of the way it is developed and presented?


----------



## Snakedoc

I think for many Sailors, it is difficult to have a sense of moving forward with our naval heritage until they (and the service as a whole) have a sense that what was lost has been sufficiently restored, especially after a culturally devastating event like unification that still has its ramifications felt 40+ years after the event.

This equilibrium point or cultural status quo where heritage has been sufficiently restored may be different for each individual but is something that still affects the newer members that join today as they look back at their naval heritage.  For some Sailors we may already be there, for others this may include the white ensign, and for others still this includes the name of our service (Royal) Canadian Navy.

IMO, until this point is reached for the large majority of Sailors, it is difficult to significantly move forward in the evolution of our Canadian naval heritage.


----------



## Michael OLeary

What most serving members in any of the Services know about Unification is solely based on the incessant harping of those who have found themselves unable to define their own sense of service without saying how things could be better except for that event. Changing uniforms, flags, names, or anything else won't wipe out the self-invoked sense of shame that they impose upon others. What needs to be answered is what does any of the CF has to do, what do they have to achieve, to be able to proudly say they have moved on? Personally, I think all three Services have achieved more than enough, but we continue to be dragged down by the few who haven't. It's like the stereotypical movement from one abusive relationship to another - every perceived ill is described in the context of Unification, and when someone else isn't making us feel bad about it we find people openly willing to generate enough self hate to fill the void.

I am not against change.  I am against change for facile reasons so deeply rooted in a poorly understood past that they will seem confusing and unnecessary to those who will experience them. You might say I am promoting the idea that we should not inflict change just for the sake of change - was that not the core error of Unification? Should we repeat that aspect of our history, which we spend so much time deploring?

By all means propose change, promote it and pursue it, but when someone asks _"Why that particular change?"_, at least have a reasoned answer that will meet the needs of all the interest groups.


----------



## Gorgo

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> I think for many Sailors, it is difficult to have a sense of moving forward with our naval heritage until they (and the service as a whole) have a sense that what was lost has been sufficiently restored, especially after a culturally devastating event like unification that still has its ramifications felt 40+ years after the event.
> 
> This equilibrium point or cultural status quo where heritage has been sufficiently restored may be different for each individual but is something that still affects the newer members that join today as they look back at their naval heritage.  For some Sailors we may already be there, for others this may include the white ensign, and for others still this includes the name of our service (Royal) Canadian Navy.
> 
> IMO, until this point is reached for the large majority of Sailors, it is difficult to significantly move forward in the evolution of our Canadian naval heritage.



Agreed.

My proposal that started this thread was just to give an idea of what a *naval flag* for Canada should be shaped like, which is just another suggestion to help the Navy _*get back*_ what a lot of people believe it lost years ago.  _*THAT IS IT!*_

I realise that my idea may be liked by some people, cast with indifference by other people and even hated by still other people, be it for whatever reason.

I accept that.

The people here who kept track of the true nature of this thread expressed their opinions.  I respect them all, even those who would prefer to keep the National Flag as the ensign (status quo) or else switching the Maritime Command Jack to become the new ensign (an evolution to make our navy once more in line with those who would prefer a special war ensign for the ships that defend the nation).

For those of you who were concerned about the Navy getting more static things like new ships and other new gear, I can understand your opinion.  I agree with them, too; we _*do*_ need new gear ASAP and I also agree that the coming election (which is pretty much a 99% possibility now) is going to probably muck things up when it comes to new gear.

However, I do believe there are other places on this website where you can (if you haven't done it already) vent out whatever frustrations you feel at the government for their terminal case of the "slows" when it comes to procuring new gear.  I would suggest if this sort of topic ever comes up again and you want to vent your spleen about other matters, take a breath and think about it, and then go to the appropriate place to make such comments.


----------



## q_1966

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The energy needs to be put into convincing all that any change is a move forward, not a regression. It should be motivated by the desire to build pride, not to wipe out an era in our history, no matter how much we might dislike elements of it.



Where were you when I brought up the RCN issue at the Admirals townhall a while back...


----------



## Michael OLeary

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> Where where you when I brought up the RCN issue at the admirals townhall a while back...



I was sitting here, and just like now, no-one was listening to me either.


----------



## q_1966

If someones gotta be the elephant in the room, it may as well be us :warstory:


----------



## Michael OLeary

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> If someones gotta be the elephant in the room, it may as well be us :warstory:



What some people seem to miss is that if we did something wrong in the past, sometimes what need to be changed the most is the way we change things.


----------



## Snakedoc

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What some people seem to miss is that if we did something wrong in the past, sometimes what need to be changed the most is the way we change things.



I would argue that if we did something wrong in the past, _we need to fix that wrong into a right first_, THEN change the way we change things.  This based off of whatever you define to be a 'wrong' in the context of your post.

Failing step two will result in even greater resistance to change IMO.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Any way you look it, this particular issue is a Naval issue and that needs to be raised and addressed by Naval personnel


----------



## Ex-SHAD

I’ve noticed that whenever the NAVY and its servicemen discuss bringing back some of the old RCN traditions; it seems that the strongest and most vocal opponents tend to be members of the ARMY/MILITIA.

I have to wonder though; would members of the Army/Militia be so quick to criticize if they had suffered as harshly under unification as the RCN & RCAF did?

Now admittedly, yes the Army and Militia did lose both the Canadian Guards Regiment and the Black Watch Regiment, which were very politically motivated decisions, and yes officers don’t wear stars and crowns anymore, and have to wear their rank on their sleeve rather than on their shoulders (though if we’re to go back historically, wearing rank on one’s shoulders was only introduced during WWI), but overall the land forces of Canada were not horribly shaken by unification.

If tomorrow however, it were to pass that all regiments across the board were to lose their “Royal prefix”, their scarlet dress uniforms (or blue or green affiliation dependent), their regimental flags/guidons/pennants etc, I highly believe that a majority would cry foul and demand that the destruction of their traditions and their regiments cease.

Hopefully this sheds some light on the discontent of Naval personnel and why they long to have a service of their own, rather than being forced to incorporate Hellyer era follies and failures.


----------



## q_1966

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I’ve noticed that whenever the NAVY and its servicemen discuss bringing back some of the old RCN traditions; it seems that the strongest and most vocal opponents tend to be members of the ARMY/MILITIA.


Im army...what does that tell you, mind you all my time has been with the navy.

Of course I'm for a white ensign but not with a blue cross on it, how about a small border of white so the Canadian flag doesn't touch the cross (If we were to change it).
Though I would be more happy with...
RCN and RCAF name change
A change for the pre-unification (RCMP salute) for the Army and RCAF, that Hellyer must of hated so much
Officers naval uniform should have 8 buttons not 6
The brass rank cuff button for C&PO's uniform *sidenote is wearing a white handkerchief in the pocket (on certain occasions) like the old days still authorized?
but for the most part If they brought back the square rig and called it RCN (as a ceremonial uniform) I would join again as a Rating.
Not that I haven't considered joining the RAF / RN or anything


----------



## George Wallace

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I’ve noticed that whenever the NAVY and its servicemen discuss bringing back some of the old RCN traditions; it seems that the strongest and most vocal opponents tend to be members of the ARMY/MILITIA.
> 
> I have to wonder though; would members of the Army/Militia be so quick to criticize if they had suffered as harshly under unification as the RCN & RCAF did?



I think all Elements suffered, not just the RCN and RCAF.  If you think that they are the only two to have suffered, then you are looking at a false history through rose coloured glasses.  



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Now admittedly, yes the Army and Militia did lose both the Canadian Guards Regiment and the Black Watch Regiment, which were very politically motivated decisions, and yes officers don’t wear stars and crowns anymore, and have to wear their rank on their sleeve rather than on their shoulders (though if we’re to go back historically, wearing rank on one’s shoulders was only introduced during WWI), but overall the land forces of Canada were not horribly shaken by unification.



The whole CF was cut back.  

As for uniforms and rank; where do you figure the officers bars came from?  Why yes!  Those were Air Force and Navy ranks; not Army.  Where did the CF (Rifle Green) Uniform come from?  It was a compromise that did away with the uniforms of all three Elements.  Now we see the Air Force and Navy have brought about changes and we now have DEUs which now make all formal parades at most units look like a gaggle of ________.



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> If tomorrow however, it were to pass that all regiments across the board were to lose their “Royal prefix”, their scarlet dress uniforms (or blue or green affiliation dependent), their regimental flags/guidons/pennants etc, I highly believe that a majority would cry foul and demand that the destruction of their traditions and their regiments cease.



This is not in the spirit of this discussion and a red herring.  We are not talking about getting rid of something, but of reverting back to something we had in a soon to be distant past.  Perhaps we should also be looking at having the Navy revert back to wooden Tall Ships -- a lot cheaper to build that what we have now.  Just think -- a "Green" Navy.  No Diesel engines.  No carcinogenic grey paints.  All wind powered.  

Sorry.  I figured if you want to live in the past, then lets go all the way.



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Hopefully this sheds some light on the discontent of Naval personnel and why they long to have a service of their own, rather than being forced to incorporate Hellyer era follies and failures.



Actually it only sheds light on your opinions.  As I said, you are looking through rose coloured glasses at a warped sense of history.


----------



## q_1966

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is not in the spirit of this discussion and a red herring.  We are not talking about getting rid of something, but of reverting back to something we had in a soon to be distant past.  Perhaps we should also be looking at having the Navy revert back to wooden Tall Ships -- a lot cheaper to build that what we have now.  Just think -- a "Green" Navy.  No Diesel engines.  No carcinogenic grey paints.  All wind powered.



Well at least we don't have lead paint, like in wartime but unfortunatly the old ships ie: Algonquin and Protector still have asbestos. 
maybe we could go with the Esmerelda's design on our new ships 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esmeralda_%28BE-43%29


----------



## Halifax Tar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think all Elements suffered, not just the RCN and RCAF.  If you think that they are the only two to have suffered, then you are looking at a false history through rose coloured glasses.



Support your point don't just say your wrong and run away. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The whole CF was cut back.
> 
> As for uniforms and rank; where do you figure the officers bars came from?  Why yes!  Those were Air Force and Navy ranks; not Army.  Where did the CF (Rifle Green) Uniform come from?  It was a compromise that did away with the uniforms of all three Elements.  Now we see the Air Force and Navy have brought about changes and we now have DEUs which now make all formal parades at most units look like a gaggle of ________.



No they were Air Force ranks not Navy. The RAF adapted the bars on the sleeve and got rid of the E-Curl. I agree it looks like _____ all mashed together on parade square SO lets just separate ? No need to waste money posting people from element to element. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is not in the spirit of this discussion and a red herring.  We are not talking about getting rid of something, but of reverting back to something we had in a soon to be distant past.  Perhaps we should also be looking at having the Navy revert back to wooden Tall Ships -- a lot cheaper to build that what we have now.  Just think -- a "Green" Navy.  No Diesel engines.  No carcinogenic grey paints.  All wind powered.
> 
> Sorry.  I figured if you want to live in the past, then lets go all the way.



Fighting a red herring with a red herring... hmmmmmm 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually it only sheds light on your opinions.  As I said, you are looking through rose coloured glasses at a warped sense of history.



I think you may be out of touch with how many in the Navy feel GW. But that's just my opinion and I don't wear glasses


----------



## q_1966

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> SO lets just separate ? No need to waste money posting people from element to element.



I think that's a little extreme, interoperability is a good thing (plus it would cost more to stand up a separate Naval Air Arm).


----------



## xFusilier

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I've noticed that whenever the NAVY and its servicemen discuss bringing back some of the old RCN traditions; it seems that the strongest and most vocal opponents tend to be members of the ARMY/MILITIA.
> 
> I have to wonder though; would members of the Army/Militia be so quick to criticize if they had suffered as harshly under unification as the RCN & RCAF did?



Unification had a cross board effect, on the three armed services.  To state that the consequences of unification for the army were simply the transfer of the Cdn Guards to the Supplementary Order of Battle, and the striking to nil strength of the two Regular Force Battalions of the Black Watch is a simplification of the effect that unification had on the Army.  Not only did unification have a dramatic effect on the Army, but as a whole the 1960's were a challenging era for the Army.  The Queens Own Rifles and The Fort Garry Horse ceased to exist as Regular Force regiments.  A number of Militia Regiments were either amalgamated or placed on the Supplementary Order of Battle.  And the implementation of National Survival caused severe retention problems for the Militia.  Many Corps, with proud histories, such as the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, the Royal Canadian Engineers, and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps ceased to exist post-unification, and its members dispersed into branches that were an amalgamation on the support functions of the three services.  I will caveat these statement that these are based on my understanding of the history of that time, and will defer to the members of the board that actually lived through unification.

As we look into the more recent past the army has looked to address some of the decisions that were made at that time.  The renaming and rebadging of LORE to EME, the renaming of 2 NSH to the Cape Breton Highlanders among some of the initiatives.  However none of these indicatives involved getting in the way-back machine to the good old days of yore.  LORE became EME, not RCEME.  The Cape Breton Highlanders was a change in name alone, they did not re badge or revert to wearing Argyll kit as they did before.  

It seems that this discussion has once again degenerated to a "bows and buttons" argument.  The reality is that the most important part of any uniform or order of dress is the soldier/sailor/airman wearing it.  The reestablishment of the Ordnance Corps, or the reversion to stars and crowns, or the introduction of khaki uniforms for the Army will have little effect on the ability of the soldier of the day to do his job, and the introduction of a Naval Ensign, or the return to square rig, or eight button tunics will have an equally negligible effect on the Navy of today.


----------



## Halifax Tar

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Unification had a cross board effect, on the three armed services.  To state that the consequences of unification for the army were simply the transfer of the Cdn Guards to the Supplementary Order of Battle, and the striking to nil strength of the two Regular Force Battalions of the Black Watch is a simplification of the effect that unification had on the Army.  Not only did unification have a dramatic effect on the Army, but as a whole the 1960's were a challenging era for the Army.  The Queens Own Rifles and The Fort Garry Horse ceased to exist as Regular Force regiments.  A number of Militia Regiments were either amalgamated or placed on the Supplementary Order of Battle.  And the implementation of National Survival caused severe retention problems for the Militia.  Many Corps, with proud histories, such as the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, the Royal Canadian Engineers, and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps ceased to exist post-unification, and its members dispersed into branches that were an amalgamation on the support functions of the three services.  I will caveat these statement that these are based on my understanding of the history of that time, and will defer to the members of the board that actually lived through unification.
> 
> As we look into the more recent past the army has looked to address some of the decisions that were made at that time.  The renaming and rebadging of LORE to EME, the renaming of 2 NSH to the Cape Breton Highlanders among some of the initiatives.  However none of these indicatives involved getting in the way-back machine to the good old days of yore.  LORE became EME, not RCEME.  The Cape Breton Highlanders was a change in name alone, they did not re badge or revert to wearing Argyll kit as they did before.
> 
> It seems that this discussion has once again degenerated to a "bows and buttons" argument.  The reality is that the most important part of any uniform or order of dress is the soldier/sailor/airman wearing it.  The reestablishment of the Ordnance Corps, or the reversion to stars and crowns, or the introduction of khaki uniforms for the Army will have little effect on the ability of the soldier of the day to do his job, and the introduction of a Naval Ensign, or the return to square rig, or eight button tunics will have an equally negligible effect on the Navy of today.



Great post xFusilier! Thank you for information, and I mean that honestly. I especially liked the last paragraph! Very true.


----------



## Scott

So someone Army made this make sense to you? 

Here I thought it should be left to Navy pers...

Bows, buttons, beards...*sigh*


----------



## Halifax Tar

Scott said:
			
		

> So someone Army made this make sense to you?
> 
> Here I thought it should be left to Navy pers...
> 
> Bows, buttons, beards...*sigh*



No being Army or not has nothing to do with his post. He formulated and articulated a solid view point in a debate without being condescending or rude, a rarity on these forums at times. I appreciate this.

I stand where I did, its a Navy issue and should left for Navy folks, xfusilier simply provided some examples of how the Army suffered during and after unification, I can appreciate this to.


----------



## 57Chevy

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What some people seem to miss is that if we did something wrong in the past, sometimes what need to be changed the most is the way we change things.



Taking from or bringing forward things from the past has a way of taking away some dignity to those of which it applied.
As an example, 
Look at the little Silver Maple Leaf pin worn over the red para wings on dress uniforms. It represents and pertains only to a specific time period of service. Some members continue to wear it even though there exists a new pattern. Does that not express a significant amount of dignity to the wearer and also to those who previously wore it ? Even though there was only a slight change to it, it becomes a token of remembrance shared by all those to which it applied.

I can remember as a young soldier seeing members wearing their old hat badges. They were given the choice to either adapt the new badge or not. Many continued to wear the older style until completion of their service, and would not have it any other way. It would have been an insult to the older members for any new member to wear "their" hat badge because it does not reflect their place in history.


----------



## Scott

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No being Army or not has nothing to do with his post. He formulated and articulated a solid view point in a debate without being condescending or rude, a rarity on these forums at times. I appreciate this.
> 
> I stand where I did, its a Navy issue and should left for Navy folks, xfusilier simply provided some examples of how the Army suffered during and after unification, I can appreciate this to.



Fair enough


----------



## FSTO

To O'Leary - no insult intended, just trying to point out an example of changing a proud organization into something else just for the sake of change.


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ... this particular issue is a Naval issue and that needs to be raised and addressed by Naval personnel


Not entirely.  Implementing this issue would require CF resources.  All the environments have input into the approval of eachother's big projects.  

The benefits of change for the sake of change feel-good initiatives will be negligable and short lived.  The spent resources will be gone forever.  In most of these cases, the consumption of staff hours will be more significant than the money - but in many major projects it is staff capacity that is the limiting resource.  This really is a question of prioreties - capabilities or symbols.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> Not entirely.  Implementing this issue would require CF resources.  All the environments have input into the approval of eachother's big projects.
> 
> The benefits of change for the sake of change feel-good initiatives will be negligable and short lived.  The spent resources will be gone forever.  In most of these cases, the consumption of staff hours will be more significant than the money - but in many major projects it is staff capacity that is the limiting resource.  This really is a question of prioreties - capabilities or symbols.



How is the change of a flag a "big project" and I would be interested to see how it would impact the Army or AF ?


----------



## Journeyman

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How is the change of a flag a "big project" and I would be interested to see how it would impact the Army or AF ?


I've got nothing to say in the "flag change" hand-wringing; I'm not Navy. The topic, however, morphed into a "return to _Royal_ Canadian Navy because the Navy's been screwed over all these years" thread.

So while I've got absolutely no dog in the flag discussions, I can't help but think that returning to RCN/RCAF for whatever reason, implies a strong streak of Monarchism in the CF -- which I am not, and I do not believe is a widely held view. While not necessarily a "big project," it may effect perceptions of all CF members, even us lowly Army types.   



That being said, I'll go back to the spectator mode.   op:


----------



## Halifax Tar

I think we should get rid of all the royal titles in the CF that includes the naming of our ship HMCS _____  :alarm: :alarm: :alarm: 

 ;D ;D :blotto: :blotto:


----------



## Michael OLeary

FSTO said:
			
		

> To O'Leary - no insult intended, just trying to point out an example of changing a proud organization into something else just for the sake of change.



And the point I have been trying to get across, which some have wildly chosen to ignore, is that simply changing the flag (or anything else) based on some antecedent that hardly any serving member remembers firsthand may equally be seen by newer members as "change for the sake of change." They need to be sold on the idea in a current context - not because it "fixes" a tiny piece of something that happened before most of them were born.

Change isn't bad. But change which doesn't make sense to those who experience it can turn into a bitter experience - exactly like that which so many are still rending their clothes over every time something like this comes up. It's not a Navy thing - it's an establishment thing, and if we can't break the pattern of how we engineer change, then we're not fixing anything, we're just creating the potential for a new festering problem for the next generation to fight over.


----------



## medicineman

I think that Her Majesty might want to wait until after the election before deciding if she'll re-bestow those honourifics...they may get removed again.

MM


----------



## Halifax Tar

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And the point I have been trying to get across, which some have wildly chosen to ignore, is that simply changing the flag (or anything else) based on some antecedent that hardly any serving member remembers firsthand may equally be seen by newer members as "change for the sake of change." They need to be sold on the idea in a current context - not because it "fixes" a tiny piece of something that happened before most of them were born.



I'm sorry but this statement could be used against you and your regiment or current members there of. Perhaps you should re-think/word it. 

If we have no tie to the past where does that leave us ? 

Why do the RCR still fly battle honors from a battle that has no living participants left anymore ? 

Remember the the Navy didn't get the "Royal" prefix just for cocktail parties and pretty white shoes. It was a honor that was earned in blood, sweat and tears, and that honor was striped for no valid reason. It does a dishonor to those who came before us to let this go on further with out so much as a fight. Have no doubt the vast vast majority retired members of the old RCN would have no issue with the Royal coming back to our name. I would also hazard a guess that the current Naval members would either be indifferent or be supportive of the move. 



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Change isn't bad. But change which doesn't make sense to those who experience it can turn into a bitter experience - exactly like that which so many are still rending their clothes over every time something like this comes up. It's not a Navy thing - it's an establishment thing, and if we can't break the pattern of how we engineer change, then we're not fixing anything, we're just creating the potential for a new festering problem for the next generation to fight over.



I really don't know where to begin. Your basically writing off all connection the present Navy has with its past because few of us were around for the end of the RCN ? I don't think you understand how much of what we still do is so deeply rooted in the old pre-unification Navy. 

This is a Naval issue, all stop both engines.


----------



## Halifax Tar

medicineman said:
			
		

> I think that Her Majesty might want to wait until after the election before deciding if she'll re-bestow those honourifics...they may get removed again.
> 
> MM



I think you right...And as much as I would like to see it come back I do know the chances of that are slim to none at best


----------



## Michael OLeary

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This is a Naval issue, all stop both engines.



Such blind faith and narrow-mindedness is amusing, so many can't see past the fact that you want to "change a flag."

Please by all means take your proposal, which you and your fellow sailors seem intent on convincing us that EVERY sailor is eagerly waiting to see put into use and take it to Ottawa. There is obviously no need to ask for open opinions on anything to do with the process on the Internet and we can both stop wasting time here.


----------



## George Wallace

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Why do the RCR still fly battle honors from a battle that has no living participants left anymore ?



 ???

Are you saying that the Navy has given up its Battle Honours ?  The logic of this line of thought escapes me.


----------



## Danjanou

Ok after 4 pages this one is just swirling around the bowl and turning into name calling rant. LOCKED.

Normal rules, anyone can come up with a legitimate reason to reopen it contact the DS.


----------



## Danjanou

Ok there's been a couple of hours for everyone to cool down and I've received a couple of PM requests to repoen this from persons I feel would actually like to have an informed debate so I'm unlocking this one. 

Myself and the other mods are watching and should this one go off the rails again it's gone.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I remember leaving 2 RCHA after 8 years and getting to "W" Bty where I promptly got the RCA slip-ons instead of the only ones [RCHA} I had wore,.............this really pissed me off for a grand total of 5 minutes until I realized I was still Artillery with or without a "Horse".

Maybe this explains why I can't figure out why folks wrap themselves up in knots about something stupid like names, flags, etc of your work place, and after all it's just your friggin' workplace, not your real life.

Bruce


----------



## Neill McKay

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you saying that the Navy has given up its Battle Honours ?  The logic of this line of thought escapes me.



I think the idea is that battle honours represent a connection to a past that, in many cases, no living person remembers -- just like other symbols such as the White Ensign.

However, the Canadian navy has in fact lost some battle honours: a number of years ago, as directed by someone who could politely be called a vandal, we withdrew from the Commonwealth "system" of battle honours whereby a ship named after a previous one from anywhere in the Commonwealth inherits the accompanying battle honours.  So, for example, HMCS BONAVENTURE had one from the 1600s because of a previous BONAVENTURE that served in the Royal Navy.

We no longer do this.  Only battle honours earned in Canadian service are inherited now, so some will in fact disappear as ship names are revived.  There will be some here who think that's a good thing, but the fact that we were a part of that system (and other Commonwealth navies remain so) says something about the depth of naval heritage.  It didn't all fall from the sky fully formed in 1910 -- or 1968.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Maybe this explains why I can't figure out why folks wrap themselves up in knots about something stupid like names, flags, etc of your work place, and after all it's just your friggin' workplace, not your real life.



That's true for some; for others it really is more than just a job.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

N. McKay said:
			
		

> That's true for some; for others it really is more than just a job.



Sad, but true.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ...
> Remember the the Navy didn't get the "Royal" prefix just for cocktail parties and pretty white shoes. It was a honor that was earned in blood, sweat and tears, and that honor was striped for no valid reason. It does a dishonor to those who came before us to let this go on further with out so much as a fight. Have no doubt the vast vast majority retired members of the old RCN would have no issue with the Royal coming back to our name. I would also hazard a guess that the current Naval members would either be indifferent or be supportive of the move.
> ...




Please, and with all respect for you and your service, let’s not play fast and loose with history: the title Royal Canadian Navy was not, as Hailfax Tar suggests, _“earned in blood, sweat and tears;”_ in fact the Canadian Naval Service (established in 1910) asked King George V for the name change in 1911 and it was granted. That’s what some (most?) army corps and regiments did, too.

But that’s just a quibble: the Royal Canadian Navy was, like the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force, a separate, legally defined (by the Parliament of Canada) entity until 1966 when all three were, by another Act of Parliament, _wiped out_, so to speak, and replaced by the Canadian Armed Forces - and all serving members of the RCN, CA(R) and (M) and RCAF were, compulsorily transferred to the new CF. To resurrect the RCN would require a complete revision to the most basic parts of the National Defence Act and would, _de facto_, almost certainly require recreating a Canadian Army and Air Force too. This is not a minor undertaking and, I suspect it is one that has virtually no support amongst the flag and general officers in the CF today and even less amongst the senior bureaucrats and the politicians they direct advise. I doubt many members here have any idea, at all, about the enormous amount of staff work required to amend the National Defence Act. No matter how strongly retired members may feel and no matter how supportive, or at least indifferent, serving members might be, it, a proposal to recreate the Royal Canadian Navy is simply not going to get on the Department’s _executive’s_ agenda.

Now, as a practical matter, it would take far, far less work, probably less than was required to bring back the executive curl, to change the current policies and _decide_ to put the national flag at the bow and the Canadian Navy jack (or whatever it is properly called) at the stern and wherever else the “white ensign” goes according to Anglo-Canadian tradition.

There is another possible tack: convince LGen Leslie, the chap doing the “transformation” or whatever it is called, to recommend re-establishing three “services” within the CF: The Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Canadian Army and _joint_ commands and then, after a horrendous amount of staff work and much “buying in” by very senior people in Ottawa,  the Canadian Navy could apply to the Queen for a “royal” prefix, à la 1911.

But recreating the RCN would be neither simple nor easy.


----------



## q_1966

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I've got nothing to say in the "flag change" hand-wringing; I'm not Navy. The topic, however, morphed into a "return to _Royal_ Canadian Navy because the Navy's been screwed over all these years" thread.
> 
> So while I've got absolutely no dog in the flag discussions, I can't help but think that returning to RCN/RCAF for whatever reason, implies a strong streak of Monarchism in the CF -- which I am not, and I do not believe is a widely held view.



We all swore allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen, end of story.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This is a Naval issue, all stop both engines.





			
				Get Nautical said:
			
		

> ..., end of story.



With comments like these is seems that those who claim to represent the Navy really aren't looking for any kind of discussion at all. So, let's skip that whole "opening yourself up to debate on the Internet" thing.

Let assume:

a. That everyone agrees the Navy was damaged more than anyone else by Unification.
b. That you get consensus from the entire Internet that the flag (or whatever) has to be changed to restore honour.
c. That you even come up with a design that everyone agrees with.

Now, what happens next?

At what point does someone actually put pen to paper and write the service paper with the argument strong enough to make it through the chain of command to NDHQ with enough support to do anything?  Who is going to write it? What other actions are going to happen? Letters to the Maple Leaf, letters to the the Trident, letters to newspapers across the country - not just saying the a change is needed, but actually convincing people why?

If you think you have agreement from anyone that matters, why hasn't it happened already?

I would have expected that if someone wanted to bring the subject here, it wouldn't have been just to look for more moral support, and then to berate anyone who doesn't join the group hug over how the Navy was destroyed by Unification, but it might have been to ask for advice on how to get it done. Maybe even to post the first version of a staff paper, asking for advice on how to make it better, asking for people outside the emotional argument to point out logical holes that need to be sealed before it launches.

If the only purpose of threads like this is to continue the bitching, then it's just an electronic version of that table in the back of the Legion hall. Lots of talk with no-one actually planning to do anything about it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> With comments like these is seems that those who claim to represent the Navy really aren't looking for any kind of discussion at all. So, let's skip that whole "opening yourself up to debate on the Internet" thing.
> 
> Let assume:
> 
> a. That everyone agrees the Navy was damaged more than anyone else by Unification.
> b. That you get consensus from the entire Internet that the flag (or whatever) has to be changed to restore honour.
> c. That you even come up with a design that everyone agrees with.
> 
> Now, what happens next?
> 
> At what point does someone actually put pen to paper and write the service paper with the argument strong enough to make it through the chain of command to NDHQ with enough support to do anything?  Who is going to write it? What other actions are going to happen? Letters to the Maple Leaf, letters to the the Trident, letters to newspapers across the country - not just saying the a change is needed, but actually convincing people why?
> 
> If you think you have agreement from anyone that matters, why hasn't it happened already?
> 
> I would have expected that if someone wanted to bring the subject here, it wouldn't have been just to look for more moral support, and then to berate anyone who doesn't join the group hug over how the Navy was destroyed by Unification, but it might have been to ask for advice on how to get it done. Maybe even to post the first version of a staff paper, asking for advice on how to make it better, asking for people outside the emotional argument to point out logical holes that need to be sealed before it launches.
> 
> If the only purpose of threads like this is to continue the bitching, then it's just an electronic version of that table in the back of the Legion hall. Lots of talk with no-one actually planning to do anything about it.



I fail to see how the Navy getting a new flag or whatever back is going to have an iota of impact on you MO. Or how this caused such emotion in you start using slander.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Sad, but true.



Why is it sad that to some this "job" is not just a paycheck ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But recreating the RCN would be neither simple nor easy.



I have no idea what that would that entail nor do I expect to see it in my life time. But I am allowed to support what I choose.

You are correct about the name being bestowed after request in 1911, but it was earned in 2 world wars and Korea.


----------



## NavalMoose

"sad but true"   are you kidding me?  Maybe some people should re-examine why they signed up and swore allegiance. I think most people that are "in the mob" didn't just sign up for a job.


----------



## Occam

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> "sad but true"   are you kidding me?  Maybe some people should re-examine why they signed up and swore allegiance. I think most people that are "in the mob" didn't just sign up for a job.





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Why is it sad that to some this "job" is not just a paycheck ?



I think you both are misinterpreting what Bruce said.  I'm pretty sure he's saying that it's sad but true that some are of the opinion that "it's just your friggin' workplace, not your real life".


----------



## NavalMoose

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think you both are misinterpreting what Bruce said.  I'm pretty sure he's saying that it's sad but true that some are of the opinion that "it's just your friggin' workplace, not your real life"."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly, but he also said 
"Maybe this explains why I can't figure out why folks wrap themselves up in knots about something stupid like names, flags, etc of your work place, and after all it's just your friggin' workplace, not your real life."

It sounds like he doesn't care about flags or other symbols/traditions. it sounds like Bruce is the one saying "it's just your friggin workplace".....wait a minute, he did say that.


----------



## Occam

Woops...maybe I'm the one misinterpreting it.  You're right.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I could be wrong, but I think that Mr Monkhouse was actually saying that "it is just a workplace." If so I have to disagree with him, although if I have misread him I fully apologize in advance. The military is not just a workplace. History, traditions and heritage all matter as aspects of our military ethos. I grant that they need to be kept in perspective, and I have changed cap-badges on several occasions. Still, those things do matter as they help forge us into real teams.

I support the initiative to introduce a White Ensign. It was an extant practice of the RCN before unification, and it is practiced in other Commonwealth navies. Bringing it back does not come at the expense of new ships. Bringing it back does not mean that the Navy has to adopt the living conditions and organizational culture of 1960. Bringing it back does not invalidate the intervening years of history. None of the counter-arguments really make much sense to me. They all seem to argue in the extreme.

It is hard to find an army equivalent, but if unification had removed my regimental flag and we were not allowed to fly it at our regimental HQ then I am pretty sure that I would support any initiative to bring it back. I say this even though I would not have served with that flag. On the Royal issue, if my regiment had been renamed "The Canadian Dragoons" in 1968 I am pretty sure that I would support an initiative to bring back "Royal", and I am pretty sure that my colleagues that share my regimental birthday would do the same for theirs.

Having said all that, we need to extend the Navy Centennial like my daughter needs a new Jonas Brothers album.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> .... On the Royal issue, if my regiment had been renamed "The Canadian Dragoons" in 1968 I am pretty sure that I would support an initiative to bring back "Royal", and I am pretty sure that my colleagues that share my regimental birthday would do the same for theirs.
> 
> Having said all that, we need to extend the Navy Centennial like my daughter needs a new Jonas Brothers album.




Isn't that what happened to the Royal Canadians Engineers? Is there an equivalent _feeling_ amongst our sapper brethren?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Isn't that what happened to the Royal Canadians Engineers? Is there an equivalent _feeling_ amongst our sapper brethren?



A good point, but was the "Royal" aspect as big a part of their identity? I am fairly sure that my colleagues around the mezzanine refer to themselves as "Royals." For my own part, "RCD" is how we call ourselves.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Isn't that what happened to the Royal Canadians Engineers? Is there an equivalent _feeling_ amongst our sapper brethren?



If the engineers want it back that's a task for them to take up. This discussion is Naval in nature so I fail to see how the RCE wishes for or against being royal again matter much in this discussion.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> A good point, but was the "Royal" aspect as big a part of their identity? I am fairly sure that my colleagues around the mezzanine refer to themselves as "Royals." For my own part, "RCD" is how we call ourselves.




I really don't know any more.

There was, back in the '60s and '70s, a fair amount of _moaning_ from both former RCE and RCSigs people. Less from the former than the latter because, I think, the smaller construction engineering and Air Force engineering branches - the latter with its own "combat" component (runway repair, etc) - were more or less absorbed into a fairly big combat engineer oriented organization while the (relatively) very small Royal Canadian Corps of Signals was, by and large, absorbed by the large RCAF communication branch.

Sorry, sailors, for hijacking your thread, but the "loss of identity" issue, from the 1960s, impacted on more than just the RCN.


__________
P.S. I expect that, in due course, someone will be along to remind your mezzanine mates that they're supposed to call themselves "Royal Canadians," but that's a nit I'll leave unpicked.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sorry, sailors, for hijacking your thread, but the "loss of identity" issue, from the 1960s, impacted on more than just the RCN.



No one said the Navy was the only one who lost anything. It was simply a Navy-centric discussion.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> __________
> P.S. I expect that, in due course, someone will be along to remind your mezzanine mates that they're supposed to call themselves "Royal Canadians," but that's a nit I'll leave unpicked.



But you did chose to nitpick, and in doing so you helped me make my point that sometimes these little things are indeed important to us. Thanks!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> But you did chose to nitpick, and in doing so you helped me make my point that sometimes these little things are indeed important to us. Thanks!




It was, maybe still is, "just one of those things" about which RHQ and e.g. the Regimental Association, on one hand, and the troops in the field, on the other chose, evidently still choose, to agree to disagree. I suspect that The RCR is not unique in having these foibles.

There is a famous, maybe apocryphal story about a big parade, back in the '50s - all three battalions on parade. After the parade someone - a duly appointed someone I hasten to add - cried: "Three cheers for Peter Bingham and his Royal Canadians!" (that was 1RCR); three cheers followed. Then the voice cried "Three cheers for _________ and his Royal Canadians!" (that was 2RCR), three cheers followed. Before the duly appointed crier could bellow his salute to 3RCR a somewhat slurred, but still very loud and sufficiently clear, voice from the crowd chimed in with "Let's hear it for Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians!" I guess the next thing heard was "Left! Right! Left! Right! Left!" Maybe it's just legend, it was before my time, but I hope it's true.


Edit: corrected a format error  :-[


----------



## PPCLI Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is not a minor undertaking and, I suspect it is one that has virtually no support amongst the flag and general officers in the CF today and even less amongst the senior bureaucrats and the politicians they direct advise. I doubt many members here have any idea, at all, about the enormous amount of staff work required to amend the National Defence Act. No matter how strongly retired members may feel and no matter how supportive, or at least indifferent, serving members might be, it, a proposal to recreate the Royal Canadian Navy is simply not going to get on the Department’s _executive’s_ agenda.
> 
> But recreating the RCN would be neither simple nor easy.



All true.  This would NOT be a simple undertaking, but it is, of course, doable.  The trouble with ideas movements like this though is that they assume infinite capacity - they never take into account the concept of opportunity cost.  It is hard enough as it is to get items of vital importance through the ringer, and so we already have a system whereby policies and programs compete with each other, and each require the expenditure of small "p" political capital.  This means that for every "project" that gets developed and pushed through the process, some other project withers on the vine.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the validity of the argument - be it the new Ensign, or the return of the Royal prefix.  My question then is what policy or project should be sidelined in order to proceed?  Is it the new shipbuilding program?  Upgrade to LAVs?  Transformation writ large?  The SAR project?  Processing long overdue CFOO and MOOs?  Approval of new Armouries?  Protecting existing allocations of funds to the Forces?  And what of new, as yet unidentified critical requirements?  If the available staff horsepower and command political capital is expended on Ensigns or Prefixes, what will we not be able to proceed with?

Not all ideas / movements / projects are created equal.  They are in competition.  It is imperative that we focus on the critical, the must-have, as opposed to frittering away our efforts on the marginal or nice-to-have.


----------



## Infanteer

Just curious, what did the Executive Curl cost the CF in terms of withered projects?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I fail to see how the Navy getting a new flag or whatever back is going to have an iota of impact on you MO. Or how this caused such emotion in you start using slander.



No one was slandered. Pull in your horns. That's your only warning.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No one said the Navy was the only one who lost anything. It was simply a Navy-centric discussion.



And ALL  posters here are entitled to their say and opinion. Navy or not. You don't have to agree, but we don't play by your rules. Live with it. Ignore what they say or factually rebut it. As long the general theme of the thread is intact, it can take as many tangents, within reason, as it will. You want to deal with strictly navy pers? I'm sure there is another navycentric forum out there somewhere that would be glad to have you.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Just curious, what did the Executive Curl cost the CF in terms of withered projects?




My guess (an old, outsider's guess) is that the cost was very small, within the context of Navy Centennial staff work, etc.  I'm guessing one middle ranking Navy Log/Fin officer did the work necessary to fund the changes and then I suspect one admiral spent a little bit of the precious political capital PPCLI Guy mentioned by getting agreement from a few fellow admirals, generals and bureaucrats at a coffee break during another meeting.

All-in-all, it could have been and, unless things have changed a lot, should have been a fairly minor bit of business, done "on the margins" so to speak. I also suspect that making the Navy jack roughly equal the old white ensign could be done for about the same overall cost.






The existing, approved jack that I _suggest_ could serve as a new, Canadian white ensign , flown (is "worn" the right naval term?) according to old traditions.

But changing back to the RCN, amending the NDA to change the very nature of the CF? That's another, bigger, very "costly" matter which I doubt interests any cash strapped admirals.


----------



## dapaterson

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Having said all that, we need to extend the Navy Centennial like my daughter needs a new Jonas Brothers album.



You mean, like, really?  That would be, like, sooo cool and neat, like.


----------



## Michael OLeary

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guess (an old, outsider's guess) is that the cost was very small, within the context of Navy Centennial staff work, etc.  I'm guessing one middle ranking Navy Log/Fin officer did the work necessary to fund the changes and then I suspect one admiral spent a little bit of the precious political capital PPCLI Guy mentioned by getting agreement from a few fellow admirals, generals and bureaucrats at a coffee break during another meeting.
> 
> All-in-all, it could have been and, unless things have changed a lot, should have been a fairly minor bit of business, done "on the margins" so to speak. I also suspect that making the Navy jack roughly equal the old white ensign could be done for about the same overall cost.




But, somebody actually had to do the staff work, and sell the idea up the chain of command.  It wasn't done with simple Internet consensus. And ignoring that requirement reduces any discussion of desired change to little real value in terms of achieving change.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> But, somebody actually had to do the staff work, and sell the idea up the chain of command.  It wasn't done with simple Internet consensus. And ignoring that requirement reduces any discussion of desired change to little real value in terms of achieving change.



Then why do you insist on taking part in the discussion ? If you feel its of little value, whether it is or not, then why do you keep coming back to this thread ? Why not just ignore it ?


----------



## 57Chevy

shared in accordance with provisions of the copyright act

A Diamond Jubilee Initiative to Reinstate the Royal Designation to Canada's Navy and Air Force. 
ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY - ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
from Wednesday, January 19, 2011
http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com/2011/01/white-ensign-club-of-montreal-to-hold.html

Recent Posts & Articles on Renaming the Navy
click on items at link
STAND TO: WHY WE ARE HERE 
RCN wins Poll! More than 85% want Royal Canadian Navy 
Admiral Landymore: 2010 Inductee to the RMC Wall of Honour! 
Why the admirals are wrong: The truth of the matter 
A Royal Pain: Nothing quite stirs the blood like Maritime Command 
Return of the RCN? Canada's naval forces could soon be called RCN 
Admirals vs Sailors: The sailors want it, but the admirals don't 
Admiral McFadden: E-mail lands naval officer in hot water 
Christopher McCreery: No permission from the Queen required 
An Elegant Name: Dr. Holloway on the elegance of R.C.N. 
A Royal Name Game: Navy says it didn't shut down RCN campaign 
CN is a Railway: Senate debates whether Canada belongs in the Navy 
Senator Rompkey: The absurd testimony of Senator Rompkey 
Commander Thain: Testimony puts Admiral McFadden on defensive 
Opposing Admiral 1: Don't Rock the Boat says Admiral McFadden 
Opposing Admiral 2: The unfortunate testimony of Admiral Summers 
Opposing Admiral 3: The unfortunate testimony of Admiral Buck 
Opposing Admiral 4: The unfortunate testimony of Admiral Mifflin 
Hellyer Happy: Mr. Milner happy with the Hellyer Legacy 
Cliff Chadderton: Canada's most prominent veteran supports us! 
Rompkey's Motion: Half exemplary, half unfortunate 
Centennial Flag: Dr. Holloway on a Flag that Falls Flat 
Senate Debates Motion to Change the Navy's


----------



## Michael OLeary

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Then why do you insist on taking part in the discussion ? If you feel its of little value, whether it is or not, then why do you keep coming back to this thread ? Why not just ignore it ?



If you think my questions are too difficult, or that the process of change has nothing to do with this thread, please feel free to ignore my posts.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Then why do you insist on taking part in the discussion ? If you feel its of little value, whether it is or not, then why do you keep coming back to this thread ? Why not just ignore it ?



I'm pretty sure this was addressed.

Yup, it was. Just in case you thought I was kidding and getting an early jump on April Fools, I wasn't. However, here it is again just in case you didn't understand it the first time.



> And ALL posters here are entitled to their say and opinion. Navy or not. You don't have to agree, but we don't play by your rules. Live with it. Ignore what they say or factually rebut it. As long the general theme of the thread is intact, it can take as many tangents, within reason, as it will. You want to deal with strictly navy pers? I'm sure there is another navycentric forum out there somewhere that would be glad to have you.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Last time.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Infanteer

I've been following this thread with interest.  I am not really "for" or "against" the idea in principle - I support change if they make things better.  That being said, a few observations:

1.  We need to be careful when making a zero sum game out of proposals for new projects.  Instituting the executive curl did not - likely (I could be proven wrong) - require hundreds of man-hours of staff work to be siphoned off from the AOR replacement project or a diversion of funds that could have put an extra hull in the water.  Saying that costs in smaller ventures like these necessarily require operational off-sets is, as T2B put it, arguing somewhat to the extreme.

2.  That being said, there are costs, as Edward's post above illustrates.  We can say there is a bit of a formula for "change" - it requires time (ie: manhours for staffwork), resources (ie: money), and political capital (ie: your boss and his boss's time and energy).  The executive curl is a good example to work with.  On a scale of 1 (least) to 5 (most), it probably cost 1-2 in terms of all three factors.  Introducing a new fleet of fighting vehicles into the Army, conversely, is likely 5s across the board.

3.  This, like the executive curl, or renaming an Air Force Squadron or putting the Army in khaki uniforms all constitute tinkering.  I'd consider tinkering to be changes that are largely cosmetic - in the end, they don't have immediate or secondary effects on how we do our jobs.  Many point that these changes are easy - if they are so easy, why aren't the very smart Admirals and Generals instituting them now?  A better understanding of tinkering, its advantages and disadvantages, and why we choose to do it or not would probably add to this discussion (which isn't so much about a ship flag, but rather the value of the impetus to change it).

4.  If the formula for change is valid and the principle of tinkering makes sense, then I guess we get a better idea of the cost:benefit relationship.  Are the resources expended for the sake of tinkering (which usually isn't much) worth it?  I don't know, but it's probably worth trying to figure out.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 1.  We need to be careful when making a zero sum game out of proposals for new projects.  Instituting the executive curl did not - likely (I could be proven wrong) - require hundreds of man-hours of staff work to be siphoned off from the AOR replacement project or a diversion of funds that could have put an extra hull in the water.  Saying that costs in smaller ventures like these necessarily require operational off-sets is, as T2B put it, arguing somewhat to the extreme.


Individually, these may not be huge things - but at the aggregate level all of the acctual & proposed turn-back-the-clock & bling exercieses (executive curl, sea badge, bring back RCN, an new ensign, etc) there is a substantial consumption of resources at both the national level (the staff officers who plan & organize and the approval boards that give the thumbs-up, to the clerks who must scower each pers file individually to determine eligibilities & the supply system that must replace whole inventories of little things).

I have seen many operational capability projects & NP procurements, some without even large price tags, wallow for lack of a staff officer or because a decision board was too backed-up on other good ideas.

I agree with your assesment that this would be cosmetic tinkering.  Any benefits would be marginal and short-lived as sailors' minds quickly return to thier real concners which are left unchanged by the tinkering.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Isn't that what happened to the Royal Canadians Engineers? Is there an equivalent _feeling_ amongst our sapper brethren?


The R in RCE was a significant part of the Corps identity.  As a branch without the R, I can't think of a single member of the CME who feels our heritage or accomplishments are in anyway reduced for it.  We know who we are, whe know what we have done, we know what we can do, and we are quite proud of it all.


----------



## Snakedoc

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Maybe even to post the first version of a staff paper, asking for advice on how to make it better, asking for people outside the emotional argument to point out logical holes that need to be sealed before it launches.



I would think a staff paper would have been done up on topics similar to this in the past.  However, if someone wants to write one up and share it, I think this would be a great idea.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> I would think a staff paper would have been done up on topics similar to this in the past.  However, if someone wants to write one up and share it, I think this would be a great idea.



You mean like a MARS officer who supports the idea and has posted on this thread *cough* Snakedoc *cough*

Just saying...


----------



## quadrapiper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I guess I did omit the Greek philanderer from the mix.


Must say this takes things to a new low... referring to the Royals as inbreds, and now this.

Are you some sort of hypocritical republican, or of a type with that uber-Irish RMC instructor? Or merely incapable of remembering and keeping an oath?

Anyway, as to the topic generally at hand: the Centennial would've been an excellent time to, in addition to reintroducing the curl, de-Hellyerize everything else ceremonial, even if resurrecting, in whatever form, the name of RCN is currently impossible. For example: authorize white and blue square rig and frock coats as NPF gear, bring back black gaiters for guard commanders, shuffle the flags so Canadian warships are flying a Canadian _naval_ flag, add three buttons to CPO's sleeves. Any or none of the above, or anything else lost and yet still remembered, as long as it gets a positive morale response from the Navy DEU crowd. Generally, bring back as much service identity indicators as possible. Most of it would or could be NPF anyway.

Oh - and hint at the Air Force that they should get their wish-list ready for the next suitable birthday. Not sure why they lost the distinct airman and officer cap badges, and the Navy kept theirs (regained after DEU was reintroduced? either way...).

To the specific notion of a white ensign? I'd like the current MARCOM flag to take that role. It's a simple design, obviously Canadian, and is already in service.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Must say this takes things to a new low... referring to the Royals as inbreds, and now this.
> 
> Are you some sort of hypocritical republican, or of a type with that uber-Irish RMC instructor? Or merely incapable of remembering and keeping an oath?



RO Entry 2.11:

The QM will be issuing a sense of humour to all those lacking same on 1 Apr 11 from 0900-1100.  Issue times have been allocated based on specific need.  The Army will be served from 0900-1025, the Air Force form 1025-1100.  In the unlikely event that a Naval Officer decides to get a sense of humour, he will be referred to the BPSO for Compulsory Transfer to another service. 

Sense of entitlement (Navy) currently out of stock.

Understanding of the demands of the current war* and its impact in optempo not currently available for issue, irrespective of current unprecedented demand / obvious requirement. 

Despite repeated requests historical perspective tempered by current realities is NOT repeat NOT stocked.

Adjt
The Real World



*That would be Afghanistan, not Libya  The former has been on for 10 years - the latter 10 days.


----------



## Michael OLeary

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Are you some sort of hypocritical republican, or of a type with that uber-Irish RMC instructor? Or merely incapable of remembering and keeping an oath?



And you had to choose to insult my ancestral heritage in order to make a point that you thought he was disrespectful?


----------



## Snakedoc

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You mean like a MARS officer who supports the idea and has posted on this thread *cough* Snakedoc *cough*
> 
> Just saying...



haha, I'm more like one of those MARS officers who is closer to that happy medium on regaining our naval heritage.  I support the change but if nothing happens, I'm not going to go nuts over it.  I'll leave the staff paper to one of our greener members/sailors or perhaps the OP of the thread  :nod:

Now the renaming of MARCOM to Canadian Navy (Royal or not) is a different can of worms.  Hard to develop your naval heritage when you don't have an official name people can relate to.  But for that there's already been staff papers, petitions, senate motions that have passed...etc...etc...and I digress


----------



## Edward Campbell

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> haha, I'm more like one of those MARS officers who is closer to that happy medium on regaining our naval heritage.  I support the change but if nothing happens, I'm not going to go nuts over it.  I'll leave the staff paper to one of our greener members/sailors or perhaps the OP of the thread  :nod:
> 
> Now the renaming of MARCOM to Canadian Navy (Royal or not) is a different can of worms.  Hard to develop your naval heritage when you don't have an official name people can relate to.  But for that there's already been staff papers, petitions, senate motions that have passed...etc...etc...and I digress




I suspect that you are on the right track.

My guess is that a few moderately senior "creative thinkers" will get you a Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Canadian Air Force as "administrative structures" (mainly for personnel management, operational/equipment requirements, doctrine and the like), each headed by a Chief of the Naval Staff, Chief of the General Staff and so on. I would also guess that the ensign/jack conundrum is fairly easily resolved to the satisfaction of most sailors.

My other guess, potentially less popular, is that _"Royal"_ is out of fashion - permanently - in Canada. I read somewhere that the head of the _monarchists_ said that their big enemy wasn't republicans, it was indifference. That's it, I think, there are a few people who are desperately keen to _restore_ our Royal/British heritage and a few more who are equally, or more, opposed, but the vast majority of us, English, French, native born, immigrant, black and white, simply don't care and we are unwilling to endure any fuss being made by one side or the other.The effect is that our sovereign, when she visits us, is seen, more and more, as a visiting head of another, foreign state - rather more like the Queen of the Netherlands than the Queen of Canada. That may (or may not) be a pity but I think it is a fact and, Senate committees or not, that "fact on the ground' dooms any and all attempts to recreate the Royal Canadian Navy or the Royal Canadian Engineers or the Royal Canadian Air Force. Perhaps I'm wrong ... I am quite often, but I think not, not this time.


Edit: typo


----------



## quadrapiper

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And you had to choose to insult my ancestral heritage in order to make a point that you thought he was disrespectful?


No; rather, to identify a particular, and relevant, individual, Capt Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh.

No disrespect meant to those of Irish extraction in general - my apologies.


----------



## Pusser

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I think the idea is that battle honours represent a connection to a past that, in many cases, no living person remembers -- just like other symbols such as the White Ensign.
> 
> However, the Canadian navy has in fact lost some battle honours: a number of years ago, as directed by someone who could politely be called a vandal, we withdrew from the Commonwealth "system" of battle honours whereby a ship named after a previous one from anywhere in the Commonwealth inherits the accompanying battle honours.  So, for example, HMCS BONAVENTURE had one from the 1600s because of a previous BONAVENTURE that served in the Royal Navy.
> 
> We no longer do this.  Only battle honours earned in Canadian service are inherited now, so some will in fact disappear as ship names are revived.  There will be some here who think that's a good thing, but the fact that we were a part of that system (and other Commonwealth navies remain so) says something about the depth of naval heritage.  It didn't all fall from the sky fully formed in 1910 -- or 1968.



Technically true, but moot.  This would only be an issue if any future Canadian ships were to named using names that had previously been used elsewhere in the Commonwealth.  This is highly unlikely.  A whole naming convention for Canadian warships has been developed and we are unlikely to ever see any future name that is anything but Canadian.  

As for the present, any current Canadian ship that carries battle honours from previous eras and held them at the time of this policy change, continues to carry them (i.e. no battle honours have been stripped).  Hence the reason several Reserve units still carry battle honours dating back centuries.

As an aside, the current HMS YORK ship's badge is virtually identical to the HMCS YORK badge (less the maple leaves).  This badge was Canadian first.  The  RN asked for and was granted permission to use it.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pusser said:
			
		

> Hence the reason several Reserve units still carry battle honours dating back centuries.



Which ones?



> The oldest Canadian battle honour commemorates the Second Fenian Raid of 1870. The Regimental Colour for the 50th Battalion Huntingdon Borderers, presented by His Royal Highness Prince Arthur in 1920, bore the words "Trout River" commemorating an action that occurred on 24 May 1870. The Victoria Rifles of Canada received the battle honour "Eccles Hill" on 5 December 1879, commemorating an action from 25 May 1870. Both of these regiments have since been disbanded.





> The first major award of battle honours to the Canadian Militia was for the North-West Campaign of 1885. These award were made over a period 42 years and sparked much debate between the Militia Department and the War Office in England over the criteria and precedence by which awards were made. The final list of honours included: "North-West Canada 1885", "Batoche", "Saskatchewan", and "Fish Creek". The first honour from this campaign, "Batoche", was granted to the 10th Battalion, Royal Grenadiers on 2 May 1888. On 1 May 1899, The Royal Canadian Regiment received the honour "Saskatchewan"; in 1911, the 90th Winnipeg Rifles received the honours "Batoche" and "Fish Creek". Additional awards came in 1919, and in 1929 a large award of several of these distinctions went to 13 regiments including The Halifax Rifles ("North-West Canada 1885) and The Princess Louise Fusiliers ("North-West Canada 1885). The last honours for the campaign were granted to The Royal Grenadiers in 1930.



Source: The System of Battle Honours in the Canadian Army, by Captain (now Major) J.R. Grodzinski, CD


The Canadian Forces Publication THE HONOURS, FLAGS AND HERITAGE STRUCTURE OF THE
CANADIAN FORCES (A-AD-200-000/AG-000) also identifies "Niagara" as an authorized Canadian Battle Honour, but no current unit carries it.

It provides the following on early Battle Honours:



> Prior to Confederation, British authorities awarded all battle honours. Only one of these was earned by a unit of the Canadian Militia: "Niagara," won by a battalion of Incorporated Militia in the War of 1812. The unit was disbanded in 1815.
> 
> 6.  After Confederation, the Canadian Militia  decided on and awarded its own honours. "Eccles Hill," awarded for service in the Fenian Raids of 1870, is the oldest Canadian honour still carried by a Canadian  regiment, although this unit, the Victoria Rifles of Canada, is now dormant on the Supplementary Order of Battle. The oldest honours won by active Canadian units are for the North West Rebellion of 1885.



That publication also provides the following explanation of the method used for Naval honours:



> Naval battle honours evolved in a different manner from those of the army. Until 1954, the selection and display of honours in Commonwealth navies was left in the hands of ships' commanding officers. Then, in a move to foster unit identity and esprit de corps among ships' companies, the Royal Navy developed official battle honours for all actions which could be assessed up to that time. These were assigned to ships' names and naval air squadrons, and the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) subscribed to the same list. Unlike army and air force practice, in which Canadian units only claimed honours won by themselves or their perpetuated Canadian predecessors, the RCN considered itself, for these purposes, to be a part of a single King's Navy, sharing honours on a common list. Thus battle honours such as "ARMADA, 1588" and "QUEBEC, 1759" were assigned to Canadian ships. Only honours won by Canadian sailors are now allotted to new construction, but some ships and one former naval air squadron (880 Squadron), were assigned British battle honours after the Second World War and still carry them by right of continuous service from the RCN. (See Annex B.)


----------



## Pusser

HMCS YORK carries "Schooneveld 1643" and "Louisburg 1758," and several others for example.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Thank you for clarifying it was Naval Reserve units you were referring to.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Which ones?



HMCS Unicorn:

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/navres/1/1-n_eng.asp?category=104&title=837

If I read this correctly then HMCS Uincorn could be carrying battle honors from 1588

HMCS Carleton

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

Lake Champlain 1776


Thats just a quick look using google and wikipedia which agreeably may be inaccurate.


----------



## kratz

Pusser said:
			
		

> HMCS YORK carries "Schooneveld 1643" and "Louisburg 1758," and several others for example.



I have a photo of myself standing beside the board.

The unit holds 11 honours, the oldest being:

_Lowestoft   1665_

During unification, HMCS QUEEN CHARLOTTE was one of the many units paid off and lost her 3 battle honours. In the 1990s when she was recommissioned, under modern DHH policies, she was not eligible to formally reclaim those honours. This system is different than the army's method of laying up the colours.


----------



## Pusser

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Thank you for clarifying it was Naval Reserve units you were referring to.



Reserve units are the only ones left now (I believe), but CORMORANT carried older battle honours up until she was paid off in the 90s.  One of them was "Quebec 1759."


----------



## Gorgo

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> haha, I'm more like one of those MARS officers who is closer to that happy medium on regaining our naval heritage.  I support the change but if nothing happens, I'm not going to go nuts over it.  I'll leave the staff paper to one of our greener members/sailors or perhaps the OP of the thread  :nod:



You're welcome to try it with one of the new sailors, Snakedoc.  I haven't been in the service since 1991 and since I'm a diagnosed Type II diabetic now, I doubt I'll ever get back in.

 :nod:


----------



## Pusser

kratz said:
			
		

> I have a photo of myself standing beside the board.



So do I somewhere...


----------



## q_1966

Pusser said:
			
		

> Technically true, but moot.  This would only be an issue if any future Canadian ships were to named using names that had previously been used elsewhere in the Commonwealth.  This is highly unlikely.  A whole naming convention for Canadian warships has been developed and we are unlikely to ever see any future name that is anything but Canadian.
> 
> As for the present, any current Canadian ship that carries battle honours from previous eras and held them at the time of this policy change, continues to carry them (i.e. no battle honours have been stripped).  Hence the reason several Reserve units still carry battle honours dating back centuries.
> 
> As an aside, the current HMS YORK ship's badge is virtually identical to the HMCS YORK badge (less the maple leaves).  This badge was Canadian first.  The  RN asked for and was granted permission to use it.



HMCS Uganda, I suppose would/could be one of the reasons for this.


----------



## Ex-SHAD

Though I doubt we’ll ever see another HMCS Uganda or the reinstatement of any other name that even remotely smacks of the British Empire, I have to wonder if Maritime Command could be motivated to reinstate the use of some of the more generically named vessels (ie: HMCS Patrician), since after all it wouldn’t violate what some would see as the unofficial policy of making sure that nothing even remotely British ever sneaks its way back into the Canadian Navy, while also tipping our hat to the men that went before us.


----------



## Journeyman

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> ....(ie: HMCS Patrician)....


Sexist. You've just offended the matriarchs


----------



## Edward Campbell

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sexist. You've just offended the matriarchs




More likely the plebeians.


----------



## Pusser

What about the Praetorians?   ;D


----------



## PPCLI Guy

As a Patricia who started as a plebian, has been a member of a Praetorian Guard, and who is currently treated as a freed man at best, I think I may just take offence with all of those hats on!  ;D


----------



## Pusser

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> As a Patricia who started as a plebian, has been a member of a Praetorian Guard, and who is currently treated as a freed man at best, I think I may just take offence with all of those hats on!  ;D



Please remove your hats upon entry, lest you stand a round for all!  :cheers:


----------

