I'm a dyed-in-the-wool monarchist, but I actually think developing our own traditions for the King of Canada makes some sense.
What we don’t know is what the UK “churn” was on all of that. I suspect it was like a duck - look calm above the water but paddle like mad below. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a ton of Brits quietly wondering why there’s so much hoopla on that as well, but not saying it in public lest they seem “disloyal to the Crown”.
Bingo. We self-flagellate about aping other countries but then…self-flagellate when we don’t.
I can agree with this sentiment
I disagree.
Traditions created out of error are usually ones that become farce. There is a time and place to deviate. Masquerading error as ingenuity is something we should condemn, not celebrate.
I agree. That said, to deny that the King of Canada was created out of thin air in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster is a ridiculius revisionism of our origins and history.
If we are going to have them, we need to be consistent and deliberate about them. If not, we are left with mockery and apathy.
…which makes it even more appropriate that our traditions should not be like the UK’s, or Australia’s, or anyone else’s. That statement would seem to give more credence to @Furniture ‘s comments than refuting them.
I find “traditions” are organic things and trying to nail them down circa May 2024, for example, is like commenting on a painting while the artist is still in the process of painting it. Did the RN ever definitively say “ok, this is the way we do XYZ in 1805” and forbid anyone from changing it?
I do agree with creating Canadian traditions related to the Canadian Crown (not the heraldic one). I dislike the Trudeau Crown as I feel it's creation is more politically motivated than anything. I do have a lot of respect for the Heralds at the Canadian Heraldic Authority and I sometimes wonder if they really support some of the designs they are told to put out. I wouldn't be opposed to the Canadian Crown seeing some limited use, but definitely not on Cap Badges. As much as I do enjoy having Canadian-specific symbols, I do still think that the Crown should be representative of all of the King's Realms as a uniting factor, similar to the way that multiple nation's artillery regiments wear the exact same Cap Badge.
Traditions based in shared experience and history can evolve based on a collective will or understanding. This was not the case in the creation of a "Canadian" crown or monarch, but political ones.
Again, the motivation to change a tradition should be intrinsic to the collective and not on the whims of the individual. I wonder if Heart of Oak will survive in the RCN now that the CRCN is changing hands. Echos of the Rank Change no one asked for.
So the spirit of traditions are what matter and not the individual act. Why was the Tot instituted? What was the secondary effects of it? Can it be amended or modified to meet current cultural norms? If yes, amend. If no, retire.
Symbols have power and meaning. If they didn’t people wouldn’t care so much about them. Think about the visceral reaction most get when they see a Nazi flag, or the sense of pride many Canadians feel when they see a Canadian flag.
Clan chiefs[edit]
A clan chief is the head of his or her clan/family, and is the representer of the family's founder. A clan chief must be recognised as such by the Lord Lyon King of Arms, and must possess the undifferenced arms of their name.[15]
Clan chiefs may wear their crest simpliciter, that is without being encircled by the motto and without any feathers. It is more common, however, for a clan chiefs to wear their own personal crest within a plain circlet inscribed with their motto or slogan (pictured left). The chief's crest badge does not contain the strap and buckle that other clan members are permitted to wear. Clan chiefs are also entitled to wear three eagle feathers[note 3] behind the circlet of their crest badge. On certain occasions, such as clan gatherings, it may be appropriate to use real eagle feathers. Clan chiefs that are members of the British Peerage or a feudal baron are entitled to wear the appropriate coronet or baronial chapeau above the circlet on their crest badge, though this is a matter of personal preference.[2]
Clan chieftains[edit]
Clan chieftains are the representers of large branches of a Scottish clan. They are officially recognised as clan chieftains by the Lord Lyon King of Arms.[2]
Clan chieftains, like clan chiefs, may wear their own personal crest within a plain circlet inscribed with their own motto or slogan. Clan chieftains may also wear two small eagle feathers (unlike the chief's three).[note 4] On certain occasions real eagle feathers may be worn behind the crest badge. If a clan chieftain is a member of the British Peerage or a feudal baron they are permitted to wear the appropriate coronet or baronial chapeau above the circlet on their crest badge.[2] Clan chieftains may also wear the crest badge of their chief, in the same manner as an un-armigerous clan member (see Un-armigerous clan members below).[2]
www.canadaukfoundation.org
…yes? I would argue that the Crown has an influential “PR staff”, for good or ill.
If we changed, we wouldn’t be the first. The RAN changed from Heart of Oak to the stirring name of “Royal Australian Navy”. As for the rank change, I thought RCN folks voted on it but I can’t recall for sure.
Agreed, and I’m not a “never-Messer”. But, the pushback when someone publicly talks about changing or abolishing a tradition is what I’m talking about. Too many people use the crutch of “it’s tradition!” as if that in itself is a valid response. The validity should be why it’s still a tradition and whether it’s still appropriate.
I think we're walking along the same common ground in our thinking.
Yes. The difference is that I’m seemingly less inclined to keep things status quo.
I can see balance in both.
It was voted on, but the choices available made it look like there was already a very preferred option.
It seems that more often than not we throw away traditions in vain attempts to appear relevant and up-to-date in order to appeal to the next generation, and I don't just mean in a military context. My impression is that it seldom seems to work. It doesn't make institution X any more attractive to those outside but does alienate those inside. That's not to say bad traditions shouldn't be thrown out. But traditions shouldn't be about what's the flavour of the month.
Anyone who has been granted arms is permitted to wear one eagle feather. The Golden eagle is native to both North America and Scotland, along with other places.Overlapping symbols Eaglelord. The Crown surmounted by Three Eagle Feathers?
The significance of Eagle Feathers — CANADA-UK FOUNDATION
“When eagle feathers are found on land, they are a gift to the land. I myself was taught to only pick up feathers found on water,” said Grand Chief Stan Harper when I met him this month. I asked him about his magnificent eagle feather headdress, pictured here. Eagle feathers are considered very
As like most other things, there is the persistent need to mean something to everyone, which ends up being we mean nothing to anyone. Or, to put it another way, make sure there is no possible way anyone can take the slightest offence to anything, no matter how obscure, because if something doesn't speak to me, it offends me.
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=icon}
