Why is it not the Royal Canadian Forces?

[Inch]

Returning the Royal as of right now seems out of the question. For one, alot of people in Canada don't even know any history that links us to our colonial past, and two, the cost. Think of all those cap badges that would need replacing. But those cap badges will need replacing at somepoint. For when the Queen dies, if all goes as predicted we should have King Charles. That would bring the need for new cap badges with the KINGS CROWN not the Queens crown. This would be the only chance I can forsee of any lost Royal prefixes being returned. But not likely.

Actually, that's not entirely true. The 1st Hussars for example have had the same cap badge since pre-WWI. The RCAF on the other hand, did change their crown. Pics at the bottom, Queen's crown is the very bottom.

So while some do change, not all do.

 

[Acorn]

"King's" and "Queen's" crown is a misnomer. What we know as the Queen's Crown is actually St Edward's Crown. There are a couple of other crowns that can be chosen by the monarch. So, the crown would depend in what Charles chooses.

I don't have enough heraldic knowledge to get any more detailed, I'm sure someone else knows more.

Acorn

 

[madeincanada]

The 1st Hussars cap badge doesn't actually have a crown at all, but a Ducal Coronet. When the design was first proposed, it had a crown, but because the White Horse of Hanover was mounted on top of the crown, the King was insulted and rejected it. Apparently nothing is supposed to be mounted higher on the badge than the crown. So 1H kept the horse and ditched the crown.

 

[CougarKing]

Mandal,

Well, if you apply the same "Royal" nomenclature logic to the Australian Defense Force (ADF), it would already be pretty redundant, since the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) already have "Royal" in their names. The same can be said of the UK and NZ Armed Forces; you don't see the whole militaries of those countries being called "Royal", only their individual services or even some individual units.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

CD you do realize that mandal asked this back in 2004.

 

[CougarKing]

My mistake- I didn't read the whole thread- only the initial post. It's still an interesting question and the points brought up in response are interesting as well.

 

[McG]

Well, if you apply the same "Royal" nomenclature logic to the Australian Defense Force (ADF), it would already be pretty redundant, since the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) already have "Royal" in their names. The same can be said of the UK and NZ Armed Forces; you don't see the whole militaries of those countries being called "Royal", only their individual services or even some individual units.

However, there is only one service in Canada; there is only the Canadian Forces.  Army, Navy and Air Force are all parts of this single combined service.  So, what does not make sense in Australia or New Zealand might make sense in Canada.

 

[dapaterson]

Personally, I'd rather be The Imperial Canadian Armed Forces.  Imagine the promotion of the current CDS to his current rank within the ICAF

(Cue deep breathing noises)  "You are in command now, General Hillier..."

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Short answer is that the Crown has never been asked or been moved to make it so.