Should the toast to the Queen be omitted from Mess Dinner's
- Thread starter Hylander_ca
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Are you saying we shouldn't toast or that the toast shouldn't be omitted?Hylander_ca said:
Are you implying that those with a differing opinion to you should be shot?
Are you implying that freedom of action is punishable by death via a smiley?
I don't believe in god! But I take my hat off because it doesn't hurt my feelings to show respect for others and their archaic beliefs in a book of folklore.
I still share the magic of Christmas with my children even when the bills come in.
The Queen, monarch of Canada or just a face on my money?
Even though she is a real person (like Jesus or Tom Cruise) I don't think that she is all that she is cracked up to be. (like Jesus or Tom Cruise) nor has very much impact on my life (like Jesus or Tom Cruise) although I am sure she means much more to others (like Jesus or Tom Cruise) and my opinion doesn't matter much as long as I am happy. Nor should I manipulate people to believe in what I believe in.(unlike Tom Cruise)
To Sum Up
IMHO
Toasting the Monarchy is a tradition that is well established at mess dinners and has become more or less a part of the ACT we put on in order to have a good time at mess dinners.
Either way pass the wine lets toast.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
CE621 said:
Interesting take for an "old tech."
The Crown is indeed part of our history, a proud history. And each time we toast The Crown we are saluting our rich hertitage and traditions, and they are inescapable. Erasing the monarch from the face of Canada will do nothing to change that. The Crown is, and always will be, a part of our Canadian military heritage; no matter how one wishs to slice it.
Next time you're up near Watts Ave, stop in and check us out; please be advised that we have a large picture of the Queen here though. I don't see her leaving any time soon.
I believe in toasting the Crown, for it connects the present with the past. I am a firm believer that you can't know where you're going unless you know where you've been. How silly would it be if PPCLI became CLI and RCR became CR. The Queen as our 'head of state' is a figurehead and not a sovereign, keep the Queen and our traditions.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The average Canadian has little or no use for the Monarchy. Swearing an oath to the queen and her heirs is a debasing of what a personal oath is. (i.e. a personal oath is a commitment of loyalty that gives one no choice but to serve the interests of the individual the oath was made to. Since the Queen nol onger rules or pays wages she is now only a symbol and metaphor of the "law;" she is no longer really a candidate for a personal oath.)
All that being said Canada has a Queen at its head and there is no appetite in Canada to change this immutable fact. So until the fine people of Canada make a change I will stand and toast the Queen and swear an oath of personal allegiance, because that is the price of being a Canadian soldier and citizen.
Even if Canada were to decline the next King as head of State it would still be prudent to maintain the tradition of the monarchy sans personal oaths in the military. Traditions cannot be purchased and to throw them away is dangerous.
I'll duck now as there is sure to be some incoming fire.
All that being said Canada has a Queen at its head and there is no appetite in Canada to change this immutable fact. So until the fine people of Canada make a change I will stand and toast the Queen and swear an oath of personal allegiance, because that is the price of being a Canadian soldier and citizen.
Even if Canada were to decline the next King as head of State it would still be prudent to maintain the tradition of the monarchy sans personal oaths in the military. Traditions cannot be purchased and to throw them away is dangerous.
I'll duck now as there is sure to be some incoming fire.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Although HM happens to live out of the country, she is in title and in fact the Queen of Canada. As a Sovereign person things like nationality don't apply.
An oath to the Queen also stresses the apolitical nature of the Armed Forces. We are not swearing oaths or pledging allegiance to a political figure but to an enduring embodiment of the State who stands outside of the political realm. In the United States the military swears their oath to the Constitution for many of the same reasons.
An oath to the Queen also stresses the apolitical nature of the Armed Forces. We are not swearing oaths or pledging allegiance to a political figure but to an enduring embodiment of the State who stands outside of the political realm. In the United States the military swears their oath to the Constitution for many of the same reasons.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
a_majoor said:
This is a valid point and should not be dismissed lightly. The quibble I have is that the symbol of the Monarchy is devolved on par with the Beaver, and the maple leaf. They are national symbols that give us a rally point and tradition but the question is do we not debase the value of a toast or an oath if it is to a real person that only has value as a symbol? Wouldn't it be better to swear an oath to uphold the Canadian Constitution rather than to proclaim our allegiance to the Queen and her heirs? It would make more sense and it would sharpen the value and intent of the oath. We could still keep the monarchy and most of the traditions associated with it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Kat Stevens said:
The SHARP program was a good idea, and was required as part of implementation of new laws, but its presentation was dreadful. A bunch of HR types who have no understanding of military culture and psychology. They didnt even understand the people they were presenting to and got all bent out of shape when we pointed out obvious gaps in their logic.
Back to the Queen. Want to toast her at dinner? No problem. Want to prize our English heritage? Great. But I swore my loyalty to my country, not the representative of a somebody else's country. The age of colonialism is over.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
GreyMatter said:
I f you think the curent manner in which we swear our oath, or toast the Crown for that matter, has anything to do with the belief that colonialism still exists in Canada you need to do some more research.
We have been an independant sovereign nation for quite some time now.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
GreyMatter said:
The representative of someone else's country is their ambassador. HRH is the Queen of Canada, and a Sovereign Person who has no nationality (or more correctly is the embodiment of several nations, of which we have the pleasure of sharing). More people need to brush up on history and constitutional law, otherwise they will end up lookinng silly at mess functions and other places..
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Canada
The Canadian Monarchy is a shared monarchy. This article describes the Monarchy from the perspective of Canada. In the other Commonwealth Realms, the constitutional role of the Monarchy is similar, but the historical and cultural significance may differ. For information on the Monarchy in the other Realms, see Other Realms: Monarchy.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a Commonwealth Realm, with Queen Elizabeth II as its reigning monarch since February 6, 1952. As such she is Canada's Sovereign and head of state and officially called Queen of Canada.
More than you cared to know at link.
I still think this whole monarchy thing is getting a bit obsolete.
The Canadian Monarchy is a shared monarchy. This article describes the Monarchy from the perspective of Canada. In the other Commonwealth Realms, the constitutional role of the Monarchy is similar, but the historical and cultural significance may differ. For information on the Monarchy in the other Realms, see Other Realms: Monarchy.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a Commonwealth Realm, with Queen Elizabeth II as its reigning monarch since February 6, 1952. As such she is Canada's Sovereign and head of state and officially called Queen of Canada.
More than you cared to know at link.
I still think this whole monarchy thing is getting a bit obsolete.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Yes, we have been independent for some time now, but not truly independent until 1982. It is not that colonialism still exists in Canada, it is that some elements of our colonial days still exist in Canada. Although we are no longer a 'colony', there are still some positions in Canada that serve no purpose but to demonstrate a link back to the founding nation i.e. all the Governor positions. Traditional and honorable? Yes. But what purpose do they serve other than as a showpiece?
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 530
GreyMatter said:
20 pages of discussion on this topic here: Retain the Monarchy in Canada?
And no, the toast should most definately not be omitted from Mess Dinners.
GreyMatter said:
I disagree. We've been a sovereign nation long before that, at the earliest 1867 with the passage of the British North America Act, or at the latest 1931 with the Statute of Westminster. Given Canada's unique Anglo-Franco history, and the continuing Constitutional question of Quebec within Canada, the use of a Constitution as a measure of independence doesn't present the whole picture.
If one were examining the question from the sole perspective of political expediency, doing away with all ties to the monarchy (ie. the GG) would force Canada to reevaluate it's position vis-a-vis Quebec. Last time that process ended ina Referendum, a slim one at that.
