To be or not to be Royal...that is the question.

[warrickdll]

Maybe wishful "old fart" thinking but I don't detect a huge upsurge to us getting rid of the crown.

Even my "middle aged" thinking agrees with that analysis.

To me Royal Canadian Navy says..."I'm not an American." We have a different system of government and different loyalties. We are an independent country with strong traditions and heritage in our past and ties to our Commonwealth brothers and sisters with similar pasts...not necessarily in lock step with the Americans.....

I'm not against your intent, but I'd also like the statement to make sense when you replace Americans with British or Country X - none are Canadian.

 

[Gino]

Surely not all these issues can be attributable to not being “Royal” can they?

The problem with talking about losing traditions is that these were only borrowed traditions anyways. The English didn’t have to have every one of their customs and traditions matched against some foreign navy in order to give it validity, so why must Canadians?

Yes early Canadian military developments were mere shadows of a larger nation’s; it is the way of all colonies, but the desire to return to RCN, Executive Curls, and other English naval customs just seems to show a lack of confidence in Canada’s ability to think for itself.

I think the opposite is true.  It shows that we have an insecurity in our own maturity as a nation when we have to change all of our traditions in the vain quest to make them "uniquely Canadian".  Of course, many traditions were borrowed from the RN because we were essentially a subset for many years.  Now that that is plainly no longer the case, I am really pained whenever I see customs and traditions being altered for no apparent reason other than anglophobia or to fit in with the "green machine" way of doing things which is primarily driven by the army.  The USN has many traditions taken from the RN, but you don't see them anguishing over it.  The reason many people want to see a return to those things that you mentioned is the sense of losing our links with our forebearers in the RCN.

 

[Gino]

And, well... realistically, how long are we going to have an English monarch for? Adding Royal now would probably just be adding to a list of things that are going to have change again in the not-too-distant future.

Realistically, for many, many years to come.  Hopefully, for as long as Canada exists.  I object to the entire line of thinking that becoming a republic is a natural progression that is inevitable.  Why should that be?  I should also point out that as well as being British, HM the Queen is also a Canadian by virtue of her position as Canada's Sovereign.  I restate my position that,  IAW the NDA, we are "the Armed Forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada".  Shouldn't our name reflect our status?

 

[warrickdll]

I think the opposite is true.  It shows that we have an insecurity in our own maturity as a nation when we have to change all of our traditions in the vain quest to make them "uniquely Canadian". 

Were the decisions the English/British took the result of a "vain quest" to make them uniquely English/British? I'm sure they made some decisions based on how not to appear French/Spanish/Portuguese/Dutch/Country X.

But the amount of RN customs and traditions stemming from attempted uniqueness or blazing the trail does not change the fact that many navies have some common themes: Blue uniforms; Chiefs and Petty Officers; Plenty of ice cream (  ); so there is going to be an RN influence on just the basis of a "navy" to begin with. No need to belabour it.

Of course, many traditions were borrowed from the RN because we were essentially a subset for many years.

Its only borrowed if you plan to give it back. Copied is what happened. The point being that that was as our navy was starting – it was not a set point that must always be returned to.

Now that that is plainly no longer the case, I am really pained whenever I see customs and traditions being altered for no apparent reason other than anglophobia or to fit in with the "green machine" way of doing things which is primarily driven by the army.  The USN has many traditions taken from the RN, but you don't see them anguishing over it. 

Wanting to be distinguishable from the RN or the USN is not necessarily a sign of Anglophobia or Amerophobia/Columbophobia (hmmm... funny words), or even of rampant Canadaphelia (funnier word). If the people creating the RCN had known that Canada would be a fully independent country in the future they would have given it more thought.

Anyways, unification was a heavy axe on all the elements, so instead of rushing to see how to turn the CF into Historical Re-enactors issued with live ammunition, take the opportunity to be boldly Canadian, and not continuously try to be little brother.

The reason many people want to see a return to those things that you mentioned is the sense of losing our links with our fore bearers in the RCN.

The problem is the history isn't long enough to see how things are allowed to change - and you take the traditions and customs that make sense. The RN has a long history, so it is apparent that they didn't stick with bare-feet, straw hats, tarred pigtails, men-only dancing, sails, the list is extensive on what the RN does not do that at one time it did. Our navy only sees 100 years, and all of it in the 20th or 21st centuries, so it has a hard time conceiving of the fact that things do change. Time and circumstances have made the RCN an anachronism - not a tradition.

If you feel there is something wrong with the navy it won’t be something wearing wide-legged pants is going to solve. Honouring history does not mean you have to play dress up or wax a mustache (though if it floats your personal boat...– on your own time, and on your own dime).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Well said.

 

[warrickdll]

Realistically, for many, many years to come.  Hopefully, for as long as Canada exists.  I object to the entire line of thinking that becoming a republic is a natural progression that is inevitable.  Why should that be?

No, not inevitable. You don't have to call it a Republic if you don't want to, so somewhere between having a foreign monarch and having a Canadian, there should be a compromise.

I should also point out that as well as being British; HM the Queen is also a Canadian by virtue of her position as Canada's Sovereign. 

A line of thinking only a lawyer's mother could love.

Well loads of people made a big stink about the GG holding foreign citizenship while also being a Canadian citizen (by virtue of actually being a Canadian), and that pressure caused her to denounce that foreign claim (as it rightfully should have). I would expect at least that from the "Queen of Canada".

The Queen is where she is due to the custom of the day. That day has passed, and so should that custom when she is finished with the title. No one is in a rush for that. And this discussion is not wholly determinate on this specific item.

I restate my position that,  IAW the NDA, we are "the Armed Forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada".  Shouldn't our name reflect our status?

The army is the army with Royal branches, but not all branches, and Royal regiments, but not all regiments. The army is not less than a Royal navy, and neither are the non-Royal branches or regiments lesser than their Royal compatriots. The Royal does not seem to add anything. At all.

The navy has HMCS in front of ships (and bases) - which, if it is "Her Majesty's" ship, and she is the "Queen of Canada", isn't it redundant to add the "Canadian" part? - unless, of course, she isn't Canadian ( ).

The monarchy issue can be distracting... and unfortunately difficult to avoid regarding the “Royal” question.

 

[Neill McKay]

Well loads of people made a big stink about the GG holding foreign citizenship while also being a Canadian citizen (by virtue of actually being a Canadian), and that pressure caused her to denounce that foreign claim (as it rightfully should have).

If by "loads" you mean "a few journalists and the people who believe them", then you've got it.  If you mean a large portion of the population, measured by something more reliable than a website poll, I'm afraid you'll have some work to do in convincing me.

The Royal does not seem to add anything. At all.

Being unable to see something doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Phrontis]

Although I joined some years ago, I believe the same oath I took swearing allegiance to the Crown is still given by everyone joining the Canadian Forces. The Canadian Navy spent almost 2/3 of its history as the Royal Canadian Navy, including the two world wars and Korea.  I think it would be extremely appropriate to re-adopt the name under which so many served so proudly.

There is nothing un-Canadian or overly British about it; the RCN was and would still be a uniquely Canadian entity.  Calling it Royal would in no way detract from what it has become, while embracing our heritage and history.

I bet if one could ask every member of the Navy, there would be overwhelming support for calling it the Royal Canadian Navy again.

 

[RangerRay]

One sure doesn't see so much navel gazing about national identity in the Royal Australian Navy nor the Royal New Zealand Navy...

In both countries, they have the old service names, the old ranks, and "British" style dress uniforms with unique touches, yet I've never heard any of them agonise about their service being too "British".

Even in Australia, which had a referendum on republicanism, I am unaware of any talk to "de-Britishise" their military.

It seems as though our Commonwealth cousins are more comfortable with their heritage and identity than we Canadians.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

One sure doesn't see so much navel gazing about national identity in the Royal Australian Navy nor the Royal New Zealand Navy...

In both countries, they have the old service names, the old ranks, and "British" style dress uniforms with unique touches, yet I've never heard any of them agonise about their service being too "British".

Even in Australia, which had a referendum on republicanism, I am unaware of any talk to "de-Britishise" their military.

It seems as though our Commonwealth cousins are more comfortable with their heritage and identity than we Canadians.

We have a unique problem that they don't have. We have two founding colonial powers(English and French)  vice one(English). The moves to take Royal and all things British out of our system was to appease our French minority in the mistaken belief that this would convince them that they are part of Canadian society too. (Irony is that the Regiment with the best traditions, red coats, bearskins and regimental mascot is the Royal 22nd.....VANDOOS!)
Paul Hellyer had a big part in this too as he did not like the snobbery and pseudo English accents he encountered in the RCN and RCAF. I did a paper on unification a few years ago and read his accounts of dining on board the Bonaventure with Admiral Brock....he was mortified to be treated and served like royalty by white coated stewards on silver service and table cloths while the ordinary sailors ate below in their messes and slung their hammocks.
His wartime experience of the RCAF and being rejected as air crew to be relegated to the army was not helpful either....later as a minister of the crown he vowed to change it all and  rid the services of, what he saw, as useless old traditions....and didn't he ever eh lads?

 

[FSTO]

Paul Hellyer had a big part in this too as he did not like the snobbery and pseudo English accents he encountered in the RCN and RCAF. I did a paper on unification a few years ago and read his accounts of dining on board the Bonaventure with Admiral Brock....he was mortified to be treated and served like royalty by white coated stewards on silver service and table cloths while the ordinary sailors ate below in their messes and slung their hammocks.

That thought was complete BS. RCN ships had been retrofitted or new built with actual bunks and cafeterias in the 1950's after the Mainguy report. So in retrospect, Hellyer was hell bent for Liberal Leadership and thought that a huge shakeup of the Military would do the trick. Didn't account for the foppish Trudeau did you, you ET loving Spock freak!  :rage: :rage: :rage:

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

That thought was complete BS. RCN ships had been retrofitted or new built with actual bunks and cafeterias in the 1950's after the Mainguy report. So in retrospect, Hellyer was hell bent for Liberal Leadership and thought that a huge shakeup of the Military would do the trick. Didn't account for the foppish Trudeau did you, you ET loving Spock freak!   :rage: :rage: :rage:

I read his book...I'm telling you what he said and thought not that I agree with it.
Trudeau was a big problem but the damage was done when he came to power. Hellyer and Pearson started it all with Unification. Trudeau also tried to reduce the British influences...but the unification act of 1968 (prior to Trudeau) was what killed the three services and their royal affiliations.
Hellyer's vendetta with the military started when he was rejected for Air Crew in the war and reassigned to the Army. He says in his book that he got all the shots needed for Air Force service and was then sent to the Army. When the Doc said he was going to give him exactly the same shots hellyer said "I just had those shots last week in the Air Force" to which the Doc replied "ah yes but these are Army shots." lol maybe they should have given him a massive dose...lol :skull:

 

[Gino]

No, not inevitable. You don't have to call it a Republic if you don't want to, so somewhere between having a foreign monarch and having a Canadian, there should be a compromise.

I'm afraid that that is unlikely in the extreme.  If Canada ever ceased to be a Monarchy under the House of Windsor, we would almost certainly become a republic with a president, although that president might very well have a role very similiar to that of the GG.

A line of thinking only a lawyer's mother could love.

Perhaps, but points of law and definitions are extremely important in these considerations.  Rule of law is one of "da Canadian values" that everyone espouses, isn't it?

Well loads of people made a big stink about the GG holding foreign citizenship while also being a Canadian citizen (by virtue of actually being a Canadian), and that pressure caused her to denounce that foreign claim (as it rightfully should have). I would expect at least that from the "Queen of Canada".

Since the Queen does not hold citizenship of any kind, she has none to renounce.  The concept of a shared Monarch requires that the Sovereign be Canadian, British, Jamaican, etc concurrently in respect to these different nations.  It works.

The Queen is where she is due to the custom of the day. That day has passed, and so should that custom when she is finished with the title. No one is in a rush for that. And this discussion is not wholly determinate on this specific item.

Has it really?  I disagree.  She remains Sovereign in accordance with the Canadian Constitution and only an amendment with the unanimous consent of Parliament and all ten provinces can change that.  None of this will change when the Prince of Wales accedes to the Throne.

The army is the army with Royal branches, but not all branches, and Royal regiments, but not all regiments. The army is not less than a Royal navy, and neither are the non-Royal branches or regiments lesser than their Royal compatriots. The Royal does not seem to add anything. At all.

Once again, a matter of opinion only.

The navy has HMCS in front of ships (and bases) - which, if it is "Her Majesty's" ship, and she is the "Queen of Canada", isn't it redundant to add the "Canadian" part? - unless, of course, she isn't Canadian ( ).

The monarchy issue can be distracting... and unfortunately difficult to avoid regarding the “Royal” question.

Some differentiation is required.  Even if we became a republic, God forbid, you can bet that Canadian would be in the titles for our warships.  The British officially use the HM only, but in the past when there were many more monarchies, His/Her Britannic Majesty's Ship was a common usage.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

CNS (Canadian Naval Ship) works.

 

[Gino]

CNS (Canadian Naval Ship) works.

Bland and boring.  Perfect for the "Republic of Canada".  I hope I'm happily underground should that day ever arrive.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Might be bland and boring but I maintain we have a lot more to worry about in the Navy then whether or not we have Royal in our name. Figure out a way to retain the people we have, recruit and be able to keep more personnel, decent equipment, improve morale. These items will remain light years ahead then whatever we refer to ourselves as.

 

[warrickdll]

Quote from: Iterator on 2006-03-07, 13:56:04
The army is the army with Royal branches, but not all branches, and Royal regiments, but not all regiments. The army is not less than a Royal navy, and neither are the non-Royal branches or regiments lesser than their Royal compatriots. The Royal does not seem to add anything. At all.

Once again, a matter of opinion only.

Well, in your opinion, which regiments or branches aren't up to the task because they lack the "Royal" adjective?

Some differentiation is required.  Even if we became a republic, God forbid, you can bet that Canadian would be in the titles for our warships.

Sure... I don't think anyone doubts that (note: Not having a foreign monarch does not automatically mean we would have a Republic, unless we wanted one).

Besides, when it comes to decisions about the monarchy I don't think we should get stuck on areas such as: "What would go on the back of a coin?"; "What would a CPO's badge look like?"; or "What title needs to precede the name of a Canadian warship?".

The British officially use the HM only, but in the past when there were many more monarchies, His/Her Britannic Majesty's Ship was a common usage.

In the abbreviated format?

Then, that would be HBMS, which would give us HCMS. But we don't, because the ship is Canadian, while the monarchy is not.

 

[Gino]

Might be bland and boring but I maintain we have a lot more to worry about in the Navy then whether or not we have Royal in our name. Figure out a way to retain the people we have, recruit and be able to keep more personnel, decent equipment, improve morale. These items will remain light years ahead then whatever we refer to ourselves as.

Of course it isn't the uppermost issue of the day and there are bigger fish to fry, but titles, ceremonial and traditions are not of negligable importance either, or we wouldn't have them.  They also have an impact on morale and I still maintain that the majority of sailors would have more pride in the name RCN than MARCOM.  I still see young sailors occasionally who have RCN tattooed on them.  There must be a reason for that.

 

[Gino]

Well, in your opinion, which regiments or branches aren't up to the task because they lack the "Royal" adjective?

I should have been more specific.  I was referring to your last sentence. 

Besides, when it comes to decisions about the monarchy I don't think we should get stuck on areas such as: "What would go on the back of a coin?"; "What would a CPO's badge look like?"; or "What title needs to precede the name of a Canadian warship?".

I agree, the basis of any debate should be whether Constitutional Monarchy serves Canada well as a form of government and whether there would be any benefit to be gained by a change.  I maintain that there would not.

In the abbreviated format?

Then, that would be HBMS, which would give us HCMS. But we don't, because the ship is Canadian, while the monarchy is not.

I do not believe that it was ever used as an abbreviation per se.  The point is that when there are a number of monarchies that exist, and I don't just mean Commonwealth Realms, there needs to be a way to differentiate the ships of different nations using the HM <blank> Ship format.  The British choose not to use anything, and we and the others do.  That in no way makes us subordinate to them.  Canada has been a monarchy since it was first claimed for the French Crown.  Constitutional Monarchy is the cornerstone of Canada's Constitution.  How many more hundreds of years do we need before you'll admit that it's a Canadian institution?

 

[Neill McKay]

Might be bland and boring but I maintain we have a lot more to worry about in the Navy then whether or not we have Royal in our name. Figure out a way to retain the people we have, recruit and be able to keep more personnel, decent equipment, improve morale. These items will remain light years ahead then whatever we refer to ourselves as.

And yet we all have time to come here and argue about it....  Obviously the Service can afford the discussion without collapsing for lack of staff time and resources.