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

[Gino]

The only pure nominal change that could occur (if I am correct in my knowledge of the status of the CF) now is the Queen granting the prefix 'royal' to the CF.  I understand the legal status of MARCOM, &c. as not separate organisations, whereas the CF is separate enough (from, say, DND) to be granted this prefix.  To deduce, from the common use of 'Canadian Navy,' that there is such a corporation legally, is to commit a linguistic error.  Therefore, all those who wish for the titles of RCN & RCAF to be granted are asking for far more than for some clerk to scribble in 'Royal' somewhere.

Traditions brought in for purely tradition's sake will, I think, never stick.  Changing the navy's legal status from MARCOM (& that's not all of what most people would call 'the navy' either, some personnel fall under other COMs) to RCN would go over as well as someone inventing their own catchphrase.

I remember reading quite a while ago that at the time of unification there was discussion as to whether the new name should become the Royal Canadian Armed Forces.  It was apparently deemed unpalatable because the abbreviation would be RCAF and that would be biased towards the air force.  Also, it wasn't looked upon kindly at the time when Trudeau and his friends were very busy trying to remove any symbols that might remind Canadians that they lived in a constitutional monarchy.  I'm sad to say that that unhappy little process has gone on to this day, primarily under the "Big Red Machine".

You may be correct that it would not be legally possible to rename MARCOM as RCN.  I doubt though that it's actually been looked at for a legal opinion.  That being said, do individual regiments that retained their "Royal" actually have any more separate organizational status than MARCOM?  Theoretically, though, if I just started using the term RCN, could anyone claim that this is any more technically incorrect than "Canadian Navy", which has become common usage from flag officers on down.  I believe we even have a new lofficial ogo that says that.

 

[Phrontis]

A very interesting and lively discussion, to be sure.

Personally, I am very much in favour of a return to the name Royal Canadian Navy.  Nor is it trivial.  I expect I'm preaching to the choir in this forum, but to say that the "Royal" designation doesn't matter is to miss entirely how important customs and traditions are to a naval or military organisation.  (This importance was totally missed by those who overdid the unification move in the 60s, taking away the trappings by which individual arms of the service identified themselves.) It is just these intangibles which make up our naval culture, and it is this culture which reminds us who we are, not the Coast Guard, not BC Ferries, but the Navy.

To celebrate the Navy's 100th, I'd really like to see them give us back the "Royal".  And a Canadian White Ensign would be nice, so we can stop flying our colours in the backwards manner we now do.

 

[Navy_Blue]

We fly our colours backwards?  Explain??  ???

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

We fly our colours backwards?  Explain??  ???

I echo that statement
Last I checked the ensign>>rear... jack>> forward.

 

[Phrontis]

Sorry for being unclear.

I simply meant that in the Canadian Navy we currently fly our national flag aft as our ensign, and an ensign-ish looking flag (the naval jack) forward as our jack.  When we flew the white ensign, it was aft at the ensign staff.  That, to the best of my knowledge, is how all commonwealth navies do it.  We are currently doing what our American neighbours in the USN do (national flag aft, jack forward).

I would like to see a Canadian version of the white ensign: a St. George's cross with a Canadian flag instead of the union jack quartered in the upper lefthand corner.  The proper (in my view) place for this would be aft at the ensign staff, with the Canadian flag flown proudly as our jack forward at the jack staff.

I think such a white ensign would tie together nicely our heritage with our present.  It would be both truly naval and truly Canadian.

 

[Neill McKay]

I would like to see a Canadian version of the white ensign: a St. George's cross with a Canadian flag instead of the union jack quartered in the upper lefthand corner.  The proper (in my view) place for this would be aft at the ensign staff, with the Canadian flag flown proudly as our jack forward at the jack staff.

I think such a white ensign would tie together nicely our heritage with our present.  It would be both truly naval and truly Canadian.

That's a very good idea, and I think you've picked the right design from the two Commonwealth standard forms used.  (The other obvious choice, not really appropriate today, would have been the Union Flag in the canton and a maple leaf on the fly, cf. the Australian and New Zealand white ensigns.  I have a reprint of Jane's Fighting Ships from the Second World War that shows this as being in use in Canada, but it never was to my knowledge.)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

All of this would be well and good but Ottawa will as usual set up commiittees wasting more and more of DNDs budget on discussions. Yes something special should be done for the 100th but I am not sure that (re)adopting the Royal moniker is necessarily it.

Maybe a better way is making an early purchases of the replacements for the 280s and older CPFs. Thats what we really need.

 

[Phrontis]

I don't mean to flog a dead horse, and others in this thread have expressed these views already, but you raise an interesting point by suggesting efforts would be better focused on things like new equipment.

I agree that the equipment issue is vital, but that is not to say that the less tangible aspects of being a navy aren't also important.  Around the time when we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Navy in 1985, we were getting back into distinct uniforms, and it provided a huge surge in morale. We also sent the Tattoo across the country, complete with bands, guards, and naval gun run.  These initiatives did nothing to update equipment (at the time we actually had a ship serving in the fleet which had been commissioned as a "His Majesty's Canadian Ship"), but they were excellent ways to contribute to a cohesive and proud identity for everyone serving in the Navy.

Besides which, if I'm not mistaken, a committee tasked with teeing up the 100th anniversary celebrations has already been stood up.  The costs involved in some of the initiatives mentioned in this thread, such as re-adopting the name "Royal", would be relatively inexpensive, particularly if instituted gradually, as documentation and the like needed replacing anyway.  I think the "bang for the buck" on such a move would be well worth it.

We only get one 100th anniversary, and I think it's important to mark it well.

 

[Navy_Blue]

Would be nice to find someone in the DIN or in the Email Data base involved with the 100th and direct them to this forum.  I might just ask around see who I could dig up.

 

[Old_navy_062]

Here is the site for one of the teams responsible for the 100 yr celebration activities. 

http://www.segunart.com/segunartpublicrelationsCNC1.htm

Reading through all the posts on this subject brought to mind the fact that when you constantly refer to your service as "a job", getting a brand new tool box for the anniversary seems just right.  For those of us that have seen more and more of our naval traditions going by the way side out of expediency, laziness or the dreaded PC, a mere title change to RCN would be a good starting point for the traditions of the next century.

I would recommend that a well worded letter to each of our MP's might start the idea going for a private members bill.  This was the process utilized for the CPSM.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

At risk of dating myself...I joined the CF...Maritime Command in 1977 as an Officer Cadet. We were just starting to try to bring back Naval customs after the devastation and mass resignations of the Unification period. Naval ranks were back, our right to wear Navy Mess Kit with executive curls and there was a general upsurge in morale...we were getting our distinctiveness back.
We groaned about hours on the parade square at divisions etc...but it made us distinctive and secretly proud...we were not soldiers or airmen...we were sailors.
In 84 we got a navy coloured uniform back and trade badges for the NCMs (god I hate that term) and the nineties brought new ships.
I find in the last ten years we are slipping backwards. There is less emphasis on tradition and custom and the lack of knowledge has led to a branch of service that doesn't know how things came to be or have a sense of pride in the accomplishments of generations of veterans.
A lot of our sailors don't know the distinct names for things nautical etc. We have divisions once or twice a year and a lot of people don't know the drill anymore. they sometimes don't fit in their 1As or have not kept them up properly because they live day to day in NCDs and ball caps. People walk around with their hands in their pockets, their hair too long (men and women) and a general lack of pride in their appearance and their branch of service.
What I too saw as "BS" when I was a young recruit, I now see as necessary discipline that helps us to be distinct and more than just a 9-5 job.
I think we should embrace a return to this distinctness...bring back the Royal, the bands, the pomp and circumstance....forget the PC stuff and all the stupid time wasting seminars and identifying minority groups. Keep all the quality of life initiatives and stuff that has improved our lives and give us something besides our flag (which all Canadians are proud of).....esprit de corps is maintained through a sense of specialness and sacrifice.....

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Thats all well and good but where are the perks and the fun the old timers go on about? If those were still present (you know work hard and play hard like it used to be instead of the work hard and f*ck the boys attitude now) you wwould not have a morale issue. You would see todays sailors embrace the traditions and customs of the past with more gutso. I know I would.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to bring more of the fun back in. Some of that was traditional too. This doing more with less stuff that crept in in the mid to late nineties is still with us.
Personally I have way too much stuff on my work load to enjoy COTW, PD days, sports days etc...it just takes time away from the in basket full of paper that I'll probably have to come in and do on the weekend....not to mention the multi tude of email that keeps popping up.
Unfortunately a lot of the "work hard play hard" stuff that the old timers refer to revolved around drinking and runs ashore. While I did my share of that stuff as a young un...I must say I don't regret that a lot of that mentality has gone.
I remember a time when an XO said to me, when I joined a ship on a Friday afternoon...."let's see how much rum you can put away there son....and if you don't drink rum you're gay!" That's a tradition that I'm glad is gone (for the most part).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Then its up to both commissioned and non commissioned to replace the drinking with something else. I enjoy a few drinks as much as the next guy but my fun does not centre around getting looped out of my mind. Most of us don't want that but if command take the fun away they should endeavour to replace that aspect of the fun with another. They have yet to do so.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Then its up to both commissioned and non commissioned to replace the drinking with something else. I enjoy a few drinks as much as the next guy but my fun does not centre around getting looped out of my mind. Most of us don't want that but if command take the fun away they should endeavour to replace that aspect of the fun with another. They have yet to do so.

I agree...what should they replace it with? All these sports days, open houses, family days are not the answer I don't think...they are just more obligations.
I think we should get back to manageable work loads for each person...the majority of us just have too much paper work to do. Lessen the stupid surveys and consultant driven "projects." when we are posted ashore...I'd love to see us cut down on repetitious stuff too....I was on leave last week but the week before I went on leave I answered the same stuff for three different departments...two of them in NDHQ...was getting a bit much by Friday!

In the eighties on deployments we used to work hard at sea....exercises...one in two was rare but we did it during workups etc. When we were alongside (I was West Coast then) we enjoyed Pearl Harbour and San Diego and other great ports in the Far East and got lots of time off unless we were duty (which was about 1 in 5). I think we need to get people ashore more and enjoy the places they visit.....I took a civie dive course alongside in Pearl Harbour....two weeks!!
The problem is of course the security problems and the ops tempo. It would be interesting to compare with the USN...they certainly spend a lot of time away from home....carriers especially...I think they have the same problems though with work load dissatisfaction.

 

[Phrontis]

I think you've hit on something there.  Compared to when I first joined, flex programmes, both at sea and for port visits, have gone crazy.  We fill the programme so full that getting everything that is scheduled accomplished becomes a whole-ship evolution, leaving far less free time for the ship's company to relax.

The same thing seems to be happening ashore, where the situation is made worse by the shortage of people at all rank levels.

 

[warrickdll]

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.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

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.

Executive curls are worn by a lot of other nations.....Denmark, Norway, India Australia....The Americans don't have them but they have an identifier above the rank...star for line officers, etc.
The Royal thing is a nod to our history and tradition. It does add a distinctness to our service. I would hate to see them drop the Royal from....RCMP, the RCD and all the other regiments that proudly use the royal moniker....so why can't we in the Navy and Air Force do so also....it doesn't cost anything or very Little to have a little more pride, tradition and source of uniqueness.

 

[warrickdll]

Executive curls are worn by a lot of other nations.....Denmark, Norway, India Australia....

I may understand it incorrectly but didn't these nations just copy it from the English as well?

The Royal thing is a nod to our history and tradition. It does add a distinctness to our service.

How many other Canadian Navies are out there that we need to be distinct from? Other nations use Royal, so we're not distinct from them. In fact the Brits don't call it the RBN - so any derived names from that (e.g. RCN/RAN/RNZN) are all just lesser names of RN.

I would hate to see them drop the Royal from....RCMP, the RCD and all the other regiments that proudly use the royal moniker....so why can't we in the Navy and Air Force do so also....

Well traditionally (as in previously) they were the NWMP but the RCMP takes a lot of pride in that non-Royal heritage. The biggest example of just how little this matters would be the CEF in WWI - operational capability and pride did not disappear because someone was in the nth battalion CEF - they didn't have to have The Royal nth Battalion of the Royal CEF. And, as it has been pointed out, the navy still hangs on to the HMCS part, which would be the equivalent of the Royal in RCD

it doesn't cost anything or very Little to have a little more pride, tradition and source of uniqueness.

But where is this pride being derived from? Especially since it is hardly a sense of uniqueness. At the time of the RCN creation Canadians thought of themselves as being both Canadian and British; the big decision was whether to have a smaller version of the British Navy for Canadian purposes, or just give Britain money, that is not the way it is now, is it?

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.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Well I disagree with you but then I think we are from totally opposite poles of the whole question of Republic vs Constitutional Monarchy. I happen to think that we are going to keep the Crown for a long time and we won't become a Republic. Maybe wishful "old fart" thinking but I don't detect a huge upsurge to us getting rid of the crown.

The WW1 Battalions were all renamed or renumbered and they did have morale problems with that. Mainly because it was a militia army...people were proud to be, for instance, from Hastings and Prince Edward Counties....they didn't see themselves as the 19th Battalion or whatever. That's why they changed that in WW2 and kept the individual names of the Regiments.

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 don't have a problem with keeping things they way they are now...but a little tradition goes a long way IMHO