g_bambino Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 An online petition has been set up to gather signatures of those who support the restoration of the style "Royal Canadian Air Force" and "Royal Canadian Navy" to the Maritime and Air Commands upon the navy's 100th anniversary in 2010. I believe MP Laurie Hawn will present this to the House of Commons once the requisite number of signatures has been collected. This move not only restores some dignity to our maligned armed forces, but also reflects the reality of the Queen being Commander-in-Chief and those who serve give allegiance to her as opposed to the government of the day. Sign up if you support this move. Restore the Royal designation to the Canadian navy and Canadian air force Quote
guyser Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 All well and fine to get this designate but only one problem in your post.... The Commander in Chief is Michaelle Jean, the Gov General. Not the Queen. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 18, 2007 Author Report Posted May 18, 2007 All well and fine to get this designate but only one problem in your post....The Commander in Chief is Michaelle Jean, the Gov General. Not the Queen. Constitiution Act, 1867: "The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue to be vested in the Queen." Since 1904 the Governor General has been granted permission to use the title Commander-in-Chief and carry out the associated duties on behalf of the Sovereign, but ultimately the Queen remains the head of the Armed Forces. Quote
Who's Doing What? Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Time to get rid of the Ryals. Don't need them, don't want them. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
guyser Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Changed in 1968 with the unification of the services. GG is CiC. Un less the Govt is lying. http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/cc/hist_e.asp Quote
guyser Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Time to get rid of the Ryals. Don't need them, don't want them. We dont have them. Quote
Who's Doing What? Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Time to get rid of the Ryals. Don't need them, don't want them. We dont have them. They are still our figure head. The Gov Gen is the Queens representative. Time to get rid of any affiliation. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
g_bambino Posted May 18, 2007 Author Report Posted May 18, 2007 Changed in 1968 with the unification of the services. GG is CiC. Un less the Govt is lying.http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/cc/hist_e.asp The National Defence Act that unified the services still says "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces." The National Defence Act also doesn't override the Constitution. The staff at Rideau Hall aren't technically lying - I believe they're saying the GG ceased to be Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force, and Canadian Army and became Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces - but they have developed a nasty habit of pretending the GG is supreme ruler of the universe, subordinate to no one - especially since the Clarkson years. Go figure. Quote
Figleaf Posted May 19, 2007 Report Posted May 19, 2007 "Royal"?!?! :VOMIT: Why drag that archaic, irrelevant nonsense back into anything? Who would even waste their time with this sort of crap? Quote
Catchme Posted May 19, 2007 Report Posted May 19, 2007 Ah, couple things happen then, if royal was involved, we would have to go wither Britian goes, and then it would tie it to"religion", Divine Right of Kings, and all that good stuff. Moreover, it would challenge the National Defense Act, and allow the armed forces to be able to challenge the charter. Quote When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
geoffrey Posted May 19, 2007 Report Posted May 19, 2007 I don't think anything should be Royal, that idea should have died out a few hundred years ago. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
Remiel Posted May 19, 2007 Report Posted May 19, 2007 If it makes the people in the Armed Forces happy to change it back to the original names, that is good enough for me. Whatever little boost in morale it gives is more important the equivocating over the name, since the actual command structure will remain unchanged. Are you people on some sort of crack? If we change it back to Royal then we have to do what Britain does? That is freakin' ridiculous. Quote
Figleaf Posted May 19, 2007 Report Posted May 19, 2007 Canada has had a long history of bureaucratic/command/troops squables over service names, and before that, regimental nomenclature. So, is this about people actually being really keen to bring 'royal' into it, or is it really a move to distinguish the sea/air/land services with their traditional navy/airforce/army monickers? Quote
jdobbin Posted May 19, 2007 Report Posted May 19, 2007 This move not only restores some dignity to our maligned armed forces, but also reflects the reality of the Queen being Commander-in-Chief and those who serve give allegiance to her as opposed to the government of the day.Sign up if you support this move. Restore the Royal designation to the Canadian navy and Canadian air force I have no problem with that if that is what the military really wants. Is that what they really want? Has anyone asked them? Quote
Wilber Posted May 19, 2007 Report Posted May 19, 2007 I have no problem with that if that is what the military really wants. Is that what they really want? Has anyone asked them? I agree. The title "Royal" does not mean some sort of subservience, it is an honorary title granted in recognition of past services rendered. If you look at our army regiments, not all of them bear the title Royal. Those that do, earned it the hard way. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
g_bambino Posted May 20, 2007 Author Report Posted May 20, 2007 I don't think anything should be Royal, that idea should have died out a few hundred years ago. Yes, because republics are so modern. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 20, 2007 Author Report Posted May 20, 2007 I have no problem with that if that is what the military really wants. Is that what they really want? Has anyone asked them? I agree. The title "Royal" does not mean some sort of subservience, it is an honorary title granted in recognition of past services rendered. If you look at our army regiments, not all of them bear the title Royal. Those that do, earned it the hard way. Sadly, our Maritime and Air Command, in their previous incarnations, earned the prefix and then had it taken away (along with their uniforms, command structure, and many other symbols) with the unification in the late 60s. From what I read in some people's responses here, it seems not everyone thinks that move was a bad one. Quote
Figleaf Posted May 20, 2007 Report Posted May 20, 2007 Sadly, our Maritime and Air Command, in their previous incarnations, earned the prefix and then had it taken away (along with their uniforms, command structure, and many other symbols) with the unification in the late 60s. From what I read in some people's responses here, it seems not everyone thinks that move was a bad one. As far as 'Royal' goes, it being earned doesn't make it any better. Worse, actually, the premise of 'earning' something worthless is vaguely nauseating. As far as individual service names goes, I'm assuming they combining was done for some reason that someone thought was good at the time. I don't know what the pros and cons are. Quote
Wilber Posted May 20, 2007 Report Posted May 20, 2007 As far as 'Royal' goes, it being earned doesn't make it any better. Worse, actually, the premise of 'earning' something worthless is vaguely nauseating. I guess that would also apply to the Order of Canada, Victoria Cross or any other award for service of valour. It's only worthless if the the people who hold it and their peers consider worthless. Any idea what a VC is worth on the open market these days? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted May 20, 2007 Report Posted May 20, 2007 As far as individual service names goes, I'm assuming they combining was done for some reason that someone thought was good at the time. I don't know what the pros and cons are. It was done because some morons with no sense of tradition, service, sacrifice or any idea what it meant to those who do the job, thought it was a good idea to colour them all green. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 All well and fine to get this designate but only one problem in your post....The Commander in Chief is Michaelle Jean, the Gov General. Not the Queen. No. She represents the Queen. The ships we sail are Her Majesty's Canadian Ships. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 People who don't value our history also place little value on tradition. People who place little value on tadition understand nothing about espirt de corps or what goes into creating the kind of bond that allows men to lay their lives down for each other. Now I am not opposed to reinventing the wheel, or trying to fix things that aren't broke. But you tamper with the honour and tradition of the armed forces at everyones peril. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 As far as individual service names goes, I'm assuming they combining was done for some reason that someone thought was good at the time. I don't know what the pros and cons are. Hellyer. It was a cost cutting measure. It was as popular as a fart in a phone booth amongst the ranks. It confused the hell out of everyone, especially foreigners and the legacy of unifictation, or I should say the scars are still being healed. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Figleaf Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 As far as 'Royal' goes, it being earned doesn't make it any better. Worse, actually, the premise of 'earning' something worthless is vaguely nauseating. I guess that would also apply to the Order of Canada, Victoria Cross or any other award for service of valour. It's only worthless if the the people who hold it and their peers consider worthless. Any idea what a VC is worth on the open market these days? I don't consider the Order of Canada or the VC worthless. I do consider the notion of being designated as 'royal' to be worthless, because the concept of royalty is philosophically bankrupt. Quote
Wilber Posted May 22, 2007 Report Posted May 22, 2007 I don't consider the Order of Canada or the VC worthless. I do consider the notion of being designated as 'royal' to be worthless, because the concept of royalty is philosophically bankrupt. That's your opinion but something isn't worthless just because you or I might put no value in it. If someone else does, it is not worthless. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.