Petition to restore "Royal" designation to the Maritime and

[M.Dancer]

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.

True. I doubt the members of the Royal Candian Regiment consider their Royal patron worthless.

[Army Guy]

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.

Most of those depts that are effected, RCMP, and the military, are steep in history, dating back when Royal meant alot to all Canadians. History and tradition as M Dancer explains does mean alot to those units, it is what conects us with our past, another way to ensure "we never forget" as the poem goes. It's another way for us to share in the sacrifices of those that went before us.

Do Canadians really care what we call our ships, or aircraft or elements. Not really so why all the fuss.

After unification we changed it to Canadian armed forces, which lasted for some time until believe it or not the word ARMED was considered to offensive by the public, and it was changed to simply Canadian forces...

RCMP and the Military do swear an oath to the Queen, nobody else, no other country or institution. Although it is very highly unlikely that the Queen calls upon our services, or they come to conflict that piont is still there. Perhaps it has never changed all these years is there is some philoophical substance there.

[Slavik44]

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.

You know when I read this I couldn't help but think...maybe I could make my Honda Accord better than my uncles corvette... This is what I could do...

I could grab a V-tec badge off of a prelude, maybe the SS badge off of a Camaro...maybe the little snake thingy off of the SVT cobra or how about the Ferrari horse? Now that would be dignified...I could even throw on a racing stripe and some 19 inch chrome rims...

But you know what...it will still be an accord, it won't look dignified, it won't look cool, and it won't really be fast either.

A rose by any other name is still a rose...

The Canadian military by any other name, is still the Canadian military...If you want to make it more dignified, or improve its image...then focus on substantive change...If I want my car to go faster I will buy a turbo, If I want the Canadian military to be more dignified we should buy some equipment. Really no matter how you slice it, whether you are called the Royal Canadian Air Force or the Canadian Air force…you’re still flying a sea king.

Issues surrounding royalty in Canada tend to be fairly divisive…it’s like kicking an ant hill in the middle of nowhere…can we just leave it alone?

[M.Dancer]

...

The Canadian military by any other name, is still the Canadian military...If you want to make it more dignified, or improve its image...then focus on substantive change...If I want my car to go faster I will buy a turbo, If I want the Canadian military to be more dignified we should buy some equipment. Really no matter how you slice it, whether you are called the Royal Canadian Air Force or the Canadian Air force…you’re still flying a sea king.

Issues surrounding royalty in Canada tend to be fairly divisive…it’s like kicking an ant hill in the middle of nowhere…can we just leave it alone?

The CF isn't equipment, it's people. It's people who will be inspired, not posi traction, DOC or superchargers.

[Slavik44]

...

The Canadian military by any other name, is still the Canadian military...If you want to make it more dignified, or improve its image...then focus on substantive change...If I want my car to go faster I will buy a turbo, If I want the Canadian military to be more dignified we should buy some equipment. Really no matter how you slice it, whether you are called the Royal Canadian Air Force or the Canadian Air force…you’re still flying a sea king.

Issues surrounding royalty in Canada tend to be fairly divisive…it’s like kicking an ant hill in the middle of nowhere…can we just leave it alone?

The CF isn't equipment, it's people. It's people who will be inspired, not posi traction, DOC or superchargers.

I have a couple of problems here...the biggest one is that you are making a conclusion but not supporting it with anything objective evidence...only a suggestion that people might be inspired to fight for the queen...at best this cannot be proven.

For me personally if I were to draw up a list of people I would be willing to die for...The queen wouldn;t be on it, the british royal family wouldn't be on it. These people are figureheads, celebrities, they are faces and names. Call me crazy, but I have a fealing that my list of people I am willing to fight and perhaps even die for is similar to that of most other Canadians...It does not include The Queen, Paris Hilton, or any other fame by birth individual. It would be people I know very well, people I love. Of all the people I have talked to in the Canadian forces...I haven't met a single individual whose primary reason was the queen.

Hey the Queen might be a celebrity...she might be really important...but I have a feeling that most people are not so star struck...and deep down, what inspires them and pushes them is their loved ones and their values...their beliefs...not the Queen. I mean hey, I'll be fair...if anyone on this forum can provide me with a scientific general survey of the Canadian population that shows people are more inspired or motivated by the queen over their family....then I will sign the petition.

[Army Guy]

I have a couple of problems here...the biggest one is that you are making a conclusion but not supporting it with anything objective evidence...only a suggestion that people might be inspired to fight for the queen...at best this cannot be proven.

Actually there is not a great argument to be made, one would have to understand that history and tradition plays a big role in the RCMP and military. To a member with unlimited liabilty ( may be asked to give thier life in the course of thier jobs) that member would like to know that thier sacrafice would not be forgotten.

As for the Royal title it is a major part of that history, one that most of Canada's history is written under, and it would be another way for it's members to preserve history and the memory of fallen comrads, and past serving members alive.

As for inspiring people to fight for the Queen, your right, but then again ask any soldier whom he is fighting for and he'll piont to his comrads, not queen or country. One might be intially drawn into the recruiting center to serve his country, or the adventure, or on some idea that combat is romantic, and cool. But when thier on the battle field, he's fighting to stay alive, for him and his comrads first, then the cause , then for his country or Queen.

Hey the Queen might be a celebrity...she might be really important...but I have a feeling that most people are not so star struck...and deep down, what inspires them and pushes them is their loved ones and their values...their beliefs...not the Queen. I mean hey, I'll be fair...if anyone on this forum can provide me with a scientific general survey of the Canadian population that shows people are more inspired or motivated by the queen over their family....then I will sign the petition.

Like i said before, it's not about inspiring anyone, just keeping our history and tradition alive, it's a solution that will not cost anything but a few gals of paint. As for surveys and scientific evidence i don't think there is none, other than the fact that the Queen still effects Canadian lives, they still flock to see her when she comes, we still swear allegence to her, our money etc etc. although we consider ourselfs a seperate country with little ties to mother England, we have not cut all our ties, either because where lazy, or we are not ready to just yet.

[M.Dancer]

Like i said before, it's not about inspiring anyone, just keeping our history and tradition alive, it's a solution that will not cost anything but a few gals of paint. As for surveys and scientific evidence i don't think there is none, other than the fact that the Queen still effects Canadian lives, they still flock to see her when she comes, we still swear allegence to her, our money etc etc. although we consider ourselfs a seperate country with little ties to mother England, we have not cut all our ties, either because where lazy, or we are not ready to just yet.

When I was a member of the Black Watch almost 30 years ago, our Colonel in Chief was the Queen Mother. We knew she took an interest in our regiment, and by extension, in our well being if only in an abstract way. While the Regiment is a Highland one (RHC), we had members from almost every ethinic persusion, and when The Queen Mother came to visit us, the entire Regiment turned out in spit and polish, excited that we were being paid the honour of her visit.

You can ask any member of any "royal" regiment if they would like to be divested of their "Royal"......

You alredy know what the answer is.

[g_bambino]

The CF isn't equipment, it's people. It's people who will be inspired, not posi traction, DOC or superchargers.

I have a couple of problems here...the biggest one is that you are making a conclusion but not supporting it with anything objective evidence...only a suggestion that people might be inspired to fight for the queen...at best this cannot be proven.

For me personally if I were to draw up a list of people I would be willing to die for...The queen wouldn;t be on it, the british royal family wouldn't be on it. These people are figureheads, celebrities, they are faces and names. Call me crazy, but I have a fealing that my list of people I am willing to fight and perhaps even die for is similar to that of most other Canadians...It does not include The Queen, Paris Hilton, or any other fame by birth individual. It would be people I know very well, people I love. Of all the people I have talked to in the Canadian forces...I haven't met a single individual whose primary reason was the queen.

Hey the Queen might be a celebrity...she might be really important...but I have a feeling that most people are not so star struck...and deep down, what inspires them and pushes them is their loved ones and their values...their beliefs...not the Queen. I mean hey, I'll be fair...if anyone on this forum can provide me with a scientific general survey of the Canadian population that shows people are more inspired or motivated by the queen over their family....then I will sign the petition.

Well, I can see right off the bat where your problems stem from; and I am fairly certain that, unfortunately, you're not alone.

It seems that Canadians have been denied all sense of what the Crown, and ergo the Queen, means and does for this country; they've been left ignorant by self-serving leaders, left to believe, in the absence of any information otherwise, that this country is a headless state, or worse, the PM is the personification of the nation.

To the contrary, all executive authority in Canada is vested in the Crown, making it the institution that embodies and protects the power of the democratic state. So the Queen, the holder of the Crown, is our head of state, the human personification of the Canadian nation, not some superfluous celebrity like Paris Hilton. (What a hideous comparison, by the way. One woman dedicates 53 years - and beyond - of her life to national service, while the other gets paid gajillions for... well... nothing.) This is why the Armed Forces give their allegiance to Elizabeth II, and not the transient government of the day, or to vagaries like "the country" or "the constitution." This is why when the prefix "Royal" is granted by the Sovereign to any of her Canadian military units, though it is historical, it is more importantly a recognition on behalf of the Canadian nation; it's also a symbolic reminder to the Forces personnel of the Queen's position as the link between them and the rest of the Canadian populace - by serving her they serve us all.

The existence of the banal and historically neutered "Canadian Forces" perpetuates this myth of the headless and story-less Canada - as though our military serves a faceless corporation rather than a nation built of actual people bonded through a shared history and under a human Sovereign. This is why, I think, those in our Air Force and Navy would be more proud to serve in Her Majesty's Royal Canadian Air Force or Her Majesty's Royal Canadian Navy than the soulless, machine-like "Maritime Command" and "Air Command."

[Army Guy]

When I was a member of the Black Watch almost 30 years ago, our Colonel in Chief was the Queen Mother. We knew she took an interest in our regiment, and by extension, in our well being if only in an abstract way. While the Regiment is a Highland one (RHC), we had members from almost every ethinic persusion, and when The Queen Mother came to visit us, the entire Regiment turned out in spit and polish, excited that we were being paid the honour of her visit.

You can ask any member of any "royal" regiment if they would like to be divested of their "Royal"......

You alredy know what the answer is.

Perhaps i made a piss poor choice of words, in trying to explain myself. And should have been more explicted when using the word inspire...It would inspire more pride, in thier unit and the Royal family, and that translates into a better unit, better soldiers.

And No they would not want to divest thier Royal titles earned by past serving members on the battle field.

[Figleaf]

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.

Most of those depts that are effected, RCMP, and the military, are steep in history, dating back when Royal meant alot to all Canadians. History and tradition as M Dancer explains does mean alot to those units, it is what conects us with our past, another way to ensure "we never forget" as the poem goes. It's another way for us to share in the sacrifices of those that went before us.

Time to move on. The service of those who have gone before is not unmade, and the connection today's people have to them is not severed by having a name that reflects what is important TODAY rather than what was important yesterday. What we inherit from the past must change when it no longer meets modern needs and realities. I would regard it as a very sad thing if people can't find pride in their work without an archaic and meaningless monicker.

After unification we changed it to Canadian armed forces, which lasted for some time until believe it or not the word ARMED was considered to offensive by the public, ...

Don't blame the public for the follies of bureaucraps.

RCMP and the Military do swear an oath to the Queen, nobody else, no other country or institution.

Is CANADA not mentioned in their oath?!?! If true, that's utterly objectionable.

[g_bambino]

Most of those depts that are effected, RCMP, and the military, are steep in history, dating back when Royal meant alot to all Canadians. History and tradition as M Dancer explains does mean alot to those units, it is what conects us with our past, another way to ensure "we never forget" as the poem goes. It's another way for us to share in the sacrifices of those that went before us.

Time to move on. The service of those who have gone before is not unmade, and the connection today's people have to them is not severed by having a name that reflects what is important TODAY rather than what was important yesterday. What we inherit from the past must change when it no longer meets modern needs and realities. I would regard it as a very sad thing if people can't find pride in their work without an archaic and meaningless monicker.

What is important today, then? What do you propose? The "Canadian Forces" reflecting the headless state? Or perhaps the "Military of the People's Republic of Canada"?

RCMP and the Military do swear an oath to the Queen, nobody else, no other country or institution.

Is CANADA not mentioned in their oath?!?! If true, that's utterly objectionable.

What is "Canada"? How do you swear an oath to "it"?

[Figleaf]

What is "Canada"? How do you swear an oath to "it"?

Don't Americans manage to swear oaths without a Queen to swear them to?

(Meanwhile, I was concerned whether Canada was MENTIONED, not whether it was sworn TO specifically.)

[M.Dancer]

What is "Canada"? How do you swear an oath to "it"?

Don't Americans manage to swear oaths without a Queen to swear them to?

(Meanwhile, I was concerned whether Canada was MENTIONED, not whether it was sworn TO specifically.)

The Oath, in its present form, is:

I, ……………, do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever. So help me God.

[Wilber]

Time to move on. The service of those who have gone before is not unmade, and the connection today's people have to them is not severed by having a name that reflects what is important TODAY rather than what was important yesterday. What we inherit from the past must change when it no longer meets modern needs and realities. I would regard it as a very sad thing if people can't find pride in their work without an archaic and meaningless monicker.

Lets just change the name of everything every twenty years to get rid of old baggage. Perfect. There's bound to be some customs and traditions that you cherish which some people in future generations will think foolish and irrelevant. We'll just periodically brainwash ourselves into believing that they never existed. While were at it, better rename all those places that owe their names to our colonial past like Regina and all those Prince whatevers.

Countries like the US and the UK cherish their history and traditions, good and bad, that's one of the things which makes them the great countries they are. Those things are still important because they wouldn't be who they are without them. I don't understand why so many Canadians are always in such a rush to ditch theirs, it's like they are ashamed of them or don't consider themselves to be worthy of their heritage.

[g_bambino]

What is "Canada"? How do you swear an oath to "it"?

Don't Americans manage to swear oaths without a Queen to swear them to?

Americans swear oaths to a piece of paper and a piece of cloth precisely because they don't have a Queen to swear them to.

(Meanwhile, I was concerned whether Canada was MENTIONED, not whether it was sworn TO specifically.)

Fair enough. But when the Queen is the physical, living embodiment of the nation, why add the vague and redundant?

[Army Guy]

Time to move on. The service of those who have gone before is not unmade, and the connection today's people have to them is not severed by having a name that reflects what is important TODAY rather than what was important yesterday. What we inherit from the past must change when it no longer meets modern needs and realities. I would regard it as a very sad thing if people can't find pride in their work without an archaic and meaningless monicker.

Why is it time to move on, and to what are we moving towards, And if it is so important to tadays people why is there not a drive to remove any and all traces of our connection to royality. Perhaps because todays Canadians really don't care, and if that is true why would anyone stand or block this drive to restore some of our old history.

That is the piont that these depts are steep in history and tradition, and draw from that to inspire todays people that are serving more pride, moral, and the fact that when it is thier turn, thier sacrifice and service will not be forgotten. I'll give you an example how many Canadians remember Vimy and what it means to our nation. And in saying that the past must never be changed or rewritten but remmebered as it is and how it happened. This example of going back to oplace Royal in front of our elements has not grown outdated or has nothing to be replaced by.

I think the fact that our military has taken pride in everything it has done proves that that is not true. as for meaniless monicker not to those depts whom most of thier history is written with.

Don't blame the public for the follies of bureaucraps.

Who would you blame, it was the public that demanded it be changed...And it does set the tone of thier mind set towards the military at the time.

Is CANADA not mentioned in their oath?!?! If true, that's utterly objectionable.

The oath i took was over 25 years ago, i'm not sure of the exact wording of the oath today but it is still to the Queen. Hence why the GG is the commander and chief. It's been that why since the start of our history, something that a canadians don't care about, or to lazy to change it. which one is it..so why is it now objectionable

[nbguyca]

What is important today, then? What do you propose? The "Canadian Forces" reflecting the headless state? Or perhaps the "Military of the People's Republic of Canada"?

What would be wrong to simply call them "the Canadian Army", "the Canadian Navy", and the Canadian Air Force"?

And could you please explain to me what the Queen does for the country at this time?

[g_bambino]

What is important today, then? What do you propose? The "Canadian Forces" reflecting the headless state? Or perhaps the "Military of the People's Republic of Canada"?

What would be wrong to simply call them "the Canadian Army", "the Canadian Navy", and the Canadian Air Force"?

Nothing would be technically wrong with it at all, but that was never my point. As I said, the "Royal" designation makes more clear who it is our Armed Forces members ultimately serve - the Queen of Canada, not a politician, some vague thing called "the People," or nothing at all.

And could you please explain to me what the Queen does for the country at this time?

She's the Head of State - or, more correctly, she is the State.

[nbguyca]

She's the Head of State - or, more correctly, she is the State.

That doesn't answer my question. I know that she the head of state but she has no real role or powers in Canada so what does she do for Canada?

[g_bambino]

She's the Head of State - or, more correctly, she is the State.

That doesn't answer my question. I know that she the head of state but she has no real role or powers in Canada so what does she do for Canada?

Sorry, I suppose the correct answer to your question would be: she acts as head of state - or, more correctly, as the personification of it. It's somewhat contradictory for someone to be head of state but hold no role or powers - the only actual example of that happening is the Emperor of Japan, and that situation leads to debate around whether or not he actually is the Japanese Head of State. To the contrary, ask yourself: what does any head of state do for their country? Perhaps, more specifically, what does any head of state in a Westminster parliamentary model do?

[nbguyca]

She's the Head of State - or, more correctly, she is the State.

That doesn't answer my question. I know that she the head of state but she has no real role or powers in Canada so what does she do for Canada?

Sorry, I suppose the correct answer to your question would be: she acts as head of state - or, more correctly, as the personification of it. It's somewhat contradictory for someone to be head of state but hold no role or powers - the only actual example of that happening is the Emperor of Japan, and that situation leads to debate around whether or not he actually is the Japanese Head of State. To the contrary, ask yourself: what does any head of state do for their country? Perhaps, more specifically, what does any head of state in a Westminster parliamentary model do?

I guess that is what I'm asking you because as far as I can see, she does nothing other than act as a figure head. If that is the case, what's the point?

[M.Dancer]

I guess that is what I'm asking you because as far as I can see, she does nothing other than act as a figure head. If that is the case, what's the point?

The value of tradition and history when it comes to the military is priceless. You do away with the royal patronage you do away with the memories of thousands of Canadians who served with honour, who fought and died .....

......in effect, you diminish the history of our nation for what? What conceivable benefit is there for erasing another piece of our collective past and culture?

[Remiel]

Taken from: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4946.asp

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

We have what amounts to a circular relationship. Our oaths are to the Queen, and the Queen's oath is to us.

[g_bambino]

Sorry, I suppose the correct answer to your question would be: she acts as head of state - or, more correctly, as the personification of it. It's somewhat contradictory for someone to be head of state but hold no role or powers - the only actual example of that happening is the Emperor of Japan, and that situation leads to debate around whether or not he actually is the Japanese Head of State. To the contrary, ask yourself: what does any head of state do for their country? Perhaps, more specifically, what does any head of state in a Westminster parliamentary model do?

I guess that is what I'm asking you because as far as I can see, she does nothing other than act as a figure head. If that is the case, what's the point?

Like most heads of state in parliamentary democracies she does act predominantly as a figure head, but in reality is vested with all executive authority in and over Canada; hence sovereignty is vested in her, she is one of the three parts of Parliament, all laws are passed in her name with her (or her representative's) signature, and she holds command-in-chief over the Armed Forces. These powers she "exercises" on the advice of her Ministers - the Cabinet. Though, to maintain the stability of government, she remains out of the political fray and almost always follows her ministers' advice in the use of her powers of government (meaning that, in effect, the ministers are the ones governing), because she ultimately occupies the position of supreme authority politicians cannot, and if any prime minister or government attempts to act extra-legally, or any other problem arises that threatens governmental stability, it is the Queen's constitutional duty to dismiss them. The analogy is that she acts like a fire-extinguisher - it's always there, it's very visible, but isn't actually used until an emergency, and the less it's used obviously the better things are working. Of course, her vice-regal representatives are authorised to act in the Queen's place, though unforeseen circumstances may necessitate her direct intervention.

Beyond the legal technicalities, the Queen also acts as an impartial focus for patriotism - because the Crown is the apolitical embodiment of the nation Canadians can have a human locus of national pride without having to love the members of the incumbent partisan government.

And then, of course, there's the whole history thing.

See the "Monarchist arguments" section of this article for more detail.

[nbguyca]

Sorry, I suppose the correct answer to your question would be: she acts as head of state - or, more correctly, as the personification of it. It's somewhat contradictory for someone to be head of state but hold no role or powers - the only actual example of that happening is the Emperor of Japan, and that situation leads to debate around whether or not he actually is the Japanese Head of State. To the contrary, ask yourself: what does any head of state do for their country? Perhaps, more specifically, what does any head of state in a Westminster parliamentary model do?

I guess that is what I'm asking you because as far as I can see, she does nothing other than act as a figure head. If that is the case, what's the point?

Like most heads of state in parliamentary democracies she does act predominantly as a figure head, but in reality is vested with all executive authority in and over Canada; hence sovereignty is vested in her, she is one of the three parts of Parliament, all laws are passed in her name with her (or her representative's) signature, and she holds command-in-chief over the Armed Forces. These powers she "exercises" on the advice of her Ministers - the Cabinet. Though, to maintain the stability of government, she remains out of the political fray and almost always follows her ministers' advice in the use of her powers of government (meaning that, in effect, the ministers are the ones governing), because she ultimately occupies the position of supreme authority politicians cannot, and if any prime minister or government attempts to act extra-legally, or any other problem arises that threatens governmental stability, it is the Queen's constitutional duty to dismiss them. The analogy is that she acts like a fire-extinguisher - it's always there, it's very visible, but isn't actually used until an emergency, and the less it's used obviously the better things are working. Of course, her vice-regal representatives are authorised to act in the Queen's place, though unforeseen circumstances may necessitate her direct intervention.

Beyond the legal technicalities, the Queen also acts as an impartial focus for patriotism - because the Crown is the apolitical embodiment of the nation Canadians can have a human locus of national pride without having to love the members of the incumbent partisan government.

And then, of course, there's the whole history thing.

See the "Monarchist arguments" section of this article for more detail.

Didn't the Constitution Act (1982) actually remove those powers from the queen?