Petition to reinstate the RCAF and RCN
Freakinoldguy @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:15 pm
$1:
Having said that, I hope that someday the "Royal" will refer to a Canadianised monarchy instead of some distant, foreign one whose head deems Canada worthy of a little visit once every five years or so. :idea]
Somehow I just can't imagine a ship without the HMCS, so it follows that Royal Canadian Navy should be reinstated to validate the term Her Majesties Canadian Ship. As it stands now, it appears that the Ship belongs to the Queen but not the sailors on it and since they swear alliegence to her it is a bit of misnomer.
But, if your looking for volunteers for the new Monarchy position in Canada, I'd like to be the first to put my name forward. I think I'd fit in pretty well as long as beer and burgers were the main course at state dinners and I could likely save the tax payers some money by doing most of the repairs and renovations to Rideau Hall myself.
Of course Madame Jean would be more than welcome to stay, and could be in charge of glad handing with the politicians and protocol at the State BBQ's.
Tman1 @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:07 pm
WBenson WBenson:
I didn't say she was more Canadian than all Canadians born here, just some. Certainly there are some we'd want to disown. Wasn't there just a trial in Chicago that proved that?
This is disturbing to say the least. Himmler would be proud. Care to elaborate on who to disown and discard? Ya know what? Why stop with the Queen, here's a new law. Anybody who knows more about Canada than themselves, are automatic citizens and the ones who don't will be disowned or people WBenson doesn't consider Canadian. How about that?
Tman1 @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:12 pm
WBenson WBenson:
She is a foreign monarch only when acting as the Queen of a foreign country. When dealing with Canada she is the Queen of Canada. You either are or you aren't, there's no such thing as "in name only." I guess the Constitution Act is a constitution in name only, too.
When you see the Queen of Canada actually exert some power over this country, changing laws (I might add she can't even do in her own country), get back to me with the "no such thing as in name only" context thank you.
The Constitution Act is what organizes Canada and governs it in a set state of rules, the Queen doesn't.
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:16 pm
Does the queen have a passport?
DerbyX @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:18 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
WBenson WBenson:
She is a foreign monarch only when acting as the Queen of a foreign country. When dealing with Canada she is the Queen of Canada. You either are or you aren't, there's no such thing as "in name only." I guess the Constitution Act is a constitution in name only, too.
When you see the Queen of Canada actually exert some power over this country, changing laws (I might add she can't even do in her own country), get back to me with the "no such thing as in name only" context thank you.
The Constitution Act is what organizes Canada and governs it in a set state of rules, the Queen doesn't.
Hell, she seems to have even less power in England. When I lived there my english friends all said that the british PM had "absolute power" (their words). In reality he certainly had far more power then our PM because he isn't dealing with squabbling provinces.
Anyone saying we are functionly governed by the queen isn't in reality.
BTW: Looking forward to BSG: Razor?
EyeBrock @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:23 pm
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
If the government ever officially uses the terms "Canadian Air Force" and "Canadian Navy", they are obligated to attach "Royal" to them.
Fair enough they might as well go back to their old names again. But how come it is not the Royal Maritime Command then?
"Commands" are usually large military components within a "force" therefore don't rate a "Royal", much like individual unit's such as DART etc don't rate the same.
Most Commonwealth nations use commands within a Force. RAF had Strike Command, Training Command, Support Command within the actual Air Force.
When the RCN and RCAF went to Maritime and Air Commands they were basically downgraded as independant 'Forces'.
DerbyX @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:28 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
If the government ever officially uses the terms "Canadian Air Force" and "Canadian Navy", they are obligated to attach "Royal" to them.
Fair enough they might as well go back to their old names again. But how come it is not the Royal Maritime Command then?
"Commands" are usually large military components within a "force" therefore don't rate a "Royal", much like individual unit's such as DART etc don't rate the same.
Most Commonwealth nations use commands within a Force. RAF had Strike Command, Training Command, Support Command within the actual Air Force.
When the RCN and RCAF went to Maritime and Air Commands they were basically downgraded as independant 'Forces'.
Can you translate a bit for me.
Weren't the RCN & RCAF already maritime & air commands?
Sorry to sound dense but are we simply speaking in terms of total strength dictating calling the navy RCN (ditto RCAF)?
EyeBrock @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:30 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
A names a name. Back when Canada was a dominion or an underling to Britian, those names would have served fine but now, the CAF, Canadian Air Force sounds nice or the CS (Canadian ship) sounds just fine. None of that has anything to do with severing ties with Britain or its traditions with Canada.
While in theory I agree with you, the reality of the situation is that the military value tradition, history and heritage much more than the average civilian organisation.
These traditions actually bind the units together and provide the esprit-de-corps needed in the difficult situations we train our guys to operate in.
Units learn about the history of their ship/Regt/Sqn and how those who went before them fared in long distant battles.
These things are very important to the guys who are serving.
What we have now is Air Command being described half-heartedly as the 'airforce' which it isn't, and Maritime Command being tagged as a 'navy', which again it isn't, it's just a command, then the ships have a 'HM' designation. Just rename them, reclaim a bit of lost heritage or get rid of the queen.
These half measures are just silly.
EyeBrock @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:33 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
If the government ever officially uses the terms "Canadian Air Force" and "Canadian Navy", they are obligated to attach "Royal" to them.
Fair enough they might as well go back to their old names again. But how come it is not the Royal Maritime Command then?
"Commands" are usually large military components within a "force" therefore don't rate a "Royal", much like individual unit's such as DART etc don't rate the same.
Most Commonwealth nations use commands within a Force. RAF had Strike Command, Training Command, Support Command within the actual Air Force.
When the RCN and RCAF went to Maritime and Air Commands they were basically downgraded as independant 'Forces'.
Can you translate a bit for me.
Weren't the RCF & RCAF already maritime & air commands?
Sorry to sound dense but are we simply speaking in terms of total strength dictating calling the navy RCN (ditto RCAF)?
No the RCN was actually a 'navy' and the RCAF was an actual 'airforce'. "Commands" are lesser in military stature and make up parts of a "force". When these designations were changed the 'forces' were downgraded. It's like making a 'Division' a Regiment. Or a Squadron a Flight. Means nothing to those outside the military but it sure meant a lot to those in it!
DerbyX @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:39 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
DerbyX DerbyX:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
If the government ever officially uses the terms "Canadian Air Force" and "Canadian Navy", they are obligated to attach "Royal" to them.
Fair enough they might as well go back to their old names again. But how come it is not the Royal Maritime Command then?
"Commands" are usually large military components within a "force" therefore don't rate a "Royal", much like individual unit's such as DART etc don't rate the same.
Most Commonwealth nations use commands within a Force. RAF had Strike Command, Training Command, Support Command within the actual Air Force.
When the RCN and RCAF went to Maritime and Air Commands they were basically downgraded as independant 'Forces'.
Can you translate a bit for me.
Weren't the RCF & RCAF already maritime & air commands?
Sorry to sound dense but are we simply speaking in terms of total strength dictating calling the navy RCN (ditto RCAF)?
No the RCN was actually a 'navy' and the RCAF was an actual 'airforce'. "Commands" are lesser in military stature and make up parts of a "force". When these designations were changed the 'forces' were downgraded. It's like making a 'Division' a Regiment. Or a Squadron a Flight. Means nothing to those outside the military but it sure meant a lot to those in it!
I'm still a little foggy. If our unit (navy - airforce -army) strength is at a certain level then it gets a certain designation right?
We aren't calling a battalion a regiment right?
In terms of our airforce we term each unit per base a "wing".
I'm not trying to be dumb (though doing a good job) just trying to understand what you are saying.
Are you saying that we should change currenty unit terminolgy or that we need to boost numbers in order to support calling a ""division" a "division" (for example)?
Tman1 @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:41 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
Tman1 Tman1:
WBenson WBenson:
She is a foreign monarch only when acting as the Queen of a foreign country. When dealing with Canada she is the Queen of Canada. You either are or you aren't, there's no such thing as "in name only." I guess the Constitution Act is a constitution in name only, too.
When you see the Queen of Canada actually exert some power over this country, changing laws (I might add she can't even do in her own country), get back to me with the "no such thing as in name only" context thank you.
The Constitution Act is what organizes Canada and governs it in a set state of rules, the Queen doesn't.
Hell, she seems to have even less power in England. When I lived there my english friends all said that the british PM had "absolute power" (their words). In reality he certainly had far more power then our PM because he isn't dealing with squabbling provinces.
Anyone saying we are functionly governed by the queen isn't in reality.
BTW: Looking forward to BSG: Razor?
People can think what they want, the truth, is what people don't like. It's the monarchy, hell, they are godlike and more anything than anybody else right? Even in far away places like India, where the Queen is more *Indian* than some born there.....
BSG Razor. I've heard of it. Is it actually a 2 hour mini-series or a webisode type thing? I heard it deals with the first Cylon war.
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:44 pm
$1:
Means nothing to those outside the military but it sure meant a lot to those in it!
like having to wear that putrid green. i think it was in june or july of '86 when i was issued my dress whites and blue work dress. had americans saluting us for a little while.
DerbyX @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:49 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Tman1 Tman1:
WBenson WBenson:
She is a foreign monarch only when acting as the Queen of a foreign country. When dealing with Canada she is the Queen of Canada. You either are or you aren't, there's no such thing as "in name only." I guess the Constitution Act is a constitution in name only, too.
When you see the Queen of Canada actually exert some power over this country, changing laws (I might add she can't even do in her own country), get back to me with the "no such thing as in name only" context thank you.
The Constitution Act is what organizes Canada and governs it in a set state of rules, the Queen doesn't.
Hell, she seems to have even less power in England. When I lived there my english friends all said that the british PM had "absolute power" (their words). In reality he certainly had far more power then our PM because he isn't dealing with squabbling provinces.
Anyone saying we are functionly governed by the queen isn't in reality.
BTW: Looking forward to BSG: Razor?
People can think what they want, the truth, is what people don't like. It's the monarchy, hell, they are godlike and more anything than anybody else right? Even in far away places like India, where the Queen is more *Indian* than some born there.....
BSG Razor. I've heard of it. Is it actually a 2 hour mini-series or a webisode type thing? I heard it deals with the first Cylon war.
It deal with the Battlestar Pegasus from the onset of the cylon attack until it meets up with the Galactica.
It has all the previous actors from the pegasus episodes of BSG in their original roles.
Tman1 @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:53 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
While in theory I agree with you, the reality of the situation is that the military value tradition, history and heritage much more than the average civilian organisation.
These traditions actually bind the units together and provide the esprit-de-corps needed in the difficult situations we train our guys to operate in.
These traditions actually bind the units together and provide the esprit-de-corps needed in the difficult situations we train our guys to operate in.
While in theory, I agree with you (believe me I do) but you are not to judge who *believes* in what much more than the other sorry but thanks. I'm sure there are many in the military who don't give a rats ass about the Queen or the *Royal* they are serving under but the flag on their shoulder. My brother in-law on the CFB Moose Jaw knows. Now before the military commandos jump on me, I completely believe you, as knowing those traditions do bind the military together and does give them a sense of history, heritage and tradition but claiming everybody in the military hold those ideals together, is wrong.
Tman1 @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:58 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
It deal with the Battlestar Pegasus from the onset of the cylon attack until it meets up with the Galactica.
It has all the previous actors from the pegasus episodes of BSG in their original roles.
It has all the previous actors from the pegasus episodes of BSG in their original roles.
I must admit I was a little put off with the 3rd season of BSG (didn't seem the same) and haven't caught up since. I recall the fourth season will be the last according to Ron Moore. Good epic series need an end. Indeed it is about the Pegasus but might have flashbacks of the original Cylons and those sparkly heads.