Canadian Navy, Air Force 'Royal' Again With Official Name Ch

I agree with Jack Granatstein. There is as much reason to restore the "Royal" in the Navy and Air Force as there is restore the Union Jack as our national flag.

You know, I don't have a problem with the "R" in RCMP or the all the existing royal citations in various institutions, because they have been in continuous usage since the colonial and neo-colonial era.

But I think that once those names have been changed, there's use in bringing them back. I mean, the "Royal" has been gone from the AF and Navy for over 40 years. That's 2 generations of servicemen. There is not one sailor or airman serving today who served in the "Royal" days. Not one.

I dont think new institutions should have Royal in their name, and I dont think that old institutions that shed the name decades ago should be rebranded.

Does anybody really think that this rebranding will boost recruitement or retention, or make our sailors and airmen more combat effective?

Just because not one of the men serving i the air force or navy doesn't mean they don't hold value for the past traditions of their organizations. I hate to pull the line, but if you weren't in the service, the mounties, or any other multi-generational organization or corporation that is steeped in tradition, you'll never understand.

The mistake was bowing to the infancy of political correctness in 1968 and changing the names of the services. I mean, the Canadian Army wasn't called the Royal Canadian Army so why change the name to something weak and wishy-washy like Land Forces Command. What the fuck is THAT??

These name changes were done at a time when we were hailed as peacekeeping heroes. The names of the services were changed, I feel, to reflect that. Army, Navy and Airforce sounded too aggressive, so they came up with nice generic sounding euphamisms that satisfied no-one but those who pushed the agenda, and those that continue to push it.

JJ of Filibuster fame has some comments on the change. (I don't know what they are right now, I don't have speakers at work :oops:

)

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/#clip517864

Not one's I agree with.

The reason why no party can say they have a clear majority of members is because, like the country, it is 50-50 divide. And even if there was a party who did have a majority, they wouldn't say it, because if they did, they'd alienate half their constituents. The Monarchy debate is unique in that it can't be affiliated with any one portion of the political spectrum. No matter if you are Liberal or Conservative, big government or small government, capitalist or socialist, you're opinion on the monarchy is your own. Because the monarchy has very little relation to any other issue, but is still interconnected with every issue, you have that unique divide.

Here is the example. Me, personally, I am a monarchist. My family has been monarchists for as long as I can remember. We still light a candle every year for Diana. I personally don't pay attention to the drama, but I do have my personal opinions of individual royal members. And we accept that, while it may not be the best form of governance, it is an effective one. Why fix what isn't broken?

The best part is, being monarchists is the only thing we all really have in common. My grandparents are stout conservatives, as are the aunts and uncles. My mother is a tree hugging, PETA loving freak, my father is a blue collared tree hugger. My brothers are all legitimate rednecks, And I of course have various political opinions that can't really be confined within any one particular stereotype.

This was further broken down at my school. The question came up every fucking year in english classes, social studies classes, and history classes (Even in my bio 11 class

). No matter which class you were in, the frequency of monarchists to republicans was 1-1, with an error of one for class sizes of odd numbers, and even then, it went either way. For english 12 we did a poll of the entire graduating class, and out of 128 kids who graduated, the difference was 2 in favour of monarchy. Effectively it was a statistical tie.

Of course I have no way to back up personal experience. But we've had many topics on the subject in the past on here. We're a centre-right leaning site now, and it has always been 50-50 split. Skyscraperpage.com has a poll on the very subject right now. They are a very left-leaning site, but again, it's a 50-50 split. The only deviants would be sites who have a specific focus on the monarchy, where opinions on it become so polarized it has to go one way or the other.