Dear Mr. Monarchist:
Thank you for your e-mail concerning the restoration of the "Royal"
designation to the Canadian navy. I appreciate the opportunity to
address your concerns, and please accept my apology for this delay in
responding.
The Executive Curl was addressed as a result of private member's motion
M-459 by Member of Parliament Guy Lauzon (Stormont-Dundas-South
Glengarry). Following a review of the motion and in light of the naval
centennial celebrations taking place this year, it was determined that
reinstating the curl would be an excellent way to highlight the navy's
100 years of service to Canada.
Regarding the potential restoration of the "Royal" title, this matter
has been reviewed on many occasions with the interest and morale of
serving members of the Canadian Forces (CF) constantly in mind. Although
the CF has returned to environmentally distinctive uniforms to foster a
greater sense of identity among its members, the Government intends to
preserve the very real benefits of unification by retaining the current
organization. The re-introduction of the titles of the former single
services amalgamated to form the CF would be inappropriate, as it would
not reflect the true character of the CF. For example, those who now
wear the naval uniform only approximate the membership of the Royal
Canadian Navy. Today's navy includes many personnel wearing air force
blue and even army green, and large numbers of sailors serve in land and
air force units. Similarly, today's air force is not a mirror of the
former Royal Canadian Air Force, nor is today's army identical to the
former Canadian Army. All work for common goals.
The use of the word "Royal" as a title has never been taken away from
the CF. When the three former services were amalgamated in 1968, the
traditions and customary practices of the services were combined in the
new Canadian Armed Forces. The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act
permitted continued use of the title "Royal" by units that had earned
the honour as well as other titles of a similar nature granted by
customary right, such as Her Majesty's Canadian Ship, The Royal Canadian
Regiment, and The Royal Military College of Canada.
I trust this information is helpful, and thank you for your ongoing
interest in the Canadian Forces. I would also like to take this
opportunity to thank you for your service in defence of Canada.
Sincerely,
Peter MacKay
Minister of National Defence
By that logic, I guess that the Minister should inform the Chief of Maritime Staff that the use of the term "Canadian Navy" is also inappropriate and it should cease immediately.
ReplyDeleteThe Monarchist,
ReplyDeleteI understand that you have a penchant for issues concerning the Monarchy in Australia and Canada; however, your British friends would kindly request that you aid us in refuting the arguments of Republic.org.uk, the British republican movement website.
It would be very interesting to see you produce a 'grand rebuttal' of their arguments and jibes against monarchists. Their arguments attack the core of the Monarchy and the Queen; whereas, the Australian/Canadian versions tend to focus more on national reasons for severing royal ties.
Therefore, I believe a comprehensive, intelligent rebuttal of some of their arguments would serve the monarchist cause well.
Thank you.
The 'grand rebuttal' is a fabulous idea, and I do apologize for focussing on the Crown Commonwealth more than Britain itself - but remember, we are fighting in the frontlines here, if we fall you are next since the monarchy - though strong - is more vulnerable in Australia than it is in England.
ReplyDeleteI have a number of projects on the go, so the grand rebuttal will have to wait some. But it should - and will - get done.
Dear Monarchist,
ReplyDeletethank you for publishing this letter. The response is rather feeble, but he does make an interesting point about the structure of the Canadian Forces.
This looks like an opportunity to me. He regrettably misses the obvious statement about how about how easy it would be under the unified structure of Canada's military to transfer the necessary personnel between the service branches. As such, renaming what is currently the "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" as the "Royal Canadian Navy" should pose no problems at all, as long as recruits are aware that they could be transfered at any time to other branches of the services as required.
Perhaps it's worth another letter pointing out that you do not seek the re-establishment of the old Royal Candian Navy, but rather seek a renaming of the current component within the existing structure of the forces?
All the best,
P
A feeble response indeed! The Minister very effectively demolished his own argument by referring to "Canada's Navy / Army / Air Force"! Surely he realises that his entire argument is predicated on the fact that such entities don't exist?
ReplyDeleteWhile the Government is right to be concerned about retaining the benefits of a combined Service, the examples of the ADF, NZDF and indeed the show that this can be accomplished by defence forces comprising separate Services.
I look forward to the Minister's direction to the CDS that no future refernce is to be made of a Navy, Army or Air Force in official CF publications...
WELL Why not propose this then.
ReplyDeleteInstead of "Canadian Forces" we can call it the "ROYAL Canadian Forces".
Wouldn't that ft with the above? It'd cerainly still be amalgamatd. It just adds who those forces belong to.
Zarove,
ReplyDeleteYour suggestion ignores the existing traditions that survived the amalgimation, and form the basis of the application to restore the "royal" prefix to the 'Navy' and 'Air Force'.
If one was to head down the road you propose, you would end up with absurdities like the "Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, Royal Canadian Forces".
Personally, I cannot see how three Services acting as one Defence Force is in any way different than the situation that exisits in reality. It seems it is only the Minister who is interested in maintaining the figment that Canada doesn't have three Services!
I actually quiet like the sound of "Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, Royal Canadian Forces". Two Royals is no more Redundant than two Canadians, and I'm sure the fiction will be maintained, this just plays along with it.
ReplyDeleteKeep all the Royal traditions that survived and just add Royal to Canadian Forces.
Well, till the world comes to its senses and we merge Canada, the UK, and Australia, and New Zealand into one confederation. It'll take time as Liberalism has poisoned all, especially the UK, but I'm sure its doable.
Je souhaite que le Canada conserve jalousement son patrimoine royal, ses institutions et distinctions. À mes yeux, il est déplorable que le ministre conservateur Mackay laisse le Canada s'éloigner de sa monarchie. Je ne me sens plus représenté adéquatement par ce politicien.
ReplyDeleteWelsh
M.H.
2010
As a U.S. naval officer and former member of that country's Army and Air Force, I can readily identify a strand here that is closely related to the "Royal" issue--namely, the trend toward organizational homogeneity. Since the Goldwater-Nichols Act, there has been a parallel development in the U.S., and similar calls for or predictions of a unified, single military force. I will defer to the Canadians here, but in the U.S., I think the inter-service rivalry is a good thing and helps preserve the traditions that remain.
ReplyDeleteThe argument which this letter puts forth regarding the use of "Royal" appears to revolve around a similar, Procrustes-like fixation with shelving tradition in favor of homogeneity or linguistic uniformity. No organization, military or otherwise, carries a title that describes each and every member that it comprises, nor does any organization "mirror" the way it was 3 or 4 decades ago. And yet we know what a navy is, or an army, and we cherish our connection to the past. To deny the term "Royal" to those modern warriors whose fathers and grandfathers proudly bore it into battle seems to deny some of the dignity and luster rightly due to those who still vow to give their lives in "true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors."