Canada has a Royal Regiment!??

reply to post by Essan

Correct, it must really tick off British people when their country is called "England" or their monarch called the "Queen of England". It's called the UNITED KINGDOM! England has not existed as a country since the union of Scotland and England/Wales/[Northern] Ireland in 1707.

It would be like if people referred to the United States as New York ...

reply to post by ChrisF231


Nearly all of the Brits are proud of the Monarchy, the silver jubliee of 77 i heard was epic, Union Flags everywhere.

Im proud of the commonwealth, and it warms me inside to see the Canadians still have a Royal regiment.

We are all one happy family.

(well maybe not south africa hehe)

reply to post by ChrisF231


I live in England, which is part of the UK

It doesnt tick me off at all

For those looking for some history instead of sovereignty arguments, there is one Regiment I can tell you about from Canada. Before 1949, us in Newfoundland weren't part of Canada. Therefore, when the Great War broke out, we raised our own army. It was called the Newfoundland Regiment. We went overseas with 1000 men, and were the only North American force to fight at Gallipoli, notably at Suvla Bay. We were the rear guard for the Allied retreat. After a short time to recover, we were shipped out again, this time to support the offensive at the Somme. As you may know, the Somme was one of the war's bloodiest battles. Our orders were to take Beaumont-Hamel, a strategic position on the Ridge. Our men were the 3rd wave sent against the German lines. Along with the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, we went over the top. 780 brave men went into battle at 0845, July 1, 1916. 110 came back unhurt. At roll call the next morning, 68 were available. Despite these horrible losses, we went on to fight at Flanders six weeks later, holding off a gas attack. From there, we went on to Monchy, Cambrai and Ledegem during the 100 Day Offensive. On account of our valour in battle, King George V bestowed upon us the "Royal" title,the third time in history this was done in wartime.

Since then, we've gone on to field two artillery regiments in the Second World War, the 59 Heavy (Newfoundland) Regiment, and the 57 (Newfoundland) Field Artillery Regiments (later the 166). Elements of the current regiment have fought in Bosnia, Cyprus, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
For those looking for some history instead of sovereignty arguments, there is one Regiment I can tell you about from Canada. Before 1949, us in Newfoundland weren't part of Canada. Therefore, when the Great War broke out, we raised our own army. It was called the Newfoundland Regiment.

I have been in St. John's on Canada Day, July First. It is touching that the flags are at half mast until noon in remembrance of the great sacrifice at Beaumont-Hamel, then raised at 12, to join in the celebrations of the day. They say that if the cream of Newfoundland's men had not suffered in that battle, the Rock may not have joined Confederation. The rest of Canada is in your debt, and Newfoundland is an integral part of my Canada.

Been there 3 times...going back ASAP.

From a BC perspective (in the liberal sense ), I'd have to say I still believe in the queen to be our head of state. First of all, she is pretty much a living icon among global society, if you ever personally met her you would understand why you would want her on your side.

Secondly, Canada would rather have the queen on our money than Washington.

Hell, my plan after highschool was to work my way into the JTF-2 just so I could guard the queen one day... but that didn't quite work out hahaha.

Though something to think about, my political teacher once said "the greatest army in the world is made of Canadian soldiers and British officers." In terms of professionalism, this would be true because the British know their strategy and Canadians don't mind getting dirty

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Bump !

As a french canadian I don't really the point having the queen/british presence everywhere (on our money, ceremonies,etc)

But I'm maybe too young to understand clearly her role.. but honestly, I really don't get it
:\

Disclaimer: Not a Québécois, married to one.

During our visits to Quebec City during the 400th celebration there were a few protests concerning the Royal Regiments participation, nothing huge though.
There were also some protests in Montreal during Prince Charles' visit.
Perhaps the fact that this is an anglophone site skews the perception of the number of seperatists.
Many a Quebecer views me with a jaundiced eye until I explain that my accent is Appalachian, not Albertan.

Originally posted by Haydn_17
reply to post by star in a jar

 

How to the majority of Canadians think about this? Do most of you hate this or are you all cool with it?

As a Canadian I don't feel terribly oppressed by England or the Queen personally lol

We don't have insecurity issues about our sovereignty like the yakees

God save the Queen!

I think is great that Canada maintain her links with England and the monarchy, is a tie with the culture and something to be proud, how i wish we hispanics had never cut ours with Spain, we are now and thanks to that like 20 brothers angry with their own family.

As an Englishman living in Calgary for the last 5 months, i think it's clear that the bond between the two countries is always going to be there. The fact that so many British people have emigrated to Canada over the last hundred or so years is unavoidable. Everyone i meet is always keen to tell me about their British grandad or grandma, mum or dad. It's great fun, and despite the cultural differences really does feel like home away from home.

It also made me smile the first time i went into downtown calgary, and saw the Union Flag flying over the Town Hall.

Canadians, a great bunch of lads.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
reply to post by Essan

 

Correct, it must really tick off British people when their country is called "England" or their monarch called the "Queen of England". It's called the UNITED KINGDOM! England has not existed as a country since the union of Scotland and England/Wales/[Northern] Ireland in 1707.

It would be like if people referred to the United States as New York ...

No your totally off base.

New York never conquered the other 49 states.

But England did conquer all of those other nations.

So your example is pretty poor.

The "UK" and "Commonwealth" is England's territories won through conquest.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by ChrisF231
reply to post by Essan

 

Correct, it must really tick off British people when their country is called "England" or their monarch called the "Queen of England". It's called the UNITED KINGDOM! England has not existed as a country since the union of Scotland and England/Wales/[Northern] Ireland in 1707.

It would be like if people referred to the United States as New York ...

No your totally off base.

New York never conquered the other 49 states.

But England did conquer all of those other nations.

So your example is pretty poor.

The "UK" and "Commonwealth" is England's territories won through conquest.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

To paraphrase an old scottish folk singer, the first casualty of British imperialism was England.

And the United Kingdoms of England and Scotland, was a scottish idea, enacted by a scottish king, because the scots were bankrupt.

Revisionism: a load of bollocks.

I take pride in the Magna Carta...the result of all northern war.

Canada as a whole is wonderful and full of history concerning the actions of good people.

Refreshing to read even when our bad side is revealed by Mr. Burton....God Bless Him.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
I'm pretty sure its Norway that has the best democracy, representaive or direct democracy, I think is the system they have.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Ah but see the loophole? The queens power over canada is not affected by the 1982 law

Originally posted by star in a jar
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Ah but see the loophole? The queens power over canada is not affected by the 1982 law

Could you provide me an example, please, of how the Royals, or our association with the Brits has cause you any grief or oppression whatsoever?

It's fashionable to disparage tradition, but with maturity comes a deeper understanding of what defines one's national identity.

And while I thank you for your consideration of my question, I don't feel the need to escape to Norway for freedom. No offence to either you or the Norwegians, eh?

As we are dwelling into history a bit, here are some current british overseas territories, with nice flags and anthemns.

The Falklands


Gibraltar


Cayman Islands


British Indian Ocean Territory


Bermuda (home of the evil trianlge D


Anguilla



There a few more but i cant find them

Originally posted by star in a jar
You know what else is cool? Canada doesn't belong to Canadians.

Canada belongs to the royal family of England.We have the queen's face on our dollar bills and coins.

We belonged to the english royals ever since the plains of abraham battle.

Yep! No conspiracy theories there! Man thats just no fun.