What's all the kerfuffle about changing the names of some of Canada's armed forces anyway?
If adding "Royal" to the Canadian navy and air force monickers suits the folks who actually wear the uniforms and serve our country so outstandingly well . then what's the big deal to the rest of us?
The fact is - and even the anti-monarchists can't dispute it - Canada is a monarchy.
And reflecting allegiance to the royal nature of our titular head of state seems perfectly rational . again, if that's what the folks who actually put their lives on the line want.
It's hard to understand why anyone is getting apoplectic about changing the armed forces' names back to what they were before everyone got apoplectic about prime minister Pierre Trudeau's decision in the 1960s to "unify" Canada's forces - which really just amounted to changing names and standardizing uniforms (which also have long since been un-standardized back to what they were before).
We don't see a lot of people jumping up and down, demanding that "Royal" be dropped from Royal Canadian Mounted Police (which would be silly, if only from a tourism perspective).
Far more interesting is that the army, unlike the navy and air force, still won't be "Royal" - following the British tradition stemming from the fact that England's first standing army was created by the rebellious Oliver Cromwell - and subsequently killed the king.
While it's understandable that the Brits might hold a grudge over such a thing, we're not aware that the Canadian army has ever assisted in the demise of any of our own monarchs.
Perhaps, rather than worrying about including royalty in our armed forces' nomenclature, we should be debating the legitimacy of a monarchy like Canada calling itself a democracy.
