Vice-Regal Saint: Queen Honours Canadian RAF Pilot
Surely one of the few Canucks accepted to serve with British Forces by virtue of being a Commonwealth citizen. And why not? We're all loyal subjects of Her Majesty - if the Canadian air force turned him down, by all means take your chances with the RAF, with its better uniforms, prouder similar tradition and bigger air force. And if you win the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Queen pins it on you. Brilliant!
Royal Air Force Chinook pilot Flight Lieutenant Christopher Hasler stands outside Buckingham Palace, London, on May 23, 2007 after collecting his Distinguished Flying Cross from Queen Elizabeth II.
Suffering from Spitfire nostalgia? Check out the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. It's hard to believe that the RCAF trained almost twice the manpower as the RAF during the Second World War. The Aerodrome of Democracy indeed.
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
15 comments:
Better looking uniforms ? for 1940, as you were climbing out of your Spit, old boy..but today? Not a chance..
As for your comment about the prouder tradition, i'd invite you to an airbase any day, anywhere across Canada and dare you to find a more professional, dedicated and proud branch of service.
I would take a Canadian Pilot anyday over a British one, when it comes to flying close air support..we just do it lower and more efficiently..
I also think that if we were more generous, we would certainly have awards in numbers like the British..we seem to be particularly stingy in that department.
I mispoke about the prouder tradition, since it's the same tradition until we separated from the royal designation in 1968 creating different uniforms, rank names and even terminology as a result of the new CF language. That aside, Canada has a history of furnishing the best pilots in the world, and in surprisingly large numbers in both the First World War (more Canadian pilots than American) and Second (trained more pilots and aircrew than the British). The tradition in many respects, as you correctly point out, is even prouder.
That said, you are dead wrong about the uniforms. The old RCAF/RAF dress attire are glorious outfits precisely because our veterans wore them.
Even putting aside the fact that they were worn by our vets, they are much smarter looking uniforms, period. And please tell me how the fact that it's not 1940 affects how the uniform looks? Perhaps the RAF should adopt t-shirts that say "Flick off" and pants that hang down to their asses to 'get with the times'?
This is a much smarter uniform than what our air element is currently wearing; although the present ensemble is a vast improvement on that charming green outfit! One point of interest, though. Its been reported in some circles that the F/L was turned downby the CF because his French language scores weren't high enough. Any truth to this?
Amusing if so. Oh how different Canada would be if not for that beautiful rump of fatuous France you have to cope with.
On the 24th day of May, in the year of our Lord 2004, Arthur J. said:
"Oh how different Canada would be if not for that beautiful rump of fatuous France you have to cope with."
My friend I cannot tell you how many times that exact thought has been brought to my mind.
I was wondering too why he had been rejected by the RCAF as the media reported it had been for "undisclosed reasons", no doubt as it is now either too ashamed/embarrassed or would rather not risk the ire of the public if it requires heroes to be bilingual above all. Loyalty to serving families is not an issue as his grandmother was a Royal Air Force radar operator during the Second World War while his grandfather served with the RCAF and his great grandfather was a Royal Flying Corps veteran during the Great War.
Nice link. I bookmarked it (is it well written?). And my most sincere congratulations to Lieutenant Hasler. His uniform reminds me the «RCAF» blue during WWII. That was a real uniform! Sorry, I'm nostalgic all of a sudden.
BTW, the RCAF doesn't exist anymmore. And no one can be rejectd by the CF becaus he/she is not 'bilingual' enough : that's why they have Second Language Training these days...
On the tenth day of June in the year of our Lord 2007, francophone said:
"BTW, the RCAF doesn't exist anymmore [sic]"
If you spend any time at all perusing this blog, you'll know that the posters are painfully aware that the RCAF no longer exists. That's why there's a link to the petition to reinstate the title of RCAF to the airforce and RCN to the navy and also why some of us refuse to lend legitimacy to that bastard child of Liberal defence policy malfeasance, the Canadian Forces (or is it the Canadian Farces?), by referring to it by name.
Stop living in the fricking past.
On the thirteenth day of June in the year of our Lord 2007, Anonymous the Dick said:
"Stop living in the fricking past."
That, my friend, rates as one of the dumbest utterances ever. Would you tell someone seeking justice for the killing of a loved one, even many years after the fact, to just stop living in the fricking past? Or maybe you'd like to tell the First Nations peoples to shut the hell up and get over it because it's our land now? And don't try to split hairs by telling me it's not the same thing. The principle is identical: seeking to right a wrong and there's no statute of limitations on that. You might not give a rat's ass about the damage wreaked on our once proud forces by Hellyer and his ilk but plenty of people with a damned sight more class than you do so take your gormless comments elsewhere.
Thank you for the Mother of All Straw Man Arguments ! I think most members of our CANADIAN ARMED FORCES think it’s a futile exercise of monarchist intellectual masturbation to direct any energy to “resolve” such an inane and useless non-issue. YOU are disrespecting our troops by insinuating that their service under any other name the RCN and RCAF is less worthy. Cuz we all now t only the Brits , Aussies and Kiwi have such fucking greater Navy is cuz it’s ROYAL ! And we all know tha in a dogfight, a CF-18 of the CANADIAN FORCES can be shot down by a mighty RAF Airman throwing a rock cuz it’s ROYAL ! That’s the AWESOME ROYAL POWER !
In the 54th year of Her Majesty's reign, Wannabe-Sailor-of-the-Queen stated in reply to Anonymous the Illiterate Dick's puerile ramblings:
Thanks for taking time out from grinding the Queen's face off your penny collection to play a rousing game of "Let's Kick the Republican Around the Block." Let's get started.
Round 1: Spelling and grammar checks are your friends. As a rule, arguments appear more forceful and cogent when they don't look like they've been written by a 5th grader. I can see why you'd be afraid of Word but rest assured; there is no Queen's English language option. I'll give you points for "monarchist intellectual masturbation" though. You did manage to spell it correctly and it is bigger than fire-truck.
Round 2: It's apparent that you don't know what a straw man argument is. This debate has been around since unification and is not something we loyalists have recently dreamed up. The monarchy has been represented in this country for over 300 years and is entrenched in the Canadian constitution. Our mounted police are royal; our legion members are royal; our regiments are royal; hell, even our yacht clubs are royal. Canadian service members wear the Queen's crown and swear an oath of allegiance. It is therefore only logical, proper and fitting that they serve under royal titles. We monarchists have the weight of history, tradition and law on our side. All you republicans can do is stamp your feet like petulant children and cry, "I don't like the Queen. Make her go home."
Round 3: Spelling Canadian Forces with block letters doesn't make it any more Canadian.
Round 4: I did in no way, shape, or form cast aspersions upon our serving men and women; it was your twisted logic that led you to that conclusion. However, let me be perfectly clear about this as you seem to have trouble with your comprehension: I have nothing but the deepest contempt for that bastard organisation in which they serve: the Canadian Farces. It's like the biblical principle of loving sinner but hating the sin. Let me know if you struggle with that analogy and I'll use simpler words.
Round 5: The last part of your 'argument' is so juvenile it hardly warrants a response but I'll give one anyway. Nobody is arguing that restoring proper titles to the armed services will increase operational effectiveness one iota, but I guarantee that the other Commonwealth navies have a damned sight greater sense of identity and pride than Air or Maritime Command. For one thing, they don't have to put a big freaking letter N after their names to indicate they're naval lieutenants.
Final round: When all is said and done, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, with the monarch firmly entrenched in the Canadian constitution and if you thing anybody is going to open up a constitutional debate in this country you're tripping. So every time I look at my Queen's commission hanging on the wall it will bring me great pleasure to know that: 1) I have the Queen and so do you; 2) I will die happy as a loyal subject and you will die choking on proverbial monarchist cock without your shiny new republic.
Game, set, and match. Thanks for playing. Oh, and don’t bother replying. I'm done with you. Dork.
That should read "...if you think anybody..." Not exactly ideal but at least I caught it before anyone else. Wouldn't want to give the Dick any more ammo, now, would we?
Post a Comment