It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Canada has a Royal Regiment!??

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:04 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by CRB86

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.

What are you talking about the Norman Conquests? Elaborate.

Claiming the UK is a Scottish Idea is total bs. Tell that to Edward I. How could the Scots have a "war of independence" against it's self? Doesn't make any sense.

If I am wrong explain in detail so I can learn something new. As far as I am concerned, Scotland is a conquered territory. Wales too.

If you think revisionism is bullocks why are you blatantly doing it?

Right, a brief history of The Act Of Union 1707, and before.

First of all, the normans are irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not quite sure why you bought them up.

The Scots wars of Independence, 1296-1328 and then 1332-1357, were indeed fought between England and Scotland. However, the English were not an occupying force, they merely intended to be one. The Scots drove them out twice, and no significant conquering was done (a period of 15 years between the death of William Wallace and the Declaration of Arbroath, where Edward I was considered to be King of Scotland, was the extent of it)

And so they too'd and fro'd for many years, fighting sporadic wars here and there, but Scotland remained independent of England. It was never conquered, and after a while both sides just left each other alone. The English fought 100 years war with the French, the Scots helping their Auld Alliance every now and again, but that's really all that happened.

So you see, Scotland was never taken. It was never conquered. Braveheart is not a documentary.

Fast forward 300 years, and things are different. The two countries are at peace, and have been for a while. The scots wanted to begin an empire, in a direct penis envy of England's East India Company;

The collapse in 1700 of attempts by Scotland to launch a trading empire to rival England's East India Company in Panama was a pivotal moment. Crippled by poor supplies and illness, it was quickly abandoned, losing some £400,000 - half of Scotland's available capital. For pro-Unionists it was conclusive evidence that Scotland's future prosperity was best served by union.


And so, in a poorly attended Scottish Parliament the MPs voted to agree the Union and on 16th January 1707 the Act of Union was signed. The Act came into effect on May 1st 1707; the Scottish parliament was dissolved and England and Scotland became one country.

Sold out? Perhaps. Against public opinion, very possibly. But a conquered territory? No chance.

I realise this doesn't sit with the anglophobia rampant amongst the 'celtic tigers' of America, who generally see everything England as bad, and celtic as innocent., but the Scots were equal partners in the British empire, and contributed as much to the enslavement and exploitation as the English did.

As for Northern Ireland, that's too complex to get into now, but you may want to research the Ulster Scots and see that that too has very little to do with the English.

Hope this helps.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:09 PM
The thing I find the most about people who have never been to Canada is they just have no idea how big this country is. We have six time zones and if I catch the first flight out of here in the morning here on the west coast, I will BARELY make it to Halifax on the Atlantic Ocean that day, just before midnight, and only then if the only connection I have to make in Toronto goes off without a hitch. It's almost the exact same flying time to get across the country as it is to fly from Vancouver to London, because they use a polar route.

Just to drive to my home City of Edmonton is two full days of hard driving, and that's only one province over.

That said, for those that have never seen our Rocky Mountains, they will BLOW YOU AWAY with their stunning beauty and sheer size.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by leo123]

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Haydn_17
reply to post by Nemesis0123

Yes but our Royalty share blood and have gone back hundreads of years, Prince Charles is related to an ancient anglo-saxon king.

American presidents arent related (as far as we know)

As far as we know? We know for a fact that they're almost all related. Some of them are even related to British royalty. So what you're saying is not true. Again, Presidents and their families are American royalty. When we first started out, many wanted George Washington to be king. Oh, and the current royals in the UK aren't even truly British. You don't want to know the truth about where they come from.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Nemesis0123]

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:00 PM
"The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada requests, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, all those whom it may concern, to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."
(a quote from the first page of a Canadian passport)
Is this just tradition?
I can understand the Queen on your money, but this almost reads as if you're a British subject.
It makes sense that a Canadian passport suggests you visit a British embassy or consulate in the event of no Canadian one, but why would a Canadian minister ask something of another country in the name of Britain's Queen?

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:40 PM
Although the same person reigns as monarch of both countries, Canada and the United Kingdom have been legally distinct kingdoms since 1931. Same with Australia, New Zealand, Ireland (until 1937), and South Africa (until 1961).

This sounds like a good place to ask my question:

Could the United States join the Commonwealth (as a commonwealth republic) even though technically only the original 13 colonies meet the criteria for membership?

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:08 PM

Originally posted by leo123

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Alberta consistently makes that kind of noise because there are those who figure Alberta should take its oil and do the same. Recall "Let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark"?

That was a good one, I remember that one!
How did you eastern turkies make out on that one?

If memory serves, it was shortly replaced by : "Please God, bring back the oil. This time I won't piss it all away"

Hey...brothers from sea to sea to sea, eh?

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by 23refugee


They mean nothing.

The reality is that Canada is it's own master, as it should be.

But there are cultural ties that will bind us together for a long time.

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:43 AM
reply to post by Nemesis0123

I know where our Royalty come from, Germany and all over Europe, it doesnt bother me at all.

And you telling me that Obama is blood relation to George Bush?

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:49 AM

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Could the United States join the Commonwealth (as a commonwealth republic) even though technically only the original 13 colonies meet the criteria for membership?

I think there's a precedent. I'm sure I remember reading, a few years back, that a country in Africa had joined the Commonwealth even though it had been a French or German colony instead of a British one. This is purely memory, can't confirm without tracking down details. Togo, perhaps?

PS Having checked on Wiki, I see that Mozambique (formerly Portuguese) and Ruanda (formerly Belgian) are members.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Aeons

The war of 1812 is long over, and the USA sits as its own Sovereign country apart from the Commonwealth.

So to me, the USA IS Commonwealth (very subtly).

The USA's government model and idelogies derived from British Parliamentary Tradition AND from the French Enlightenment period.

Entire sections of your Constitution could have been lifted directly from French Englightenment authours and activists.

Because of this, the USA has some vast similarities to the Commonweath, and particularly to Canada with our dual founding nations.

Common association is what you are noticing. The USA is not part of the Commonwealth.

[edit on 2010/4/29 by Aeons]

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:23 PM
reply to post by Haydn_17

Yes Canada has many Royal Regiments. The Royal Regiment of Canada that you have in the video is a Reserve regiment. They were an active regiment from WW1, WW2, and Korea but are now a reserve unit. Members have done tours of duty in Afghanistan. Canada has only 3 regular infantry regiments left. Each consists of 3 battalions. They are:
The Royal Canadian Regiment
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
Royal 22e Regiment (Also known as the Vandoos)

More info, Canada is a sovereign nation like the States. We are a democracy and have a parliament modeled on the one in Britain. Because we are a member of the Commonwealth (like Australia, and New Zealand to name a few), we recognize Queen Elizabeth II as our Queen. She is represented in Canada by the Governor General who is appointed by the Queen based on recommendations from our Prime Minister.
Because the Queen is our head of state her image is on our money and a crown image is seen on military crests and police crests.

And yes British Columbia is a province in Canada.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:28 PM
The Queen owns America,Canada,Australia,and more,there is still a british empire that rules the world,it never really disappeared it just changed form,the wealth has carried the global empire forward,if the British ever brought all of their assets together you would see they easily rival China and India in terms of global clout and potential power.Shes also related to me so I guess sometimes its good to be connected.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Of Course Beer... thought it the best example
but it is easy to forget how this is a 2 way relationship and we in Britian do still feel close to Canada..

We in Britain absolutely LOVE the Canucks!

We, as you know, "Thoughtsful" think the World of them and are incredibly grateful to them.

Only people from one country in the World have been obnoxious, ignorant and arrogant enough to say "we saved your* ass in WWII". Everyone here will know which nations people say that, regularly.
What is great is that there are actually countries who can claim to have "saved our ass", they being Canada, Australia, British West Indies, India, etc. And the fantastic thing about people from those countries is, you never, ever hear them say anything like that! Even though they have every right to (a million times more right than the Americans).

No, Canada actually did "save our ass" and we are forever grateful to them for that! We couldn't have been luckier, you won't find a tougher, braver soldier than a Canadian.

*by "our/your" I mean the UK.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:22 AM
I know - I'm always somewhat astounded at the hutzpah of that one myself.

Canada just about put every guy who was fit to fight into a uniform. Many Canadian women served in both Wars.

Pretty much all my relative lines served in every war - including the Boer Wars.

(Okay, so yes the first guy to take a tank ride for a joy ride in town was my great uncle - but we'll pretend that they were all upstanding citz anyways here.)

For the Americans who think that - I am not exaggerating. Canadian, Indians and Australians served on the front lines of both WWs long before your country opted in. Canada mobilized more soldiers as a populace and put them overseas in very little time to fight for their extended families on the other side of the ocean.

They were being run over by tanks being made by US corporations before apparently the US decided to "save" the World. Or at least found a really good excuse to something that they wanted to try anyways.

I really have never understood how two dimensional history, social and geography classes are the USA. We learn about everywhere, and get pretty good introduction into most of the most important points of history since the Enlightenment period by the time we are in grade eleven. Both World Wars were covered in some depth by grade 10.

On the debate team we had several debate topics every year that covered aspects of the politics of that time period, and current world politics.

In high school. In JUNIOR High School, this was the education I was getting. By the first year of high school social sciences classes, a Canadian kid seems to be FAR better educated in World affairs of the last 500 years than many otherwise intelligent college and university educated Americans.

I find this mind boggling.

[edit on 2010/5/16 by Aeons]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:13 AM
Thats funny, I am Canadian and I can assure you that Canada is NOT OWNED by the QUEEN...we simply still support the monarchy as it stands in solidarity. But many Canadians are debating whether or not we should dump the whole worship thing. Its now more of a symbol than anything else. But i'm sure if we had some major conflict the U.K would be fighting right along side with us. Which is all fine and good with me anyway. We are our own nation with support from the monarchy.
God save Canada

reply to post by star in a jar

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by star in a jar
just wondering when was the last time you saw a Canadian dollar bill. or for that matter a two dollar bill.,

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:52 AM
You do realise that Norway has a King? His name is King Haakon and he is of Danish descent.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by Canadian Firebird

Canada is owned by the crown. If you doubt that, please feel free to look at who the owner of your mineral rights are and all non-freehold land. That should clear it up straight away.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:44 PM
reply to post by star in a jar

Um, and look how civilised you are, much better than countries with presidents, do you think so? anyway, I do.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by ZindoDoone

Also, 'the ladies from hell' wore kilts, with a Khaki cover over them, (the kilts)

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in