SPEAKING ABOUT RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE

I LRespect for the Office has left a new comment on your post "THE PURPOSE OF MONUMENT ?": 

"I re-call (sic) a recent photo of a small ,very round elderly woman, looking ridiculous in a uniform tailored to her excessively curvaceous form, too big at the neck, shoulders and sleeves. She confided she had to be persuaded to wear it. "

Do you mean Her Honour Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Ontario? 

Posted by Respect for the Office to  Our Town and Its Business at 4 December 2015 at 13:37

*************************

i thought it was most likely the Lieutenant-Governor  of Ontario but  as noted I did not re-call her name 

and I did not want to be disrespectful of the Lieutenant  Governor. Especially  since she was obviously aware  the  uniform thing was a bad idea. Those  tunics are horrendously expensive .She would be conscious of that as well. 

The most spectacular photo of the Queen was in uniform riding side-saddle behind her father for 

Trooping of the Guard at  Whitehall, down the Mall from Buckingham Palace. The Queen  was in her early twenties then. Just a slip of a girl. 

She wore a red tunic , a hat with the brim upturned at the side and fastened with a cockade. Her  hair was chestnut- brown the same colour as Winston ,the horse she was riding. Her black riding  breeches and shiny boots were draped over with a  velvety black riding skirt. 

The Queen is also a very small lady but she never looked more magnificent than atop that huge beautiful horse. She also had a right to wear the uniform. She was a member of the Women's Armed Services  during the latter part of the war. She was photographed once wearing army coveralls messing about inside the engine of a geep. 

I suspect the Honorable Elizabeth Dowdeswell will not allow herself to be persuaded against her better judgement again by some silly military man that she should wear a uniform. 

I also doubt the two veteran soldiers of the Afghan Campaign had any choice in whether they allowed themselves to be used by  Rangers' Honorary Colonel to support his senseless campaign to have a military weapon displayed at our Cenotaph. They would have their orders. 

The fact Honorary Colonel Kirk Corkery has never seen armed services does not excuse bad judgement for using soldiers that way.

Everything  I know about the Honorary Colonel,I read, like everyone else , in the local press. Nothing underhanded has been suggested about his appointment  in this space. 

The last comment reads too much into things. Furthermore, the determined attempt to get a war machine displayed  at Aurora Cenotaph against the wishes of many in the community does nothing to strengthen ties between community and  military. 

Added to the occupation of a multi-million dollar  town-owned property, needed by the town, at the expense of the town, with a thirty year lease that must be kept secret for the security of the nation,

Does nothing  at all to warm the cockles of this Auroran's heart let alone strengthen ties to the community. 

Should paying half a million for a property used by the federal government for a hundred and eighteen years and left as a contaminated site to be restored at town expense, even be mentioned in the context of ties to the municipality?

Would  it have  perhaps been wise for the Honorary Colonel to have been briefed beforehand on recent interaction between the community and the military before he sponsored the latest demand  from our vertically -challenged elected representatives?

i think...perhaps so. I also believe perception is the reality. 

So...be careful with the term "Ignorance"