Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2010 by Peter Knego
QUEEN ELIZABETH at Monfalcone, Italy in February. Photo and copyright Peter Knego 2010.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth will be naming Cunard’s latest vessel, the QUEEN ELIZABETH in Southampton on Monday, October 11, 2010, just prior to the ship’s maiden sailing on October 12. This will be the fourth Cunarder named by Her Majesty, who launched the SS CARONIA while still a princess in 1947. She also christened the RMS QE2 in 1967 and the RMMV QM2 in 2004. Cunard namings have proven to be among the most spectacular in the cruise industry and this promises to be a gala event.
The QUEEN ELIZABETH has successfully undergone sea trials in the Adriatic and is being completed at Italy’s Fincantieri Shipyard.
Philippe BREBANT
September 1, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Glad to know that the pretige of the QUEEN will be added to this new Cunard vessel, I thought that Her Majesty the QUEEN named one of the EMPRESS BRITAIN or ENGLAND in the past…
In the meanwhile, the announcement of her next 2012 world cruise staring and ending in Le Havre for French clientele has been widely appreciated in both city and French travel agents.
Cunard have also announced further calls for the VICTORIA for 2011 and 12, while the new ELIZABETH will perform 4 call next year almost like did her predecessor during a maiden year of activity in 1969, when she operated the “Entente Cordiale” with the former SS FRANCE still operating New York services.
Patrick Le Bihan
September 1, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Again a Vista class ship except the Funnel
Kevin
September 1, 2010 at 1:56 pm
I wonder if Her Majesty gave this some detailed thought..
A ship owned in Miami, Florida, designed in Los Angeles, California and built in Treiste, Italy. And being a Carnival ship..has her lawn area fitted out with astroturf….an interesting intepertation of a “British” ocean liner.
Corey Abelove
September 1, 2010 at 6:34 pm
No doubt this will be a luxury ship with good service. But, prefacing the name of the new Cunard cruise ships (QM2 being an exception) with Queen, is a bit insulting to the true ocean liner heritage of previous Cunard vessels. Nonetheless, I understand that a Queen prefix is a marketing move.
Hank
September 1, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Good. Another cunarder. By the Queen.
CubanToro
September 1, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Sad state of affairs that new ships no longer look like liners but buildings on their sides that float. I still think there maybe a niche market for liners designed and looking like the liners of the early to mid 20th Century. Can you imagine a replica of Mauretania, Aquitania, Olympic, even the fabled Normandie, with original reproduction interiors sailing into New York or Miami. Sigh…. I can dream can’t I?
Corey palm desert
September 2, 2010 at 2:08 am
The Disney ships if u squint from far away look like ships.
Cruises Fan
September 2, 2010 at 2:36 am
I am glad the Queen agreed as a regular Cunard cruiser their ships deserve to be named by the highest royalty. Although I dont think any ship will ever come close to QEII i just hope that Cunard’s new ship does her proud.
Graham
September 2, 2010 at 9:43 am
MV QM2? I thought that QM2 is an RMS.
Mike Ryan
September 2, 2010 at 10:09 am
Philippe… You’re right…
QEII did in fact launch the Empress of Britain, per Wikipedia anyway.
Hank
September 2, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Actually, I think the Disney ships look like ships. Now, the norweigian Epic…
Kolby
September 2, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Philippe BREBANT, yes she named other ships, here they were just referring to the Cunarders she has christened.
nigel robinson
September 2, 2010 at 7:16 pm
CubanToro, yes that is a good idea I will dream with you .QE this is just another basic ugly looking cruise ship why would the Queen want to name her, another publicity stunt by Carnival. Queen Mary 2 is Rms but QV and QE are just MV. Lets hope the next Cunarder gets a real Cunard name Aquitania, Mauretania.
David Walker
September 3, 2010 at 2:38 am
Actually, naming the new Cunard ships after British Royalty makes more sense than re-hashing old Cunard names. The two liners names mentioned above were taken from areas of non-British soil: Mauretania being an ancient Roman province on the northwest coast of AFRICA, Aquitania’s name came from an area in today’s southwest FRANCE. If by some of your whining Cunard is just a British-themed cruise line let’s at least pretend the names should be ‘British’ too?
———————
COREY said: “No doubt this will be a luxury ship with good service. But, prefacing the name of the new Cunard cruise ships (QM2 being an exception) with Queen, is a bit insulting to the true ocean liner heritage of previous Cunard vessels. Nonetheless, I understand that a Queen prefix is a marketing move.”
——————-
Which Cunard vessels are you speaking of regarding the ‘true liner heritage’? Which of the 20 ships from the original Queen Mary until Queen Mary 2 are you speaking of? Only 4 of those 20 including QE2 (that’s only 1/5th) were classified as Express Liners (3 of them from 1936-1940, and one in 1969), 2 were small Cargo Liners (1947), 4 were classified as Intermediate liners (1954-1957) running between the UK and Canada, and the other 10 (thats 1/2 the fleet in 52 years!!!) were mostly ‘hand me down’ cruise ships not built or designed by Cunard. Or were we just speaking of the two Cunard Queens from 70 years ago again? And again. And again. And again.
———————
CUBANTORO said: “Sad state of affairs that new ships no longer look like liners… Can you imagine a replica of Mauretania, Aquitania, Olympic, even the fabled Normandie, with **original reproduction interiors*** sailing into New York or Miami. Sigh…. I can dream can’t I?”
——————-
It’s a sad state of affairs when we can’t have a simple naming ceremony announcement without all the reminiscing of what it was like to travel with three other people in tiny claustrophobic 90 square foot cabins with no bathrooms or air conditioning. Oh, I’m sorry, were we just ‘dreaming’ about only 1st Class passage on these grand historic liners? Don’t forget that the greatest majority of all passengers (up to 3/4 of them) on these liners, including Normandie, did not travel in opulent luxury, did not have access to 75% of the rest of the ship, did not have a bathroom or toilet in their cabin, the ships pitched and rolled like pigs in the North Atlantic, and the majority of all passengers had no real choice in where they ate, relaxed, slept, or where they participated in any other outdoor or sporting activities while onboard. Sounds like fun!!! Sign me up!!!
I would like to see a show of hands how many of you actually sailed in one of the old grand liners of the early 20th century? None? No one? Just seen the pretty pictures? And how many have sailed in ANY of Cunard’s current fleet? None except maybe me? No one else? Kevin (aka SAVOIA)? I see you’re still rehashing the same anti-Cunard anti-Carnival Corporation gibberish. How about it? Been on ANY of the current Cunard fleet? No? Just seen the pretty pictures? Thought so….
David Walker
September 3, 2010 at 2:52 am
Peter, here is a recent picture of the new Queen during her last sea trials:
http://wearecunard.com/2010/09/her-majesty-the-queen-to-name-queen-elizabeth/
jim
September 3, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Peter: Why do you continue to post David Walker’s sarcastic replies to what others think of today’s ships? What gives him the right to be so superior? If he doesn’t like what other people have to say, maybe he should stop reading their posts.
Avery
September 3, 2010 at 5:40 pm
I agree with Jim-this David Walker is getting tiresome, I hate these massive comment threads that consist of nothing more than snide remarks by David and responses to said remarks.
However, I also feel that the other side should maybe just start ignoring him. He’ll only be obnoxious if he has an audience…
David Walker
September 3, 2010 at 8:40 pm
JIM and AVERY: Should Peter then just only post the snide sarcastic comments of those who dislike the new Queens and make non-stop sarcastic remarks every… single… time…. ANY picture or news release is published?
Would that be fair, really, to hear only the negative, snide, sarcastic comments from only one side of the fence without someone trying to inject accurate, historical fact and sound logic into often completely irrational and illogical comments regarding Cunard’s history? Or should we just go ahead and let all the armchair semi-historians rant on how horribly unhappy and disappointed they are that every new Cunarder doesn’t look like the original Queens from 70 years ago? Or liners from 100 years ago?
This is, for better or worse, 21st century ship design, with 21st century amenities, not an early 1900′s era liner.
Say what you will about my posts, they ARE grounded in fact, and are not the constant, repetitive, negative dronings of those who have never even stepped foot on any Cunard ship, from yester-year or the NEW fleet, and cannot accept the fact that things change, that this is what ships have become, and for better or worse are here to stay.
Opinion is fine, what others think of today’s ships is definitely subjective, and most of the negative comments are from people who have not even set a single foot INSIDE any of these ships, ever. Making those type of negative opinionated judgments without any true first hand actual experience with these ships is not even an opinion, it’s just non-sense.
And like it or not, read it or not, I have as much right to my opinion as you and everyone else here.
Hank
September 3, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Peter, if you have the time, what exactly are your opinions on the SS Emerald? I heard you mention that in a chat once, and saw The Santa rosa in a book today. So just curious
Peter Knego
September 3, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Hi Hank,
I like THE EMERALD for what she was, not so much for what she is, which is basically overcrowded and tinny. Nice that she is a steamship and I will miss her dining room, stairtower and a few original cabins but overall, she’s no SAGA ROSE, MONA LISA, KRISTINA REGINA or AUSONIA. If she goes for scrap, it will not be the end of the world but it will be a sad day.
All the best,
Peter
Rob Lightbody
September 4, 2010 at 5:40 am
I don’t really understand WHY the Queen is naming this Italian built, American owned bog-standard cruise ship. I thought it right, however, that she named QM2 which was, after all, the first Atlantic liner built since she named QE2.
As a huge fan of the Clydebuilt Queens, I am completely dismayed that she has been given this name, and the confusion it causes. This ship, with that name, is completely undermining what went before. Caronia is mentioned in the above story, and Caronia would have been a good name for this cruise ship.
David Walker
September 4, 2010 at 9:32 am
ROB: I know of your work, have visited your website, and respect your opinion higher than most anyone else regarding this subject. You are a legend in the field regarding the history of the ocean liner. I do have a question for you: how do you think the ‘elders’ took to the new QE2 at her christening in light of the fact the her predecessor by name was the iconic and original Queen Elizabeth? Since the two liners were as completely different as day and night, was the general consensus similar in the transition from one historic liner to the new age replacement?
Rob Lightbody
September 5, 2010 at 4:37 am
I take your point David but QE2 was still British built, Cunard was still British owned, she was the new “ship of state”, still a fast, strong 28.5 knot Atlantic liner, even built in the same shipyard.
I might feel differently if it wasn’t for QM2 – which WAS designed from the outset to be the successor to QE2, is unique (like QE2), cost a fortune (like QE2!). QM2 cost triple what QE(3) has cost.
There is a discussion at TheQE2Story.com just now saying that QV should have been called Caronia, and QE Carinthia and I completely agree – that would leave the Queens Legend intact – including THE current Queen – Queen Mary 2.
I believe QM2 to be the best ship in the world, and I think Cunard need to realise this too and not get her confused with 2 run of the mill “cheap” cruise ships.
Kevin
September 5, 2010 at 7:43 am
David: Should Peter then just only post the snide sarcastic comments of those who dislike the new Queens and make non-stop sarcastic remarks every… single… time…. ANY picture or news release is published?
As opposed to what David? Hearing you drone on and on about the past vs the present on every forum about a Cunard Queen? Several perspectives have not been about bringing back the past David, but looking at these Princess Cruises creations for Cunard and wondering if this is indeed the best Carnival could do to live up to all that hype Princess generates? Clearly it isn’t..why else would Peter Shanks himself even bring up the topic in an interview? (how and why this guy got the job is a mystery on every level). You outlines the evolution of thought on the topic and while interesting to ponder it boils down to one question. Is this the best Carnival can do and obviously the answer is no.
David Walker
September 5, 2010 at 2:25 pm
ROB: Thank you for your reply. I wonder however if the general cruising public would get the connection of using ‘old’ Cunard names instead of a ‘Queen’ prefix? I have to agree it is somewhat of a marketing strategy to sail on a ‘Queen’ and not a ‘Carinthia’ or ‘Caronia’. The last Cunarder named Caronia was a bit of a hand me down from NAL when they were merged/bought out by Cunard and I doubt most anyone would remember that instead of the Green Goddess?
The more memorable pair of Carinthia and Caronia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/CaroniaCarinthia.jpg
You said “I believe QM2 to be the best ship in the world” despite the fact that she WAS built by an American owned Cunard Line subsidiary of Carnival Corporation in a French shipyard?
And not to impune your opinion or character but have you have the opportunity to sail in the Queen Victoria? I wonder why true ocean liner aficionados insist on referring to the new Vista twins as cheap or unworthy when they haven’t even set an actual foot inside the ships themselves? There is a thread over on the cruise critic board that is most interesting in which I asked those who have actually sailed on BOTH the QE2 and QV which they preferred: hands down the QE2 wins in the historical and exterior ‘classic’ design category, but the QV wins hands down in nearly all aspects of interior comforts, public rooms, and amenities. And that’s what counts to actual Cunard guests.
As far as ‘clones’ go here is the new Vista-class ship over at Holland America, and even though the exterior is unremarkable the interiors are a different story:
http://www.shipparade.com/cruise_ship_reviews/Holland_America_Line/Nieuw_Amsterdam/Nieuw_Amsterdam_cruise_ship_review.htm
KEVIN: I keep ‘droning on and on’ about the past because everyone else keeps bringing it up. Amazingly some people continue to admonish the differences in the design of ‘ocean liner vs cruise ship’, repeatedly comparing the new Queens to the old ones and the grand old liners from the early 20th century like they were/are of the same genre. They are not. They were/are ‘purpose built’ for two completely different reasons; Crossing and Cruising. Different pedigrees, different purposes, different designs.
If those that keep re-hashing the ‘this isn’t the way it use to be’ discussion bothered to actually understand ‘why’ they are different, instead of just glazing over the facts and insisting with a comment that the design is ‘pandering to the lowest common denominators’ they would see that their arguments are ridiculous at best. I can guarantee that if Cunard had had this kind of technology in 1940 you bet your sweet bippie they would have cloned ships like crazy to beat out the French, Germans, Dutch, and Italians.
But whether or not an American owned Cunard run by the Carnival Corporation division of Princess pulls the strings is besides the point. The point is and always will be ‘Do the actual guests like what they see’? Are the actual guests who sail IN these ships happy?
And THEY are.
hank
September 5, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Thanks peter. Now, Yes, it is kind of sad that the QV and QE are cruise ships, but, they are nice in my opinion, and better looking than the epic. The fact that she is italian built is not her fault. Britain no longer has any shipyards that can build a ship of that size.
P.C. Kohler
September 7, 2010 at 8:52 am
“Don’t forget that the greatest majority of all passengers (up to 3/4 of them) on these liners, including Normandie, did not travel in opulent luxury, did not have access to 75% of the rest of the ship, did not have a bathroom or toilet in their cabin..”
Yes, David, and 90 per cent of Ancient Greeks and Ancient Egyptians were slaves and those societies produced the Parthenon and the Pyramids and we, freemen all, produced DisneyLand ergo the latter is superior? Or am I missing the “logic” of your argument?
Kevin
September 7, 2010 at 11:08 am
@David Walker, By its constant reuse and over re-designed the Vista is nothing more than an utlitarian object. Sadly, it isn’t designed as a ship anymore, rather the cheapest possible way to fill the gaps in various Carnival owned companies. It is almost identical to the Crown Victoria..every police department in the US has them..instantly recognizable and a design, like the Vista, that is always met with a huge yawn. The Vista represents what I’ve seen Carnvial as..a quantity company where quality can hopefully be made to fit in..as long as it is not too expensive. Sailing ships found everywhere, they don’t design, not even managing, staff or even completely operating themselves demonstrates how massively underutilized the Cunard theme is.
A Vista will always be seen as a disappointment..either begining or ending with the thought “what if they did something different”no matter the color on the stack…Much like a pig in lipstick..it’s still a pig.
David Walker
September 7, 2010 at 11:00 pm
KEVIN: Spoken truly like a person who has never set foot INSIDE of a Vista-class ship, ANY Vista-Class ship, yet continues to judge today’s modern cruise ships solely on EXTERIOR design.
No one except ship-o-philes care about exterior ship design. If you took the time to actually look at the INTERIORS of every one of the Vista-class ships you would see each has its own decor, theme, or style throughout. Todays vacation cruiser books a cruise based on cost, itinerary, and INTERIOR amenities, NOT exterior design.
But please by all means keep pretending that ‘everyone’ is concerned that clones are ruining the industry, keep kicking that dead horse, all the while millions of people a year are proving you wrong.
David Walker
September 7, 2010 at 11:23 pm
P.C. KOHLER: Saying that the construction of the Pyramids and Parthenon by ‘slaves’ is akin to Tourist-class passengers sailing on an ocean liner constructed by shipyard workers is about as big of a stretch as I have ever seen. Talk about missing logic.
You said this: “…90 per cent of Ancient Greeks and Ancient Egyptians were slaves and those societies produced the Parthenon and the Pyramids.”
If you are going to bring up Egyptian and Greek slaves don’t forget that as great or equal a portion of them (the ‘slaves’) were captured military and foreigner citizens or religious ‘prisoners’ as well as citizens of their OWN country sold into servitude by their OWN kind. The ‘society’ of the ancient civilizations, the upper crust, the mathematicians and scholars, designed the pyramids and Parthenon, not the slaves.
P.C. Kohler
September 8, 2010 at 12:23 pm
“David Walker says:
No one except ship-o-philes care about exterior ship design. If you took the time to actually look at the INTERIORS of every one of the Vista-class ships you would see each has its own decor, theme, or style throughout. Todays vacation cruiser books a cruise based on cost, itinerary, and INTERIOR amenities, NOT exterior design.”
Nonsense. Maybe if you opt to travel in ugly ships David, you might appreciate maybe they simply attract people who don’t care about the look of a ship anymore than care about the look of a house, a car or a toaster. Who are these people? “Gee I own a butt ugly house because it was ugly but it’s nice inside, honest” I cannot cite an single commercial manmade object that’s DESIGNED to be ugly on the outside and good on the inside like some daft piece of confectionary. It looks like dog-doo but it has a yummy chocolate centre, try selling that why don’t you? What planet do you live on? Why would a cruise ship be designed any differently from anything else? It’s no less practical than a car or a toaster but it alone HAS to be ugly to be so? Absolute total nonsense. But as a troll, it’s bloody marvelous, isn’t it?!
David Walker
September 9, 2010 at 3:14 am
Everyone whines about these Vista-clones and the Norwegian Epic. Even the Oasis of the Seas is a mess of flats stacked way too tall on top of a hull way too small. Now, just these 15 ships, (we wont EVEN include the upcoming Allure or several other designs of ‘ugly’ ships), JUST these 15 ships, carry upwards of 35,000 passengers a WEEK, or roughly 1.95 MILLION passengers in a single year. Just those 15 ships! If we included other ‘butt ugly’ designs (like the 11 Grand-class and its variations, the 15 Destiny-class and its variations, and the Allure of the Seas, just to name a FEW other ‘butt ugly’ designs) it would be at least TRIPLE that amount, or as many as 8 million people a year! If we included ALL the ‘butt ugly’ designs it would be 10 million passengers a year! Cruising on ‘butt ugly ships’! What are all those people thinking of?!?!? Are they mad???? Is the world coming to an END!!!
To use your word, I guess ‘nonsense’ is right.
Now, I wonder how many of just that original 2 million passengers tally said ‘Hun, you know it sure is a butt ugly ship, lets go on something a lot more prettier’? None. And I am quite sure that there are a few people among these 2 MILLION that are significantly financially better off than you and I, live in houses better than yours and mine, and drive cars and dress in clothes much better than yours and mine.
Simply put, people choose a vacation cruise knowing it is basically ‘renting’ that space for a week, not long term ownership like a home or car. They dont care what the OUTSIDE of this 1-week rental looks like as long as all the amenities and creature comforts are there on the INSIDE.
Again your logic fails. But nice try.
David Walker
September 9, 2010 at 3:32 am
I almost forgot…
You said this: I cannot cite an single commercial manmade object that’s DESIGNED to be ugly on the outside and good on the inside like some daft piece of confectionary.
The first building that popped into my head was the famous Centre Pompidou in Paris. Ever hear of Google? Type in the words ‘ugly buildings’ and you will find several lists from several authoritative sites, including Forbes and skyscrapers.com that will fill your knowledge void.
Your welcome.
David Walker
September 9, 2010 at 6:59 am
Pictures of the new QE from 2nd Sea Trials:
http://wearecunard.com/2010/09/queen-elizabeth-on-her-second-set-of-sea-trials/
Justin Higner
September 15, 2010 at 7:47 am
Good news. I’m waiting for an Aquitania II. That would be a grand ship, and in the New Ocean Liner Style that I like to think many new cruise ships can adapt. God save the Queen–both of them here
Kevin
September 15, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Sadly all her images look like a Queen Victoria/Eurodam/Nieuw Amesterdam mix. And sadly like Queen Victoria this Vista Queen looks like the Ruby Princess. Apparently the fast food like design found its Cunard theme on the Ruby…new solarium and all.
All those resources at Carnival and we see the same thing over and over again.
David Walker
September 16, 2010 at 7:50 am
Kevin, you nailed it there buddy in a single word: ‘Images”. Spoken accurately by someone who hasnt seen one, inside or out, except in IMAGES. And QV looks like Ruby Princess? Wow, you really need to clean your glasses. But, again, nice try. Me rolling my eyes, ah-gain.
Kevin
September 16, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Back at ya David!