Queen Elizabeth 3


Dec 2, 2000
58,614
680
483
Easley South Carolina
Now that the question of whether or not Cunard will be building a new ship has been answered, I think it's well worthwhile to start a thread of her very own.

Kyle Johnstone broke the news first by posting the link from Cunard's website. If you missed it, the link is at http://www.cunard.co.uk/news/default.asp?Cat=&View=ViewArticle&Mode=News&ContentID=6797&Active=News

Cruise Critic also has the story at http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=2224

There's not much out there right now, but stay tuned for further developments.
 

John Clifford

Member
Mar 30, 1997
1,691
22
311
57
Is the ship going to be simply called "Queen Elizabeth"? Or will it be "Queen Elizabeth 3"?

I presumed that when the original "Queen Elizabeth" left service, its name was available for others to use; just like the original "Queen Mary": when it stopped sailing, its name was given to a small excursion steamer, which is now docked on the Thames, in London.
Of course, with the original Queen Mary docked in Long Beach, the name "Queen Mary 2" helps to prevent confusion, in regards to those two ships.

We'll see in the next few weeks and months what the name will be, as well as how fans of the original "Queen Elizabeth" may feel, if no number is attached to the name.
 

Grant Carman

Member
Jun 19, 2006
348
0
111
Even if the new QE is built on the same Vista Class frame, all I see are advantages.

1 It means that Carnival is investing heavily in Cunard. That equates to 3 newbuilds in 10 years (6 if you count launch date to launch date). To me, this signifies a decision to keep the Cunard name going, and as a premium line. And yes, if the market allows, I can see a fourth.
2 Even the Vista class isn't a bad looking ship compared to a lot of others. (I can't beleive I actually admitted that). Yes, they are not the same as the ships of yesteryear, but the modern passengers will forgo a good looking ship (to a point)for balconies, and ameneties.
3 From the wording of the press release from Cunard, I think they are going to pull out all the stops on this one.

In closing, this newbuild, above all others, has a reputation already set for her, 2.5 years before her launch. She has big shoes to fill, and I think that it will do it. If it was going to be based on the QV, the press release would have said so. Also, (and Michael will delight in correcting me if I'm wrong), why need the Board of Directors approval for a newbuild? And why announce that it needed board approval? Unless of course, that the new liner is NOT Vista class, or so radically designed, that even if she was reassigned to a different Carnival Line, with a different name, she would still be known as the QE.

Nope, in my world of sunny optimism, I think that the Ariston family, and Carnival Group, realize that this liner above all others, needs to be Iconic.

But time will tell
 
K

Kyle Johnstone

Guest
Hello John

The new Cunarder is to be named "Queen Elizabeth",
just as the QE2 was intended, before HM experienced what was probably a slip of the tongue, that day in Scotland about forty years and three weeks ago.

The appearance of the "2" brought up all sorts of controversy at the time, involving centuries of sensitive politics.

A royal name, at least a British royal name, does not become "available" for commercial purposes unless permission is granted by the royal person or the sovereign.

That little excursion boat now a bar/restaurant on the Thames called "Queen Mary", was "Queen Mary" years before there was a Cunarder with the same name.
http://www.queenmary.co.uk/qm_home.html

Cunard's board had to go begging for the owners of the T.S. Queen Mary to change the name of their boat, so that Cunard could call their liner RMS Queen Mary.
The little boat's owners at first refused, as their Queen Mary was well-known, and, after what was probably an exchange of cash, an agreement was reached that the boat's name would be changed to "Queen Mary II"
And that it stayed until she became a Thames pub.

Sorry for the lecture!
happy.gif
 

John Clifford

Member
Mar 30, 1997
1,691
22
311
57
quote:

Sorry for the lecture!
No problem, Kyle. It has been years since I heard the story; "my senior moment", this time.

There is a tribute to the T.S. Queen Mary, on the Queen Mary 2: on one of the staircases is a painting of both Queen Marys, with the T.S. alongside the Cunarder.

Also, we'll see if the final appearance of the new "Queen Elizabeth" will draw comparisons with the three English Elizabeths (based on looks and personalities): Elizabeth I (Tudor Queen), the late Queen Mother, or Queen Elizabeth II.
And, NO, I would not put it past some UK Comedians to make such jokes or comments.
 
K

Kyle Johnstone

Guest
Hi John

OT:
a bit of my video you may enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1ljupfKrec

That floating mass of lights is you sailing past...

Another interesting fact, had HM QEII not slipped up on christening QE2, there would have been two Queen Elizabeths for a time, as the first was still in service for another couple of months, and did not become Seawise University for another couple of years...
 

John Clifford

Member
Mar 30, 1997
1,691
22
311
57
Thanks for the YouTube video, Kyle.
I forwarded it to many of my friends and family members, including the people I was on the Queen Mary 2 with, last month.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
680
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Also, (and Michael will delight in correcting me if I'm wrong), why need the Board of Directors approval for a newbuild? And why announce that it needed board approval?<<

I would suspect it's because the way the corperate entity is set up, they really do need approval from the Board of Directors. The CEO doesn't always get his/her way in these things. Given that any ship is an enormous capital investment, the decision making process is bound to be a careful one.
 

Jerry Nuovo

Member
Jan 22, 2010
700
2
71
New Jersey,USA
I wonder if the new Queen Elizabeth will be a new ocean liner as Cunard claims or will she be just another new cruise ship? Remember that Cunard refers to the Queen Victoria as an ocean liner when she is just another cruise ship.The Queen Victoria did cost around $500 million American Dollars to build,While Cunard did say that the new Queen Elizabeth will cost $700 million American Dollars to build.Since ocean liners cost about 40% more to build than cruise ships and the new Queen Elizabeth is exactly 40% more expensive than the Queen Victoria,Is it possible that the new Queen Elizabeth will be a real honest-to-god ocean liner? I do happen to think that if Cunard does market it the right way the transatlantic crossing market can support 2 ships.Does anyone else have an opinion on if the transatlantic market can support 2 ships.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
680
483
Easley South Carolina
>>I wonder if the new Queen Elizabeth will be a new ocean liner as Cunard claims or will she be just another new cruise ship? <<

Both I would think. That's just the way the market economics work out. Cruising would take up the bulk of the ship's time since trans-Atlantic crossings are something of a niche market.

>>Does anyone else have an opinion on if the transatlantic market can support 2 ships.<<

Possibly. I think Jim Kalafus mentioned once that it was do-able and he has an outstandingly good understanding of the dynamics at work. What I wonder is if it's going to continue. I watch the shipping news and there are a lot of concerns about the price of oil right now which could change the whole picture, and not necesserily for the better.
 

Joe Russo

Member
Apr 10, 2006
810
2
111
Maybe an ocean liner because of the money that they are spending on her. Much more than the QV so there's got to be something going on there. As for regular crossings like the QM2, that's a good question.
As for the market, Carnival Corp. probably sees the market going a certain way. The baby boomers are reaching retirement which is exactly the age that fills Cunard ships. This generation also has deeper pockets than the generation before it and also has a taste for premium and luxury items.

If I might make an opinion, I think that the timing is a little bad on this announcement on Cunard's part. I think that they should have waited until next year when the QE2 was officially retired. Seems a little disrespectful (if a big chunk of steel and aluminum is worthy of respect).
As for the name without the 3, as someone was saying, maybe there is some tradition there when putting a number when a ship is still intact as in the Queen Mary and QM2. When the QE2 was named, the Queen Elizabeth was still in Ft. Lauderdale and had her engines and was still a working ship. It would be nice though as an homage to the original QE to call this new ship QE3.
 

Brian Ahern

Member
Dec 19, 2002
642
3
171
One of the biggest problems I have with ships these days is the ridiculous, flowery names they give them. With all the "diamond", "crystal", "spirit" in the names, it like the executives are asking their eleven-year-old daughters for ideas. I like that Cunard and Holland America Line haven't gone that route, but I wish Cunard would drop the numbers. It makes the names seem too technical, in my opinion. I think "Queen Victoria" is an excellent name for a ship, and long overdue. If they can't simply call the others "Queen Elizabeth" and "Queen Mary", then there are plenty of other British queens to name the ships for. Queen Charlotte and Queen Alexandra were both non-controversial enough figures, and those names would work for ships, IMO.
 
K

Kyle Johnstone

Guest
"When the QE2 was named, the Queen Elizabeth was still in Ft. Lauderdale and had her engines and was still a working ship."

Actually, when the QE2 was named, the Queen Elizabeth was still in service on the North Atlantic.

"it like the executives are asking their eleven-year-old daughters for ideas."

I agree. The cutesy names can be absurd.


"I wish Cunard would drop the numbers."

Apparently they have, with this new one, as there has been no mention of any name other than simply "Queen Elizabeth"
 

Joe Russo

Member
Apr 10, 2006
810
2
111
Thanks Kyle, that's right! duh.
Speaking of numbers, did the second Mauretania have a number? What about all of the Caronias? Britannics? Or were they just known by their year of first service as in the case of all of the Frances?
 

Mike Poirier

Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,473
7
233
I think Aquitania would have been an appropriate name considering that the Aquitania was one of the most popular ships of all times. Do we really need a QE3?
 
Feb 4, 2007
1,646
7
163
41
Denver, Colorado, United States
I agree Michael P., there are sooooo many other names to choose from, why do they have to banter "Queen Mary" & "Queen Elizabeth" around? I suppose they are just building upon the reputations of the current names in use ~ sort-of like the "Enterprise" in Star Trek. I mean, how many can/will there be?
 

Aidan Bowe

Member
Aug 11, 2004
132
6
183
It's all going to get very confusing for those "non ship historians" First we had The Queen Mary,then The Queen Elizabeth. After that The Queen Elizabeth 2 and then The Queen Mary 2 and now Queen Elizabeth again!! I'm getting confused and I'm a Cunard expert! Such a shame that Cunard can't use such other splendid names from their vast lineage....Why this reliance on Monarchs (as splendid as they are)
 

John Clifford

Member
Mar 30, 1997
1,691
22
311
57
What we may think of doing is write to Cunard and Carnival, and add our suggestions for names for the new Cunard ship.

In honor of past queens, Alexandra and Charlotte have been mentioned; this won't be a tradition breaker, as BERENGARIA was the wife of Richard I.

Other possibilities:
1. Eleanor: the names of wives of three of the Plantangent Kings; the most well known was Henry II's wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, mother of both Richard I and John I.
2. Isabella (mother of Henry III, and wife of John I); also was the name of the wife of Edward II and mother of Edward III;
3. Anne, the last of the Stuart monarchs; and
4. Henrietta, wife of Charles I.

Yes, I know that Isabella and Henrietta are names of Queens who were married to Kings who were tyrants; we can debate whether those are disqualifiers.

I also would support the return of the traditional names:
AQUITANIA
and
MAURETANIA.

Other thoughts:
I don't think so:
DIANA
and
CAMILLA.

Then of course, we can add the name of one of our favorites:
MILLVINA.
 

Aidan Bowe

Member
Aug 11, 2004
132
6
183
Another thing to consider is which Queen Elizabeth will they be referring to? Queen Elizabeth the first,Henry the 8th's daughter? Queen Elizabeth, the late Queen Mother or our present sovereign? Questions, questions...
 

Similar threads

Similar threads