Adverts only show for non-members



Author Topic: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2  (Read 9581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 10941
  • Total likes: 10980
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« on: Sep 04, 2010, 01:29 PM »
Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2 but from what I can see the press and the public alike are thinking that she is, and Cunard is obviously not going to be doing anything to correct them which is a shame, as I think they are actually undermining their own amazing & completely unique QM2.

I think it is important that we, as QE2 fans, correct people who say this.  The replacement for QE2 is QM2. To say otherwise undermines both QE2 & QM2.

This is one of the reasons why I am still completely dismayed at them choosing this name for their new cruise ship.
Passionate about QE2's service life for 35 years and creator of this website.

Offline Twynkle

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #1 on: Sep 04, 2010, 04:28 PM »
'New QE2  to have....'

http://luxguru.typepad.com/lorre_white_the_luxury_gu/2010/09/new-qe2-to-have-fortnum-mason-onboard.html

Rob
Very sorry - Have no time to write at the moment
Maybe the media need a notice?
QE2 had been waiting alongside in Dubai for nearly 12 years.  Please restore her Lifeboats and Tenders to where they truly belong - she looks naked without them - please spare her this ignominy.

Offline Stowaway2k

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #2 on: Sep 04, 2010, 06:26 PM »
 
It reminds me of the quote by Huey Long, the scandalous governor of Luisianna... "I don't care what the newspapers say about me, as long as they spell my name right."

In other words... publicity publicity publicity.

In this case, Cunard have got it right, even though us purists aren't going along with it.   ;)

People are going to notice and pay attention when the new Queen Elizabeth pulls into port... which likely does not happen much for any of the other Vistas save for Queen Victoria.

Offline cunardqueen

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #3 on: Sep 04, 2010, 06:27 PM »
I thank no matter what is said and done, people will always continue to to think that the QE is the replacement for QE2.
So let them think what they like, WE know nothing can replace QE2, It probably the only way the media can get interest in the new ships anyway is to link it with the past.. ::)
From the moment you first glimpsed the Queen,
 you just knew you were in for a very special time ahead.!

Cruise_Princess

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #4 on: Sep 04, 2010, 06:57 PM »
On Queen Vics Maiden Voyage we could have been a Moran tug for all anyone cared....it was a total non event.  I think the only decent maiden was on Queen Mary as Cunard pulled out all the stops..it was unforgettable....and hence QVs was so very disappointing in comparison. QM2  was a one off. the largest and only LINER in the world.. this Lizzie is just another in the very long line of copies due to follow ASAP.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 10941
  • Total likes: 10980
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #5 on: Sep 04, 2010, 07:50 PM »
I agree that the name gets people out of their house and down to the pier to take a look - I saw that with QV in Greenock, but as I stood with the people of Greenock on the Esplanade and they first saw her (when she reversed out from behind the quayside) the overally reaction was definitely one of "oh, is that it?".  I think this effect will be worse next year when the identical QE turns up amid no doubt much fanfare.

I hate the idea that people will think that this ship is simply "better" than "the one(s) that went before".

She should have been called Caronia.
Passionate about QE2's service life for 35 years and creator of this website.

Online Clydebuilt1971

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #6 on: Sep 04, 2010, 11:02 PM »
She should have been called Caronia.

Rob you've got it in one mate - QV - Caronia. QE - Carinthia with QM2 heading up the whole show.
Oh aye and QE2 as the Cunard luxury hotel in Southampton as well.

Gav

Offline Beardy Rich

  • QE2 Crew member
  • Britannia Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 262
  • Total likes: 14
  • Engineering Department 1984-1988
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #7 on: Sep 05, 2010, 09:26 AM »
'New QE2  to have....'

http://luxguru.typepad.com/lorre_white_the_luxury_gu/2010/09/new-qe2-to-have-fortnum-mason-onboard.html

Rob
Very sorry - Have no time to write at the moment
Maybe the media need a notice?

I've posted a comment Rosie  :)
Rich Drayson. Ex Snr Mechanic QE2 1984-1988.

Cruise_Princess

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #8 on: Sep 05, 2010, 10:29 AM »
Cunard are very very good at the pre new build hype,,,,,

Then in reality folks are disappointed....not just us cruisers but the general public...cause what does EVERYONE remember and expect...?

The QE2 of course....

despite being the 21st century and all that jazz.....

nothing else compares does it?

Maybe its the Clyde built thing.....pride etc.....its all gone now.

Also just heard this morning that Commodore Warwick not even asked to the naming ceremony of the new ship...

You see as I always say....ANYONE who had too much to do with or sailed Qe2 every day of their life  are no longer 'required' by Cunard....they know too much ....remember too much .....and quite simply are

"Not wanted on Voyage"

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 10941
  • Total likes: 10980
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #9 on: Sep 05, 2010, 11:59 AM »
My only gripe is the name and the confusion it causes.

QE - the latest of Cunard's many cruise ships.
QM2 - the latest of Cunard's many express Atlantic liners.

If you look at the index page of the forum, under 'cruising queens', you'll see the carefully chosen wording that we came up with to try to position the forum - not being negative unnecessarily, just factual.
Passionate about QE2's service life for 35 years and creator of this website.

RMS Queen Elizabeth 2

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #10 on: Sep 05, 2010, 04:39 PM »
Cunard are very very good at the pre new build hype,,,,,

Then in reality folks are disappointed....not just us cruisers but the general public...cause what does EVERYONE remember and expect...?

The QE2 of course....

despite being the 21st century and all that jazz.....

nothing else compares does it?

Maybe its the Clyde built thing.....pride etc.....its all gone now.

Also just heard this morning that Commodore Warwick not even asked to the naming ceremony of the new ship...

You see as I always say....ANYONE who had too much to do with or sailed Qe2 every day of their life  are no longer 'required' by Cunard....they know too much ....remember too much .....and quite simply are

"Not wanted on Voyage"


Now I know why Cunard chose the Queen to name the new ship. Publicity! I wonder what the Queen truely thinks about the new Queen Elizabeth?
I did watch Queen Mary 2's naming ceremony and still have it on tape and when she named the ship she looked disappointed in some way.

Cruise_Princess

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #11 on: Sep 05, 2010, 06:34 PM »
I wonder what the Queen truely thinks about the new Queen Elizabeth?


That's something none of us will EVER know!

Offline cunardqueen

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #12 on: Sep 05, 2010, 07:54 PM »
Quote
Also just heard this morning that Commodore Warwick not even asked to the naming ceremony of the new ship...
 

When you looked at some of the faces who were asked to the QM2 naming ceremony, l would love to know how many of them have even been close to the sea ! let alone sailed on any ship....
 Perhaps the new breed of invited guests for the Queen Elizabeth naming ceremony will come from the X Factor ::).
 Can you imagine if Carnival had invited some original Queen Elizabeth passengers to the ceremony, wouldnt that have been a nice touch....
I wonder what drink will be used to launch the new ship, a bottle of Malt whisky, nope the links with Scotland are all gone, Unless they use the glorious Italian Prosecco, after all you can pass that off as champagne and folks are none the wiser. Mindyou Carnival dont  pass anything off as fake.... ;) ;) ;)     

Ok enough slagging off the new ship, l havent even seen her yet so perhaps l should reserve my thoughts till after the 9th October :-[ :-[
From the moment you first glimpsed the Queen,
 you just knew you were in for a very special time ahead.!

Online Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #13 on: Sep 05, 2010, 08:05 PM »
Well, let us see how it goes -- not much longer to wait now.

As far as I know, we don't know much about the naming ceremony at this stage, other than the name of the ship as such and the fact that Queen Elizabeth II will be doing the naming. Those Forum members who will be there, we shall be relying on your detailed reports!

I am quite glad that Cunard are keeping some surprises in store for the day -- now that the name itself is not a surprise...

RMS Queen Elizabeth 2

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #14 on: Sep 05, 2010, 10:53 PM »
I hope it will be broadcast as I will like to watch it.

Offline andy liney

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #15 on: Sep 11, 2010, 10:40 AM »
Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2 but from what I can see the press and the public alike are thinking that she is, and Cunard is obviously not going to be doing anything to correct them which is a shame, as I think they are actually undermining their own amazing & completely unique QM2.

I think it is important that we, as QE2 fans, correct people who say this.  The replacement for QE2 is QM2. To say otherwise undermines both QE2 & QM2.

This is one of the reasons why I am still completely dismayed at them choosing this name for their new cruise ship.

Classic example:


http://jamesjetsam.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-not-qe3.html

Online Michael Gallagher

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #16 on: Sep 11, 2010, 03:36 PM »
People will be people and no matter how many releases or how many full page advertisements Cunard put out to say she is not QE3 there will still be some people who will always call her that. Just like for her entire 39-year career many people called QE2 'QEII' and many still do.

Out of the 220+ Cunarders there have been QE2 was the first exception as she used '2'. The second Mauretania, the second Caronia or even the third Caronia had no number on the side. Cunard were going to continue that by simply having QE2 named Queen Elizabeth. HM intervened and while I'm sure Cunard was delighted at the time, it did make a mess of their naming practice. A mess continued with QM2 having a '2'. But it's all just one other facet of Cunard which gets peoplem passionate and at the end of the day that's what makes Cunard different to all the rest.

Perhaps like all rules, 'naming rules' are meant to be broken!
« Last Edit: Sep 11, 2010, 03:39 PM by flagship »

Cruise_Princess

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #17 on: Sep 11, 2010, 07:23 PM »
And of course we all know how long it took for us to get Queen Victoria,.....our Royals were to blame again!!!    WE got Queen Mary instead!  LOL

Offline Matt

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #18 on: Sep 12, 2010, 10:31 AM »
Now I know why Cunard chose the Queen to name the new ship. Publicity! I wonder what the Queen truely thinks about the new Queen Elizabeth?
I did watch Queen Mary 2's naming ceremony and still have it on tape and when she named the ship she looked disappointed in some way.

I would second this, everyone wants to go see and sail on the 'Queen'. Its all about the public image
Freo, Heave Ho! We are the Freo Dockers!

Offline Kindlychap

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #19 on: Sep 17, 2010, 04:48 AM »
She should have been called Caronia.

Not practically possible. A Caronia had only just left the fleet........
RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 - Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 10941
  • Total likes: 10980
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #20 on: Sep 17, 2010, 09:52 AM »
A queen elizabeth's only just left the fleet too!

 :D
Passionate about QE2's service life for 35 years and creator of this website.

Offline Chris Frame

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #21 on: Sep 17, 2010, 04:45 PM »
A well thought out reply Michael.

I do like QM2 having the 2, personally, as it represents the time she came into service when she and QE2 were the two Queens. It was history in the making and the name suited her. 

But very true re: HM and he original plans for QE2's name.

RMS Queen Elizabeth 2

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #22 on: Sep 17, 2010, 08:53 PM »
I like Caronia! Cunard should consider a new ship with "ia" in the end in future.  I do find this confusing that they now have a new Queen Elizabeth because in 40 years time when Queen Mary 2 retires and the QV and QE what are tCunard going to call their new successors?

Queen Mary (3), Queen Victoria 2 and Queen Elizbeth (4)?

Its just confusing. Its nice that they thought about having another Elizabeth in the fleet. But did Cunard order a Mauretania 3? no!
I found it interesting that Cunard said they had a Queen Elizabeth with the fleet for atleast 70 years yet no plans were made to have a new Mauretania. I think they should consider a new name in future.

Offline Twynkle

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #23 on: Sep 17, 2010, 11:33 PM »
Victoria conforms with Cunard's traditional ending - 'ia'

It would be interesting to know more about the selection of names
Who gets to suggest or choose the name - does Carnival 'call the tune'?
For example - do the employees get a vote?

(There's one shipping line that used to call all it's ships after Shakespeare's female characters
Cunard seem to have named some of their ships 'in batches'!) 
 
QE2 had been waiting alongside in Dubai for nearly 12 years.  Please restore her Lifeboats and Tenders to where they truly belong - she looks naked without them - please spare her this ignominy.

Offline Stowaway2k

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #24 on: Sep 18, 2010, 12:07 AM »
I think it's important that ships' names be in sync with the public's tastes, afterall it's a business that depends upon keeping up with what is appealing to the public.

Up through Edwardian times, the Romanesque names were going along with the public's tastes in all things romantic and revival, just look at the interior decorating from those times.   Such decorating would be a horror to most passengers these days. 

I think, IMO, the same applies to naming ships.  Today's people would not only have no idea what a "Mauretania" was or what it meant, I think it would be contrary to contemporary tastes and could come off sounding awkward when spoken and considered unappealing and possibly ugly to today's public.

For practical business reasons rather than historical sentiment which could be contrary to contemporary tastes, I think "Mauretania" and other Roman names from that era would be taking a risk. 

"Caronia" though is an exception, it sounds lovely when spoken and is easily pronounced. 

In keeping with the place-name tradition, maybe "Blackpool" could be given consideration?  ;D

How many Rotterdams has HAL had now, five?


Tom

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #25 on: Sep 18, 2010, 09:14 AM »
On the other hand, the new QE will be sailing cruise itineraries to the same destination QE2 called at during her final years of service.  Remember, after QM2 took over the transatlantic route in 2004, QE2 spent the rest of her days mostly cruising European waters with the occasional world cruise and cruises to North America and the Caribbean.  In my mind, QM2 took over QE2's transatlantic duties, and the new QE will be replacing QE2's cruising duties.

Let the PR machine at Carnival UK and the press turn out what they want.  Carnival can call their ships whatever they want, I don't particularly care much anymore.  I've come to the conclusion Cunard isn't what it was 5 or 10 years ago, and I've moved on.  It's not about creating vessels that capture the modern spirit of a nation, it's about marketing your standard Vista type floating box with the accomplishments of a company that is close to existing only in name.  By relying almost exclusively on their history to make sales instead of creating interesting vessels, Cunard is essentially ensuring that they will never again create the very history that made them famous in the first place.  In the future, RCI and NCL will be the players in the industry that are going to have history books written about them for the ways they changed passenger travel today, not Cunard.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 10941
  • Total likes: 10980
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #26 on: Sep 18, 2010, 09:53 AM »
Tom, brilliant posting.

When I was at Clydebank College this week, I spoke to a girl who worked there, who had also been on Queen Victoria (and loved it) and was booked on the new QE.  When i spoke about QE2 to her, she saw "oh I was never on any of those old ones".  I think she was about 10 years younger than me, mid to late 20s, and to her, QE2 was just an ordinary old cruise ship.  This was from someone who literally works on the exact (within a few feet) spot on which QE2, QE1, QM, Lusi and Aqui were launchd.

I don't care about what current Cunard are up to either EXCEPT, and this is the point of this topic, that it is confusing the history that I AM interested in. 

The thing that amazes me about Cunard, and all their history, is their website - have a look at it - and se if you can find out about their historic ships.  Mad.

Passionate about QE2's service life for 35 years and creator of this website.

Online Michael Gallagher

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #27 on: Sep 18, 2010, 09:59 AM »
Rob - on your last point: go to the websites of P&O, Costa and Holland America. They all have significant histories. Where are their historical ships? This is not just a Cunard issue.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 10941
  • Total likes: 10980
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #28 on: Sep 18, 2010, 10:01 AM »
Thanks Michael.

What they should do, and I'll help them with this if they want!, is to create a separate www.CunardHeritage.com site or something like that which can focus on their history a bit.  Surely THIS is the value of the brand that makes it worth something.
Passionate about QE2's service life for 35 years and creator of this website.

Offline Stowaway2k

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #29 on: Sep 18, 2010, 11:24 AM »

What they should do, and I'll help them with this if they want!, is to create a separate www.CunardHeritage.com site or something like that which can focus on their history a bit. 

Someone would certainly have to help them because they sure need it.  :o

I've always thought, when I've seen Cunard's office drones make rookie mistakes, is that if I can know all this stuff about them, why can't they know this stuff about themselves?!

All it takes is some interest in the subject of the company, which means picking up and reading some books, or at worst "googling", and if a company's staff won't show that interest, then something is wrong with that company...  the best recent example was when Cunard published a still from a movie of a fictional ship and identified it as the Queen Mary... only their most famous ship... and still afloat practically right down the road from Cunard's US office...but those who should have known better, didn't.   ???

Offline cunardqueen

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #30 on: Sep 18, 2010, 12:08 PM »
Quote
  I've come to the conclusion Cunard isn't what it was 5 or 10 years ago, and I've moved on.   

SadlyTom your not alone in your thoughts, along with 7 other friends l know from the QE2 days , as yet not one of us have booked anything on the new ships, and dont have anything in the pipeline. And for each of us that is highly unusual.
 Now the fact that most of us are Diamond members, One is platinum and we are all solo travellers, l would hate to think how much other custom is being lost...  Well actually thinking about it, They are losing no custom, we are just being replaced with the new breed of Carnval customer, so why should they care :(
From the moment you first glimpsed the Queen,
 you just knew you were in for a very special time ahead.!

Offline Chris Frame

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #31 on: Sep 18, 2010, 02:27 PM »
Thanks Michael.

What they should do, and I'll help them with this if they want!, is to create a separate www.CunardHeritage.com site or something like that which can focus on their history a bit.  Surely THIS is the value of the brand that makes it worth something.

I started doing this in 1999 with www.chriscunard.com ;)

I'm happy for help in adding to it if anyone is interested.

Chris.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 10941
  • Total likes: 10980
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #32 on: Sep 18, 2010, 02:35 PM »
I started doing this in 1999 with www.chriscunard.com ;)

Who knew!  ;)

What you should do is licence your material for them to use on their own website... its exactly what they should have.  Right on their front page - "click here to read about our 170 years of historic ships"
Passionate about QE2's service life for 35 years and creator of this website.

Offline Chris Frame

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #33 on: Sep 18, 2010, 02:51 PM »
Who knew!  ;)

What you should do is licence your material for them to use on their own website... its exactly what they should have.  Right on their front page - "click here to read about our 170 years of historic ships"

I love that idea, of the link.

Also strengthening ties with the Cunard Steamship Society would be good as there's a huge wealth of historical information there.

I guess the problem is that as a company Cunard need to have control over what is said about them. That's understandable, fair etc and for this reason they can't really link off to third party discussions on their heritage...

On Queen Victoria (I've been told) they still play my lectures on the TV. The history is so often what the passengers find so interesting about sailing with Cunard (rather than HAL or P&O), which makes my job easier as a maritime lecturer aboard... people want to hear what I have to say!

HAL and P&O have a different approach. They seem to be able to fill their ships regardless of their heritage. I think the same is true for Cunard, but fortunately Cunard maintain their historical links.
« Last Edit: Sep 18, 2010, 03:04 PM by Chris »

Tom

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #34 on: Sep 18, 2010, 06:19 PM »
QV is a lovely ship, but now that the staff from the "Pre-Carnival" days are quickly retiring/resigning, there is little incentive for me to cruise onboard her again.  There's nothing wrong with the service the ex-Princess or P&O staff have to offer, it's just not on the same level of quality and care that Cunard used to provide.  Why should we pay a premium to cruise on a Cunard ship over a cheaper P&O cruise if they run nearly identical itineraries, were built by the same shipbuilder, staffed by the same company, and designed by the same design team?  QE2 used to justify the expense because she was more than just another Vista.

Cunard's "passion" for its history will lead to its fall.  You can't move forwards if you are perpetually looking backwards and praising all the things you've done before.  It's one thing to know your roots and to appreciate where you come from, however, it's another thing altogether to be so totally engrossed in the past that you are essentially smothering yourself with it.  This "passion" has turned Cunard from mainstream household name for luxury into some niche brand catering to those who get a warm fuzzy feeling when they hear the word "history".  Those here who can actually appreciate Cunard's history can easily see through Carnival's marketing and recognize how very little of that spirit and innovation remains.

Cunard has become a company of contradictions.  They praise their history whilst taking many opportunities to rid themselves of it, and they pride themselves on their upscale brand while there is little to distinguish them from other Carnival UK companies.  I simply cannot respect a company that cannot even pretend to stay true to their core ideals.  I need integrity, not hypocrisy, and that's why I've looked to other companies these days for when I book cruises.

Offline Stowaway2k

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #35 on: Sep 18, 2010, 11:40 PM »
On Cunard's Facebook page for a while they were doing "Today in Cunard History".

It's mostly "this day in 1870 _______ was launched"
I realized that they were skipping over many other interesting and important dates in Cunard history, so I started posting on their wall my own Cunard history research. 

There is so much more than just launchings and maiden voyages, many interesting events that were not mentioned, such as the date that the Cunard and White Star merger was finalized, Cunard buying up every available lifeboat in NYC upon Mauretania's arrival in April 1912, the day Queen Mary left the Clyde beginning one of the most storied of Cunard histories, etc.

But, nobody cared, there was virtually no interest shown so I quit doing it.   ::)

The historic events of Cunard were meaningless to those Cunard Facebook fans who would then go mental for the silly puff-pieces about Ascot Balls and such.

c'est la vie.   ;D

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 10941
  • Total likes: 10980
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #36 on: Oct 12, 2010, 08:28 AM »
This is a brilliant piece, and I agree with almost every word they say!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/hampshire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9076000/9076513.stm
Passionate about QE2's service life for 35 years and creator of this website.

Offline Mauretania1907

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #37 on: Oct 29, 2010, 08:17 AM »
I agree with you, Rob, it's a brilliant piece, but there is one comment which I suspect you picked up on also - will this Vista Lizzie ever be as famous as QE2? She might be, or might not, time will tell.

Offline Chris Frame

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #38 on: Oct 29, 2010, 02:36 PM »
 
In this case, Cunard have got it right, even though us purists aren't going along with it.   ;) People are going to notice and pay attention when the new Queen Elizabeth pulls into port... which likely does not happen much for any of the other Vistas save for Queen Victoria.

I touched on this back in 2008 in this blog from aboard QE2:
https://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,513.msg11132.html#msg11132


Offline Chris Frame

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #39 on: Oct 30, 2010, 02:47 AM »
Quote
Others may quibble with Shanks's insistence that Queen Elizabeth is a liner, not a cruise ship, but I'm not going to get involved in that argument.

From: http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/captain-greybeard/2010/10/queen-elizabeth-cunards-newest.html

Offline andyh

Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #40 on: Oct 31, 2010, 04:47 PM »
I agree with you, Rob, it's a brilliant piece, but there is one comment which I suspect you picked up on also - will this Vista Lizzie ever be as famous as QE2? She might be, or might not, time will tell.

I would like to think so, she has only been in service less than three weeks, so give her a few years and see how people talk about her then, I would bet she will be talked about more than other cruise ships similar to her, but she will have to hit the 40 year mark to be compared with the QE2

RMS Queen Elizabeth 2

  • Guest

Offline Adam Hodson

  • Ocean Liner Enthusiast
  • Princess Grill Diner
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Total likes: 78
  • A young photographer, and a QE2 & Concorde lover!
    • Flickr Photostream
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #42 on: Apr 21, 2014, 04:00 PM »
How do they think that a 23.7 knot cruise ship can replace a 34 knot ocean liner? Something else that sad is that MS Queen Elizabeth (2010) is the one that comes up on google instead of RMS Queen Elizabeth (1938).
"The QE2 is one of the last great transatlantic liners, and arguably the most famous liner in the world"

"QE2 and Concorde, a partnership that lasted almost 30 years... two stunning pieces of engineering, never to be forgotten!"

Offline June Ingram

  • Global Moderator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 7791
  • Total likes: 4404
  • Beautiful, elegant QE2 - forever Queen of the Seas
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #43 on: Apr 22, 2014, 08:48 PM »
There is no ship that can be really compared to our beloved QE2.  She was totally innovative in her time and thoroughly modern.  She is unique for many reasons, one of the most apparent is the effect she has had and still has on people. 
QE2 - the ship for all of time, a ship of timeless beauty !

Offline Adam Hodson

  • Ocean Liner Enthusiast
  • Princess Grill Diner
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Total likes: 78
  • A young photographer, and a QE2 & Concorde lover!
    • Flickr Photostream
Re: Queen Elizabeth is not the replacement for QE2
« Reply #44 on: Apr 23, 2014, 12:10 AM »
Very true June.
"The QE2 is one of the last great transatlantic liners, and arguably the most famous liner in the world"

"QE2 and Concorde, a partnership that lasted almost 30 years... two stunning pieces of engineering, never to be forgotten!"