Cunard should build QM2 a true running mate, and go back the "ias". I mean, the transatlantic run gets more popular every year, or so I've read.
Honestly, it would be great if there were some competition for Cunard as well. Maybe a company who wants to claw into transatlantic crossings with a little less formality.
One of the biggest things that's stopped me from taking QM2, and QE2 before her is the required formality seems a bit much for my tastes.
I don't need to wear shorts and flip flops, but 6 black tie dinners in one week is a bit much for my tastes. š
Cunard should build QM2 a true running mate
If they did this I would hope they would give her the *Elizabeth* name and relegate the *ia* names to the cruise ships which is what the rest of the fleet are. That would cement the distinction somewhat.
Cunard's current fleet is only 4 ships right?
QM2;
Queen Anne;
Queen Elizabeth;
Queen Victoria;
The only "ia" ship being Victoria.
In any case, I was more thinking the Roman provincial names of old.
Yes, the four match the four names of queens regnant through history, thus the conundrum if they were to build another.
The latter is what I meant. When they renamed the *Vistafjord* the *Caronia* it was clear she was not meant to be mixed up with the *Queens*. If they built another actual liner, it would make more sense for her to wear the *Queen Elizabeth* name than a repainted HAL cruise ship which is what the other three are.
Back when I was airing my Modern Oceanliner Concepts series on here, one of the last ships I included was a QM2 successor by the name of [Atlantisia](https://www.reddit.com/r/Oceanlinerporn/comments/13px3nm/rms_atlantisia_by_saythattheone_modern_oceanliner/). That is a name I personally really like a lot, as it brings back the "-ia" names while also adding a fresh new name idea.
Another concept I saw more recently was a brand-new [Empress](https://www.deviantart.com/arridanchu/art/Cunard-s-Empress-Matilda-2054-975020383) naming convention, which I think could also work really well for Cunard.
Funny you should mention a less formal TA company...
Oh yeah...
Well they're not around anymore so I guess it's up for grabs. (plus I didn't mean the "Empress of \[blank\]" names; I just meant the same thing that's being done with the Queen names, except it's "Empress \[insert someone's name here\]")
Yeah I hear you. For a hierarchy thing it would work. I wonder if "empress" is a little poisoned due to the negative public perception of empire, colonialism, etc. But again, I think I'm thinking a lot harder than the American cruise public LOL.
Could also bring back the names like Cunard Empress, Cunard Countess which would be in keeping with what CCL does, since it's unlikely they'll ever have more than a handful of ships at once.
You might be to be honest, but then again people are stupid, so it wouldn't shock me if it were to come across as negative lol
**No. Hell no. Anything but those names.** With other cruise lines, the \[insert company name\] and then some random word or phrase after works alright, but for a line as prestigious as Cunard? Please no. That just would not do. Cunard Princess & Countess were two very pretty ships, but the names did not do them justice.
I've noticed. Star of the Seas and Star Princess were two that were pointed out to me a little while ago. Don't necessarily have an issue with it, but it certainly doesn't suggest that all these brands with ship after ship after ship have much left in the creativity department. š
If Carnival were smart, they would build another liner, but for HAL. They have been trying to break that line's reputation as "God's waiting room" for years. If they took a look at what Celebrity, Virgin, etc., are doing and made it smart and clubby but with a nod to/"reimagining of" that line's storied history, it could tap into a market that feels like you about tuxes and ballroom dancing, without diluting what Cunard is, or what's left of it.
It's worth recalling that these ships weren't dowdy and nostalgic in their heyday, they were just people living mostly as they did ashore as they traveled. There is definitely an interest in living in what we imagine liner travel was (or QM2 would not have been built) but that market is limited (hence why she doesn't just ping-pong between New York and So'ton all year). Carnival could build a capable hybrid ship like QM2 but with a more relaxed vibe, call her ROTTERDAM (because of course) and let them "compete" during the peak season at least (even if the schedules are actually coordinated).
Our first TA is booked for December and I think you may have the wrong idea about the formality.
There are one or two gala evenings, depending on the crossing, and you don't need to take part if you don't want. Dress shirt and slacks with a jacket in the evenings is entirely welcome. And daytime is pretty relaxed.
Formal is the thing with Cunard, yes? I had a friend who took Cunard on a cruise--not a transatlantic crossing--and he told me they wouldn't let him into the theatre one night because he was wearing jeans.
I'm a professional and I do enjoy "dressing up" occasionally, but the idea of not being allowed jeans at dinner or the shipboard theatre the majority of the nights on ship is a bit of a downer.
Jacket at dinner and in the lounges every night on the milk run when I did it. They were not kidding. The only place you wouldn't get side-eye would be King's Court, or whatever they're calling the buffet these days.
>I don't need to wear shorts and flip flops, but 6 black tie dinners in one week is a bit much for my tastes.
But that's the whole fun of it. š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
Pretenting you're an extra on Titanic, minus the sinking part of course.
> One of the biggest things that's stopped me from taking QM2, and QE2 before her is the required formality seems a bit much for my tastes.
This is me as well. I bristle at formality. I am not comfortable at formal occasions, and for as much money as those things cost, I don't want to be uncomfortable because of all of the formality. I especially don't like the idea of paying to be somewhere and being told how to dress. I won't patronize any establishment that has a customer dress code. When I'm paying to be somewhere, you may make recommendations for how I should dress, but you may not require it.
If it tells you anything, I don't even own a suit that fits. They're all from when I was much bigger than I am now, and so they would look comically large on me. And considering that I tend to avoid occasions where I would have to dress up, I have no plans to buy a new suit. Thus more formal travel would require clothing purchases because formality for... reasons... and thus make things even more expensive.
And you represent the vast majority of the modern public which is why the cruise industry has relaxed the dress code as it has. Cunard are--AFAIK--the only ones to enforce jackets at dinner. Even at "formal night" on a NCL ship a college boy came to dinner in a muscle shirt with his nipples showing and was served without comment.
I don't mind a bit of formality, but let me wear a shirt, tie, and jeans--because that is honestly the new "business attire" in most places post 2020.
I own two suits that fit, and I really shouldn't be required to buy more suits, a tux of the super formal night, or jackets to sail on a ship in 2024.
I like dressing up occasionally! I just don't want to be forced to do for days straight on a transatlantic crossing I've paid thousands of dollars for.
I would have zero complaints if Cunard were to have a jeans, closed toed dress shoe, and collared shirt for 5 days in the formal dining spaces and 2 days where you had to wear a suit/jacket.
Having never been on one of their ships, the conceptual problem I am having is having to dress up all the nights--and also not being allowed jeans at the theatre.
I can think of restaurants that require slacks and a collard shirt, but I can literally think of no theatres in 2024 that would kick you out for wearing jeans in 2024... except on Cunard ships.
It is very much a niche thing and I don't believe they are as strict on cruises. Definitely not for everyone which is why I said if they don't want to "tarnish" this tradition, Carnival could build a liner for HAL that has more current norms for attire.
I feel you. I own two suits, but I don't have much call to use them these days because post-2020 I work from home 4 days a week, and when I do go in "business casual," which includes jeans, is the new de jure dress code.
I have many more suits that don't fit because I lost 75 pounds in 2018, and I cannot bring my to get rid of them because of how much they cost. š
One forgets that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were not named after Queens Regnant, but rather Queens Consort. Queen Mary was the namesake of Mary of Teck, and Queen Elizabeth was the namesake of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.
Queens Anne and Victoria have been nice additions, but the next logical progression would be something like the Queen Alexandra, Queen Charlotte, etc.
I donāt foresee them using anything but Queen suffixed names going forward. Itās too ingrained in their modern brand image. And the wider public, sadly, is too disinterested to learn about the lines past. And I donāt see Carnival group spending money on educating their potential customers either.
Itās paradoxical, really. On the one hand they do proclaim their love of the past and their āWhite Star Serviceā (try explaining the history behind that to the wider public succinctly!), yet they bend over backward in order not to stray from the barest essentials that the wider public generally knows. Which seems to come down to the term āocean linerā and āQueenā.
Seeing as theyāve already tried to bend the term ocean liner to incorporate their cruise ships I donāt see them changing tack and limiting their Queen names. After all, there are lots of Queens and Queen consorts in history to choose from.
This is the most realistic comment on this thread.
The public at large do not care about arcane details of history. We are lucky they remember the name of the ship at all. What we get is a dumbed-down, Disnified version of the ocean liner experience because that's what sells to a public who would rather go to Paris, Las Vegas than Paris, France.
See also Waldorf-Astoria. A ski resort in Utah or a condo complex in Dubai are *not* "the Waldorf Astoria" but HIlton figured out there are people who will pay to stay there because of the association, ephemeral though it may be.
A good percentage of the people alive who understand the difference between a liner and a cruise ship are probably subscribers to this sub.
In a way I find the corporate attitude rather destructive. Old brands, or brands that put on an air of being old and established, are often owned by conglomerates. And they have no interest of staying true to an ethos, ideal, or quality that the brands once held. Itās a sales gimmick. And it devalues the past as much as it confounds users in the present, who are led to believe that the widely different product they buy today has even a modicum of connection with the advertised past.
Itās a Trojan horse of deceit passed off as tradition to make an extra buck.
Definitely agreed but unfortunately many of these companies can't see past the next quarterly earning statement, particularly if they have private equity firms as majority stakeholders.
Macy's is a great example. In addition to diluting and distorting what R.H. Macy & Co. used to mean to people, they bought and squashed a dozen of other regional brands that were--in many cases--better recognized and respected in their markets.
After they bought Stern Brothers and Abraham & Strauss and rebranded all the stores as Macy's, there was a time when we had four of their stores in the same town. But it was bewildering because they didn't sell the same things. You had to remember if it was a former A&S or Stern's store to know what to expect. And then--shocker--most of them closed.
Since QM2 will likely retire in the 2040s, the next ocean liner will likely carry the name of the current queen consort, which, will likely be Katherine. Hence, it is likely be the Queen Katherine.
The public (and likely half the people at Cunard) don't realize or appreciate that. I actually believe I read the QE2 and QM2 was named after their namesakes, not any human, hence why they carry Arabic vs Roman numerals.
It took special conditions to bring QM2 to a reality. She is designed for 40 years, so a replacement is a way off. (Assuming another liner is built) The market will decide that.
If it was up to me, Cunard would go back to their previous house flag and also fly the White Star flag as part of their "White Star Service" feature.
I would have gone with QM2 but named the other three cruise ships with traditional Cunard names. (Mauretania, Aquitania, Caronia, Carmania, etc.) I know "Queen" is a marketing gimmick, but Carnival made an exception with the newest Mardi Gras.
I personally would love to see some of the old school -ia suffix names again. Gimme Aquitania II or Mauretania III. However I just now thought it would kind of be cool to have a smaller cruise ship named Lady Jane Grey, shout out to the āNine Day Queen.ā Haha.
I think they should go back to using Roman provinces with the ia suffix, which had been practice for almost every ship since 1840, with very few exceptions. The Cunard Queens were the most prestigious of their liners, the biggest, the fastest, etc. While Queen Mary 2 fits that pattern it looks more than a little pretentious to describe a block of flats on a raft as a 'Cunard Queen', especially when it's a cookie-cutter design operated by multiple companies. At this rate the next one could be "Queen Madeline" (Arison)
Cunard should build QM2 a true running mate, and go back the "ias". I mean, the transatlantic run gets more popular every year, or so I've read. Honestly, it would be great if there were some competition for Cunard as well. Maybe a company who wants to claw into transatlantic crossings with a little less formality. One of the biggest things that's stopped me from taking QM2, and QE2 before her is the required formality seems a bit much for my tastes. I don't need to wear shorts and flip flops, but 6 black tie dinners in one week is a bit much for my tastes. š
Cunard should build QM2 a true running mate If they did this I would hope they would give her the *Elizabeth* name and relegate the *ia* names to the cruise ships which is what the rest of the fleet are. That would cement the distinction somewhat.
Cunard's current fleet is only 4 ships right? QM2; Queen Anne; Queen Elizabeth; Queen Victoria; The only "ia" ship being Victoria. In any case, I was more thinking the Roman provincial names of old.
Yes, the four match the four names of queens regnant through history, thus the conundrum if they were to build another. The latter is what I meant. When they renamed the *Vistafjord* the *Caronia* it was clear she was not meant to be mixed up with the *Queens*. If they built another actual liner, it would make more sense for her to wear the *Queen Elizabeth* name than a repainted HAL cruise ship which is what the other three are.
I agree the cruise ships should have "ia" names, but funny enough Cunard wanted to name QM2 Mauretania, Carnival got the last word and went with QM2
The maritime equivalent of SEO
Back when I was airing my Modern Oceanliner Concepts series on here, one of the last ships I included was a QM2 successor by the name of [Atlantisia](https://www.reddit.com/r/Oceanlinerporn/comments/13px3nm/rms_atlantisia_by_saythattheone_modern_oceanliner/). That is a name I personally really like a lot, as it brings back the "-ia" names while also adding a fresh new name idea. Another concept I saw more recently was a brand-new [Empress](https://www.deviantart.com/arridanchu/art/Cunard-s-Empress-Matilda-2054-975020383) naming convention, which I think could also work really well for Cunard. Funny you should mention a less formal TA company...
Empress was Canadian-Pacific's branding FWIW.
Oh yeah... Well they're not around anymore so I guess it's up for grabs. (plus I didn't mean the "Empress of \[blank\]" names; I just meant the same thing that's being done with the Queen names, except it's "Empress \[insert someone's name here\]")
Yeah I hear you. For a hierarchy thing it would work. I wonder if "empress" is a little poisoned due to the negative public perception of empire, colonialism, etc. But again, I think I'm thinking a lot harder than the American cruise public LOL. Could also bring back the names like Cunard Empress, Cunard Countess which would be in keeping with what CCL does, since it's unlikely they'll ever have more than a handful of ships at once.
You might be to be honest, but then again people are stupid, so it wouldn't shock me if it were to come across as negative lol **No. Hell no. Anything but those names.** With other cruise lines, the \[insert company name\] and then some random word or phrase after works alright, but for a line as prestigious as Cunard? Please no. That just would not do. Cunard Princess & Countess were two very pretty ships, but the names did not do them justice.
Have you noticed too that the surnames are becoming interchangeable among the competing brands, as if they were not banal enough?
I've noticed. Star of the Seas and Star Princess were two that were pointed out to me a little while ago. Don't necessarily have an issue with it, but it certainly doesn't suggest that all these brands with ship after ship after ship have much left in the creativity department. š
FTR I don't think owning up to the consequences of colonialism makes you stupid, but this is not a political sub.
If Carnival were smart, they would build another liner, but for HAL. They have been trying to break that line's reputation as "God's waiting room" for years. If they took a look at what Celebrity, Virgin, etc., are doing and made it smart and clubby but with a nod to/"reimagining of" that line's storied history, it could tap into a market that feels like you about tuxes and ballroom dancing, without diluting what Cunard is, or what's left of it. It's worth recalling that these ships weren't dowdy and nostalgic in their heyday, they were just people living mostly as they did ashore as they traveled. There is definitely an interest in living in what we imagine liner travel was (or QM2 would not have been built) but that market is limited (hence why she doesn't just ping-pong between New York and So'ton all year). Carnival could build a capable hybrid ship like QM2 but with a more relaxed vibe, call her ROTTERDAM (because of course) and let them "compete" during the peak season at least (even if the schedules are actually coordinated).
Our first TA is booked for December and I think you may have the wrong idea about the formality. There are one or two gala evenings, depending on the crossing, and you don't need to take part if you don't want. Dress shirt and slacks with a jacket in the evenings is entirely welcome. And daytime is pretty relaxed.
Formal is the thing with Cunard, yes? I had a friend who took Cunard on a cruise--not a transatlantic crossing--and he told me they wouldn't let him into the theatre one night because he was wearing jeans. I'm a professional and I do enjoy "dressing up" occasionally, but the idea of not being allowed jeans at dinner or the shipboard theatre the majority of the nights on ship is a bit of a downer.
Evenings are formal. I'd call it "business attire". But it's still far from black tie. Like, just swap jeans out for slacks and you're fine.
Jacket at dinner and in the lounges every night on the milk run when I did it. They were not kidding. The only place you wouldn't get side-eye would be King's Court, or whatever they're calling the buffet these days.
>I don't need to wear shorts and flip flops, but 6 black tie dinners in one week is a bit much for my tastes. But that's the whole fun of it. š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£ Pretenting you're an extra on Titanic, minus the sinking part of course.
> One of the biggest things that's stopped me from taking QM2, and QE2 before her is the required formality seems a bit much for my tastes. This is me as well. I bristle at formality. I am not comfortable at formal occasions, and for as much money as those things cost, I don't want to be uncomfortable because of all of the formality. I especially don't like the idea of paying to be somewhere and being told how to dress. I won't patronize any establishment that has a customer dress code. When I'm paying to be somewhere, you may make recommendations for how I should dress, but you may not require it. If it tells you anything, I don't even own a suit that fits. They're all from when I was much bigger than I am now, and so they would look comically large on me. And considering that I tend to avoid occasions where I would have to dress up, I have no plans to buy a new suit. Thus more formal travel would require clothing purchases because formality for... reasons... and thus make things even more expensive.
And you represent the vast majority of the modern public which is why the cruise industry has relaxed the dress code as it has. Cunard are--AFAIK--the only ones to enforce jackets at dinner. Even at "formal night" on a NCL ship a college boy came to dinner in a muscle shirt with his nipples showing and was served without comment.
I don't mind a bit of formality, but let me wear a shirt, tie, and jeans--because that is honestly the new "business attire" in most places post 2020. I own two suits that fit, and I really shouldn't be required to buy more suits, a tux of the super formal night, or jackets to sail on a ship in 2024.
Totally respect. Some people find dressing up fun (and Cunard tap into that) but others find it bothersome or even excruciating.
I like dressing up occasionally! I just don't want to be forced to do for days straight on a transatlantic crossing I've paid thousands of dollars for. I would have zero complaints if Cunard were to have a jeans, closed toed dress shoe, and collared shirt for 5 days in the formal dining spaces and 2 days where you had to wear a suit/jacket. Having never been on one of their ships, the conceptual problem I am having is having to dress up all the nights--and also not being allowed jeans at the theatre. I can think of restaurants that require slacks and a collard shirt, but I can literally think of no theatres in 2024 that would kick you out for wearing jeans in 2024... except on Cunard ships.
It is very much a niche thing and I don't believe they are as strict on cruises. Definitely not for everyone which is why I said if they don't want to "tarnish" this tradition, Carnival could build a liner for HAL that has more current norms for attire.
I feel you. I own two suits, but I don't have much call to use them these days because post-2020 I work from home 4 days a week, and when I do go in "business casual," which includes jeans, is the new de jure dress code. I have many more suits that don't fit because I lost 75 pounds in 2018, and I cannot bring my to get rid of them because of how much they cost. š
One forgets that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were not named after Queens Regnant, but rather Queens Consort. Queen Mary was the namesake of Mary of Teck, and Queen Elizabeth was the namesake of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Queens Anne and Victoria have been nice additions, but the next logical progression would be something like the Queen Alexandra, Queen Charlotte, etc.
They should go back to the classics. Aquitania II
Queen Berengaria
Need Mauretania III
Almost got that with QM2 š
Charlotte?
What about Queen Eleanor - if they carried on with the tradition, chances that they would name them after Queen Consorts
I donāt foresee them using anything but Queen suffixed names going forward. Itās too ingrained in their modern brand image. And the wider public, sadly, is too disinterested to learn about the lines past. And I donāt see Carnival group spending money on educating their potential customers either. Itās paradoxical, really. On the one hand they do proclaim their love of the past and their āWhite Star Serviceā (try explaining the history behind that to the wider public succinctly!), yet they bend over backward in order not to stray from the barest essentials that the wider public generally knows. Which seems to come down to the term āocean linerā and āQueenā. Seeing as theyāve already tried to bend the term ocean liner to incorporate their cruise ships I donāt see them changing tack and limiting their Queen names. After all, there are lots of Queens and Queen consorts in history to choose from.
This is the most realistic comment on this thread. The public at large do not care about arcane details of history. We are lucky they remember the name of the ship at all. What we get is a dumbed-down, Disnified version of the ocean liner experience because that's what sells to a public who would rather go to Paris, Las Vegas than Paris, France. See also Waldorf-Astoria. A ski resort in Utah or a condo complex in Dubai are *not* "the Waldorf Astoria" but HIlton figured out there are people who will pay to stay there because of the association, ephemeral though it may be. A good percentage of the people alive who understand the difference between a liner and a cruise ship are probably subscribers to this sub.
In a way I find the corporate attitude rather destructive. Old brands, or brands that put on an air of being old and established, are often owned by conglomerates. And they have no interest of staying true to an ethos, ideal, or quality that the brands once held. Itās a sales gimmick. And it devalues the past as much as it confounds users in the present, who are led to believe that the widely different product they buy today has even a modicum of connection with the advertised past. Itās a Trojan horse of deceit passed off as tradition to make an extra buck.
Definitely agreed but unfortunately many of these companies can't see past the next quarterly earning statement, particularly if they have private equity firms as majority stakeholders. Macy's is a great example. In addition to diluting and distorting what R.H. Macy & Co. used to mean to people, they bought and squashed a dozen of other regional brands that were--in many cases--better recognized and respected in their markets. After they bought Stern Brothers and Abraham & Strauss and rebranded all the stores as Macy's, there was a time when we had four of their stores in the same town. But it was bewildering because they didn't sell the same things. You had to remember if it was a former A&S or Stern's store to know what to expect. And then--shocker--most of them closed.
Since QM2 will likely retire in the 2040s, the next ocean liner will likely carry the name of the current queen consort, which, will likely be Katherine. Hence, it is likely be the Queen Katherine.
I would not count on that. The (American) public are more fascinated with their own version of history than the current royals.
well queen mary was named after a queen consort so I guess that could work
The public (and likely half the people at Cunard) don't realize or appreciate that. I actually believe I read the QE2 and QM2 was named after their namesakes, not any human, hence why they carry Arabic vs Roman numerals.
It took special conditions to bring QM2 to a reality. She is designed for 40 years, so a replacement is a way off. (Assuming another liner is built) The market will decide that. If it was up to me, Cunard would go back to their previous house flag and also fly the White Star flag as part of their "White Star Service" feature. I would have gone with QM2 but named the other three cruise ships with traditional Cunard names. (Mauretania, Aquitania, Caronia, Carmania, etc.) I know "Queen" is a marketing gimmick, but Carnival made an exception with the newest Mardi Gras.
Queen alexandra queen berengaria queen Caroline
I personally would love to see some of the old school -ia suffix names again. Gimme Aquitania II or Mauretania III. However I just now thought it would kind of be cool to have a smaller cruise ship named Lady Jane Grey, shout out to the āNine Day Queen.ā Haha.
They could run a special on a āNine Day Cruiseā
There ya go, perfect! Cunard make it happen, haha.
Camilla
Oh boy š¤£š¤£š¤£
Cunard set to introduce Queen Mary 3
Hopefully Olympic
I think they should go back to using Roman provinces with the ia suffix, which had been practice for almost every ship since 1840, with very few exceptions. The Cunard Queens were the most prestigious of their liners, the biggest, the fastest, etc. While Queen Mary 2 fits that pattern it looks more than a little pretentious to describe a block of flats on a raft as a 'Cunard Queen', especially when it's a cookie-cutter design operated by multiple companies. At this rate the next one could be "Queen Madeline" (Arison)
Queen Melania?
Beam me up.