Queen Mary 1 photos

We were discussing my Queen Mary photos on another thread. (the grill thread) I think I've figured out how to post a link to one of my QM1 albums. This album is from our visit last year. Here's the link:

http://www.kodakgallery.com/ShareLandingSignin.jsp?Uc=7aj0mckp.263d6zwd&Uy=-pc1hqv&Upost_signin=Slideshow.jsp%3Fmode%3Dfromshare&Ux=0&UV=819476646910_397642132405

Click on the VIEW SLIDESHOW button. Enjoy!

Thank you.

It is lovely to see such a beautiful ship. The first of the three real Queens.

I do hope QE2 has an end to match that of Queen Mary, not Queen Elizabeth, France or so many others.....

Lovely pictures:)

Truly Delightful Freckles67

Thank You

Shellie:)

Thank you.

 

It is lovely to see such a beautiful ship. The first of the three real Queens.

 

I do hope QE2 has an end to match that of Queen Mary, not Queen Elizabeth, France or so many others.....

Kindlychap

I think you'll find that the first "real" Cunard (OK, not built by them) "Queen" was Berengaria.

But, pray tell, what makes a "real" Queen? By my counting there are either five (Berengaria, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth 2 and Queen Mary 2) or, if you want to keep only to those with "Queen" as part of the name, four.

If you want to award the "real Queen" prize to "pure" liners.. well there were three (or two if you discount Berengaria).

If you want to include "dual purpose" ships, well, we're back to four again (or 5 including Berengaria!).

If you're saying that there is a difference between QE2 and QM2 (in this example), please tell me what it is. Both were built to be dual purpose (Liner/Cruise), both are liners, both are cruise ships. If you allow QE2 as a "real" Queen, then you must, it sems to me, to allow QM2 as well. Indeed, given that the QE2 has only two screws, QE2 could be seen (by some) to be the "odd one out" (remember as well that four of the five are all steel construction, but which one is not?).

Berengaria (as Imperator), Queen ELizabeth and Queen Mary 2 were the "largest" when entering service, but not Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth 2(I think).

The only way to count three "Queens" that I can see is to discount Berengaria and then count only those built by Cunard before Trafalgar House. Is this what you mean?.

I join you in hoping that QE2 is preserved in a port, not destroyed on a beach (or left to rot (United States))

I know you (and few others!) will have different ideas.... (I'll now duck down) :)

With very, VERY best wishes (and NOT wishing to upset anyone, esp you, Kindlychap)

Pepper.

We were discussing my Queen Mary photos on another thread. (the grill thread) I think I've figured out how to post a link to one of my QM1 albums. This album is from our visit last year. Here's the link:

http://www.kodakgallery.com/ShareLandingSignin.jsp?Uc=7aj0mckp.263d6zwd&Uy=-pc1hqv&Upost_signin=Slideshow.jsp%3Fmode%3Dfromshare&Ux=0&UV=819476646910_397642132405

 

Click on the VIEW SLIDESHOW button. Enjoy!

Really great pictures, far better that the ones that I took, thank you for sharing them.

Pepper.

Kindlychap

 

I think you'll find that the first "real" Cunard (OK, not built by them) "Queen" was Berengaria.

 

But, pray tell, what makes a "real" Queen? By my counting there are either five (Berengaria, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth 2 and Queen Mary 2) or, if you want to keep only to those with "Queen" as part of the name, four.

 

If you want to award the "real Queen" prize to "pure" liners.. well there were three (or two if you discount Berengaria).

 

If you want to include "dual purpose" ships, well, we're back to four again (or 5 including Berengaria!).

 

If you're saying that there is a difference between QE2 and QM2 (in this example), please tell me what it is. Both were built to be dual purpose (Liner/Cruise), both are liners, both are cruise ships. If you allow QE2 as a "real" Queen, then you must, it sems to me, to allow QM2 as well. Indeed, given that the QE2 has only two screws, QE2 could be seen (by some) to be the "odd one out" (remember as well that four of the five are all steel construction, but which one is not?).

 

Berengaria (as Imperator), Queen ELizabeth and Queen Mary 2 were the "largest" when entering service, but not Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth 2(I think).

 

The only way to count three "Queens" that I can see is to discount Berengaria and then count only those built by Cunard before Trafalgar House. Is this what you mean?.

 

I join you in hoping that QE2 is preserved in a port, not destroyed on a beach (or left to rot (United States))

 

I know you (and few others!) will have different ideas.... (I'll now duck down) :)

 

With very, VERY best wishes (and NOT wishing to upset anyone, esp you, Kindlychap)

 

Pepper.

Good response Pepper but I think you will find it was a dig at QM2 ...... I think he refers to her as 'Scary Mary'!!! Having first seen the Queen Mary in Southampton in the early 60's and then again as recently as last year - I still get goosebumps!!! How anyone can compare such ships of state with a sixties stand-in beats me - still, I shouldn't burst other people's bubbles should I?

Great photos by the way!!!

Ken

Whether or not a ship be can be considered a true Queen should not be limited to the fact that the word "Queen" is in her name. Ships like NORMANDIE, BREMEN, MAURETANIA (1), REX, CONTE di SAVIOA, etc., can all be considered Queens in their own right,...and, in many cases (if not all), are far more deserving of the title than QE2. While I do think QE2 is a lovely, comfortable ship, I personally think she can't compare to QM2,...except, perhaps, when it comes to that "lived in" feeling, which she will develope over time.

Russ

Whether or not a ship be can be considered a true Queen should not be limited to the fact that the word "Queen" is in her name. Ships like NORMANDIE, BREMEN, MAURETANIA (1), REX, CONTE di SAVIOA, etc., can all be considered Queens in their own right,...and, in many cases (if not all), are far more deserving of the title than QE2. While I do think QE2 is a lovely, comfortable ship, I personally think she can't compare to QM2,...except, perhaps, when it comes to that "lived in" feeling, which she will develope over time.

 

Russ

Russ, I'm not going to argue that Queen Elizabeth 2 is somehow better than Mauretania. I'd make myself look an eejit in one easy step.

Perhaps we can agree that some ships are regal, but only a few are "Queens"?

I do feel it matters that the Scary Mary (:D ) was not built in Scotland. I know it shouldn't, in any rational sense, but it does - at least to me.

My three Queens are the three Cunarders, built on the Clyde, carrying the name "Queen". I therefore don't see Queen Mary 2 as quite there. It is also perhaps a little more biased to the American market - which again somehow doesn't sit right. With me, in the context of a Cunard Queen.

Clearly Queen Victoria will fail at every test - save that of the name on the side.

I know people won't agree with me. But - at least on Queen Elizabeth 2 - the consensus appears to be that she is the best in the fleet.

I'll do a crossing on Queen Mary 2 one day. I'll report back honestly.

"I'll do a crossing on Queen Mary 2 one day. I'll report back honestly."

Fair enough.

I certainly understand the points you've made with regards to where QM2 was built. Being a tremendous NORMANDIE fan, I find it very ironic (and hilarious) that QM2 was built at the same yard. Perhaps it's that love of NORMANDIE that makes me a little forgiving that the new ship was built in France....

Also, please don't take my comments about QE2 out of context; I think she is a great ship. However, if one takes into account the comfortable, country club feel of QM and QE (which, to most people, were the things that made those ships so special) and then compare it to the sterile, plastic, mod-squad, style of the '69 version of QE2, it can hardly be said that QE2 was successful in capturing what was suppose to be essence of a Cunard Queen. Having sailed on both QE2 and QM2, I can honestly say that the newer ship does capture that feeling,...even if in a retro way.

Until QV enters service, I will not make any snap decisions about her.

Thanks.

-Russ

....I do feel it matters that the Scary Mary (:D ) was not built in Scotland. I know it shouldn't, in any rational sense, but it does - at least to me.

 

My three Queens are the three Cunarders, built on the Clyde, carrying the name "Queen". I therefore don't see Queen Mary 2 as quite there. It is also perhaps a little more biased to the American market - which again somehow doesn't sit right. With me, in the context of a Cunard Queen..

What tosh! You fail to mention that the Clyde is now incapable of building anything approaching a passenger ship!!! You also fail to acknowledge that ALL your 3 queens were built to attract the almighty dollar!!

.... I know people won't agree with me. But - at least on Queen Elizabeth 2 - the consensus appears to be that she is the best in the fleet...

What concensus might that be????? I know so many who are relieved to now have something better than QE2 on offer.

What concensus might that be????? I know so many who are relieved to now have something better than QE2 on offer.

It's probably that those who are attracted to QE2 are happy on her, and those who are attracted to QM2 are happy on her.

I did say the consensus was that on the QE2, which is hardly a group you're likely to meet, is it Ken?

:)

 

I do hope QE2 has an end to match that of Queen Mary.....

But without the abuse, neglect, and indignity that the Queen Mary has suffered since arriving in California...

BTW, Freckles, your photos are very nice.

Without trying to cause a (further) ruckus, let me ask a question. You see, I, too, do not consider the QM2 (well though I love her) to be in the same "class" as the QM, QE and QE2- though I have never been on any of them. Were the previous three all built as standalone ships? In other words, was each a design unto herself? The QM2, as we know is one of a number of almost interchangeable ship designs (I am not talking about decor here)

It seems to me that the newer ships are pretty much cookie cutter desgin. One might be larger or have more staterooms and less common areas, or whatever. I can't express ver well the feeling that I am tring to portray, but QM2 is kind of a modular ship, no? The previous three were built bit by bit by bit, no? I could be wrong, and I really don't know. Maybe someone else can explain this feeling better than I, but that is my (maybemigued mybe ot) ipression at least.

And BTW, Corection from previous post. The Cunard Crown Dynasty became the Fred Olsen Braemar. I looked it up on Maritime Matters, and the pictures in Fred Olsen's web site I was pretty sure it was the Braemar, not the Black Prince. FYI her sister the Crown JEwel, was sold in 1994 to Star Cruises and became the SuperStar Gemini.

Karie,

who knows just a bit of history- not like these real ship historians we have aboard these forums!

No, QM2 is NOT a cookie cutter design; she is one of a kind,...just like each of the three Queens before her. There is nothing interchangeable about her at all. And as far as her construction is concerned, the biggest difference is that the first two Queens had riveted hulls (QE2's hull is welded together) and were constructed on slipways,..while QM2 was built in sections ashore and then welded together in a very large basin. No matter how you slice it, they were all built "bit by bit".

Also, the idea that QM2 is not in the same class as the other Queens is absurd. In many ways, she out classes the other three. She's far more stable, she offers her passengers more amenities (and I don't mean things like rock climbing walls or movies under the stars), she is safer, more fuel efficient, more uniform in her accommodations, and, IMO, a real looker. Am I saying that she looks as good as the original QM or QE? Well, when you compare all four Queens to other passenger ships of their time, then yes, she looks just as good.

I truely believe that some people bash QM2 simply because she's new,...they think that there's no way she could ever stack up to the original Queens. Guess what folks? She's an original as well and, just like the Queens before her, she will, down the road, be considered one of the great ships of all time. Folks can either get off their nostalgic high horse, be a part of it, or they can miss out......

-Russ

Well, Russ,

I stand corrected.

And as someone who has been on the QM2 twice this year (and would have gone a third time if the SO wouldnt be missed so much at work) I really am not prejudiced against her. Not at all. But you must admit, the way ships are built today (Sections pre-formed and put in place) is no doubt different from the way the previous , older ships were built (Talking to my sister tonight- She was flipping through tv channels. Aparently the making of QM2 was on travel channel tonight where she is)

No- Sorry to upset you. I love the QM2. And Ihaven't ben on the QE2, only going by what I have heard and read. But you must admit, QM2, every B1 cabin is like everyother B1 cabin (and so on), except maybe reversed. You can't say that about the QE2's cabins!

Karie,

who apologizes for riling someone certainly more knowledgeable than me!

I defer to your much greater knowledge. I am a mere neophyte. I've learned a lot on these boards, but it doesn't replace actual experience on the other ships!

But, pray tell, what makes a "real" Queen?

Big & butch? Camp at the same time? A fondness for fine living? A moustache?

Oh - didn't you mean that kind of Queen?:rolleyes:

It's probably that those who are attracted to QE2 are happy on her, and those who are attracted to QM2 are happy on her.

 

I did say the consensus was that on the QE2, which is hardly a group you're likely to meet, is it Ken?

 

:)

Sorry Kindlychap ... I read that to mean 'on the subject of QE2 ... the consensus was...' not 'the consensus of people onboard QE2' .

Wouldn't it be a boring world if we all liked the same thing and never questioned what others say.

Karie,

Many thanks for the response! And, no, I'm not upset at all. My last post was not entirely in response to your comments; they were really meant to address the constant attack on QM2 by the few armchair experts who frequent these boards. Sorry if it came across otherwise.

I am glad to hear that you are such a QM2 fan. And, yes, there is a difference in the way ships are built nowadays. But the pre-formed sections of QM2 were all unique to her,...they wouldn't work on any other ship. This fact (as well as many others) certainly disqualifies her as a cookie cutter design. I remember when MONARCH OF THE SEAS caught fire during the last stages of her fitting out, RCCL simply replaced the damaged areas with sections of MAJESTY OF THE SEAS, which was being built in line behind her. Now, THAT's cookie cutter! And yet the SOVEREIGN-class are regarded as ground-breaking in design and are still very much loved.

Again, thanks for your comments.

-Russ

I've missed my chance to rush in and defend QM2! :D

She is certainly one of a kind.

It's Victoria that is the "cookie cutter"....

I've missed my chance to rush in and defend QM2! :D

 

She is certainly one of a kind.

 

It's Victoria that is the "cookie cutter"....

How come you are on her Maiden Voyage then ?????

How come you are on her Maiden Voyage then ?????

Maybe he likes cookies? <G>

Anon!

Big & butch? Camp at the same time? A fondness for fine living? A moustache?

 

Oh - didn't you mean that kind of Queen?:rolleyes:

... Great taste in drapes and a friend called Dorothy, No pnhmrk, you're right, I didn't mean that kind of Queen :), but you sure made me grin!

Kindlychap said..

"I do feel it matters that the Scary Mary (:D ) was not built in Scotland. I know it shouldn't, in any rational sense, but it does - at least to me.

My three Queens are the three Cunarders, built on the Clyde, carrying the name "Queen"."

Ah ;) so (being more than a little playful here), given that "your" three Queens entered service long after they were meant to, is that what makes a "real" Queen? Late delivery? Ok, the depression delayed one by a couple of years, another was delayed by someone invading Poland. The third however was delayed 6 months whilst being built (where? oh yes) and was then delayed for a further 4 months after major turbine failures in BOTH engines during trials. Fresh from the builders!.

Being serious for a moment, Queen Mary's interiors were not liked by many at first because they were familiar with the faux Georgian, Adam, Bavarian hunting lodge etc. interiors found on Mauretania, Aquitania, Berengaria. They found the "Odeon" style rooms too "modern". Now, many love them (including me). QM's overall layout and plan was evolved, updated Aquitania. The revolution came with QE2. The layout of her decks and position of her public rooms owed nothing to the past. Her "space age" lounges were a real shock and fell from favour quickly (although now they are back in fashion and many (including me) would love to see them restored (maybe after she becomes a hotel/museum?). She is now (rightly) loved with many loyal repeat passengers. She just looks "right" (at least on the outside).

And so it will be with Queen Mary 2. She already has many who, having sailed on her, love her (myself included). Over the coming years this fan base will grow (just as it did with QM and QE2). She will be changed during refits over the years (many will say for the worse, some, for the better). But, when, in 2043, when she is due to retire, there will be many trying to preserve her as the last real liner, the last "real" Cunard Queen.

Even if, by then, we have the 300,000gt Queen Victoria 2.

There will be members of a board in 2043, saying that this new ship is not a "real" Queen, that the only "real" Queen is QM2.

So each generation looks back, nostalgia isn't what it was. Just as the Edwardian generation didn't like the QM's interior (but we love it). Just as those who crossed with Cunard during the 50's were shocked by the "ocean liners have been boring their way across the seas" '69 interiors of QE2 (but we want them back). So it will be again.

And, ducking again, NO offence is meant to anyone.

Pepper.

How come you are on her Maiden Voyage then ?????

That is a good question.

(a) because it is possible, and will happen only once.

(b)..... err

[quote name=pepperrnKindlychap said..

"I do feel it matters that the Scary Mary (:D ) was not built in Scotland. I know it shouldn't' date=' in any rational sense, but it does - at least to me.

My three Queens are the three Cunarders, built on the Clyde, carrying the name "Queen"."

Ah ;) so (being more than a little playful here), given that "your" three Queens entered service long after they were meant to, is that what makes a "real" Queen? Late delivery? Ok, the depression delayed one by a couple of years, another was delayed by someone invading Poland. The third however was delayed 6 months whilst being built (where? oh yes) and was then delayed for a further 4 months after major turbine failures in BOTH engines during trials. Fresh from the builders![/quote]

All good points (as were the rest that I've cut).

Perhaps we ought to adjourn this discussion until I've been on Queen Mary 2 for more than 45 minutes.....