Queen Mary vs Normandie

A gloriously partisan article from 1936, extolling the Queen Mary's stability in contrast to ships of 'Continental design:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060527/timeline.asp

The Irony! Many viewed Normandie's divided uptakes as a providing a superb sweep of First Class rooms, while Queen Mary's were blocked by central shafts - and the Queen Mary's extra weight needed extra power to drive her through the water.....

......and at the end of her first season, Cunard had to withdraw her for significant structural stiffening....not only did she roll, she wobbled too....

.....by comparison, the QM2's misadventures have been trivial......

Peter

Around her launch, there was speculation that she might be called 'Princess Elizabeth':

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040925/timeline.asp

Princess Elizabeth would have to wait another 33 years to name a ship after herself.......

And just as the QM2's pods make the news - so did the QM's propellors:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041204/timeline.asp

Peter

...Yes Peter, and many times when Queen Mary rolled to one side, she'd stay there for quite some time before righting herself... :O eek!

 

Princess Elizabeth would have to wait another 33 years to name a ship after herself......

 

Peter

Naughty girl, the card in front of her read "I name this ship Queen Elizabeth Two, God bless her and all who sail in her" (she said, for those who haven't seen the footage "I name this ship Queen Elizabeth the Second, God bless her and all those who sail in her").

Still, who can blame her, they'd named a ship after her mother and another after her grandmother, she wasn't going to let Cunard deny her.

Long may they both reign.

...Yes Peter, and many times when Queen Mary rolled to one side, she'd stay there for quite some time before righting herself... :O eek!

When new, QM was without handrails in her passageways and none of her furniture was secured to the deck. Rails were fitted and the furniture secured later becuse of her roll (esp. after a crossing in Oct 1936 when 12 people were injured). It was said that she could roll the milk out of a cup of tea. The problem wasn't cured until after 1958 when stabilisers were fitted. Before then she would roll, pause and then continue before righting herself, giving the impression that she would go right over!

Poseidon Adventure!

On 27 May 1936, the Queen Mary set out for New York on her maiden voyage:

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/05/26/ap2777044.html

Peter

PS 65 Years ago today, the Royal Navy sank the Bismark...

My mother took the QM2 back from Germany in 1959 or 1960 and the passage was so rough they came within one or two degrees of being past the piont of no return.

Still, she loved the trip and enjoyed seeing images from the QM in the QM2 promo dvd.

Naughty girl, the card in front of her read "I name this ship Queen Elizabeth Two, God bless her and all who sail in her" (she said, for those who haven't seen the footage "I name this ship Queen Elizabeth the Second, God bless her and all those who sail in her").

 

Still, who can blame her, they'd named a ship after her mother and another after her grandmother, she wasn't going to let Cunard deny her.

 

Long may they both reign.

I have read that, when offered the piece of paper with the name on, HM declined (well she ought to know her own name?).

Strangely Cunard are now going back on previous statements that QE2 was named after the first QE - in the latest 07/08 brochure there is a reference to QE2 as HM's 'namesake'. I still remember Sir Basil Smallpiece (I think it was him) being interviewed on TV and saying that although she was named after her, QE2 would have the arabic '2' to save confusion with HM and her Roman 'II'.....

A gloriously partisan article from 1936, extolling the Queen Mary's stability in contrast to ships of 'Continental design....

The Irony! Many viewed Normandie's divided uptakes as a providing a superb sweep of First Class rooms, while Queen Mary's were blocked by central shafts - and the Queen Mary's extra weight needed extra power to drive her through the water.....

 

......and at the end of her first season, Cunard had to withdraw her for significant structural stiffening....not only did she roll, she wobbled too....

 

.....by comparison, the QM2's misadventures have been trivial......

 

Peter

And it is sometimes conveniently forgotten that QM was often sailing at up to twice the occupancy of her French competitor - so obviously more popular with the sailing public.

Ken

I have read that, when offered the piece of paper with the name on, HM declined (well she ought to know her own name?).

 

Strangely Cunard are now going back on previous statements that QE2 was named after the first QE - in the latest 07/08 brochure there is a reference to QE2 as HM's 'namesake'. I still remember Sir Basil Smallpiece (I think it was him) being interviewed on TV and saying that although she was named after her, QE2 would have the arabic '2' to save confusion with HM and her Roman 'II'.....

AS I understand it, (from watching it live on TV as a schoolboy, and subsequently reading about it in the contemporary account by Potter & Frost)

1. The plan was to call the liner QUEEN ELIZABETH - this was written on a card
   
2. HM QEII declines the card and says 'I name this ship Queen Elizabeth the Second'.
   
3. Cunard initially delighted that liner named after Monarch.
   
4. John Brown, the ship's builders, point out that she's not the SECOND Queen Elizabeth of Scotland and that this may harm already dodgy labour relations, further delaying delivery.
   
5. Cunard decide best to fudge the issue, and will neither confirm nor deny that the ship is named after either the first ship or the monarch - simply talking about the service entry and exit of the two liners.
   
6. The arabic 2 is chosen over the latin II for reasons of legibility and modernity - further fudging the issue, as the latin II is used to describe the monarch.
   
7. At some much later point, Cunard either forget their history, or decide to go with the 'named after the ship' line - despite the contrary evidence from contemporary accounts.

Peter

Naughty girl, the card in front of her read "I name this ship Queen Elizabeth Two, God bless her and all who sail in her" (she said, for those who haven't seen the footage "I name this ship Queen Elizabeth the Second, God bless her and all those who sail in her").

 

Still, who can blame her, they'd named a ship after her mother and another after her grandmother, she wasn't going to let Cunard deny her.

 

Long may they both reign.

Pepper,

I'm afraid your information is incorrect. The card which had been handed to HM at the time of the launch said simply "QUEEN ELIZABETH". It was HM who added the words "THE SECOND". The launch card is held in the University of Glasgow Archives.

An excellent and often forgotten book "QE2 - THE AUTHORIZED STORY" by Potter & Frost and published in 1969 covers the whole event.

It was the intention that the ship we know as QUEEN ELIZABETH 2 was to be named after the monarch who christened her but the name should have been just QUEEN ELIZABETH without the numerical suffix.

It was after the launch that Cunard concocted the story about the ship being named after the 1940 QUEEN ELIZABETH. Through history ships have often been named for earlier ships but they rarely resort to numbers to differentiate between ship. I.e. there have been two ships named MAURETANIA, three named CARONIA, six named ROTTERDAM etc etc.

It might well be that in the future we have another ship named QUEEN ELIZABETH. Let's hoope she isn't named QUEEN ELIZABETH 3!!!!!!

The present QUEEN MARY 2 should have been named simply QUEEN MARY if indeed it was the intention to honour the earlier ship.

Stephen

"Pepper,

I'm afraid your information is incorrect. The card which had been handed to HM at the time of the launch said simply "QUEEN ELIZABETH". It was HM who added the words "THE SECOND". The launch card is held in the University of Glasgow Archives."

Stephen,

Thank you for the very infomative answer.

I fully apologise to you and all here for passing on incorrect information, I shouldn't believe all that I read in a book.

"It was the intention that the ship we know as QUEEN ELIZABETH 2 was to be named after the monarch who christened her but the name should have been just QUEEN ELIZABETH without the numerical suffix."

Possible, but very unlikely. And if true, very clumsy, HMQ is called Queen Elizabeth the Second. If you had said "it was the intention that the ship we know as Queen Elizabeth 2 was to be given the same (first) name as the monarch who christened her" then all would be fine. She would share the monarch's name. She would be the second ship with that name and she would (like 25 other Cunard ships before her who re-used a name) not have had a numerical suffix (of either type). But in order to break with tradition they added the suffix before she entered service to make it clear that she was the second ship to carry that name. I'm grateful that they didn't name her after the monarch and use roman numerials, can you imagine, we'd have "QE the second" instead of "QE two"!

"It was after the launch that Cunard concocted the story about the ship being named after the 1940 QUEEN ELIZABETH."

I'm sorry but I have to object to the word "concocted". Is it not possible that Cunard were simply telling the truth in 1967?. Queen Elizabeth 2 was simply the second ship called Queen Elizabeth. Previously they had not used a number suffix. This time they broke with tradition (as with so much else on QE2). Between launch and entering service they had plenty of time to physically name her "Queen Elizabeth II" (ie Queen Elizabeth the Second, as she had been named in 1967 by HMQ). They did not. They could also have named her "Queen Elizabeth" as was originally intended. They did not. She was named at the time of launching by HMQ with one name and entered service with another. Therefore they could have called her anything they wanted. They chose to ignore the name she was launched with.

"The present QUEEN MARY 2 should have been named simply QUEEN MARY."

Couldn't agree more! I would have loved her to be called Queen Mary. When speaking of her to friends I call her just that, it's only here that I add the number to avoid confusion between the two ships. However, she is the second liner to be called Queen Mary and so she becomes Queen Mary 2 just as her older sister is Queen Elizabeth 2. If you believe that QE2 was named after the present Queen then QM2 is named after Queen Mary who reigned 1688-1694. You can't have it both ways. Either they are BOTH named after queens or they are BOTH the second ships with that name (the first ones, of course being named for queens).

I appreciate that most ships that re-use names don't carry the number suffix (eg Caronia 3) but having broke with that tradition in 1969, they've carried on. I to hope we never see Queen Elizabeth 3, but if we did (and assuming there isn't another Queen Elizabeth on the throne) she would then be the 3rd ship named Queen Elizabeth.

Of course if, in 1926, the Duke and Duchess of York had named their first child anything other than after her mother, we wouldn't have had this differnce of opinion. Or if that child had simply read out what was written on that card.

Once again my apologies.

Ducking down now

You can't have it both ways. Either they are BOTH named after queens or they are BOTH the second ships with that name (the first ones, of course being named for queens)

Pepper,

Yes you can, if, as is documented, Cunard changed their story.

Peter

Pepper,

 

Yes you can, if, as is documented, Cunard changed their story.

 

Peter

Sorry Peter, am I being more than usually stupid (I'm so dense, light bends 'round me) or have I missed somthing here. It's 1.15am, I'll have to answer this in the morning fully.

Thanks

Pepper,

You may not have access to the sources Stephen & I have - if not, and you are a QE2 fan - I'd get hold of Neil Potter & Jack Frost's QE2 The Authorised Story - published in 1969.

The Evidence:

Planned Name 'Queen Elizabeth'

A sealed envelope held in New York, in case of breakdown in TV/Radio transmission (whichwent fine) was opened the day after the launch- it had the name 'Queen Elizabeth' (p.109)

Ship named after Monarch

Sir Basil Smallpiece {Chairman of Cunard} quoted as saying; 'The Queen Mary [named] after her Grandmother, the Queen Elizabeth after her mother, and now this magnificent ship after herself' (p.103)

Trouble with the Scots

The Scottish Nationalists took it as an insult to the people of Scotland...to them her Majesty is Queen Elizabeth the First (p.100)

It was the Queen Wot Done it

'This was a last minute change of name by the Queen herself' (p.99)

Cunard fudge the issue

In response to direct questions 'named after the ship, or named after the monarch : 'The ship is named as the second liner of that name. 'The Queen Elizabeth will be out of service next October, the Queen Elizabeth 2 will be in service shortly afterwards. Its as simple as that.( p.99)

Not you will note, 'simple', direct or unambiguous.

Update

In the October 2007 - April 2008 Brochure, Cunard now say (p.79) 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II launch[ed] her namesake Queen Elizabeth 2'

If THATS not saying 'ship named after monarch' I don't know what is - unless they are suggesting she, her mother & grandmother were named after ships.......

So it looks like we've come full circle - back to the beginning - and the truth......

Peter

Neil Potter & Jack Frost's QE2 The Authorised Story - published in 1969.

Available from second hand book dealers online from £4 + p&p - as well as being the only contemporary account, it also describes the transition from 3 class to 2 classes.

Peter

 

Cunard fudge the issue

In response to direct questions 'named after the ship, or named after the monarch : 'The ship is named as the second liner of that name. 'The Queen Elizabeth will be out of service next October, the Queen Elizabeth 2 will be in service shortly afterwards. Its as simple as that.( p.99)

 

Not you will note, 'simple', direct or unambiguous.

 

Update

In the October 2007 - April 2008 Brochure, Cunard now say (p.79) 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II launch[ed] her namesake Queen Elizabeth 2'

 

If THATS not saying 'ship named after monarch' I don't know what is

 

Peter

Peter, I am very grateful to you for your patience and for your very detailed answer. We'll leave it there I think. I will try to get a copy of the book you suggested (thinks "so that's why there's always been that gap on the shelf, for that book"). As you say we've come full circle, and will go on going 'round and 'round!

(I also noticed the quote in the October 200 "6" - April 2008 brochure. Of course "namesake" means "sharing the same name" not "named after"!!! :) )

However, as far as I am concerned, this is now closed. We aren't going to see common ground on this subject, but I sincerly hope that we can agree about so many other things here. I respect your opinions and look forward to reading your entertaining and informed posts.

With grateful thanks, and giving way to your more informed opinion,

Two points ......

Firstly, during the lead up to the launch of QE2 when the name was being decided on (presumably the Palace would have been give adequate time to approve the choice) wasn't it the intention to keep the original QE in service alongside QE2? If so why on earth would they want both ships to be called QE????

Secondly if it was Cunard's intention to break the mould with QE2 and distance themselves from their heritage, why name QE2 after her 1940 rather staid predecessor???

People may refer to her as Queen Elizabeth Two (yuk) but she should be correctly called Queen Elizabeth the Second (with 'the second' written as 2 - modern and untraditional get it? Swinging sixties and all that!!!).

I can't conceive of any circumstance where HM would take it upon herself to change the name of a ship wittingly. They must have asked if the ship could be named after her, she agreed and declined the card with the name on at the launch as presumably she knew her own name at the time - Queen Elizabeth the Second!!! Sounds like Cunard were no better in the 1960's at getting things right than they are today!!!!

Ken

wasn't it the intention to keep the original QE in service alongside QE2?

The original intention was - but in May 1967 Cunard announced it was withdrawing both the QM and QE - so in September 1967 when the Q4 was launched, there was no longer any plan to have them sail in tandem.

Peter

The original intention was - but in May 1967 Cunard announced it was withdrawing both the QM and QE - so in September 1967 when the Q4 was launched, there was no longer any plan to have them sail in tandem.

 

Peter

So are you suggesting they decided on/changed the name in those 4 months???

Ken

 

However, as far as I am concerned, this is now closed. We aren't going to see common ground on this subject, but I sincerly hope that we can agree about so many other things here. I respect your opinions and look forward to reading your entertaining and informed posts.

 

With grateful thanks, and giving way to your more informed opinion,

Pepper,

The information on this subject given by Peter and I have been taken from reliable sources and so are not ''opinions' but are solid 'facts'. The QE2 Story by Potter and Frost was authorised by Cunard at the time of publication. The authors were merely stated the facts... not opinions.

It is a bit like two people discussing the shape of the earth. One says, "In my opinion the earth is round." The other chap says, "In my opinion the earth is flat. Once science... and observation proved that the earth is round then how can one have an 'opinion' that it is flat? :confused:

See what I mean? Hopefully!

Stephen

So are you suggesting they decided on/changed the name in those 4 months??? Ken

Ken - we don't know - all we do know is that those THERE AT THE TIME thought HM QEII changed her mind on the spot - the rest is conjecture, supposition and guesswork.

Here's an abstract from the New York Times the following day:

Name of Cunarder Is a Surprise but Has Precedent; QUEEN LAUNCHES THE ELIZABETH II

By ALVIN SHUSTER Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Sep 21, 1967. pg. 1, 2 pgs

CLYDEBANK, Scotland, Sept. 20--Queen Elizabeth II launched Britain's newest luxury liner today and named her Queen Elizabeth II.

Peter

Just browsed the Times of London from the day after the launch - ALL of the references to the ship are 'Queen Elizabeth II' - including the letter from Hugh Casson complaining that none of the designers had been invited to the launch. The Court Circular states that 'The Queen this afternoon named the new Cunard Express Liner Queen Elizabeth II' Kensington Palace were a little more precise in stating that 'Princess Margaret was present...when her Majesty launched the new Cunard Express Liner Queen Elizabrth the Second'

There is also an article in the supplement from Sir Basil Smallpiece about the importance of cruising for the new ship.

The first reference to QE2 occurs in an Alcan print ad on December 8th...10 weeks after launch......and the first article about Queen Elizabeth 2 appears on 21 February 1968 - 5 months after the launch, where Dennis Lennon, chief interior designer promises life aboard the QE2 will be 'Bright, crisp and gay'........

So, Queen Elizabeth II lasted under 10 weeks

Peter

Pepper,

 

The information on this subject given by Peter and I have been taken from reliable sources and so are not ''opinions' but are solid 'facts'. The QE2 Story by Potter and Frost was authorised by Cunard at the time of publication. The authors were merely stated the facts... not opinions.

 

Stephen

Stephen.

I had said that this matter was, as far as I was concerned, closed. Thinking that we each had different views on this subject, I did the gentlemanly thing and bowed out. But you had to come back, and not with like response, but with a put-down. Would it not have been simpler to say "thank you" and let the matter rest? I gave you the benefit of the doubt (and doubt there is, in some eyes, othewise this would have been laid to rest in 1967).

As I said we are going 'round in circles here, and as we're not face to face we do not have the benefit of speech with which to convey our ideas.

It is possible to have two views or opinions of the same event. Both are valid to those that hold to that view, both based on fact and use fact to back up their views. Indeed they may both say "these are the facts" use the same information and still have opposing views. There are many examples.

Therefore for me to use the term "opinion" was not to doubt you, the book in question or Peter in any way. Nor was it intended to appear smug or "that's what you think". I stress again that I was not using that term in a derogatory way. Indeed, I believe that I held out the olive branch and said I was "giving way to "your" more informed" view (so as to keep this board from descending into flaming). I have not read the book mentioned, when I do, I will have even more information on which to base my view and opinion of what happened in 1967. One needs to read the whole book (and see the quotes in context) to help understand the mess that Cunard got themselves into back then ("Authorised by Cunard" eh?).

After reading, I may then also share your belief in those facts (but I've seen how blind belief in the printed page can catch you out (recently!). But before you think I'm having a dig about this book and respond, I am not, that is a warning to me, not you. Simple errors do occur, a typo, a small slip where dates are concerned (eg "2006"), we've all seen them ourselves, there are some typos in the paragragh above. How many times have you read something and thought "well, that ain't right" But I again stress that I am NOT talking of this book, a book I've not read).

But I have the right to my own opinions now and in the future. You may not agree with my reading of the facts and think that I am wrong. That is your right. But you must respect that they are my views even if you think that I'm wrong. Can we agree to disagree? Can we be gentlemen about this? I can.

Perhaps we can also agree on the following:

Cunard decided to use the name "Elizabeth" for Q4.

They never intended to use "the second" (or "II").

The card said "Queen Elizabeth".

HMQ said "the second" at the launch.

Cunard were "caught on the hop" by this.

When she entered service the ship did not bear the name "2nd" (!)

She also did not bear the name "II" (!)

Most people read Queen Elizabeth II as Queen Elizabeth the second.

Most people read Queen Elizabeth 2 as Queen Elizabeth two.

As she is named Elizabeth, she is namesake to HMQ. (Whatever else the relationship of the names is, beyond that)

She is one hell of a lady.:)

Beyond that, we agree to differ!

Please, let's move on...

Perhaps it really was nothing more than Fleet Street, the Palace and Cunard

coming to terms to differeniate the ship from the monarch.

Still, would have been helpful if HRM had said, THE Queen Elizabeth...........

so as to separate herself and the ship. Sometimes those definitive articles can make a world of difference.

On another note, I wonder if RCCL is going to change the name of their newest..... after all if you listen closely, she was christened "Freedom of the Sea".... not "Seas" plural!