Jump to content

New Cunard Ship coming in 2022


omah1975
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good name, yes, the wife of Edward VII.

But then, Alexandra was a beautiful, slim woman. Something that cant be said about this slightly odd-looking new project if it being built like this rendering suggests.

 

Queen Charlotte would fit much better, wife of George III. She was wearing towering wigs, something that would go perfectly with the new ship.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Benjamin_West_-_Queen_Charlotte_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

 

Either of those names would be nice.

 

I don't mind Queen Anne either, although it reminds me of one of the ships in Pirates of the Caribbean (IV).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really exciting news on many levels.

First, glad to see that Cunard/Carnival research shows that a forth ship of Cunard style cruising is justified. Hundred million dollar investments are usually not made lightly. So perhaps there is a trend towards style and civility in cruising.

Second, wouldn't it be great to be on the inaugural sailing or even in the first year!

and Third, each new Cunard ship seems to be more attuned to improving the passenger experience. When I look at my parent's cabin pictures from the Queen Mary (50's) to my wife and I's cabin on the QM2 its like night and day.

My wife suggests Princess Diana and focus the ship on style, fashion and great itineraries.

As for me, please include a Golden Lion pub with fish n chips and London Pride on tap and a Commodore's Club with very late hours.

 

Harold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, my two cents opinion is also that this is an ugly exterior design. Totally over stacked. This is very apparent in the email I received from Cunard showing the 4 ships together bow on. Why do we need to keep stacking more and more decks? Very ungainly looking but then adding another 1,000 passengers will not do much for "ambiance" either. Cruise lines following the airlines horrible lead: More rears in smaller space per passenger. Not for me for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,as soon as I received the email from Cunard about the new ship I thought Queen Alexandra would be nice. I hope I can be on her maiden voyage.I remember when Queen Elizabeth made her maiden voyage.We hadn't got into the cruise habit then and the Waverley Trust put on a trip on the Waverley from Portsmouth to see her leave Southampton.We sailed up Southampton Water to see her in dock and then followed her down to the Solent.I was so envious of the passengers on board that beautiful ship and told my husband that I would really like to be on board.Little did I know then that we would soon become members of the cruise fraternity.We have done 16 cruises now with Cunard and most of them on QE. Funny how life turns out!!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so it's not the most aesthetically beautiful design and if there isn't a walk around promenade that will be a big mistake, but I wonder how many of the people who say they won't sail on her will actually change their minds and do so? I know I will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Names, names, names... for all the Queens England has had, you'd think there were a few more names to go around.

 

Queen Anne (Boleyn? Of Cleves? Of Bohemia? Neville? Of Denmark?)

 

Queen Catherine (of Aragon? Of Braganza? Of Valois? Howard? Parr?)

 

Plus there are three Marys, a couple if Margarets, and my personal favorite, Queen Gunhild of Wenden. She was married to Sweyn Forkbeard, who was King of England from Christmas Day 1013 till three days after New Year's in 1014. A brief reign, but a short one.

 

And let's not forget Queen Henrietta Maria, who married Charles I and had nine -- count 'em, nine -- children. She deserves to have something named for her, right?

 

Seriously, I love the suggestion of Queen Alexandra. I think that name would be a great addition to the Cunard fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

As a Cunard fan, I was pleased (and surprised) to read that a new ship has been ordered. However, I am disappointed with the unattractive exterior appearance of the ship. Also, the passenger capacity seems too high for the ship's size. It will not be nearly as spacious as the QM2.

 

There is no doubt that this ship will be named a "Queen," but applying this naming convention to boxy new cruise ships seems to dilute the prestige of the past Cunard Queens. The Queen Mary, (original) Queen Elizabeth, QE2 and QM2 were/are special ships worthy of their names. It is unfortunate that a different naming convention is not used for the other current Cunard ships.

 

On the positive side, I think that Cunard did an excellent job with the interiors of the Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth. Although these ships are essentially stretched Holland America Vista ships, they have wonderful public areas that definitely convey an ocean liner atmosphere and sense of tradition. I hope that the new ship has a similar ocean liner feel.

 

Also, the addition of a fourth ship will allow Cunard to offer a broader range of itineraries. Hopefully, they will offer more itineraries from North American ports.

 

It will be interesting to see how the new ship develops.

 

Chuck

Edited by seacruise9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for Queen Alexandra, as we had one in the last century!

 

Yes, I agree. Queen Alexandra has a nice ring to it.

I had hoped that if there was a to be a new addition to the fleet, it would be a smaller ship, able to sail into ports the current fleet can't manage.

3000 people is simply too many for us, but perhaps over time that count will diminish a bit.

We are fans of the dress code, fixed dining times, promenade deck and library.

Just off the Queen Elizabeth and soon to join the QM2. Cunard is our line of choice. With so many cruising options, there's no reason to dilute the Cunard brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that Cunard is investing in a new Cunarder. The ship is quite different but I’m sure I’ll love it when I see more of it. Cunard said that this is just a first sketch, some things will probably change with time. I’m really happy we are getting a new cunarder even if it’s not the best design I think it’ll still have that Cunard feeling we all love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that Cunard is investing in a new Cunarder. The ship is quite different but I’m sure I’ll love it when I see more of it. Cunard said that this is just a first sketch, some things will probably change with time. I’m really happy we are getting a new cunarder even if it’s not the best design I think it’ll still have that Cunard feeling we all love.

 

 

 

I agree , it’s great news Cunard investing in another great ship... yep looks a bit yukky on first drawing but let’s see what happens . At least it’s a Cunard

Would quite like it to be called Queen Catherine but as earlier posts I think it will be too early for that so Queen Anne could fit

Anyway roll on 2022!!

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studying the graceful lines of the vessel I am thinking Queen Bertha (565-601) is more apt.Regards John

 

LMAO with that one:')

 

I think Cunard was a bit short sighted when they named the Queen Victoria. Obviously that seemed logical at that time as they already had a Mary and Elizabeth in the fleet. In my opinion the cruise ships should have been named after the Roman provinces and the Queens saved for the ocean liner(s). I would love to see her named Aquitania or Caronia, but agree with most of us here that QA will be the most likely name, be it Alexandra or Anne.

 

Now I haven't been on th K'dam but have read many comments about her and most are not very flattering. Is the interior layout of that ship close to the QV/QE, they seem to have a lot in common on the exterior? As this is the first computer generated image of the new ship I have great hopes that before the first steel is cut she will look somewhat different. It sure would be a very stupid thing to not design a proper promenade deck on the new ship and I think Carnival realises that. What I'm most concerned is how crowded she will feel with that amount of passengers. Well, after the QM2 every other ship must feel like that. One big question is the propulsion system, will she be the first Cunarder to use LNG and if so where are they going to store the tanks.

 

But it's great to see that Carnival has enough faith in the Cunard brand to approve such a big investment. I for sure am looking forward to a cruise on the next Queen<3:ship:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back, a few months before Diana's death, I was on a long cruise with a group that included the boyfriend of the QE2 Mauritania Maitre d' so I was up on a lot of the crew chatter. At the time, the rumor was swirling that Cunard had obtained permission from the royals to name an upcoming smaller newbuild the "Princess Diana." In hindsight, there were lots of issues with this gossip, besides the iffy approval by the Queen - notably the lack of enthusiasm by the owners at the time to increase their involvement in the cruise industry, the difficult economics of smaller ships, and conflicts with Princess corp.

 

Twenty years later, a lot has changed. Princess is now closely linked to Cunard as a sister brand sharing many back end operations. The new ship is designed to be profitable. So, I wonder if "Princess Diana" is a dark horse candidate.

 

Yes, it deviates from the Queen names - and moreso, uses another brand. But Princess Diana remains a beloved figure in the hearts around the world. I suspect in the UK, where P&O has a more visible presence than Princess, the possible confusion of which fleet to which the ship belongs might be lessened.

 

An interesting question. Should Charles be king when the ship is christened, would he have to give permission to name the ship after his divorced wife?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few thoughts good and bad

Good:

A fourth Cunarder

Hopefully named Queen Anne

 

The bad:

Way to small for so many guests, They will be falling all over each other.

 

The Ugly

The design, top heavy, boxy and it looks like a Holland American ship

I would prefer Cunard ships were sleeker more liner like QM2, which is the only ship, Cunarder or otherwise I care to travel on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds as if Cunard is moving away from the "ocean liner" business and fully into the "cruise business"... QM2, clearly the only true "liner"... the others, copies of HAL and Princess cruise ships. Interchangable. Cunard will need to change their tag line no doubt— The Most Famous Ocean Liners in the World. Sad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SilverHengroen

This had me so excited I just signed up to have a bit of discussion on it! Some thoughts:

 

Carnival are quite tight lipped on the dimensions of the pinnacle class, I’ve seen ~115’ wide by ~970’ long at 99,000 GT for Koningsdam (unreliable source) but that’s a huge discrepancy in tonnage for something that’s supposedly 95% identical engineering wise, even if the top deck has been adapted to include the grill restaurants (I assume?) etc. Koningsdam being roughly that size would make sense (roughly) using the Grand Class’ stats of approx. 118’ wide by 951’ long at 109,000 GT.

 

But then assuming 113,000 GT is correct as the press release states, I’m assuming the extra 14,000 GT comes from a lengthening, or even widening of the ship’s design, as was done for Q.V. and Q.E. Over the standard Vista class.

 

Generally Cunard has a higher proportion of larger suites due to the grills tiers, meaning their ships have a lower passenger count than similar designs for other lines, if this holds true, you’d expect the new cunarder to have less than koningsdam’s 2,600 double occupancy rate, not more. All this leads me to believe that the 3,000 figure might actually be total capacity including extra berths, or that the ship is significantly larger than a standard pinnacle class ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes ugly , but if she gives us more itineraries from the US , I could learn to like her .

Did I say she was ugly ?

Was there ever a exceptionally ugly queen deserving of a ship name ?

Thinking back to Blackadder, how about the RMS Infanta Maria Escalosa?

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=410937&stc=1&d=1506378099

Infanta.jpg.32185e9a19bd65e6e78dc4089c6cc9fd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Names, names, names... for all the Queens England has had, you'd think there were a few more names to go around.

 

Queen Anne (Boleyn? Of Cleves? Of Bohemia? Neville? Of Denmark?)

 

Queen Catherine (of Aragon? Of Braganza? Of Valois? Howard? Parr?)

 

Plus there are three Marys, a couple if Margarets, and my personal favorite, Queen Gunhild of Wenden. She was married to Sweyn Forkbeard, who was King of England from Christmas Day 1013 till three days after New Year's in 1014. A brief reign, but a short one.

 

And let's not forget Queen Henrietta Maria, who married Charles I and had nine -- count 'em, nine -- children. She deserves to have something named for her, right?

 

Seriously, I love the suggestion of Queen Alexandra. I think that name would be a great addition to the Cunard fleet.

 

 

It doesn't just need to be named after a Queen of England, could be after a Queen of Great Britain or a Queen of Scotland. But after a Queen of Great Britain, regal or consort, would make most sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...