Misleading travel article about Cunard

[DDBINK1]

OMG!

I have sinned.

I remember wearing shorts into the main dining rooms at lunch and maybe breakfast on several occasions.

I even wore them into the Queens Grill Restaurants on QM2 and QV.

:eek:

Oh the shame I feel now. I never knew that was the rule. No one ever said a thing to me! Why Why???

It is my own fault, I never pay attention to rules. I try to conform but being American it is a difficulty that is almost a disability.

If it is anything, I know for sure I have never worn a wife beater into the dining room ever.

And to stay on topic, that article is not very representative of the Cunard Queens.

[Austcruiser84]

Personally the author lost all credibility with this statement, "Dressing up is de rigueur for formal nights on such high-end cruise lines as Cunard, Crystal Cruises, Princess Cruises, Regent Seven Seas, Seabourn and Silversea..."

 

Princess high end?

 

There's nothing wrong what so ever with Princess, but I would hardly put them in the same sentence as the luxury brands Regent, Seabourn, etc..

 

Indeed. Princess is not a top notch cruise line. It's okay, but it lacks the sophistication of lines like Cunard. That said, next to Carnival or P&O Australia anything else would look top notch!

[Olliesmum]

Personally the author lost all credibility with this statement, "Dressing up is de rigueur for formal nights on such high-end cruise lines as Cunard, Crystal Cruises, Princess Cruises, Regent Seven Seas, Seabourn and Silversea..."

 

Princess high end?

 

There's nothing wrong what so ever with Princess, but I would hardly put them in the same sentence as the luxury brands Regent, Seabourn, etc..

 

I would say that this hack just copied out the list of names on the Carnival website.

 

From my experiences of the Fourth Estate, the editor probably said to the hack: "I need an article about Cunard, bang out a few hundred words and pass then to the subs in two days time."

 

All their "research" probably came from the interest, the writer probably didn't even go on the ship.

 

A travel writer who is a "guest" of a ship, holiday resort etc. actually means the publication the writer is commissioned for pays their costs. A publication would only pay those sorts of expenses to someone with a proven record of competent and accurate articles, not garbled rubbish like this, this isn't a commissioned travel article, it's just page filler.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Olliesmum

[Ray66]

Meanwhile here is another review from a journalist who has travelled on the QM2

 

"Why I loved every minute aboard the QM2"

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573449/My-smart-friends-sneer-Ive-turned-cruise-addict.html

 

[balf]

Meanwhile here is another review from a journalist who has travelled on the QM2

 

"Why I loved every minute aboard the QM2"

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573449/My-smart-friends-sneer-Ive-turned-cruise-addict.html

 

 

Written by a proper journalist, and it shows.

 

David.

[Salacia]

A very recent piece by the same author (Sally Macmillan) mentioned by the OP can be found here: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/activity/cruises/queens-of-the-waves-20140313-34nwb.html

 

Let's play spot the errors:)

Edited March 16, 2014 by Salacia

[Thaxted]

I came across another Australian review of Queen Mary 2 that some of you might enjoy. It's very positive, although not uncritical, and it has some lovely photos. http://www.notquitenigella.com/2014/02/20/Queen-Mary-2-review/

Edited March 16, 2014 by Thaxted

[Thaxted]

I forgot to mention that the author sailed as a guest of Cunard. But she too seems to have got the dress code wrong by implying that women have to wear floor-length gowns on formal nights.

[Salacia]

I came across another Australian review of Queen Mary 2 that some of you might enjoy. It's very positive, although not uncritical, and it has some lovely photos. http://www.notquitenigella.com/2014/02/20/Queen-Mary-2-review/

 

 

Thanks Thaxted, for that link, but there's a few things in that blog that I don't quite understand:

 

 

"...The room has been given a fresh coat of paint in a couple of areas that very afternoon."

 

"...They don't recommend drinking the water although it is fine to brush your teeth with."

 

"...There is a discretionary tip that works out to be about $10 a day per cabin and this is shared among all of the crew. You can also tip your steward separately by leaving the cash on the nightstand at the end of your trip."

 

"There are 13 floors and within each floor are four elevators or staircases..."

 

Interesting blog, nice photos - especially the one taken of the captain on the bridge (how did she manage to take that photo, I wonder?) I noticed a link to Cunard at the end of her page. Was Cunard a sponsor? Thanks -S.

[Austcruiser84]

A very recent piece by the same author (Sally Macmillan) mentioned by the OP can be found here: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/activity/cruises/queens-of-the-waves-20140313-34nwb.html

 

Let's play spot the errors:)

 

Indeed...

 

"Although the ships are equipped with state-of-the-art engines, technology and contemporary facilities, such as a huge Canyon Ranch Spa for passengers, they still offer enormous public spaces, niche spots to which to escape, and grand, sweeping staircases."

 

The use of "although" at the beginning of this paragraph doesn't act in the way the word should. Why would state of the art engines mean less space? In this day and age state of the art engines use less space compared to engines of old. Poor use of language!

 

She states that dining is a "two class affair", yet she proceeds to outline several tiers of dining. Britannia Club isn't mentioned.

 

Just to be pedantic, I found it amusing that she writes "everyone dresses for dinner". I sincerely hope so! I'd hate to think people walked around stark naked.

 

Despite these minor examples of language misuse, the article is better than the first.

[Thaxted]

Thanks Thaxted, for that link, but there's a few things in that blog that I don't quite understand:

 

 

"...The room has been given a fresh coat of paint in a couple of areas that very afternoon."

 

"...They don't recommend drinking the water although it is fine to brush your teeth with."

 

"...There is a discretionary tip that works out to be about $10 a day per cabin and this is shared among all of the crew. You can also tip your steward separately by leaving the cash on the nightstand at the end of your trip."

 

"There are 13 floors and within each floor are four elevators or staircases..."

 

Interesting blog, nice photos - especially the one taken of the captain on the bridge (how did she manage to take that photo, I wonder?) I noticed a link to Cunard at the end of her page. Was Cunard a sponsor? Thanks -S.

 

Salacia, I found some of these comments puzzling as well. Perhaps we should ask Nigella. As you can see from my last posting, Cunard was her sponsor.

 

Now if only Cunard would sponsor me. I'd be willing to say almost anything!

[Salacia]

I forgot to mention that the author sailed as a guest of Cunard. But she too seems to have got the dress code wrong by implying that women have to wear floor-length gowns on formal nights.

 

Thanks, I missed the author stating that she sailed at no cost, unless this was it: "But then an invitation came through to try the Queen Mary 2." Just my opinion, but that's not terribly transparent.

 

Frankly, I really have to wonder why Cunard is giving free passage to writers who can't get their facts straight. <end of rant> -S.

[Thaxted]

Thanks, I missed the author stating that she sailed at no cost, unless this was it: "But then an invitation came through to try the Queen Mary 2." Just my opinion, but that's not terribly transparent.

 

Frankly, I really have to wonder why Cunard is giving free passage to writers who can't get their facts straight. <end of rant> -S.

 

If you go to the very end of the review and look below the last photograph, you'll see the acknowledgment that she and her husband traveled as guests of Cunard. I do agree that it should have been more up front.

[Salacia]

If you go to the very end of the review and look below the last photograph, you'll see the acknowledgment that she and her husband traveled as guests of Cunard. I do agree that it should have been more up front.

 

Oh, yes, thanks, I see it now: "NQN and Mr NQN travelled on the Queen Mary 2 as a guest [sic] of Cunard Line"

 

Kind of funny - in a way, that Cunard refers to all passengers as "Guests" - only some pay, and others not so much :D

Edited March 16, 2014 by Salacia

[Salacia]

Salacia, I found some of these comments puzzling as well. Perhaps we should ask Nigella. As you can see from my last posting, Cunard was her sponsor.

 

Now if only Cunard would sponsor me. I'd be willing to say almost anything![/quote]

 

Thaxted, I suspect that any review you wrote would be factual in detail, your opinions would be indicated as such, and any remuneration you received would be clearly stated. Your integrity has been noted :) -S.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Salacia

[Olliesmum]

If you go to the very end of the review and look below the last photograph, you'll see the acknowledgment that she and her husband traveled as guests of Cunard. I do agree that it should have been more up front.

 

See my previous post. These travel writers are not "guests" of or "sponsored by" the companies they write about, they are euphemisms for "The writers expenses were paid by the publication that commissioned them."

[Salacia]

See my previous post. These travel writers are not "guests" of or "sponsored by" the companies they write about, they are euphemisms for "The writers expenses were paid by the publication that commissioned them."[/quote]

 

Apparently, not in this case. The author writes a blog, and seems to be well known and respected in Australia and elsewhere. If you wish, Google the author's name and you will see her blog, books, interviews, etc.

 

It's a brave new world out there, where people can self-publish for profit without the benefit (some might say the curse) of an editor, fact checker, or publisher.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Salacia

[Olliesmum]

See my previous post. These travel writers are not "guests" of or "sponsored by" the companies they write about, they are euphemisms for "The writers expenses were paid by the publication that commissioned them."[/quote]

 

Apparently, not in this case. The author writes a blog, and seems to be well known and respected in Australia and elsewhere. If you wish, Google the author's name and you will see her blog, books, interviews, etc.

 

It's a brave new world out there, where people can self-publish for profit without the benefit (some might say the curse) of an editor, fact checker, or publisher.

 

Sorry. My husband, with his thirty five year's experience of travel writing, must have giving me the wrong information.

[Norfolk Brit]

 

Sorry. My husband, with his thirty five year's experience of travel writing, must have giving me the wrong information.

 

I know for a fact that (in the UK) some newspaper's writers have the holidays they review paid for by the companies they are reviewing.

 

It is unfortunate for your husband that, knowing this, I treat all travel reviews with a liberal pinch of salt.

 

Mary

[Olliesmum]

 

I know for a fact that (in the UK) some newspaper's writers have the holidays they review paid for by the companies they are reviewing.

 

It is unfortunate for your husband that, knowing this, I treat all travel reviews with a liberal pinch of salt.

 

Mary

 

It's also unfortunate for my husband that he has never had a free holiday from a travel company then.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Olliesmum
Syntax

[balf]

The Sunday papers travel sections are filled every week with articles by travel writers and quite often by columnists as well, praising (almost every time) a holiday they have taken.

 

Always there will be a note stating that ..... was the guest of .....

 

It seems to be different with resteraunt reviewers though. They seem to recover their costs from the publication.

 

David.

[Gatormomma]

OMG!

I have sinned.

I remember wearing shorts into the main dining rooms at lunch and maybe breakfast on several occasions.

I even wore them into the Queens Grill Restaurants on QM2 and QV.

:eek:

Oh the shame I feel now. I never knew that was the rule. No one ever said a thing to me! Why Why???

It is my own fault, I never pay attention to rules. I try to conform but being American it is a difficulty that is almost a disability.

If it is anything, I know for sure I have never worn a wife beater into the dining room ever.

And to stay on topic, that article is not very representative of the Cunard Queens.

 

Thank you for bringing me back to reality! I mean what do they do...20 lashes if you wear shorts to breakfast ? We are booked for our first cunard cruise, and I'm wondering if all this rules and regulations will be distracting on our 48 days on board.

[fantasy51]

Thank you for bringing me back to reality! I mean what do they do...20 lashes if you wear shorts to breakfast ? We are booked for our first cunard cruise, and I'm wondering if all this rules and regulations will be distracting on our 48 days on board.

 

Don't worry. You will have a fantastic time. You have to really break the 'rules' for an official to stop you and point it out. There may be a few people who look askance but most people will not worry as long as you look neat and appropriate. The important thing to remember is that you are not in your own home; you are in a public area and you dress with respect for those around you. :)

[thriftycrafter]

Thank you to all who have posted here re dress.

We will be taking our first cruise this year on QV and I am quite literal when looking at guidelines.

I was hoping to take part in all the 'fancy dress' style balls, but my concern is the black and white wall. I'm guessing that black or white would be acceptable and cream would pass for white. However is white with a coloured pattern on acceptable? The main colour is white.

Edited April 6, 2014 by thriftycrafter

[fantasy51]

Thank you to all who have posted here re dress.

We will be taking our first cruise this year on QV and I am quite literal when looking at guidelines.

I was hoping to take part in all the 'fancy dress' style balls, but my concern is the black and white wall. I'm guessing that black or white would be acceptable and cream would pass for white. However is white with a coloured pattern on acceptable? The main colour is white.

 

Anything is acceptable. The dress for the balls is not mandatory. You will see lots of colour around on that night. A dress with a white background will certainly be acceptable.

 

Have fun with all your planning.