Last month Cunard took delivery and put into service its newest ship the mv Queen Elizabeth, named after the original RMS Queen Elizabeth of 1940.
Before I go on, I actually all ready wrote an article on the subject, that I never got around to posting on here. Here it is….
“”Last week Cunard (hehe…..I love Cunard!!!) took delivery of their newest ship, the “Queen Elizabeth”. Now let me say here, right now before anything else is said, that I LOVE Cunard with passion! They are my favorite Line and are by far the greatest in the world with a history that spans over 170 glorious years! (If anyone says their line is better kick them in the shin…hard). My favorite ships in history are Cunard ships, like my all time favorite, The Glorious, The Beautiful, The Perfect, The Way Better Then The Normandie (though she was great too), The Incredible, The Sexy…The R.M.S. QUEEN MARY!!!! Cunard is great…I love them.
Ok now, that being said, I have to admit I am somewhat divided on this ship. First there is the part of me that loves all ships no matter what. They are all beautiful in their own way (yes….even Norwegian Epic). Looking at the current pictures of this ship’s interiors I have to say they look pretty nice and no doubt this ship will do well for Cunard and their parent company Carnival Corp. From a purely ship-critic stand point there is nothing really to complain about, but from a Shipgeek stand point and that of a die hard Cunard-geek I have to say I have some problems with this ship.
My problems are thus… First of all, the name, the name Queen Elizabeth is very significant and historical for Cunard. Two of their greatest ships (and two of the greatest ships in history) have held that name, the original Queen Elizabeth of 1940 (sister ship of the Queen Mary) and the very very famous QE2 (Queen Elizabeth 2). That doesn’t seem like it should matter but it does. Those 2 ships were both unique and beautiful. They were important. This new ship on the other hand is not really on the same level, it is 11th in a long line of Carnival Corp. ships of the same design, the Vista Class (which includes the beautiful Queen Victoria), and is really just another cruise ship. Now there is no problem with that, I love even regular cruise ships, I also really like the Vista Class but considering the history behind the name and the company I would have hoped for something a bit more special then this. Above picture "Queen Elizabeth and Waverley" by flickr memeber "andywsx"
Another problem I have with it is the interiors. Like I said above they are actually pretty nice but there is still on problem I have with them….they are practically carbon copies of Queen Victoria’s interiors! Now, again, don’t get me wrong, I love QV (Queen Victoria) and her interiors however I do have a big problem with them being copied over to the QE. When QV came out, Cunard said her interiors recalled old ships like the Lusitania or the Mauretania and was “Edwardian” (like the Titanic for you non-shipgeeks) in her style. Now the QE on the other hand, Cunard says is styled in the same way the original Queen Elizabeth was,…as an art deco ship. But if the interiors are basically copies of QV’s Edwardian interiors (with re
ally minor modifications) then how can the ship be art deco? Really, looking at the pictures there is only one room on the ship that stands out to me as art deco, the main dining room, but even there its really more of an 1980’s art deco then one meant to recall that of the 1940’s QE.
One other problem I have, and I admit this is more petty then anything, is I find her rather unattractive. The Vista Class is actually quite lovely; QV for example is very good looking. This new ship though has a large structure on top above the bridge and a built up stern (to allow for more cabins and therefore more revenue) which in my opinion gives her a resemblance to Norwegian Epic (poor Norwegian Epic has set the standard for ugly in the industry).
I think, had Cunard given this ship another name like Caronia, Mauretania, or any of the other names from Cunard’s past fleet, this ship wouldn’t bother me. I guess to put it simply I just don’t find it worthy of its name or the history behind it. If you’re not a shipgeek you probably would not understand. I know Cunard is a business and has to do what make the most sense for their guest and their business but still I can’t help but feel this way.
Cunard’s flag ship, the RMS Queen Mary 2 or 2004, holds one of the most important and historical names in Cunard history and indeed, maritime history as a whole and in my opinion she is totally worthy of it. She’s a beautiful and unique, one off design. She’s an actual Ocean Liner (as opposed to a cruise ship, depending on your definition of an ocean liner), she sail the historic transatlantic route between England and New York and she actually is Art Deco like her beautiful predecessor the Queen Mary. She’s proof that a new Queen Elizabeth could have been really special. The Picture above shows the difference between Queen Victoria's profile and Queen Elizabeth's
Well now that I have had my rant…I have to say that I do, in fact, like the QE. She’s a perfectly nice ship, one that I would not hesitate to sail on or hesitate to encourage others to sail on. I am sure Cunard will be very happy with her. I am also sure that many loyal Cunard passengers will enjoy her. Hopefully I will be able to get aboard her someday…maybe if I am lucky, when she comes out here to Los Angeles in a few months on her Inaugural World Cruise!! Wink wink Cunard!!””
….Ok there you have it but now that its been a month since I wrote this and a month since this all happened, I have new things to say about this ship.
First of all I have to admit that even though I stand by everything I said in my above article, this ship has started to grow on me (I have never been able to resist a ship in Cunard livery). The more I see of this ship the more I notice little things about her that I like, Little differences between her and her sister Queen Victoria and little details that Cunard has added or changed on her. I won’t go into detail but I will say that I really do hope to someday sail on this ship and I really really hope that I will somehow be able to visit this ship when she is here in Los Angeles and then write about that visit... *WINK WINK CUNARD!!
Here are some links for you….
Before I go on, I actually all ready wrote an article on the subject, that I never got around to posting on here. Here it is….
“”Last week Cunard (hehe…..I love Cunard!!!) took delivery of their newest ship, the “Queen Elizabeth”. Now let me say here, right now before anything else is said, that I LOVE Cunard with passion! They are my favorite Line and are by far the greatest in the world with a history that spans over 170 glorious years! (If anyone says their line is better kick them in the shin…hard). My favorite ships in history are Cunard ships, like my all time favorite, The Glorious, The Beautiful, The Perfect, The Way Better Then The Normandie (though she was great too), The Incredible, The Sexy…The R.M.S. QUEEN MARY!!!! Cunard is great…I love them.
Ok now, that being said, I have to admit I am somewhat divided on this ship. First there is the part of me that loves all ships no matter what. They are all beautiful in their own way (yes….even Norwegian Epic). Looking at the current pictures of this ship’s interiors I have to say they look pretty nice and no doubt this ship will do well for Cunard and their parent company Carnival Corp. From a purely ship-critic stand point there is nothing really to complain about, but from a Shipgeek stand point and that of a die hard Cunard-geek I have to say I have some problems with this ship.
My problems are thus… First of all, the name, the name Queen Elizabeth is very significant and historical for Cunard. Two of their greatest ships (and two of the greatest ships in history) have held that name, the original Queen Elizabeth of 1940 (sister ship of the Queen Mary) and the very very famous QE2 (Queen Elizabeth 2). That doesn’t seem like it should matter but it does. Those 2 ships were both unique and beautiful. They were important. This new ship on the other hand is not really on the same level, it is 11th in a long line of Carnival Corp. ships of the same design, the Vista Class (which includes the beautiful Queen Victoria), and is really just another cruise ship. Now there is no problem with that, I love even regular cruise ships, I also really like the Vista Class but considering the history behind the name and the company I would have hoped for something a bit more special then this. Above picture "Queen Elizabeth and Waverley" by flickr memeber "andywsx"Another problem I have with it is the interiors. Like I said above they are actually pretty nice but there is still on problem I have with them….they are practically carbon copies of Queen Victoria’s interiors! Now, again, don’t get me wrong, I love QV (Queen Victoria) and her interiors however I do have a big problem with them being copied over to the QE. When QV came out, Cunard said her interiors recalled old ships like the Lusitania or the Mauretania and was “Edwardian” (like the Titanic for you non-shipgeeks) in her style. Now the QE on the other hand, Cunard says is styled in the same way the original Queen Elizabeth was,…as an art deco ship. But if the interiors are basically copies of QV’s Edwardian interiors (with re
ally minor modifications) then how can the ship be art deco? Really, looking at the pictures there is only one room on the ship that stands out to me as art deco, the main dining room, but even there its really more of an 1980’s art deco then one meant to recall that of the 1940’s QE.One other problem I have, and I admit this is more petty then anything, is I find her rather unattractive. The Vista Class is actually quite lovely; QV for example is very good looking. This new ship though has a large structure on top above the bridge and a built up stern (to allow for more cabins and therefore more revenue) which in my opinion gives her a resemblance to Norwegian Epic (poor Norwegian Epic has set the standard for ugly in the industry).
I think, had Cunard given this ship another name like Caronia, Mauretania, or any of the other names from Cunard’s past fleet, this ship wouldn’t bother me. I guess to put it simply I just don’t find it worthy of its name or the history behind it. If you’re not a shipgeek you probably would not understand. I know Cunard is a business and has to do what make the most sense for their guest and their business but still I can’t help but feel this way.
Cunard’s flag ship, the RMS Queen Mary 2 or 2004, holds one of the most important and historical names in Cunard history and indeed, maritime history as a whole and in my opinion she is totally worthy of it. She’s a beautiful and unique, one off design. She’s an actual Ocean Liner (as opposed to a cruise ship, depending on your definition of an ocean liner), she sail the historic transatlantic route between England and New York and she actually is Art Deco like her beautiful predecessor the Queen Mary. She’s proof that a new Queen Elizabeth could have been really special. The Picture above shows the difference between Queen Victoria's profile and Queen Elizabeth'sWell now that I have had my rant…I have to say that I do, in fact, like the QE. She’s a perfectly nice ship, one that I would not hesitate to sail on or hesitate to encourage others to sail on. I am sure Cunard will be very happy with her. I am also sure that many loyal Cunard passengers will enjoy her. Hopefully I will be able to get aboard her someday…maybe if I am lucky, when she comes out here to Los Angeles in a few months on her Inaugural World Cruise!! Wink wink Cunard!!””
….Ok there you have it but now that its been a month since I wrote this and a month since this all happened, I have new things to say about this ship.
First of all I have to admit that even though I stand by everything I said in my above article, this ship has started to grow on me (I have never been able to resist a ship in Cunard livery). The more I see of this ship the more I notice little things about her that I like, Little differences between her and her sister Queen Victoria and little details that Cunard has added or changed on her. I won’t go into detail but I will say that I really do hope to someday sail on this ship and I really really hope that I will somehow be able to visit this ship when she is here in Los Angeles and then write about that visit... *WINK WINK CUNARD!!
Here are some links for you….
I think you hit it on the head when you said that they could have called her Caronia, Mauratania, Lustainia, etc. etc. but not the 'Queen' Elizabeth. A Cunard Queen has always been such a special thing, and the QE is just a carbon copy of the QV, with extra-ugliness induced. She's a cruise liner, not an express ship and moreover her primary service life expectancy is 20-25 years, as opposed to the 40 of the QM2 and QE2 before her. I understand that the QM2 was a very special ship, and currently there is no room for a running mate for QM2 on the Atlantic run, but that would be fine had they not called the QV and QE the QV and QE! If both these ships were state- f-the-art cruise ships, completly groundbreaking in style like the Celebrity Solstice class ship- why? Because these ships are indeed truly state-of-the-art, at the top of modern contemporary design. Listen, Cunard was NEVER about Art-Deco... the only reason the original Queens were in fact art-deco was because at the time of their construction that was the design of the day. You didn't see the original Queens with Victorian styling now, did you? Yet ships built in the Victorian era for Cunard were the epitome of Victorian styling, ships built in the Art-Deco era have now become symbols for Art-Deco. When the QE2 came out, she too was evolutionary- her design was quite distinctive to her era, with special regard to the contreversial all-white funnel. Don't get me wrong, the QM2 is the greatest ocean liner arguably of all time, but I just feel had Cunard built her to the design standards of today rather than 80 odd years ago, she could have been ever greater. Let us face it, the true people today pushing the cruise design envelope are not Cunard, they are Royal Carribean and Celebrity- whether you like the Oaisis Class and Solocitce Class is another story entirely, but they are the evoloution of the designs premiered by Cunarders and the ships of the past. Save the Queen Mary 2, which is the true Queen of the Seas, the Oaisis trio (which I find quite ghastly) are the Queens of today. Not the QV or the QE, for they are ships which although very special and lovely, are not even a percentage of what their predecesors (including the QM2) were/have been. If the Cunard cruise ships were truly revoloutionary and innovative, then sure, call them Queens. But they are of relatively normal design.
ReplyDeleteOn another note completly, one of the best cruises I have ever experienced was on the Seabourn Odyssey, and I truly beilive if Cunard ordered another Odyssey class ship for itself, painted the hull green and renaimed her Carnoia they would find a market again in the ultra-luxury segemant, the Carnoia becoming a symbol of luxury, as the original was many years ago.
The new Queen Elizabeth and her sister Queen Victoria, has an Fincantieri's Vista Class original design, but with Cunard modifications in their desing, a more larger and stylished bow for an advanced oceanic performance like Queen Mary 2 make the difference in the Vista Class ships.This is the more remarkable difference and make both ships in the unique Cruise/Liner category. Both ships cut the water line more cleanly as no other cruise.Sorry my bad english.Thanks and greetings of Claudio,other Cunard fan from Argentina.
ReplyDelete