Why aren’t they calling her the QE3?
When the original Queen Elizabeth was de-commissioned her successor was named The Queen Elizabeth 2, or the QE2. Setting us up for the expectation that the third in the line would be called The Queen Elizabeth 3, or QE3. After all in terms of the monarchy, being called the first, second, third, or even higher is quite normal.
However Cunard, obviously not liking the sound of the QE3, have reverted to her original name of the Queen Elizabeth. Why? What’s wrong with the QE3? Haven’t they realised they’ve already had a Queen Elizabeth.
Imagine the confusion if everyone did this. Sylvester Stallone makes Rocky, then Rocky 2. Then for no reason he decides to call Rocky 3 just Rocky again. It wouldn’t make any sense! Imagine going to the cinema expecting to see the Terminator, and instead having to sit through Terminator 3, eugh, it doesn’t bear thinking about.
A couple of my colleagues seem to think it might be that she’s being named after the Queen, who will be naming her. Except that would make her the QE2 again, which I suppose makes just as much sense as calling her the QE. Which one though? The 15th century monarch or the original ocean liner of the name? Both maybe?
So what do you all think? I can’t be the only one this is bugging.
With this in mind I have decided to harness the awesome power of the internet for good. To collect as many peoples thoughts/opinions on this as I can. Maybe if I can get enough responses Cunard might even re-name her properly. You never know.
Happy Cruising
I agree, the petition starts here...
ReplyDeleteI've signed, anymore?
If you call her QE3, she is named after a non -existent queen who may, or may not, materialise in the future - how does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteAsk Buckingham Palace (+44) (0)20 7930 4832.
ReplyDeleteBut thats my point Jack, If she was named after the current Queen it would just be the QE2 again. Shes just the third QE in the line, making her the QE3
ReplyDeleteQueen Elizabeth is NOT a replacement for the QE2, whose replacement (as a proper transatlantic liner) was the QM2. Furthermore, many ships, both naval and merchant, have been named after illustrious predecessors. There are numerous examples of this throughout Cunard's 170-year history.
ReplyDeleteWhen its building was announced, Cunard specified that it would be named as such to honour the first 'Queen Elizabeth' of 1938. Accordingly its interior design will reflect in many places the design of that old ship (for example the new Verandah Grill which will take the place of Todd English restaurant).
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, if it referred to the current English monarch, it should be named QE II. Roman numbers are used for monarchs. Both Roman or Arabic numbers are used to indicate a series of ships.
Interestingly, as it is certainly known to many people, it is said that QE2 was chosen not after the current monarch, but to indicate that this was the second ship bearing the name 'Queen Elizabeth'. Otherwise, the story says, our Scottish friends would rightfully object that HM is the second English monarch to bear this name, but only the first Scottish one.
As to name the new ship QE3, in my humble opinion no thank you very much - with all respect to James. I feel that both British monarchs and the legendary ocean liners bearing this name are entitled to some respect, which QE3 would not convey exactly... Just 'Queen Elizabeth' is perfect for me.
Does anyone know what time the queen will be naming the Queen Elizabeth please.
ReplyDeleteIf you need a precedent I think THREE Ark Royal aircraft carriers have served the Royal Navy in my lifetime. I believe the first Ark Royal was in the navy of Henry VIII.
ReplyDeleteRoyA
Hi Roy, thanks for the comment, sorry you had trouble uploading it. AS to the Ark Royal, I believe all three were called the Ark Royal, never 1, 2, and 3. I agree with Andy Liney that several ships have been named after predecessors. My point being though that that being the case all three ships should of been called the Queen Elizabeth. Since Cunard named the second ship the QE2, indicating it was the second in the line and not actualy named after Her Majesty, then it's only logical to assume the third in the line would be called the QE3. Either all three should be named the QE or the sequence should be continued - QE, QE2 and QE3.
ReplyDeleteQueen Mary 2, Queen Elizabeth 3, sounds like football results! ;-)
ReplyDeleteCunard have the right to call a ship by whatever name they choose provided of course that another ship doesn't carry that name. Hence Cunard had to buy the name Queen Mary from the owners of a much smaller Clyde steamer which sailed from the Broomielaw in Glasgow to Rothesay, Dunoon etc.. The steamer was then re-named Queen Mary II. I'm not sure, but I think it may have been at Dunkirk. Fortunately for Cunard the steamer was taken out of service some years ago and so current vessel is Queen Mary 2. As the original Queen Elizabeth now lies sunk in Hong Kong harbour it has no doubt been un-registered and consequently Queen Elizabeth seems fine to me.
ReplyDeleteThe reason the QE2 was so named was that at that time, although no longer with Cunard the original Queen Elizabeth still existed and in maritime tradition you cant have 2 ships on the high seas of the same name. Likewise the QE2 still exists so this name cannot be used. However the original Queen Elizabeth now no longer exists so the name can be used again to honour our present Queen and the original ship of that name.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not honouring our current Queen. It would have to be called the QE2 again. It's honoring queen Elizabeth the First
ReplyDeleteI disagree James, the number refers to the number of ships of that name and thats why its not in Roman Numerals and our present queen is called Queen Elizabeth, she just happens to be the second queen to bear that name.
ReplyDeleteBut thats my original point. Cunard started the tradition of QE, QE2, the next logical name in the sequene is QE3, not QE, QE2, QE. It's the third ship by the name, it should be the QE3
ReplyDeletecarol marlowe when asked said that they ( I assume the board of cunard) did not like the sound of it.Also if its a roman numeral it refers to a person ,if its a number it refers to an object.Final point holland america have a ship named rotterdam in the fleet, its the fifth one I think yet there is no number on her hull or in her name
ReplyDelete