Queen Elizabeth May Not Show...Oh NO!

[ 10-02-2003: Message edited by: joe at travelpage ]

They can't say who will name the ship, or when, but the naming will be moved forward two days to accomodate the diary of the only candidate for the job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
Rex that article was dated 18 Aug! Anyhow, I'm afraid if the Queen doesn't christen her, I shall be more angry and shamed with HM, than she ever could be purely because the ship was 'put together' in France. Heck most bits were built elsewhere and shipped in.
Airbus, Concorde.. so many joint ventures with France in history. Personally it would be more believable that the problem is because Cunard is no longer British.
Pam

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by empressport:

I'd say good on Her Majesty for having some principles. The QM2 is no more British than George Bush.

---

This was fore Prinses Margriet not a isseu when she blessed the Nieuw Amsterdam 2 in 1983 also built by Chantiers. And also the ms. Rotterdam 6 and the ms. Oosterdam built in Italy. The are Dutch ships only built outside the Netherlands.

sread, could you phone up Liz and get her side of the story, please?

[ 10-03-2003: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

It is not as if Britain could have built a QM2, anyway!

---

quote:

---

the British ones declined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian_O:

QM2 will be registered in Southampton, fly a British flag, have British officers, etc., etc., etc. Legally QM2 will be a British ship, unless Cunard reflags it elsewhere. Where she was built and where the money came from to build her are irrelevant.

---

Ah, so those other cruise ships in service are representatives of the fine maritime traditions of the Bahamas, Panama or Liberia?

QM2 is just another Carnival luxo-barge. The registry is just window-dressing. Notwithstanding the British officers, most of the staff passengers come in contact with wll be from Eastern Europe or South East Asia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by empressport:

QM2 is just another Carnival luxo-barge. The registry is just window-dressing.

---

Then the Titanic was an American ship by your reasoning. The White Star Line was american owned at the time and the money to build the entire Olympic Class was american.

To equate British Registry with "flags of convenience" is absurd. How many of those ships registered in Liberia have ever even sailed in Liberian waters? How many of the captains of those ships had even heard of Monrovia before they read it on the stern of their ships?

The Carnival luxo-barge description is so far off-base it's funny. None of the Carnival barges were built to withstand the rigours of regular North Atlantic crossings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian_O:
.....
To equate British Registry with "flags of convenience" is absurd. How many of those ships registered in Liberia have ever even sailed in Liberian waters? How many of the captains of those ships had even heard of Monrovia before they read it on the stern of their ships?

The Carnival luxo-barge description is so far off-base it's funny. None of the Carnival barges were built to withstand the rigours of regular North Atlantic crossings.

Sheesh!

---

Face the facts, the British registry is just a "flag of marketing convenience", to coin a phrase.

When I referred to the QM2 as just another Carnival luxo-barge, I was not referring to her construction standard, merely her place in the cruising world.

[ 10-04-2003: Message edited by: Brian_O ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gohaze:
Samuel Cunard. born Halifax, Nova Scotia 1787.

---

Yes, but he felt British!

As for Cunard being based in Miami, we discovered America, so Miami is just one of many British outposts.

quote:

---

As for Cunard being based in Miami, we discovered America, so Miami is just one of many British outposts

---

Poor Columbus, upstaged again, this time by the British. And then, of course, there were the early Vikings.........

I believe it was the Spanish in Florida, Fountain of Youth and all that, by jove!

[ 10-05-2003: Message edited by: KenH ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gohaze:
[QB]Samuel Cunard. born Halifax, Nova Scotia 1787.
/QB]

---

True, but he died in 1865 which was 2 years before Canada's confederation. His parents had both fled what became the USA after the Revolutionary War so that they would remain British. It is hard to be a citizen of a country that didn't even exist as such in one's lifetime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenH:
Malcolm said:

Poor Columbus, upstaged again, this time by the British.

---

Columbus never set foot anywhere in what is now the USA or Mexico. His "discoveries" were limited to the Bahamas, the Caribbean islands, the coast of Central America and Venezuela. In the latter case, he wasn't even credited with landing in South America until 100 years after his death because he had acquired too many political enemies back home.

Poor Chris. *sob*

Brian

[ 10-05-2003: Message edited by: Brian_O ]