rmsEtruria

Quite possibly.

Well, feel free to tell me “I told you so”—it won’t rattle me, since I never was in the “rah-rah, let’s hear it for the new ship” crowd. (But I also never expressed any expectations, good or bad, about her.) The Britannia Club cabins look decent enough (apart from the coat hangers); but nothing else I’ve seen so far looks particularly attractive, inside or out. (Those Pinnacle types, I suppose, are what they are—ungainly and top-heavy in front.) On the upside, as several on this board (exlondoner and Victoria2 come to mind) have remarked, Cunard is investing in a new ship, with the clear aim of attracting a new, younger, and more contemporary clientele that comes with different expectations; and Queen Anne may serve that aim, perhaps quite successfully. Indeed, we should hope she does: without expanded revenue, Cunard will certainly not replace the QM2 when she must retire.

The Queens Grill layout is atrocious, as was already evident from the deck plans, and is now confirmed by @Solent Richard’s photos (thank you!); and the chairs look dinky and uncomfortable. It all seems deliberately designed to discourage anyone from booking QG . . . .

Sudeley Castle (one of Henry VIIIs wives' I think). Catherine Parr (Number Six).

Thank you—I do appreciate the clarification.

Hmm . . . knowing that lowly riff-raff has been allowed to occupy one of the top suites without paying full price would cause you to withdraw your business from that cruise line?

Might I point out that U.S. immigration law has used the term “aliens” since the 19th century, long before it became associated with creatures from outer space 👽.

Really? (I haven’t looked at the site in a while.) Pity.

I’d love to have a set of tails, but living in a world where not just tuxedos are—improperly—called “formal,” but practically any combination of jacket and trousers (ties now being optional), I just don’t see when and where I could wear them. Sigh . . . .

Are you suggesting I should have taken the jacket off while having my aperitif? Never—that would be such a shame!

No gentleman would ever judge them—negatively—for keeping a lady comfortable with their jackets. (And here’s one thing, if asking, “What’s the point of wearing a jacket?”)

From Italian Wikipedia: Con il termine transatlantico si intende in modo generico una nave specializzata nel trasporto di passeggeri su rotte che attraversano un intero oceano, in genere con regolare servizio di linea. Nonostante queste navi siano ormai scomparse dalle rotte oceaniche, il termine è ancora in uso per indicare le navi da crociera; bisogna tuttavia ricordare che i transatlantici (anche se si sono evoluti nel tempo) sono strutturalmente molto diversi dalle moderne navi da crociera. I am pretty sure that the issue here is not one of ignorance on the part of Mr. Folgiero, but of translation. At the event, did he make his statement in Italian or in English? If in Italian, even if he said “transatlantico,” the word can be used for “cruise ship”; if he said “nave” or “nave de crociera,” we may blame the translator preparing the news release (quite possibly thinking that “liner” would sound better). If Mr. Folgiero spoke in English, did he draft the statement himself, or was it prepared by a publicity staffer unaware of the distinction made in English between “liner” and “cruise ship”? (And if he drafted it himself, he, too, may have been unaware of how much weight we in English—or at least those on this board—put on that distinction.) In sum, allow for subtle differences in meaning when dealing with non-native speakers. And never trust a translation.

And so it begins—the next conspiracy theory . . . .

Don’t know about London. But the approach, at night, to La Guardia, with all of New York lit up, is a show not easily matched.

Perhaps this deposit is non-refundable, in case you cancel or don’t show?

It’s 46,000 gross tons, or should be (although the displacement was somewhere in the vicinity of 56,000 tons). And private bathrooms for steerage cabins?! That surely would ruin the authentic experience . . . .

Marvellous pictures—thank you! Can’t wait to experience all this ourselves; but still over a year to go . . . .

As a distinction from orders regarding essential safety, “encouraged” is reasonable but unnecessarily weak. “Expected” would still be distinct from an order, but carry more force than a mere suggestion, invitation, or encouragement. Neither, of course, solves the fundamental problem that if the ‘Dress Code’ is not a real dress code—a “must”—it cannot be enforced.

New York Central . . . now, those were the days!

But perhaps Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus . . . .

Pity. No steam, no coal dust, no open lifeboats—where’s the attraction?

Well, if it’s an authentic replica, it won’t make it past a point about 400 miles south of Newfoundland.

True. But the battle against ignorance, in all its manifestations, is a battle worth fighting—even in the face of certain defeat.

If Cunard were stuck in the 1950s, there would be a strict dress code, black or white tie every night, and it would be strictly enforced. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with the 2020s.

What puzzles me is how you do manage to fit 26 different outfits into what essentially amounts to (if I remember correctly from an earlier post) two suitcases and two carry-ons . . . !