King Amo

I assumed it was two very large glasses...

Liberal squirts of the Penhaligons...

I don't like wall facing seats, as being a hotel and catering geek and generally nosey I want to be able to watch what's going on in the restaurant and how service is being delivered. I remember back on the QE2 when we had one of the best waiters I have had the pleasure of being served by. He was a master, yet I bet the majority of his guests had no concept of this. His eyes were everywhere anticipating every need before the guests even realised it, but he never took the limelight. He left the chat and the more 'cuddly' service be taken care of by his assistant, who was a young girl on a placement from Blackpool and the Fylde, which back then had a decent reputation for H&C courses. She was made to look amazing (and don't get me wrong, she was lovely), but it was he who was orchestrating everything. I found it mesmerising, particularly as it was what I always tried to do when I was back managing restaurants and accommodation. You can't underestimate the importance of the stuff going on in the background in making the foreground stuff look exceptional, and it's a joy to behold when you see an operation running completely 'ship shape'. Sorry, I ramble, but this restaurant is clearly a compromise, and a very surprising one given that QG should be the flagship.

I'm ambivalent to this change. It gives people a reasonably accessible way of trying some Michel Roux-specified dishes and will to a certain extent manage demand at the Golden Lion, which in my experience has always been uncomfortably high. It's not as if there is now a full cover charge; just some dishes with elevated ingredients that have a supplement.

But a cruise line that sails with empty cabins ends up being either very expensive for passengers or a less viable operation (and would need to make cuts elsewhere). People will book as early/late as they need to in order to get the dates/itinerary/cabin they want. Leaving it later is a gamble that would need to be weighed up by the individual. For the line's point of view though, I can't see any likely business case that concludes that it is better to earn no money on a cabin than some. Let's be honest it won't need to price at a loss in order to attract those willing to upgrade.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone posting in this thread who meet much of that description to be honest. The discussion has been around interpretation of the 'Smart attire' dress code. I guess as someone who would not ideally want to have to wear a jacket on such nights (but would if it were the dress code), I could consider myself an intended target. I have sailed with many different lines over the years (from memory Orient Lines once, Cunard three times - twice on the QE2 when informal nights meant jacket and tie, Celebrity three times, Royal Caribbean twice, P&O twice, and Thomson once), and each one offered something different, with only the now defunct Thomson being not really for me. I even got married at sea. I'm more than happy to meet the dress code of whatever ship I'm sailing on, and do not think it's fair or correct to define a line because of it, or make the issue a defining factor in the choice of cruise line. I like to dress presentably in the evening (I hesitate to use the word smartly, as this is what causes this mess in the first place), but for me that doesn't need to include a jacket at all times, which is something that clearly Cunard agree with outside of the gala evenings. I've participated in this thread because I feel that the expectations of some guests and posters on this forum are unrealistic and risk putting people off sailing with Cunard, which is a shame for both prospective guests and for the line itself, which needs to sustain itself for the long term. Part of the issue, as I've said, is Cunard's terminology and inconsistency of language, which leads to potential misunderstandings and grey areas, but many of these issues are not helped by the views of some who imply that there is some form of unwritten higher dress code that would make certain people feel underdressed and letting the side down. I want as many people as possible to experience what Cunard offer, and feel welcome onboard. In answer to the question though, I chose Cunard for this latest cruise, which is in the summer across the Med, predominantly due the ports of call and the availability of space for my 13 year old son, as capacity for children within the various age groups is a real issue unless you book years in advance.

And don't get anyone started on whether trousers can be made of denim etc.

That could be a whole other thread!

I would say the latter is a different kind of ignorance and disrespect than the word pompous conjures up, and in many ways worse (not least given the abundance of alternatives as you describe). I hope that nothing in this thread (at least written by me, but also those who have been sharing similar views) comes across as the above. I have been clear throughout that making an effort to conform to the requirements is key, but a little tolerance and recognition that the outcome of that effort may not fit with individuals' interpretations of some less than specific rules, would make the cruise a better experience for all.

Which is great, and clearly brings you pleasure to do so. Bringing what sounds to be at least three dinner suits, given your use of the plural, is not to be expected of most guests though, and goes well above both the stated dress code, and the predominant interpretation of the dress code by guests. There is absolutely nothing wrong with dressing up, and cruises give a greater opportunity to do so than most have in their day to day lives or other forms of holidays. For some, however, this sort of thing can be quite anxiety-inducing, worrying about how they will fit in, be perceived by staff and other guests, and simply feeling out of their comfort zone. As such I would hope that anyone who is reading this thread, and worried about what to wear and how they will be perceived don't feel there is such a high bar and may be put off from booking Cunard, as they would be missing out.

I don't think formal nights are the issue here though - it's trying to navigate the 'Smart attire' nights by trying to balance the actual dress code requirements (rather than what some think they should be), remaining comfortable in what you are wearing (both physically and mentally), and genuinely not offending people. Dress code is never an easy thing for a venue to articulate, as there is so much scope for things to fall through the gaps, but Cunard in particular have been pretty poor over the years with their inconsistent phraseology. Combine that with a clientele that is on the whole more mature and often British, who perhaps have more traditional expectations, and you understandably get threads like this. As Buchanan has said, this is people's holidays, and in my view no-one who has made an effort should be made to feel like they are letting the side down.

Cunard have never made things easy with their terminology. They used to classify the majority of non-formal nights as 'informal', but that meant jacket and tie. Now they talk of smart attire, but define it as a collared shirt, which would almost certainly include a polo shirt, but that could never really be considered as 'smart'. They also say things along the lines of 'wear what you would to the theatre or smart restaurant' which once again could really mean anything. As such you get this level of confusion with people's mismatched expectations, particularly across different age brackets. The main thing from my point of view is that I would expect people to look as if they have made an effort. The outcome of that effort may be different for a man in their 20s than a man in their 60s, but that is pretty much to be expected.

There are also the Goodwin Sands to navigate

Not just grandparents. I first went on the QE2 when I was 20, and the faded grandeur was one its most enduring appeals. There was something very special about that ship. When considering taste though, I'm not sure any ship could be considered particularly tasteful, if you look at the constituent parts. It's a bit like Vegas hotels. None of the decor would be what you would ever choose, but you find the place that feels right.

I think it's an interesting point Victoria makes about packages, as everyone sees value in different things. For me personally, in an ideal world I would have the notion of cabin and restaurant classes as separate, so that you could potentially have grills class dining allocation without the need for the suite, butler service etc. which is, quite honestly, wasted on me. We spend so little waking time in our cabin that I'm quite happy to be in a small inside room, but the dining experience is one that I'd much prefer to spend extra on. I know that is somewhat possible through alternative dining, but it's not the same going to somewhere with the same menu every night rather than somewhere which challenges your palette and opens your eyes to new things. For my mum, for example, her absolute must have is the balcony, and she will pay anything to ensure she has that, but wouldn't see the absolute need to pay anything additional from dining at the buffet. In terms of standard packages I've very much enjoyed the benefits of inclusive cruises, even if I would never use the benefit to the extent that the majority of others would, but given the choice I'm very much with Victoria (i.e. get the service charge included in the main fare, but have everything else as opt ins).