The Queen To Name Cunard's Queen Elizabeth

[LauraS]

Check out this news item from Cruise Critic:

 

The Queen To Name Cunard's Queen Elizabeth

[wripro]

Seabourn, a luxury line, unlike Cunard, had Twiggy name the Sojourn. What's wrong with this picture?

[Keith1010]

Now Henry if Seabourn had named the ship the Queen Elizabeth maybe the Queen would have shown up in lieu of Twiggy. :D

 

However, Cunard has that history that probably make it more of a favorite with the Royal Family.

 

Keith

[Travelcat2]

IMO, it is so sad that Cunard is part of Carnival. This was such a special cruiseline -- one that was certainly worthy of the Queen of England. My DH came to the United States on the QE I. . . . in "steerage". The history of these ships is amazing. Suppose we have to deal with the present. . . . . . still, cannot stop thinking how much more respect Cunard would have if it were not part of it's current owner.:mad:

[kitty9]

Travelcat, I so agree with you. I cruised the QE2 back before she was stolen by Carnival and it was a glorious experience. Truly an ocean liner cruise and all that that implies. Now, unfortunately, Cunard as been Carnivalized and all the negatives that that implies. To be honest, I would not put Cunard in the luxury category anymore. Outside of the Grill cabins, it's become nothing special with questionable food and even more questionable, and unruly service. The old Cunard would never have allowed an employee lecture a passenger that she could not bring an ashtray from the casino into another venue, and told her to leave. Nor would a passenger go to the "Help Desk" and be told to figure out a problem by themselves. The graciousness of British service has long been lost by Cunard.

[keithm]

IMO, it is so sad that Cunard is part of Carnival. This was such a special cruiseline -- one that was certainly worthy of the Queen of England. My DH came to the United States on the QE I. . . . in "steerage". The history of these ships is amazing. Suppose we have to deal with the present. . . . . . still, cannot stop thinking how much more respect Cunard would have if it were not part of it's current owner.:mad:

Also remember that Seaborn is also part of the Carnival group.

[Travelcat2]

Also remember that Seaborn is also part of the Carnival group.

 

Yes it is. . . but, somehow it seems different. There are many ships under the Carnival umbrella. . . somewhat likes different levels of automobiles. Seabourn is the luxury end while Cunard deserves a special place. JMHO.

[wripro]

Keith,

 

Maybe cruise lines should start naming their ships after the people they want christening them. Seabourn Lady Gaga? Silversea Julia Roberts? Or my personal preference...Seabourn Renee Fleming.

 

I too sailed on Cunard during its glory days starting with the original Queen Elizabeth in my childhood and several crossings on the QE2. Wonderful memories. The QM2 is nothing like that. And I wouldn't even consider the Queen Victoria or the new Queen Elizabeth.

[Keith1010]

IMO, it is so sad that Cunard is part of Carnival. This was such a special cruiseline -- one that was certainly worthy of the Queen of England. My DH came to the United States on the QE I. . . . in "steerage". The history of these ships is amazing. Suppose we have to deal with the present. . . . . . still, cannot stop thinking how much more respect Cunard would have if it were not part of it's current owner.:mad:

 

The reality is that if Carnival didn't buy Cunard there would probably be no Cunard in existence today.

 

While that is ashame and most everyone would agree that today's Cunard is not the Cunard of the past, that is what sometimes happens in this fast changing world where some companies cannot make the necessary changes to stay afloat (no pun intended).

 

We can point to many successsful companies of the 20th century who similar to dinosaurs went out of business.

 

It's sad but it is the reality of running a business.

 

Keith