Tweet
It is NOT QE2, just QE. Unlike Cunard and Yanks the RN does add a number after a ship named for a former or we would have had Ark Royal 4 etc... Her Majesty the Queen may go down in history as QE2 but she remains Queen Elizabeth.
-
-
How about LIZ2?Comment
-
That...doesn't make any sense. Neither the US nor the RN adds a number after a ship named for a previous vessel.Originally posted by snapper View Post“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”Comment
-
How about Queenie and be done with it besides the ship's name will be whatever the sailors nickname it.Comment
-
"Lilibet".Comment
-
I wonder why they named her 'Queen Elizabeth' ...are we now harking back to Tudor times and about to start plundering again??
and I must say the Use of 'Prince of Wales' would have me slightly perturbed if I were say French! ......hmmm I smell menace on the horizon!Comment
-
It's ridiculous, tbh. They "killed" the old carrier names and gave these battleship names. Why!??!Originally posted by Toby View PostComment
-
It ' ll be Some jobsworth sat behind a desk , playing around with his coloured pencils behind all this ......
and if the unthinkable happened as it has so many times before.....its bad enough, but naming it after your head of state?? ...Nah not for me....I find it all very strange and indulgent!Last edited by Toby; 26 Sep 17,, 20:58.Comment
-
The Illustrious Class had great names however I do believe the powers that be are trying to keep up with the colonies.Originally posted by Toby View PostComment
-
Yeh, exactly what Jlvfr was aiming at..... good names for carriers . I agree! No way we can afford to keep up with the US...that would be a silly pipe dream..All we can hope to do is make a sizable contribution. As the US knows full well , A carrier can be placed anywhere and carry with it our name and what we stand for. Not sure of the logic behind the size as we were previously sold the invincible class on the merit that if they were sunk it was a lot less hitting the sea floor...but hey ho!Originally posted by tbm3fan View PostLast edited by Toby; 26 Sep 17,, 23:22.Comment
-
Well what I meant was Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales as compared to the George Bush and Gerald Ford in as far as naming.
We used to have great names like Yorktown and Lexington...Last edited by tbm3fan; 26 Sep 17,, 23:55.Comment
-
Ah ok...see your point....I can understand names like Hood or Nelson or Nimitz etc.. but head of state on a warship looks like an ego trip to me.Originally posted by tbm3fan View PostComment
-
Like naming a carrier after Carl Vinson and John Murtha (spit). I understand that CV did a lot for the Navy, but naming a carrier after him?
And John Murtha? He's only on an LPD, but come on! The rest of the class is named after US cities.Comment
-
Well Bush was a naval aviator and flew off carriers in WWII and Ford also served in the Pacific http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...121339,00.htmlOriginally posted by Toby View PostComment
-
But they weren't Naval or even military strategists...My mate Bob Badland use to be in the Navy ...Glad he didn't go into politicsOriginally posted by Dazed View PostComment
Comment