Jump to content

Talk:Queen Elizabeth 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gbambino wrote - Service History - never seen anything about negative commentary from pax -. I sailed on the QE2 in 1982/3 and the light grey colour was not popular among the punters, something along the lines of - she looks like every other cruise ship the QE2 is special she should be in the traditional colours.

([[User:|Benno]] 17:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

Well, I'm just going by the books I have on ocean liners. None mention dissatisfaction on the part of passengers as a deciding factor for Cunard to change the colour back to the original livery, only increased maintenance due to the light colour always showing rust. --gbambino 20:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speaking of name i can see how people would get the ship mixed up with the person QE2 who has also resently of 2022 died of age at 96 years old.@Upton o god Upton o god (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was a combination of the two, but the regular pax were not happy with the lighter colour

--(Benno 12:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The negative reaction from pax is recorded in "The QE2 Story" ISBN-13 9780752450940
-- Save the QE2 (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really. That's epic! BKots-WMF (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Many authorities ser she was named after an earlier war, the RMS Queen Elizabeth, rather than Queen Elizabeth II, who launched the ship in 1969, but some authorities associated with the war say she was, indeed, named after Queen Elizabeth II.

This is just SILLY. It's hardly information that's lost in the Dark Ages, it's less than 40 years ago -- surely we can find this out! Has anyone tried writing to Cunard to ask them? -- Tarquin 23:41 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

So, who were these ships named for, Shakespeare's Queen Elizabeth? The present queen, second of that name, was queen when the RMS QE2 was launched, but she was a little princess when the previous RMS QE was launched. Ortolan88

Check out the note here: -- isis 00:12 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting - it appears that there is some genuine uncertainty who the ship was named after, as reputable sources disagree with each other.
I'm still pretty much certain that "Queen Elizabeth II", with the roman numeral, is incorrect. I haven't seen any good source that suggests otherwise. Enchanter

Check out all the webpages with it the original way ("II"), and if that's not enough for you, go to the library and look in the paper encyclopedias. My Funk & Wagnalls, ©1972, has only the Roman numeral. (And did you look at the note at the link I put above, that purports to come from the ship's master?) -- isis 00:40 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

This quote, from the link above, seems so sensible it might even be the case, and should probably be in the article if we could come up with a name, of the ship's master who said it:
"The QE2 is named after Her Majesty and not because she is the second ship of that name. We use the Arabic figure two so that our name is not confused with that of the monarch when it is seen in writing."
RMS Queen Elizabeth was named for Queen Elizabeth, then the Queen Consort of King George VI, later the Queen Mother. The earlier Queen Mary was named for the Queen Consort of George V, I believe. --rbrwr
The first ship was named for the wife of King George VI, aka Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. The second ship was named after the first ship. It was no doubt considered a bonus that QE II was reigning then, but the QE2 was named after the ship it would replace, in the same way as the Queen Mary II is named after the ship it will replace. (The Queen Mary was named after King George V's wife. A probably spurious story has Cunard asking George for permission to name their new ship "after England's greatest Queen" -- meaning Victoria -- and George answering "My wife would be delighted.") -- Someone else 00:22 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
Two fish were swimming along in the Atlantic when a great shape passed overhead. "What was that?" said the first fish. "Queen Mary's bottom," said the second. "God save the King then," said the first. Ortolan88

According to Cunard's official website, "The new ship is not named after the Queen but is simply the second ship to bear the name - hence the use of the Arabic 2 in her name, rather than the Roman II used by the Queen." -- Zoe

For some years after the ship was launched, its name was "Queen Elizabeth II"; that's the way we spelled it in term papers, and that's the way it appears in the reference books I have here. My best recollection is that in about the 1980s there was some kind of major overhaul, with a new maiden voyage for the refurbished ship, and that's about when it started being called the "Queen Elizabeth 2." The person I knew who had sailed on it then has retired and moved, so I can't check with him about when it was. Does this match what anyone else remembers? In the years when it was called "QEII," however, most authorities still said it was named for the old ship, not the current queen, but there were always a few reliable ones that said otherwise. BTW, didn't the queen "christen" it, not "launch" it, and didn't her mom christen the one named for her? -- isis 05:16 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
This page http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=5484113&matches=5&qsort=r says the refit was in the 1990s, so I guess it wasn't as long ago as I thought. I found a picture in my encyclopedia from the early 1970s, and altho it calls it "Queen Elizabeth II" in the text, the side of the ship says "Queen Elizabeth 2." -- isis 06:20 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
qe2.org.uk says there was a steam-to-diesel conversion in 1986 and a major refit in 1994. Is that where the confusion arises? --rbrwr
It sure is -- thanks for clearing it up for me. I think that 1986 conversion and re-launch was when it generally went from "QEII" to "QE2" in the materials I was reading. So I suggest that as a matter of NPOV, we use both names (maybe noting "II" as old-fashioned and "2" preferred now) and say it's not unanimous but most authorities think the new one was named for the old one, not the queen. -- isis 11:56 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
We went through all this months ago, on one of the other talk pages, but I was outvoted then. I clearly remembered the ship being launched with the words, "I name this ship Queen Elizabeth THE SECOND". It's a relief to know my memory wasn't playing tricks on me after all. --Deb
I'll just point out that on 15th January 1969 the Royal Mail issued a set of stamps honouring "British Ships", and the 5d value is quite clearly labelled "RMS Queen Elizabeth 2" - I've just dug out my stamp album to check! Arwel 19:13 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the name on the ship's bow and stern has read "Queen Elizabeth 2" since she left her fitting out berth. As well, Cunard postcards depicting the ship have always read "Queen Elizabeth 2," never "Queen Elizabeth II." --gbambino 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was launched as Queen Elizabeth II; she was renamed Queen Elizabeth 2. Fionnlaoch (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to "Queen Elizabeth 2, the authorised story" by Neil Potter and Jack Frost (Harrap, 1969): "Four people knew the name of the liner, agreed by the Queen, was simply Queen Elizabeth. But, seconds before the launching, the Queen suddenly decided in her own mind that the ship should be called Queen Elizabeth the Second, and so she gave it that name ... This immediately began one of the biggest maritime puzzles. Surely this must have been the only occasion in history when a shipping company had to try to explain what the name of a ship meant." Their photographs of the wheelhouse being hoisted into position clearly show the name on the bow as Queen Elizabeth 2. Ropemaker (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my memory it was QE2 from birth. The reason being that they did not want to call it Queen Elizabeth the Second, as this would have upset the scots, whom did not accept that they had had a previous Queen Elizabeth. Thus QE2. Bolluckybillfromharoldhill (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, makes sense BKots-WMF (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


During her service as the Cunard flagship, the Queen Elizabeth 2 travelled all over the world, and now operates predominantly as a cruise ship sailing out of Southampton, England.


While she has been taken off the traditional "transatlantic" route which has been taken over by the QM2

If she travelled all over the world as Cunard flagship, does this mean she also did cruises before, not only transatlantic routes? And what does predominantly mean? What else does she serve than cruising? -- 17:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She did cruises though-out her career. I'd understand the "predominantly" part (the word meaning "mostly") as referring to Southampton, where she usually - but not always - sails from. -- Kjet 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well BKots-WMF (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. March to December - round trips from Southampton. December to March - World Cruise. Exceptions to the round trips from Southampton are down to nil since the Mary came on line. 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RMS no more[edit]

QE2 no longer carries the mail, so is therefore no longer a Royal Mail Ship (RMS), so should be correctly called MV (motor vessel).

I think the ship is still entitled to the RMS prefix, until it is officially revoked, that is, and I personally haven't heard of that happening. --gbambino 15:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Douglas Wards' Complete Guide To Cruising and Cruise Ships, she is not allowed to use the RMS prefix. The precise quote is: "RMS Queen Mary 2 (designated a Royal Mail Ship by the British Post Office - a designation it's smaller sister QE2 does not have)" -- Kjet 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. given that the statement is technically incorrect in that only the Queen can approve the use of the prefix "Royal," whether for a mail ship or not, I have my doubts about its claim regarding the QE2 as well. Personally, I've never heard of a ship losing permission to use the designation simply because it ceased the trans-Atlantic run, and, further, they've just installed Royal Mail post boxes on board both QM2 and QE2 [1]. Of course, nothing says for sure whether the ship still uses "RMS" or not, so I'll have to see if I can look into it more. --gbambino 15:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The post box on QE2 is not emptiedbybthe royal mail - the keys to it hung behind my desk when I worked in the Pursers Office onboard from 1988-1994. Staff open the box and the post within it is taken to ashore (also by cunard staff) and posted as usual. The official documents refer to the vessel as TSMV - meaning "twin screw motor vessel". HM The Queen has nothing to do with it - it whether the ship carries the Royal Mails or not - and QE2 no longer carries the Royal Mail in transit.

The QE2's Purser used to be authorised to cancel mail posted aboard ship with British stamps - if he/she still has that ability, then the ship still carries Royal Mail. However, what really matters is whether or not the ship continues to be contracted to carry Royal Mail, even if she doesn't literally carry it. I still can't find any info that verifies or denies this. --G2bambino 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to the First and Third Officers about this whilst on the Bridge last year. Neither was able to tell me. However I did note that there was a recent message to Elizabeth R which was signed by the Master (David Perkins if I recall correctly) displayed on the quarter deck portside near the model of RMS Mauretania which clearly was signed "Master XXX, RMS Queen ELizabeth 2"Kindlychap 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never RMS[edit]

Cunard list the ships as "RMS Queen Mary 2" and just plain "Queen Elizabeth 2" in their official fleet lists.[2] During the launch of the QM2 they also noted that the RMS designation was due to being contracted for a mail route (namely Southampton to New York), which was transferring to the new ship.

Technically, it appears that today the QE2 isn't 'RMS'. However, it seems to be practice to refer to former designations in articles, e.g. RMS Carpathia or the original QM and QE. Mauls 12:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QE2 was entitled to be an RMS but was never made so. Cunard wanted to position the ship as something 'new' and labelling her as RMS was seen as too much of a throwback. However, this ruling does not seem to have been adhered to on the ship itself. Examples of cabin stationary (printed on board) clearly state 'RMS Queen Elizabeth 2' and several merchandise items do too. I think that is where the confusion comes from. One hand stated one thing while the other stated the opposite. (See http://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,1392.msg15309.html#msg15309 - User Flagship is Cunard PR Executive. Also refer to publication QE2: Forty Years Famous ISBN: 978-1847370334. As such it was removed from article in an attempt to clean up one of a number of errors in the QE2 page. Save the QE2 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME the RMS titles are used since Cunard has referred to QE2 with the title regardless of how they currently style the ship. Also, the common name in the popular nexus includes RMS, therefore policy dictates that the titles as well as the article should remain with them. No move, no removal of the titles, or else we would also have to remove RMS from those liners which are no longer with us such as RMS Queen Elizabeth and RMS Aquitania. Also, reverts should not be undone without discussion and consensus first per WP:BRD. -MBK004 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - Understand rationale. I would suggest, however, that the reliability of the encyclopaedia is lessened by using an incorrect name, despite how widely it is adopted? Was going to ask what the situation re: her now being owned by Nakheel and therefore absolutely not currently RMS - however this is answered in your above reply. Thanks. Save the QE2 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Rob Lightbody here. I have spoken with Michael Gallagher who I would describe as the one person anywhere with most knowledge (and source material) of QE2. There is no doubt at all that QE2 was never an RMS. The best you could possibly say about the matter is that she was "sometimes mistakenly referred to as RMS." Even if Cunard sometimes referred to her as this, they were mistaken too. I have seen no evidence at all that she was "commonly" referred to as RMS, and I have followed her since the 80s. The choice was deliberately made NOT to call the ship an RMS. I hope to get a specific reference from Michael so that this can be put to bed once and for all. It infuriates me no end that the article about this great ship actually has the wrong title, and the first sentence is factually incorrect. If the ship had mistakenly been called "Big Bertha" by some people, is that what the article would be called? Lightbody (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been reading up on WP:COMMONNAME - and for this reason I firmly believe this article should be renamed, simply, QE2. This would be correct, and also the way in which the ship WAS most commonly referred to. Lightbody (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, are we going to have a formal request to rename the article? If not to QE2, then presumably to Queen Elizabeth 2 (ship) - or is there a different prefix that it would be correct to use?-- (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Power: 10,625 kW at 400 rpm Propulsion: 9 MAN 9-cylinder medium speed turbo-charged diesel engines turning two five-bladed propellers Speed: 32.5 knots (61 km/h), 20 knots (37 km/h) in reverse

My English is not that good. Should I read that each engine has 10,625 kW, shouldn't I?

Yes. She had 9 times 10625 kw of electrical power generation. Lightbody (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic reference[edit]

Why the bizarre little reference that she was "larger than the RMS Titanic"? So where dozens upon dozens of liners by the time that QE2 entered service. Titanic was the largest liner in service at the time of her tragic maiden voyage, but she was launched in the mids of an "arms race" amongst trans-atlantic operators, and there were larger vessels already on the blocks when the Titanic sailed.

I agree that it's useful to point out that QE2 was smaller than her immediate Cunard predecessors, but pointing out that she was larger than Titanic seems utterly pointless.

I have to agree. I'll suppose this comparison stems from the media's constant use of the Titanic as a base-line, even for ships like the QM2 and Freedom of the Seas!! I think it's ridiculous there, so I'll have to say I think it should be taken out of this article as well; though mention should be made of her diminished size compared to her predecessor. --gbambino 12:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Lawsonrob, the removal of info from the Retirement section is not simply about npov on the Queen Victoria. My motives are as follows:

  • 1) ...there was inevitable speculation...: "inevitable" is pov.
  • 2) ...the Queen Victoria is not designed as an ocean liner.: Not pov, but irrelevant to this article. The design of the QV is covered at MS Queen Victoria.
  • 3) ...which could not be justified given the age of the vessel.: the "justification" is pov; at least, the referenced source makes no mention of Cunard's position on the justification of making upgrades to QE2.

If I'm incorrect with any of this, please let me know how. --G2bambino 15:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Wheels[edit]

Does the QE2 still have Grim Wheels fitted to the propellers? "QE2 was the first passenger ship to use Grim Wheels (so called because they were invented by Dr Ing Otto Grim) in an attempt to make the new QE2 even more efficient. These wheels spin freely in the wake of the main propellers. The innermost parts of each of the 7 blades pick up speed from the propeller, while the outermost parts act as propellers themselves, adding some forward motion to the ship for "free", capturing energy which would otherwise be wasted. The Grim Wheels are 6.7 meters in diameter" --Palmiped 08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - they came off during sea trials after the refit in 1987.--Ssdurn 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true at all. The "Grim Vane Wheels" (their full name) did not fail on QE2's sea trials. They were both still intact when QE2 left Bremerhaven after the completion of the refit. The problem with the wheels started on the voyage back to Southampton. Commodore Doug Ridley was demonstrating the "flexibilty" of the new power plant and new props to journalists who were on board. While QE2 was travelling at about 30 knots, he ordered "full astern". As the ship was slowing down there was a horrible shudder and it was obvious something had gone wrong. It is possiblethat some vanes were already cracked and this was just the Last straw, but that is conjecture.

After QE2 arrived in Southampton divers were sent down to examine the props, etc. They discovered that acouple of vanes had snapped off. After some debate Cunard decided to "rebalance" the wheels by cuttibng off some more vanes and this was done. The ship sailed for New York on schedule. In New York divers found more damaged vanes and one again the wheels were rebalanced by cutting off a couple of more vanes. On QE2's return to Southampton the remaining vanes were all removed. The Grim Wheels were never replaced.

The problems with the Grim Wheels and where the problem was first discovered (Southampton), the subsequent trimming of the wheels in Southampton and New York and their final removal in Southampton were widely reported in the press in 1987. The details of the "incident" on QE2's return voyage was related to me in 1987 by crew members who were on board at the time and confirmed by an officer who was on the bridge at the time. The myth that the Grim Wheels failed during the sea trials is the result of "hearsay" that had been distorted along the way and then published in a book about QE2 written by someone who was not with the ship at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "she" in the article[edit]

An anon changed "she" to "it" on a couple ship articles (RMS Antonia‎ and RMS Queen Elizabeth 2‎). In the Antonia edits, the anon referenced the removal of "sexist language". I am unsure how this is viewed as sexist, So I'm reverting it now. My understanding was that all ships are commonly referred to as she in english speaking cultures, and being the english wiki, it seems appropriate to do so here. For justification, I'm using the wiki article she which states "She is also used instead of it for things to which feminine gender is conventionally attributed: a ship or boat (especially in colloquial and dialect use) ..." --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"She" seems to be common on Wikipedia, although in the UK at least it just seems odd. Most news reports use "the ship" or "the vessel" instead, e.g. this [BBC News report] about the newer Queen Elizabeth, which uses "she" once in a very low-key way. Or [this article] at the Daily Telegraph - not usually a bastion of political correctness - which consistently calls it "it" or "the ship" or "the QE2". I surmise the article uses "she" so often because (a) 85% of Wikipedia's editors and 100% of its naval enthusiasts are men (b) mostly from North America, which is a bit behind in this kind of thing (c) poor-quality writers tend to overuse the same phrases over and over again, because they don't have the skill or the inclination to put in some variations. Hence all the "she did X with her Y before she went to Z to have her A's changed so that she could N her K's". Time will cure this, as newer generations take over. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coming late to this discussion, I'm extremely surprised to see "in the UK at least it just seems odd". Which version of the UK are you living in? In my UK, in which I have lived for over forty years, it's the common way of referring to a ship. Always has been. Still is. Probably always will be. Maybe you know nothing about ships and have never had any connection or contact with the shipping industry or the Royal Navy? I suspect that must be the answer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read this article for the first time, and find it absolutely ridiculous that it uses 'she'. It seems overused almost to make a point. The odd use of 'she' might be appropriate, but it is not proper English, it is casual. The use of 'she' implies a sense of pride and bias too- shouldn't Wikipedia be impartial? The ship is a ship, not a person. It should be 'it'. This really needs sorting out, it's an embarrassment to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very few words for inanimate objects in English have non-neuter gender, but ‘ship’ is one of them. It's nothing to do with sex or sexism; it's just grammar. It seems anomalous because it is, but English is a very irregular language in other ways too. While I have no doubt that the few remaining gendered words are in the process of being neutered (fuelled by misunderstanding of what grammatical gender is) it hasn't happened yet. I know that children are being taught a slightly different grammar, but the older school still exists. Therefore it remains correct usage in British English for now. Nobody thinks it's sexist to use the correct gender in French or Latin, so why English? JRYon (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have said it better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SHIPS ARE NOT WOMEN!!!!!!!! MR KJ0923 06:00, October 11, 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MR. KJ0923 (talkcontribs)

  • From wiki article Ship.. "Ship” is an English word that has retained a female grammatical gender in some usages, which allows it sometimes to be referred to as a "she" without being of female natural gender.palmipedTalk 12:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding Queens[edit]

I'm going to transfer this from my talk page to here: --G2

Before you add your comments back about the "Dated" designs of the original Cunard Queens, can you prove what you are saying is correct and what does it have to do with the original RMS Queen Elizabeth?
The Queen Elizabeth was launched in the 1930s and the QE2 was at the end of the sixties so there over thirty years of change and what you added to the article has nothing to do with the latter ship.
Cunard designed the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth to be nothing more than the smallest and slowest ship to carry out the task as an Atlantic ferry and nothing else - which was Sir Percy Bates' own discription of the two ships and he knew what the traveller wanted was not something light years away like the Normandie and more homely like the Queens.
Cunard tried to send the Queens cruising and they both failed and lost money - they were deep draft ocean liners with fuel and water and other supplies for no more than five days service at 28.5 knots service speed and their design did not allow for cruising.
The QE2 needed to be more of a cruise ship than a ocean liner for the majority of the time in service - so not only had time passed so had the role of the liner. Harking back to the design of the first Queen Elizabeth has nothing to do with the artice.
This can be proved if you read the books written about the Queens by leading ocean liner officiados' and authors like William H Miller and John Maxton-Graham.
Regards msa1701 (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed earlier at my talk page, but I will reiterate: The paragraph in question isn't meant to have anything to do with the purposes of the ships, but the appearances of the ships; QE was already outmoded in style before she took to full time passenger service at the end of the '40s. She, and the QM, carried her art deco look right through to the year before the first sailing of the QE2, excluding a couple of cosmetic attempts to update the decor. It was that stodgy, wood panneled lounges, riveted hull look that Cunard wanted to get away from with their new ship. I'm sure I can find where this was said before, but as I mentioned yesterday, I'll have to do a bit of re-research. --G2bambino (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions made by MickMacNee[edit]

Having taken on board your original comments regarding my additions and amended them accordingly, I cannot understand why you persist in removing them. The assertions regarding Scottish opposition because there was never an Elizabeth I of Scotland are the personal viewpoint of the author of the book and have never been expressed elsewhere. I have read several books on the QE2 and come across them only on one other occasion,in The New Cunard Queens by Nils Schwertdtner, when the author was actually quoting from the book mentioned here.

All I have done is to point out the correct facts pertaining to the thrones of Scotland, England and Great Britain so that readers can decide for themselves. Without that explanation, the paragraph is actually misleading, as it infers to the casual reader that there is still a Queen of England, which ceased be the case in 1707. As most reasons put forward for the naming are hearsay, something borne out by the length of the section covering the issue and the number of explanations outlined therein, I believe it is important for each scenario to be properly explained. If your disagreement relates in some way to an agreement with the author of the book, that the naming policy was decided based upon fears of Scottish opposition, then I would suggest that the POV is on your part, not mine. -- 23.32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact it only comes from one book is clear because the entire section is only claims made in that book. There is no need for clarification, the section is already too long, it doesn't need expansion using facts that are readily obvious from other articles (if people don't realise there is no current Queen Elizabeth of England separate from Scotland, they aren't really going to understatnd the finer points of the rest of the page are they?). It is uneeded commentary, my removals are merely for brevity, please don't accuse me of anything else without basis, per no personal attacks. MickMacNee (talk), P.S. I have added (of the United Kingdom) - that is all the clarification that is needed imo without turning this page into a constitutional history article. MickMacNee (talk)

Revisions by RMSqetwo[edit]

I've removed this edit re: QE2's rumored test drive - the Maritime Matters article has cited no references to back up these claims and generally it is believed to be untrue. QE2's engines are able to run (and move the propeller shafts via the propulsion motors) while keeping the ship stationary due to her Variable Pitch Propellers.

The other information you added in this paragraph is repeated already in the QE2 article already in the previous paragraph (as referenced by Daily Echo article) and as you've not cited additional references it doesn't need to be repeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Printpost (talkcontribs) 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to remove this from the article once again. If I see it back one more time, I will protect the article so it cannot be added again. -MBK004 18:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QE2 to be sold?[edit]

I just wanted to explain why I amended statements added to the article saying that QE2 is definitely for sale. If you read all the news reports so far, they are entirely speculation, using words like "likely to be" and "sources indicate". There have been no official announcements, that I can find, by Nakheel or their representatives, saying that QE2 is definitely up for sale, though we can all assume, given the circumstances, that if they can find a buyer, they will be highly likely to go ahead and sell the ship. But I don't think we should be saying in the article that the ship is for sale until or unless something more definite appears in the news. It seems to me that it's one thing to include info in the article about media speculation regarding a likely sale, another thing to translate that speculation into a definite statement that the ship is for sale. -- DMS (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - there is no official information regarding QE2's sale. In fact in a recent report in Australia they are quoted as saying "a number of options" are being looked at (see: http://www.inmycommunity.com.au/news-and-views/local-news/Freo-to-house-QE2/7560490// ). Save the QE2 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The City of Long Beach should buy it and place it next to the original Queen Mary. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Fuel Efficiency / Economy[edit]

Have removed references to QE2 being inefficient (fuel wise). She achieved 50/ft to the gallon at full cruising speed (28.5 knots) but was far more efficient at standard cruising speeds. No solid references are cited that states that this is a poor fuel economy for a cruise ship. QE2's engines were replaced in 1986/87 - MAN B&W diesel electric plant. Would be as efficient as any other diesel electric plant per engine. Save the QE2 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"meaning that per passenger, the QE2 is actually more efficient than travelling by most modern cars" is a moot point, as cars cannot travel over water, and as many large passenger ships are more efficient than a fleet of equivalent cars.
Although the BBC did not make any explicit comparisons, it has been implied that the QE2 was inefficient compared to contemporary cruise ships with new 2000s diesel propulsion arrangements. The original quote from BBC is this; "To bring the vessel up to modern safety standards would cost a fortune. Environmentally, the liner is a basket case with fuel economy: 49ft (15m) to the gallon." Therefore, this can be paraphrased to "fuel economy was poor at 49ft (15m) to the gallon".


The BBC report is hardly definitive. The article fails to note the 49.5ft per gallon is at the ship's maximum cruising speed of 28.5 knots; which is considerably faster than most cruise ships are able to achieve. Obviously, cruising at over 10 knots faster than modern cruise ships will result in a less efficient run... At QE2's slower cruising speed of around 20 knots, she achieves approx 125/ft per gallon, resulting in a far more efficient run... The BBC article uses words like "basket case" which is in its very nature a point of view. There are no books or other literature cited which suggest QE2's fuel efficiency as being a problem in her later years. As such, have kept your reference to her fuel economy (but added it is related to her sailing at max cruising speed) and also explained the difference between the max cruising economy and regular cruising economy, with far more reference than the one BBC article. Printpost (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message for members of TheQE2story forum[edit]

Thanks for your interest in improving the article. Hopefully Peter will post a message on my behalf to you there. The most important thing for you to remember is that we do not accept original research on Wikipedia. All info added should be verifiable and sources quoted. Use {{cite web}} for website (but NOT forums, which are not reliable sources, but may provide links to such sources), {{cite book}} for books, {{cite newspaper}} for newspapers and {{cite journal}} for magazines. Any questions please feel free to ask on this section of the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see you guys haven't posted yet, but if you do, we are still watching this page. :-) —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 06:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re your discussion, at Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred. In some circumstances it is appropriate to use primary sources.
It's not that we don't appreciate your desire to improve the article, because we do. The main problem is that you guys and gals don't fully appreciate how Wikipedia works - this is something that only comes with time. The truth and what is verifiable by reliable sources may at times be at odds with each other. In that case, we stick with what is verifiable, even if it is wrong. The RMS issue is a case in point. Documentation issued on QE2, such as menus, carried the title RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. In accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, the article is accordingly at the RMS title, even though she should correctly be described as SS Queen Elizabeth 2 and later MV Queen Elizabeth 2.
In any case, we look forward to discussion on this talk page, and are waiting for your questions and comments. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to partially echo what Mj said. To be honest, Wikipedia is one of the weirdest sites you will ever come across. To satisfy our "verifiabilty" policy, a citation to a reliable source ("RS") must be given. The best RS' are probably researched and in-depth books, and the list goes down from there. However, this does mean that an error made in a RS may be repeated in this article. If "the truth" isn't published in a different RS, then Wikipedia must follow the first RS. I told you it would seem weird.
  • Now, on to why we are so ecstatic that you are offering to help. Because of the need for citations, many articles are in need of improvement. While Mj or I don't have access to specialist books on QE2, you guys/gals already own and/or have written books on the ship.
  • So, food for thought: the easiest way for us to work together is for you guys to provide us with either a quote or information from a RS, then immediately follow it up with details of the book: author, title, publishing year, and page number(s). As long as you do that, we can add the new or corrected information into the article—but just to emphasize, we need this all to be sourced to a reliable book/journal article/etc.
  • I apologize the numerous and strict Wikipedia rules, but if you can work with them—even if you don't understand why you have to—it will makes things much, much easier on our end. Again, thank you for helping. You don't know how much we appreciate it. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 06:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had another look at the forum thread. To edit a section, click on the [edit] tab on the right hand side where a section header is. To start a new section, click on the "new section" tab at the top of this talk page.
I also note a complaint about an external link having been removed shortly after it was added. I'm not making any promises, but this is also something that can be discussed. If consensus is that the link is a good one, it can be added and will be defended against removal. However, should consensus be that the link falls foul of policies and guidelines such as WP:ELNO, then its insertion will be reverted. I'm making no judgement either way until the addition of the link has been proposed and discussed. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nakheel / Istithimar[edit]

QE2 has never been owned by Nakheel. QE2 was bought from Cunard by Istithimar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istithmar_World) but was intended to ultimately be operated by Nakheel as part of their property portfolio. A holding company called QE2 Enterprises was established to manage the project to convert the ship into a luxury hotel. None of this is conjecture or speculation - Arabian Business.com article about Istithimar and QE2 and Gulf News article about Istithimar buying QE2. Lightbody (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


She seems to be located at 25°16′29″N 55°17′25″E / 25.27481°N 55.29041°E / 25.27481; 55.29041 if anyone wants to place these in the article ( i haven't worked out how to do it yet). And anyone who thinks ships aren't called "she" hasn't read a lot of books on or featuring ships. Britmax (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. The current title appears to be both inaccurate and almost never used, and the proposed title already redirects here. Readers looking for the queen can find what they're looking for in the hatnote, as they are now.--Cúchullain t/c 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Cúchullain t/c 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Queen Elizabeth 2Queen Elizabeth 2

  • The QE2 was never an RMS. Indeed even the opening paragraph of the article clearly states that the title is wrong! Shouldn't be controversial imo. Am unable to perform move myself because the redirect has a (tiny and irrelevant) amount of history Egg Centric 01:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy[edit]


  • Oppose. Queen Elizabeth 2 should redirect to Elizabeth II as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zarcadia (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nobody ever refers to the Queen as Elizabeth 2. She is always Elizabeth II, using Roman numerals for her ordinal number just like every other monarch in the world. The hatnote at the top of this article is perfectly sufficient for those (I would have thought very, very few) who may be unaware of this. However, as far as I know all ships do have a prefix and we always use these if we can. If she was not RMS then presumably she was MS (Motor Ship), as is her successor. This needs to be established and the article moved there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It does appear that the ship never did have the prefix designation of RMS. Further, The Queen (the monarch) is really Queen Elizabeth II and not Queen Elizabeth 2 and therefore there is not strictly a confusion of the two. I might be inclined to support a move to Queen Elizabeth 2 (ship) or something similar, in order to differentiate this article further from the monarch, but as already stated that is not strictly necessary. If the ship does have a prefix (we already know that it is not RMS) it should be moved to a name with the correct prefix attached. -L.Smithfield (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like it ought be placed at MS Queen Elizabeth 2. I'm very confused as to why it is currently at RMS &c. RGloucester (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move At the moment readers who search for "Queen Elizabeth 2" are redirected to this article. For what possible reason would you not place the article under that name? The hatnote exists to send those looking for HM The Queen to the right article. As well as never being called "RMS Queen Elizabeth 2", she's never been called "MS Queen Elizabeth 2". (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with no prefix. None of the possibles meet the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NC-S. It is true that all ships could be given a prefix, and some people like that, but WP wisely decided against that. No objection to a "(ship)" if enough contributors consider differentiation is necessary. Davidships (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Queen Elizabeth 2" is far and away the common name, according to this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think that Queen Elizabeth 2 should redirect to Elizabeth II. I’ve actually had that happen to me, where I ended up here instead of the Queen’s article. While I’m aware that that is in no way the “correct” way to write her name, I’m sure many people might make the same mistake to avoid having to write the numerals. While a hatnote might work, with a ship, I think it is best to use a prefix. WP:SHIPNAME wisely suggests that prefixes not be required…but in this case I think it will be the best way to disambiguate, and this article tells us that the ship was in fact officially known as MS Queen Elizabeth 2. I therefore vouch for that. RGloucester (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On principle I strongly disagree with redirecting from a title which is the incorrect term when the title may be used as a correct term. (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, can you restate that? I don't understand what you mean. RGloucester (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means that as "Queen Elizabeth 2" is the correct name for the ship but an incorrect name for the sovereign, it is wrong to have a redirect to "Queen Elizabeth II". I agree. A hat note would indeed be appropriate, as at present. Adding a prefix doesn't disambiguate anything.
The blog referenced says very clearly that SS, MV and MS were almost never used (and doesn't say who did use it rarely - Cunard or the maritime authorities); it supports the proposed move. Davidships (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Career Infobox[edit]

Twice some basic info on QE2's long career with Cunard (notably owner and registry) has been removed from the Career Infobox with the justification that it was "clutter" and that only latest info should be included. This is directly contrary to Ships Infoboxes guidance and to widespread practice. I agree that where a ship career has been particularly complicated including all such details may be unhelpful, but that is most certainly not the case here. The present version gives the impression that her illustrious career has been only with Istithmar under Vanuatu flag. Response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Infobox_Ship_Career suggests views might be developed here in relation to this specific page, as well as there more generally. The same considerations, though, would apply in the cases of MS Queen Elizabeth, MS Queen Victoria and RMS Queen Mary 2, I suggest.Davidships (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any comment here, but taking into account discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Infobox_Ship_Career, I have restored two lines to the infobox, vital to the object of the Career Infobox.Davidships (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if the info box was sectioned with Cunard info first mentioning dimensions, construction and Cunard info and then a second section below with her current career and location etc (obviously with not too much info)?

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that we wait and see whether she actually has any "career" in present guise or subsequently. A separate infobox section covering only an extended pre-demolition layup is not an attractive proposition. In it's present form it meets guidelines and has not attracted any other specific objection.Davidships (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had no running mate?[edit]

I'm puzzled by this sentence "QE2 had no running mate and never ran a year-round weekly transatlantic express service to New York."

Articles such as MS Queen Victoria say "Queen Victoria is the running mate to Queen Mary 2, and the Queen Elizabeth. Until November 2008, she also operated alongside Queen Elizabeth 2." Does "running mate" have a specific definition for Cunard such that "QE2 had no running mate" is true?

Also, the second part of the sentence, "and never ran a year-round weekly transatlantic express service to New York," is unclear. Ideally, we'd need a citation for that and it's also unclear why we'd want to say what the vessel never did. I'm sure it never went to the moon and back either. If there is regular confusion about how the QE2 was operated them perhaps "Unlike the RMS Queen Elizabeth, the QE2 was never used for a year-round weekly transatlantic express service to New York." --Marc Kupper|talk 19:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement section far needs rewritten[edit]

Since QE2 retired, various plans, "news" and rumours have come and gone. This has caused this part of the QE2 page to become extremely long and disorganised. It is too long relevant to the length of the page overall. QE2's career was over 40 years. Her retirement has only been 4.5 years, during which hardly anything has happened. Rob Lightbody (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York 1991, Metropole Hotel - The end of the QEII Round 1[edit]

In 1991, I sat in a bar at the Metropole Hotel in New York. I was there for the novelty value of this remarkable space, for its time. As I sat there, a gentleman asked if I would mind some company. I said "misery loves company and I would love to have a chat". The gentleman looked bothered and slightly dejected but overly distinguished.

We shook hands and exchanged names. "Pleased to meet you".

The cause of the concern appeared to be employment termination. Apparently the QE2 had sailed her last World Tour. This was the end of the line and it was off to India for metal value. These types of ships had become a symbol of a greater time in history.

After some time spent contemplating the bartenders cocktail experiment. I said "I have no doubt in my mind that you sir are never going to be unemployed or the ship scrapped".

He looked at me with some bemused interest and asked me what precisely lead me to think along those lines. I said, well look at the Concorde, the Space Shuttle and the Ferrari. For the most part, these things are enitely useless but without them we are all lesser people.

There was an article published in a copy of the Hermes magazine not long ago entitled "The Need for the Superfluous" and what these things represent is achievement and self expression.

I then went on to talk about the Stradivarius violin and concluded by saying that one does not own such a violin but merely takes care of it for others to own in the future. To the same extent, Cunard never owned the QEII.

It belongs to those who lived, loved, married, died and threw up on her. Those are the true owners, the people who relied on her to sail through all kinds of weather and situations. Who carry those memories through their lives. To break up the ship and its crew would be to abandon those collective experiences. And there was no real justification to ever do that.

He said "I am the ships captain and till now I was quite certain of what I was told but I now think otherwise". He asked for a serviette and began writing notes as we reiterated what was just said. My second cocktail had just kicked in and it was a slow speech. But the captain started to embrace the notions.

He invited me to tour the ship the next day. Stood up with the type of stature only a naval officer would possess and pulled his clothing into alignment as though he were expecting to have an inspection. He paid my tab, shook my hand firmly and departed to his room with a confident and purposeful stride.

Several months later, there was a change of fortune in the future of the QEII and I recall that at the time, the captains speech before the board of directors was cited as the single most compelling reason for the new plans. It was said at the time that the speech given in the defense of the QEII was the single greatest speech ever heard at Cunard.

I never met with the Captain the next day. I was heading back to Australia soon and had very limited time in New York. But I never forgot the passion and affection that Ronald has for his ship. It imprinted me with a sense of understanding that Captains are more than just highly ranked members of a crew. But the best custodians of our collective experiences and people we can trust not only to be professional but also have a heartfelt concern for what is essentially a superfluous mode of transport.

October 1984 fire[edit]

When and where in October 1984 did the alleged fire take place? I was aboard QE2 from October 1 to October 24 1984 and she maintained her published schedule throughout that period. Oct 1 - 6: Eastbound transatlantic nonstop from New York to Southampton. Oct 7 - 19: 12 night cruise from Southampton to Palma de Mallorca, Ajaccio, Naples, Palermo, Malaga, Praia da Rocha and Lisbon. Oct 19 - 24: Westbound transatlantic nonstop from Southampton to New York.

The fire occurred on October 28, 1984. It was a memorable date for me since it was my wife's 34th birthday. We were crossing from New York City to Southampton (Tilbury?) The lights went out and we glided to a halt. Some lights were restored before bedtime but there was still no running water, flushing toilets, or hot food for a day or two. My wife brushed her teeth with bottled water as I held a lighted birthday candle from earlier in the day and sang "happy birthday". The ship did not resume its journey for several days as parts were manufactured on the ship.

The American actor John Malkovich was also on the ship although we didn't know who he was at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create a separate Q3 article?[edit]

This ship which was never built is mentioned briefly in the article, but a dedicated page does not exist for it - there is a significant amount of information available for it online so it could be built up to a reasonable quality, perhaps this article could be created and linked in the 'Conception' part of the QE2 article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Infobox Icon[edit]

Is it possible we could update the infobox icon to something more recent, such as her current condition in Dubai? If that is not possible, can we update it to show her from bow to stern?Trevor Casey (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022[edit]

MR. KJ0923 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i need to fix some typos and mistakes. that is all.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QE II Role as a temporary hotel DECworld 1987, Boston, Massachusetts[edit]

I worked for Digital Equipment Corporation as a computer systems sales representative supporting the Texas Instruments account. Hotels in Boston were full occupancy. The most prestigious accomodations were the QE II. I waited in queue over 5 hours to secure rooms for my clients at Texas Instruments. I also was accommodated in the crew area.

Our meals in the first class dining room with caviar, vodka shots served in sterling silver "ash trays" were so British and so very memorable. I also loved learning about the waiter's use of the "crumber" to keep the white linen tablecloth pristine at all times. (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]