The Famous name..

[Phil Reeder]

On the six o`clock news tonight,there was an item about the Ark ,returning to her home port for the last time.It mentioned there are moves afoot to rename one of the new carriers Ark Royal.

What do you think?Please vote.

cheers ,Phil

Edited December 7, 2010 by Phil Reeder

[Graham T]

The RN should always have an "Ark", just as the RAF will probably always have a 617 squadron.

[General Jumbo]

HMS White Elephant might be more appropriate given that we won't have anything to fly off them. What a scandal.

[Dave Fleming]

No, the name is only really emotive beacuse it was the last 'big' carrier and had the TV series in the 70s. Other than the Bismark action, none of the last three Arks have been involved in actions as much as other carriers.

I'd be happier to have an Eagle, a Hermes, a Victorious etc etc

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Do we have an HMS Victory in active service at all? or does the fact that "the" Victory still exists in Portsmouth preclude having another ship named the same?

BTW - heard an interesting thing t'other day on the TV - the original Ark Royal was Elizabethan, commisioned by Walter Raleigh. The suggestion was it was called Ark Raleigh. Any idea if thats true?

cheers

Jonners ( I voted yes)

[iang]

No, the name is only really emotive beacuse it was the last 'big' carrier and had the TV series in the 70s. Other than the Bismark action, none of the last three Arks have been involved in actions as much as other carriers.

I think this claim is difficult to sustain. Ark Royal III was in continual operational service before she was sunk. She had fewer days in port than any of the other fleet carriers during WW2: u-boat hunting at the beginining of the War, followed by hunting Graf Spee in the South Atlantic, then transferring to the Mediterranean in early 1940 before re-joining the Home Fleet for three operational cruises during the Norway campaign, then back to the Mediterranean where she provided air support for the sinking of the French Fleet, then escort for Mediterranean convoys and air attacks on Italian airfields before the Battle of Spartivento, followed in 1941 more convoy escort, the Bismarck action and then more convoys. During this period she was almost continually at sea.

[jimbuna]

Most definitely a YES vote.

[Seahawk]

Do we have an HMS Victory in active service at all? or does the fact that "the" Victory still exists in Portsmouth preclude having another ship named the same?

BTW - heard an interesting thing t'other day on the TV - the original Ark Royal was Elizabethan, commisioned by Walter Raleigh. The suggestion was it was called Ark Raleigh. Any idea if thats true?

cheers

Jonners ( I voted yes)

The Victory not only exists but is, I believe, still a commissioned warship of the Royal Navy. Hence name cannot be duplicated.

Yes the first Ark Royal was ordered as the Ark Raleigh by Sir Walter but somewhere along the line the Queen bought him out and she became Ark Royal.

[Test Graham]

No, I think it displays a lack of imagination. If we were to continue using carrier names then I'd prefer Illustrious.

[Stephen]

The choice of Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales sounded to me like someone looking for a knighthood! If not Ark Royal then Eagle and Hermes should have been the choices.

Stephen

[Iain Ogilvie]

Ark Royal and Eagle please

Iain

[Mal]

Prior to WWI when the seaplane tender Pegasus was re-named Ark Royal the name had only been used once before. I would suggest a better name would be Warspite having been carried by nine capital ships or the equivalent since the 17th century. The WWI battleship having probably the greatest number of battle honours of any battleship built.

I assume the name Queen Elizabeth was chosen as it is naval tradition to name the first capital ship built after a monarch comes to the throne after that monarch. It may seem surprising but no capital ships have been built since the present queen was crowned.(although I would regard SSN's as the modern equivalent of a capital ship) Vanguard and all the carriers (excluding the three through deck crusiers) were built/launched in the late forties and very early fifties,before George VI died.

Queen Elizabeth and POW are also traditional names.

Malcolm

Edited December 4, 2010 by Mal

[jamboseven]

I got told that both new carriers had there names announced so quickly because Navy tradition has it that once you name the ship you have to keep building it...

Don't know if thats true or not...

But why have a new Queen Elizabeth Aircraft carrier when Cunard have just launched a new Queen Liz cruise liner?

Can you have two ships flying with the same name flying the same flag?

Jambo

[mrvr6]

queen elizabeth ISNT named after the current monarch shes is queen elizabeth the 2nd

im biased over the ark as my grandfather served on her in ww2 including the sinking my father in law served on the hermes in the late 70s so either name is good by me

[Mentalguru]

Do we have an HMS Victory in active service at all? or does the fact that "the" Victory still exists in Portsmouth preclude having another ship named the same?

BTW - heard an interesting thing t'other day on the TV - the original Ark Royal was Elizabethan, commisioned by Walter Raleigh. The suggestion was it was called Ark Raleigh. Any idea if thats true?

cheers

Jonners ( I voted yes)

Jon, we are treading dangerously close to Star Trek and the word "Enterprise" here.

Considerign the nature of the beast- maybe one of these ships should be called the HMS Sex Pistols

[Seahawk]

"Navy tradition has it that once you name the ship you have to keep building it...". Utter cobblers, I'm afraid. Think of all the ships cancelled at the end of the war, let alone the 2 battleships, Lion and Temeraire. Some ships eg the vessels ultimately named HMSs Tiger, Lion and Blake, changed name 3-4 times to ensure names didn't die with cancelled ships. There's a possible germ of truth in that navy PR may have reckoned that the public would identify with/ care more about ships with actual names rather than titles like CVA01, the carrier cancelled in 1966. If so, not sure it worked.

"Can you have two ships flying with the same name flying the same flag?" Yes, during World War II battleship HMS Queen Elizabeth met liner/troopship RMS/HMT Queen Elizabeth in mid-Atlantic and signalled "Snap".

[Shar2]

I've voted no, we don't need another Ark in the fleet. I don't mind HMS Queen Elizabeth, but would have prefered the other carrier to have been called the Duke of York or even Warspite. It's a shame the name Victorious is already in service so how about HMS Indomitable, or Idefatigable which pronounce the spirit of the British people even when their armed forces are being decimated from within.

[vonmarkenhausen]

I think it should be named Warspite. A post dreadnought wich suffered bad damage in the 1st and 2nd world wars, yet still did not sink. On the way to the breakers, she ran aground on a sand bank and was broken up at sea. A truely great ship that refused to die.

[Shar2]

I think it should be named Warspite. A post dreadnought wich suffered bad damage in the 1st and 2nd world wars, yet still did not sink. On the way to the breakers, she ran aground on a sand bank and was broken up at sea. A truely great ship that refused to die.

That was my reasoning for mentioning it, also the fact that my grandfather served on her during WW1.

[Hypnobear]

Why would you want to name the carriers Queen Elizabeth or POW anyway? Theyre boring names and outdated as the Royals are pretty much forgotten about now

Thats my view anyway

Edited December 5, 2010 by Nakajima15

[Max Headroom]

I think most people like me who are not up to speed on the naval tradition of naming vessels would identify with Prince of Wales as a 'proper' name for a warship. I must admit that to me calling one the Queen Elizabeth was a bit surprising. Then again the Americans and French seem to name some of their capital ships after prominent presidents, polititians etc.

I voted no for renaming one as the Ark Royal, but would agree that Eagle, Hermes, Invincible etc would resonate more with the public. If I had a choice it would be Hermes.

Trevor

[Mal]

The monarch's name is applied to the first capital ship, (merchant ships don't count) a capital ship being the dominant warship type at the time they ascend to the throne today this is perceived as the aircraft carrier,prior to this it was the battleship. I am surprised no one has picked me up on the naming of the battleship HMS King George V which goes against this tradition, the reason for her naming is as follows and goes to show the extremes the navy will go to to follow naming traditions.

King Edward VIII wanted the first battleship built after his fathers death named in honour of his father, as the monarch he had the final say on the naming of the ship,the first KGV was therefore named King George V (if my memory is correct the class originally was down to be named after admirals hence the later units carrying the names Anson and Howe).The navy therefore named the second KGV Prince of Wales the title Edward VIII held before becoming King when Edward abdicated, King George VI became king,the navy worked round this by calling the third KGV Duke of York this being the title George VI had held before he had become king. Obviously calling the third KGV King George VI would have been tconfusing.

The new carrier is named after the present monarch I assume the II has been dropped so she can carry the battle honours and also commemorate the previous warships named Queen Elizabeth.

To quote Admiral Cunningham probably the finest British naval commander of the 20th Century.

It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition

On typing this I've just realised that if the present Queen should die in the next couple of years and the second carrier is launched after her death,stretching a point the name POW could be considered appropriate as it's Charles present title.

Malcolm

[Phil Reeder]

Talking of Naval tradition,I prefer Royal Navy warships to be called after characters from Greek and Roman mythology,ie Dido,Arethusa,etc.I read somewhere that the projected Type 26 frigates are to be called "Leanders",that`s fine by me!

I like the name Warspite,but I would prefer it for a Heavy cruiser or the like(fat chance of us building one of those again!!).

thanks for voting ,and sensible comments

Cheers Phil

Edited December 5, 2010 by Phil Reeder

[Seahawk]

Talking of Naval tradition,I prefer Royal Navy warships to be called after characters from Greek and Roman mythology,ie Dido,Arethusa,etc.I read somewhere that the projected Type 26 frigates are to be called "Leanders",that`s fine by me!

I like the name Warspite,but I would prefer it for a Heavy cruiser or the like(fat chance of us building one of those again!!).

thanks for voting ,and sensible comments

Cheers Phil

I'm glad the Navy tries to recycle the scores of famous and glorious names it can draw on, something that gets more and more difficult with fewer and fewer hulls in the water. I must admit that, with a clean sheet of paper, I would probably have plumped for Ark Royal and Eagle, or even Furious and Glorious, for the new carriers but I have no problem with QE and PoW, which are famous names in their own right. As regards the Type 26s, I shall be happy if there are any Type 26s, regardless of what they are called. However the Navy, with ever fewer ships to give names to, will have to choose between the PR advantages of twinning arrangements (eg the Type 42 "Towns") and names which will have no resonance whatsoever to your modern school-leaver - who probably won't be able to pronounce half of them (Euryalus? Charybdis?).

Interesting to note the comment re Invincible as a name which resonates with the public. I remember much sucking of teeth when our new aircraft carrier was given a name last used for a battle-cruiser. Of course, in those days, it was probably politically essential to maintain the line that the new ships were not aircraft carriers (= symbols of imperialist aggression) but Through Deck Cruisers.

Good luck to the Ships' Names Committee. With some many possibilities, some of their recent choices (Grafton, Decoy) have not been ones to set the blood pulsing.

[JagRigger]

Very tounge in cheek, there are some names that have probably gone forever.

I give you with a mental image of a 6'5'', tatooed matlot with 'Gay Bruiser' on his cap tally.

http://www.bmpt.org.uk/other_boats_history...Class/index.htm