HMS Valiant is 2nd SSBN

[4scourge7]

So that`s the four:

Dreadnought

Valiant

Warspite

KG VI

 

At least that should keep Barrow in business after the Astutes.  

 

[Exkiwiforces]

12 hours ago, 4scourge7 said:

So that`s the four:

Dreadnought

Valiant

Warspite

KG VI

 

At least that should keep Barrow in business after the Astutes.  

 

Some very cool retro names there, but I  do like the name Thunderer or this one to while giving the frogs/ eu a two finger salute Agincourt plus others that I can’t remember atm. Anyway a fine selection of good worthy names for any Boat to have and fingers cross that Big And Expensive don’t stuff this up as well.

[Whitewolf]

On 2/25/2019 at 7:22 PM, junglierating said:

Blimey there's always someone🤣🤣🤣

Still thinking along the right lines👍

As for Ark Royal as thoughtfully suggested by ant Phillips...

That is reserved for when the Big Liz gets renamed....its all a little sycophantic for me QE,POW....but I get the idea...how about Angry (you wouldn't like me)....hmm too aggressive....ooh there's an idea 🤣

Big Liz re-named.....if only! Should always have been Eagle (R08) and Ark Royal (R09). QE & POW should never have been used on Carriers. But the RN naming system seems to have gone to pot......  

[Dave Fleming]

Carrier names for the T31s!  Ark Royal, Hermes, Eagle, Invincible, Illustrious? You heard it here first! (Because I just made it up!)

[XV107]

1 hour ago, Stealthman said:

Big Liz re-named.....if only! Should always have been Eagle (R08) and Ark Royal (R09). QE & POW should never have been used on Carriers. But the RN naming system seems to have gone to pot......  

It hasn't, though - the tradition was that wherever possible, a battleship was named in honour of the reigning monarch; clearly, the demise of the battleship means that the aircraft carrier became the ship of choice to continue the tradition of naming a major surface combatant after the reigning monarch.

 

If you go back through the years, the naming policy has been clear on this (the documents in the archives at Kew in which the names for CVA-01 and CVA-02 are decided make reference to the policy). George V, obviously, got KG V  - twice! (KG V, originally Royal George, and due for launch in 1911, but renamed in 1910 when he came to the throne, plus the WW2 era KG V). The 2nd of the KG V ships was to be Edward VIII, but he blotted his copybook, and this was renamed Prince of Wales before being laid down.

George VI's ship was Duke of York, his title prior to Mrs Simpson rather complicating the line of succession, but as there was a KG V, renaming the vessel as KG VI was only going to cause confusion; had he gone with his birth name (Albert), the ship would've been HMS King Albert I...  the use of KG VI for the SSBN is a nice hat-tip to the fact that he didn't have a ship explicitly named for him. Of course, in the era of George V, Edward VII and George VI, it was possible to name major surface units after the monarch and those next in line to the throne as we had rather more of them.

 

The demise of the battleship as the major surface vessel led to the decision to name CVA-01 Queen Elizabeth,  and why upon cancellation, there was a concern that she wouldn't get 'her' ship in a break in the tradition. Thanks to her longevity and the 1998 SDR,  naming what was  then  known as the CVF after our current Queen was a virtual certainty.

 

The choice of Prince of Wales for the second CVF is a practical recognition of the fact that Prince Charles's reign is unlikely to be marked by the appearance of a carrier, so 'his' ship has been named early.

 

It's not the naming system going to pot, but a tradition which was, in effect, suspended because the CVS class ships weren't considered large enough (hence the joke CVS = Carrier, Very Small). Naming an SSBN after the reigning monarch was felt to be a little too controversial ('This is BBC Wartime Emergency News Service, with Fiona Bruce. Earlier today, Queen Elizabeth launched Trident missiles against....' ), so the RN simply waited, Mickawber-like, for something to turn up. And it did.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by XV107

[Whitewolf]

23 hours ago, XV107 said:

It hasn't, though - the tradition was that wherever possible, a battleship was named in honour of the reigning monarch; clearly, the demise of the battleship means that the aircraft carrier became the ship of choice to continue the tradition of naming a major surface combatant after the reigning monarch.

 

If you go back through the years, the naming policy has been clear on this (the documents in the archives at Kew in which the names for CVA-01 and CVA-02 are decided make reference to the policy). George V, obviously, got KG V  - twice! (KG V, originally Royal George, and due for launch in 1911, but renamed in 1910 when he came to the throne, plus the WW2 era KG V). The 2nd of the KG V ships was to be Edward VIII, but he blotted his copybook, and this was renamed Prince of Wales before being laid down.

George VI's ship was Duke of York, his title prior to Mrs Simpson rather complicating the line of succession, but as there was a KG V, renaming the vessel as KG VI was only going to cause confusion; had he gone with his birth name (Albert), the ship would've been HMS King Albert I...  the use of KG VI for the SSBN is a nice hat-tip to the fact that he didn't have a ship explicitly named for him. Of course, in the era of George V, Edward VII and George VI, it was possible to name major surface units after the monarch and those next in line to the throne as we had rather more of them.

 

The demise of the battleship as the major surface vessel led to the decision to name CVA-01 Queen Elizabeth,  and why upon cancellation, there was a concern that she wouldn't get 'her' ship in a break in the tradition. Thanks to her longevity and the 1998 SDR,  naming what was  then  known as the CVF after our current Queen was a virtual certainty.

 

The choice of Prince of Wales for the second CVF is a practical recognition of the fact that Prince Charles's reign is unlikely to be marked by the appearance of a carrier, so 'his' ship has been named early.

 

It's not the naming system going to pot, but a tradition which was, in effect, suspended because the CVS class ships weren't considered large enough (hence the joke CVS = Carrier, Very Small). Naming an SSBN after the reigning monarch was felt to be a little too controversial ('This is BBC Wartime Emergency News Service, with Fiona Bruce. Earlier today, Queen Elizabeth launched Trident missiles against....' ), so the RN simply waited, Mickawber-like, for something to turn up. And it did.

 

 

I can see your point but I'm afraid in this instance as I understand it from several sources the decision to name the new carriers QE & POW was made for Poiltical reasons. Whether that be true I don't honestly know, but believe it to be so. There were a lot of people including Naval Top Brass who expected one or both to be re-named before launch. HRH Prince Charles,was approached personally about POW being re-named Ark Royal and agreed. But unfortunately he did not intervene personally as the Queen Mother had done with Ark Royal V to ensure it happened. 

Naming the new bombers after Attack Boats is not exactly ideal either!!

[XV107]

It’s partly true - the cancellation of a 2nd carrier named after HMQ would’ve been just too embarrassing (so the RN thought) but the PofW was still in the ‘Boo, hiss, what about Saint Diana? Boo, hissss, we hate Camilla’ phase of his relationship with the media, which meant that naming the carrier for him was risky. The fact that the name hasn’t been changed even though the PofW has apparently expressed willingness to change (the rumour is that the Queen wasn’t impressed with the idea) is largely sustained by the long-standing policy.

 

I’m not certain how many senior RN truly believed the QE’s name would be changed - I’ve had enough professional dealings with   an array of senior dark blue over the last 15-20 years to think that one of them might have mentioned it (if I were more specific, that’d be my rather thin cover blown...) during some of the conversations I had (including one on a long Staff Ride to France with one of the QE’s skippers, albeit before he was confirmed in that command) but none did. PofW, on the other hand, was more of a puzzle to them, given the history of the previous ship of that name with aeroplanes.

 

A change to that name might have occurred, but my understanding - granted, only from two sources, one of whom was reporting his view third hand - was that the concern about King Charles III/George VII/Whatever regnal name he actually chooses not getting ‘his’ ship was high.

 

 It was suggested that the reluctance to change was because the Daily Express would declare such a step as a victory for Princess Diana, although I don’t think this was entirely serious...

 

The new bombers aren’t being named after attack boats - look at the battleship heritage to the names, which was a key element in the choice.

[Seahawk]

But isn't this overlooking the fact that our new carrier is not named after HMQ?  If she had been, she would have been HMS Queen Elizabeth II like HMS King George V and HMS King George VI.  Of course that's a fact that can conveniently be fogged over whenever expedient (eg whenever it was necessary to whip up press outrage at the proposed cancellation of a ship named after our dear queen) but it's still the actual truth of the matter: she's the second HMS Queen Elizabeth, named after Queen Elizabeth I.

[XV107]

It’s named for HMQ, not after.

 

There is a subtle difference, which means that the regnal number isn’t essential, particularly since the other QE died in 1603 - whereas with the George V and Edward VIII, making clear which monarch was being acknowledged mattered because of the proximity of reigns. Note that Victoria’s ship was HMS Queen - she was the first since Anne over 100 years before, so nobody was going to be confused as for whom that ship was named.

 

 Also, because of the liner QE2, the risk of confusion - and you see this happening nonetheless - was factored in, and the regnal number not used.

[AWFK10]

And yet there were three successive HMS "Queen"s between 1793 and 1802, plus another presumably hired or purchased vessel that appears to have borne the name simultaneously and at one point a quite separate "Queen Charlotte", the only living queen (consort) in England. And as I read David Lyon's 'Sailing Navy List',  the First Rate "Queen" laid down in 1833 had a sister laid down that same year as "Victoria" (though in the event not launched until 1858 and renamed "Windsor Castle"). So either "Queen" must originally have been named either for William IV's spouse, Queen Adelaide, or for no particular queen at all. The 1880s battleship sunk in a collision was named "Victoria".

[Dave Fleming]

10 hours ago, XV107 said:

.Also, because of the liner QE2, the risk of confusion - and you see this happening nonetheless - was factored in, and the regnal number not used.

 

It’s even more confusing as the current Cunarder is just Queen Elizabeth

 

 

[XV107]

On 9/15/2019 at 1:10 PM, AWFK10 said:

And yet there were three successive HMS "Queen"s between 1793 and 1802, plus another presumably hired or purchased vessel that appears to have borne the name simultaneously and at one point a quite separate "Queen Charlotte", the only living queen (consort) in England. And as I read David Lyon's 'Sailing Navy List',  the First Rate "Queen" laid down in 1833 had a sister laid down that same year as "Victoria" (though in the event not launched until 1858 and renamed "Windsor Castle"). So either "Queen" must originally have been named either for William IV's spouse, Queen Adelaide, or for no particular queen at all. The 1880s battleship sunk in a collision was named "Victoria".

 

From memory (I am about 350 miles away from the book and the notes I made at Kew on the naming convention drawn from a paper prepared for the body approving the CVA01 Queen Elizabeth name...) - the 1833 Queen was the result of a renaming so that there was a vessel named for the new monarch; although laid down in 1833, HMS Queen didn't launch until something like 1838/39, thus providing a convenient means of providing the new monarch with a ship. As I recall, the Queen (1833) was to be the Royal Frederick  or Royal George but renamed. The 1858 Victoria, which became Windsor Castle was in build for years and the name change was presumably to avoid confusion with the Victoria which launched in 1859 - a far bigger (and thus more appropriate) vessel for the monarch. I can't recall what happened to that Victoria  but I assume that the name was changed to allow for the Victoria which sank.

 

In my original, I appreciate that it would've been useful to have said that Victoria's first ship was HMS Queen.