Hms Queen Elizabeth

[Mr King]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8SRyFnclGI

[shep854]

I'm starting to get used to her twin peaks...

[Chris Werb]

I still wish they'd stuck with traditional RN carrier names.

[TonyE]

The fewer ships a navy get, the cheesier the naming conventions get.

Edited February 3, 2016 by TonyE

[Panzermann]

I still wish they'd stuck with traditional RN carrier names.

The fewer ships a navy get, the cheesier the naming conventions get.

The cancelled CVA-01 was to be named Elizabeth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01

 

 

But you are right. Invincible, Audacious, Illustrious, Ark Royal, Formidable, Victorious, Indefatigable... are true and proper RN names.

 

Some long dead queen person. Booooring.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Panzermann

[Adam_S]

I still wish they'd stuck with traditional RN carrier names.

 

That is traditional. The first capital ship of a monarch's reign gets named after him/her. She's just had to wait a while, that's all.

[Adam_S]

 

I still wish they'd stuck with traditional RN carrier names.

The fewer ships a navy get, the cheesier the naming conventions get.

The cancelled CVA-01 was to be named Elizabeth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01

 

 

But you are right. Invincible, Audacious, Illustrious, Ark Royal, Formidable, Victorious, Indefatigable... are true and proper RN names.

 

Some long dead queen person. Booooring.

 

 

The first Queen Elizabeth's not such a bad person to name a warship after either. She did a lot to build up the navy and set Britain on the path to empire. Plus there was that whole, "I may have the body of a week and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king and what's more a kind of England!" speech that she's supposed to have given to rally the troops waiting for the Armada to invade.

[Yama]

 

The fewer ships a navy get, the cheesier the naming conventions get.

But you are right. Invincible, Audacious, Illustrious, Ark Royal, Formidable, Victorious, Indefatigable... are true and proper RN names.

 

Some long dead queen person. Booooring.

 

 

Could've been worse. If they were named after US current practice, they would be HMS James Gordon Brown and HMS Malcolm Rifkind.

[Panzermann]

 

 

 

I still wish they'd stuck with traditional RN carrier names.

The fewer ships a navy get, the cheesier the naming conventions get.

The cancelled CVA-01 was to be named Elizabeth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01

 

 

But you are right. Invincible, Audacious, Illustrious, Ark Royal, Formidable, Victorious, Indefatigable... are true and proper RN names.

 

Some long dead queen person. Booooring.

The first Queen Elizabeth's not such a bad person to name a warship after either. She did a lot to build up the navy and set Britain on the path to empire. Plus there was that whole, "I may have the body of a week and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king and what's more a kind of England!" speech that she's supposed to have given to rally the troops waiting for the Armada to invade.

AIUI Queen Elizabeth formed an actual structured navy from what was just a collection of ships. She introduced for the times silly things like mandatory gun drills for the crews and standardized guns. Also she built up a department to handle naval matters in a structured way. From planting trees to training crews from seaman apprentice up to Admiral.

 

So yes, not the worst choice. A good one actually, but naming ships after persons is what everybody does.

 

 

---

 

Could've been worse. If they were named after US current practice, they would be HMS James Gordon Brown and HMS Malcolm Rifkind.

HMS Alex Salmond to appease the scots.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Panzermann

[Panzermann]

Witht he present incumbents, their idea of pleasing the Scots would be HMS King Edward and HMS Thatcher.

 

I always thought HMS Armagedon and HMS Austerity had a noble ring to it....

HMS Bail Out

HMS T.I.N.A.

HMS Leaving EU

[TonyE]

HMS Unfundable

HMS Tiedupable

HMS Unmannable

HMS Unserviceable

 

......or my favorite:

HMS Indefatigalbraithable

[TonyE]

One thing i noticed even as a kid when looking through the current fleet books (late 80s-early 90s) was that in almost every class of USN ships, atleast those that consisted of more than just a couple of ships, there was always an odd-one out full length name (like Thomas S.Gates in the Ticonderoga class) while the rest were just single word names. Never understood why.

[urbanoid]

What about HMS Unfittable (For?)?

[TonyE]

Maybe its a case that there was a warship with the same (or similar) last name, and they wanted to be sure there was no confusion between the two? Just a thought.

 

Nah, it is clearly a pattern, and a strange one aswell.

 

[2805662]

HMS Crusade

HMS Infidel

 

Or is that needlessly antagonistic?

[Adam_S]

HMS Crusade

HMS Infidel

 

Or is that needlessly antagonistic?

 

HMS Bacon Butty?

[swerve]

 

I still wish they'd stuck with traditional RN carrier names.

The fewer ships a navy get, the cheesier the naming conventions get.

The cancelled CVA-01 was to be named Elizabeth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01

 

 

But you are right. Invincible, Audacious, Illustrious, Ark Royal, Formidable, Victorious, Indefatigable... are true and proper RN names.

 

Some long dead queen person. Booooring.

 

Most 'traditional' aircraft carrier names have mostly been used for other classes, often battleships & ships of the line. Some of them are one-offs, never used for any other ships. Queen Elizabeth is entirely in the traditional RN naming system, & was first used for a battleship. Courageous, Formidable & Invincible were first used by the RN when it captured & put into service 18th century French ships, so weren't even chosen - & we've had exactly one aircraft carrier by each of those names.

Edited February 5, 2016 by swerve

[ramontxo]

Ok, so sorry, as i have been a lot of time out of here i was not sure, but what about a HMS Glowworm? I know, but you see it takes only three years to build a ship, but several hundreds to build a Royal Navy.

 

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A7x9Untc0rNWSiMAwQm_.wt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWpobjZlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1454654173/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fwatch%3fv%3d6aKs1mcfQNA/RK=0/RS=3EP8QCug3SmNgCdSDvIzOZtslQ0-

Edited February 4, 2016 by ramontxo

[DB]

Glowworm would have been named so because she was a "G" class destroyer. I imagine that a set of names was provided to someone important who struck through any he didn't like. There may even have been a committee, I don't know.

 

Some classes had themed names - the "Flowers" come to mind. If you look at the naming conventions for recent ship classes you see both schemes in action.

 

Submarines

 

T (Trafalgar, Trenchant, Turbulent)

U (Upholder, Unseen, Ursula, Unicorn)

V (Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, Vengeance)

A (Astute, Ambush, Artful, Audacious, Anson, Agammemnon)

 

The Type 23s were named for Dukedoms, The Type 42s for cities, Type 22s were "B" (*), Type 45s are all "D" names.

 

(*) To begin with. Batch 2 were renamed after ordering and the Batch 3s were "C" names.

 

As swerve noted already, many names were introduced into service by Anglicising captures - it seems that totally changing a ship's name was considered to be bad luck, although I am fairly certain that it did occur.

[swerve]

There were 11 RN ships named Thetis before that, & 4 named Thunderbolt.

 

Submarines

 

T (Trafalgar, Trenchant, Turbulent)

U (Upholder, Unseen, Ursula, Unicorn)

V (Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, Vengeance)

A (Astute, Ambush, Artful, Audacious, Anson, Agammemnon)

Of those, Unicorn, Victorious, Audacious & Vengeance have previously been given to aircraft carriers.

Several have been battleships, others destroyers - all sorts.

Edited February 5, 2016 by swerve

[DB]

There are so many names to choose from I imagine that they rarely see the need to take a new one.

 

Can't see "Henry Grace à Dieu" being used any time soon, though

[Corinthian]

HMS Last Fleet Carrier and Will Be Scrapped In Two/Three Governments In Favour of NHS.

[swerve]

Land battles! Trafalgar was a sea battle. Not many ships named for land battles.

 

There are so many names to choose from I imagine that they rarely see the need to take a new one.

 

Can't see "Henry Grace à Dieu" being used any time soon, though

Agreed. I don't see Republican (ex-French Républicaine) coming back soon either. I like such names as Relentless, Resolute, Truculent or Turbulent.

Edited February 5, 2016 by swerve

[MiloMorai]

 

Land battles! Trafalgar was a sea battle. Not many ships named for land battles.

 

There are so many names to choose from I imagine that they rarely see the need to take a new one.

 

Can't see "Henry Grace à Dieu" being used any time soon, though

Agreed. I don't see Republican (ex-French Républicaine) coming back soon either. I like such names as Relentless, Resolute, Truculent or Turbulent.

 

Didnt we name some Monitors in WW2 after Land battles, or is that my imagination?

 

HMS Roberts (F40)

Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts VC

HMS Abercrombie (F109)

General James Abercrombie

 

WW1 monitors were named after Generals.

[Unreal John]

Maybe its a case that there was a warship with the same (or similar) last name, and they wanted to be sure there was no confusion between the two? Just a thought.

 

Exactly so. Example; USS Porter (DD-356) was named after Commodore David Porter and his son Admiral David Dixon Porter. USS William D. Porter (DD-579) was named after another son of the first David, died as Commodore in 1862. A preposterously naval family, by the way. In 1808, the older commodore took in James Farragut, the son of a friend, after the death of the friend's wife. James went to sea on the famous cruise of USS Essex during the war of 1812, and changed his name to 'David' in honor of his foster father.