Naming of vessels?

LizzieNo1
30th January 2008, 20:46
Hello all,
I wasn't sure which category to put this in or how to put it, but here it is.

Not a question I could ever wrap my mind around, but when original vessels such as eg: Queen Mary, Caronia or Kungsholm are named, often you get vessels named after them.
Now I understand that with vessels such as Lusitania, or even Andrea Doria, they met a truly tragic end with loss of life, I can see that it could be viewed as bad luck or even being dis-respectful to name vessels after them.
Vessels such as Ivernia (1900) sunk by U-Boat 1917, Britannic (1914) sunk by a mine 1916, again with loss of life, were again the names of later vessels. Some are named after lost vessels, some are not. I can't seem to understand how this works.

I apologize if I haven't put the question too well, as I said, I'm already in a state of confusion.

Thank you all in advance for any answers.

Stephen J. Card
6th February 2008, 11:32
Hello all,
I wasn't sure which category to put this in or how to put it, but here it is.

Not a question I could ever wrap my mind around, but when original vessels such as eg: Queen Mary, Caronia or Kungsholm are named, often you get vessels named after them.
Now I understand that with vessels such as Lusitania, or even Andrea Doria, they met a truly tragic end with loss of life, I can see that it could be viewed as bad luck or even being dis-respectful to name vessels after them.
Vessels such as Ivernia (1900) sunk by U-Boat 1917, Britannic (1914) sunk by a mine 1916, again with loss of life, were again the names of later vessels. Some are named after lost vessels, some are not. I can't seem to understand how this works.

I apologize if I haven't put the question too well, as I said, I'm already in a state of confusion.

Thank you all in advance for any answers.


Fair question. I think that if a vessel is lost and there is a serious loss of life then it might not be appropriate to name a new vessel with the same name... as in TITANIC, LUSITANIA, ANDREA DORIA. If the vessel was lost through enemy action and the desire is to honour the earlier vessel then the name will get used again. The exception would seem to be something like LUSITANIA. Probaably to use the name again woudl just appear to be bad taste.

In the end, if a company likes the name and it is unlikely to offend then they will use it.

Stephen

LizzieNo1
6th February 2008, 13:01
Thank you very much Stephen, it does unravel much of my question in to easy to handle parts.
The enemy action and civilian situation, was the part I needed to understand the most. Now, it does make it somewhat clearer.
But, (here's the "but"), would all companies from any country follow this seemingly touchy naming procedure?
If I were to take a guess at the answer, I would take it that maritime tradition, not law, would set a precedence for all to follow !!

Thamesphil
6th February 2008, 13:21
There was a German owned feeder containership operating in Europe during the 1980s called LUSITANIA. There is also currently a small offshore support vessel called LUSITANIA, under portugese flag.

A handy size product tanker also existed in the 1970s with the name TITANIC.

Names, such as this, which are generic and not company-specific will get used over and over again irrespective of any tragedy associated with them. I don't think that companies, who have no connection with the original ship, can be blamed for this. If, god forbid, the SEA PRINCESS had an accident with tragic loss of life, would the other 4 ships in the world currently with the same name be expected to be renamed? Should any other ship, such as a Greek owned bulker be forbidden to use the name SEA PRINCESS in future? Personally, I think not, as they are unrelated vessels operated by different owners, in different markets which have no connection with the original tragedy.

benjidog
6th February 2008, 14:41
Practice seems to have varied between companies and there is no hard and fast rule. I have been writing up histories of Court Line ships and they frequently used the same names - even when previous vessels had been sunk by enemy action.

But these were cargo vessels. I guess not many people would want to travel on a liner or cruise ship that was named after one that had sunk so it would make commercial sense not to re-use names of that type of ship.

Regards,

Brian

LizzieNo1
6th February 2008, 15:39
Thank you one and all, quite a catch of answers. With all the information I see here, I wouldn't expect to see any future vessel bearing the name of the likes of Titanic, Lusitania or any in connection with a civilian disaster.
While my question had been mostly answered, I find it still a very interesting subject.
Thanks again all.

JimC
6th February 2008, 21:04
Here's name dropping for you! It seems that because the bottle didn't break when the (I think) Victoria was launched recently - P&O are having a squad of Marine Commandos led by -wait for it....Helen Mirren to absaile from the forecastle of their latest newbuilding cruise ship and - if you like - 'hand break' the champagne bottle on the stem on launch dayto ensure good luck. I'd have thought Robbie Coltrain would have been more appropriate since he was the star of 'Cracker' but then again; perhaps they would have to rig a heavy lift davit for him and that wouldn't look too good on the day. It seems that the old P&O bullshit has not been lost in the mists of time. Does anyone remember when they applied to have their officers wear swords?

Jim C