From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Should this page be moved to a singular title, eg Cunard Steamship Line?

---

OK, I'll admit national chauvinism, but, how does a coy formed by Canadians, in Halifax, qualify as a British line? Also, does the contract demand for a 14 day round trip merit mention? Trekphiler 15:58 & 16:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In 1838 Canada was technically British, right? Then later its HQ was in Liverpool and London. "Cunard is a Canadian cruise line" sure sounds odd... Stan 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically British, maybe, but I don't see Australian achievements prior to 1901 being called British... As far as "sounding odd", get over it. Trekphiler 07:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You cant really call it Caniadian either it is right now based out of the California-based Cunard Line Limited according to cunards own homepage. If you want to write anything about the nationality then write that is orignaly based out the british colony in Canada, its more correct. Calling it Canadian today is just plain wrong after the sale to Carnival Cruise lines, it should probaly even state that the company dosent really exists anymore, as all assets are sold of and Cunard now is a part of Carnival. Martin Hedegaard 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly can call it Canadian. Founded in Halifax, it's Canadian. If it's founded in "the British colony in Australia", is it British? I daresay residents of Oz'd say not. Ditto New Zealand, India, Jamaica, Bermuda...& the U.S, for all that. And is George Washington an American patriot, or a British traitor? It's all in the POV. As for Carnival, it didn't exist when the Cunard Line was founded, so the fact it was sold to Carnival is irrelevant. Is Paramount a Japanese company, because it was sold to a Japanese company? I'd say not. Is Jaguar American now? No. Is Rolls-Royce German? No. Is Chrysler German? No. If you want to add something about current ownership, feel free. Cunard's still a Canadian company. Trekphiler 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the whole thing should be extended into something along the lines of "founded in Canada, considered to be British [by the British Admirality & co... and I believe the company HQ was in Liverpool] and today based in the USA" [shares officed with Princess Cruises to my understanding]. Cunard is such a long-living company with a variable history that distinctions should be made between what it has been and what it is now. - Kjet 14:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kjet, I've got no objection at all to including all that (cf above), but the intro piece should remain "Canadian company", for the reasons I mention. I haven't checked, but I don't recall Jag or Chrysler's nation of origin being changed because they were taken over, & I have a hunch if it was a U.S. company, not a Canadian one, people'd be screaming bloody murder. (Canadians aren't known for strong protests over stuff like this, so I'm odd.) Trekphiler 11:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong - we have a Canadian Cruise Line, owned by a larger UK/US cruise operating cooperation, with British ships flying blue ensigns. None of this really makes sense, but I always thought the Cunard Line was British.

I'm not going to change the opening sentence, but would like it if the Canadian claim could be cited with a link. I’ve found a few sites that saying it’s British, but am not going to put them to use before I know Cunard defiantly isn’t Canadian. If I’m wrong, then sorry. 81.111.214.99 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It was founded in Britain using glasgow capital and have therefore been british originally according to http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=38502, the only canadian thing here is the cofounder S. Cunard and his original contract with the british to transport mail. S. Cunard had ships before in his own company but that was not the Cunard line as we know today. Martin Hedegaard 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The company is British. S. Cunard was part owner and chairman of a Canadian company. But it was later that Cunard was formed, with business partners in/on Britain. He actually got his mail contract prior to even having a company. It came into existence on May 4, 1839 as the British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. It did not become Cunard until 1878.Gary Joseph 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected (& look pretty stupid...). I checked my sources again; I was getting Sam'l's Halifax banking biz, which predates, confused with the line. From the same source, I find Britannic reached Halifax in 12 days, Boston 2d 8h later. Trekphiler 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also found the same information, that the Britannia reached Halifax, then went on to Boston. I was too lazy to do the math. I also found some good information on the Britannia, specs, and her maiden voyage. I just need the time to put together, add onto that articel, and cite.Gary Joseph 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reorganize the ship list? 2 "Princess" and "Countess" 3 It's a steel 3.1 Revisions 3.2 SS Abyssinia, or RMS Abyssinia perhaps?

[edit] Reorganize the ship list?

I'd like to propose reorganizing the listing of Cunard ships the way it is done in the White Star Line entry, where it is listed by date, and includes all the ships. I'm launching (pun intended) a project to write entries for all the White Star ships, and would like to follow up with all the Cunard ships. Would anyone object to me reorganizing the list? Akradecki 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think such a reorganisation would be preferrable to the current way the list works. Kjet 14:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Princess" and "Countess"

Is there are a reason why these are listed with just the second part of the name and in quotation marks, instead of the full names (i.e. Cunard Princess and Cunard Countess)? Kjet 14:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's a steel

Among the list of firsts should be "first steel ocean liner". I'd add it, but I can't find a name... Trekphiler 07:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions

For much of the late 20th century and the first few years of the 21st the line's only vessel making transatlantic crossings was the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. From 2004 the "QE2's" service was limited to the annual world cruise and Mediterranean sailings, while the transatlantic route was taken over by the new RMS Queen Mary 2, the first ocean liner to be built in 30 years and the largest passenger liner ever built. In 2006 she was challenged by the cruise ship Freedom of the Seas, but she remains the largest passenger ship capable of transatlantic travel.

The above paragraph was edited. It is misleading as QM2 is not the largest passenger ship ever built. She is also not the largest passenger ship capable of making transatlantic trips as the largest cruise ships do when going from North America to Europe for regular overhauls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gary Joseph (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] SS Abyssinia, or RMS Abyssinia perhaps?

My bad if as things turn out that should have been RMS Abyssinia or MS Abyssinia, in which case a re-titling is in order (I wrote the article...); my source states that the Abyssinia was leased from Cunard by Canadian Pacific, which leaves me to wonder what that means re: ownership; pls see List of ships in British Columbia; if something being chartered/leased passes effective ownership, I'll put CPR; but if the ship was still registered as a Cunarder while operating for CP - ?? - then it would be a Cunard, no? The Abyssinia broke trans-Pacific speed records in its inaugural run for CP, don't know what it had done before that for Cunard. And re the above discussion my two bits is that the era of the liners is a whole different thing than modern corporate entries; and the older names suit, rightly so, any history of the great shipping/cruise lines; it's what they were named at the time, and more than likely also represent a completely different body of holdings, as is certainly the case with CP and its many offshoots. Anyway, just curious about the Abyssinia; it's not listed in the article but it was, at some point, a Cunard vessel; how and why it came to be leased to the CPR my source isn't involved enough with those kinds of details to get into.Skookum1 04:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)