|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jan 8, 2012 0:28:43 GMT -8
One of the saddest things about our old "Queens" being retired and scrapped is the fact that we are slowly losing our "Queens", as in Queen of Esquimalt, Queen of Tsawwassen, etc, and in their place getting politically correct names with words like "Spirit" and "Inspiration" instead. What would be wrong with "Queen of Tsawwassen II", for instance? I think this would be a great way to preserve our maritime heritage and a good way to link the old with the new. Island Sky. Can somebody please explain just what the hell that name is supposed to mean? It sounds great, but talk about generic. You could use that name for almost anything located on an Island. Guess I'm just getting old. Well I'm still under 20, and I agree with you, so if you're getting old, I guess I'm getting old-minded. You know, all this new-age 'politically correct' crap doesn't feel very 'correct' at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Nanaimo Teen on Jan 8, 2012 22:33:29 GMT -8
I too, am very young, and completely agree!
BC Ferries had a wonderful thing going with the 'Queen' title, and should have never changed it. So we just need to make the best of the Queens that we have left!
QoNT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 8, 2012 22:40:23 GMT -8
I am not too sure what you mean by "politically correct?" Could you expand how the sovereign of the country is not politically correct? Or, likewise, perceived not to be politically correct?
Regardless, I do agree that it is a shame to see the naming convention that made part of the character of the fleet slowly disappear. I didn't object too much to the Spirits, I saw the thinking there - even if a Queen would have sounded a bit more majestic. Really the Spirits were part of a larger effort to revitalize BC in a period that wasn't so awesome only better. Remember in roughly this period other Queens did come online.
Our real loss came with the quasi-privatization of the fleet. Frankly I was surprised to see the Kuper named in accordance with the naming conventions of the fleet. Perhaps that was a small victory, if nothing else. Surely the new cable ferry will be named "Tidal Experiences" or something equally inappropriate. The Coastals have ought to be the worst named vessels in the fleet, particularly number two and three.
Maybe once BC Ferries is public again there will be an effort to distance from the Corporation from the shameful private past.
|
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on Jan 9, 2012 0:09:14 GMT -8
When the Spirits names were announced, it was stated by the powers that be (or were) at BCF that dropping the Queen prefix and adopting something that was sexually ambivalent instead was preferable to avoid offending women and any womens groups of the day. It's true, I remember watching this on the 6 o'clock news...and shaking my head in disbelief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 9, 2012 0:41:51 GMT -8
When the Spirits names were announced, it was stated by the powers that be (or were) at BCF that dropping the Queen prefix and adopting something that was sexually ambivalent instead was preferable to avoid offending women and any womens groups of the day. It's true, I remember watching this on the 6 o'clock news...and shaking my head in disbelief. This doesn't quite add up, notably regarding the naming of the Skeena Queen being built in 1996, years after the Spirit era. I assume they would have adapted the same policy for the other three Century class vessels, had they been built. As well, the Queen of Cumberland and Queen of Capilano class is only a year older than the Spirits. Surely the naming would have taken place around the same time. I think it was simply a matter of BCFC trying to set these boats apart as "special" and perhaps the reporting (not uncommon) took it a little too far out of context. |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jan 9, 2012 7:04:56 GMT -8
I think it has to do with the politics of the Royal influence upon our country. There remains a large percentage of the Canadian population who does not support the British Monarchy or its influence on our country. By removing the Queen names, BCF removes any potential implied connections with the monarchy, which would in turn remove the 'awkwardness' of riding the ferries if you were not a supporter of the monarchy.
Same deal with the removal of the Queen Elizabeth portraits from the lounges of our ships a couple years back (then quick remounting of them all). BCF is trying to stay modern, keep with the new generation, and all that jazz.
I for one, think the whole deal is bull. Stick with the Queen names, it's tradition.
|
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,185
|
Post by Neil on Jan 9, 2012 11:06:14 GMT -8
I don't recall BC Ferries ever saying anything about removing gender from vessel names, and I don't think it has anything to do with the pros or cons of a royal association. It's simple branding. There was a complete restructuring of operations in 2003, and Hahn & Co. made it quite clear they wanted a new image. If BC Ferries vessels had previously all been known as Coastal this-or-that, the new organization might just as easily have started naming them 'Queens of'.
In any event, I can no longer work up any anguish over the wave logos on the stacks, dark blue stripes on the sides, the banishment of royalty, or the lack of dogwoods on the carpets. I'm more concerned about where the money's going to come from to renew the fleet and keep operations affordable for the communities that need them. I suspect that's also where most of the public's attention is focussed.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jan 9, 2012 11:48:33 GMT -8
:)yes. mr. niel is rite on, the shipping world has always been engrossed with this branding thing, and many traditional liveries have been tampered with and disposed of, ie. Cunard Holland America, P&O, the list goes on, but rarely have any of these re-brands been an improvement, usually they are just political tampering with tradition! and sometimes the old liveries are re-invented by latter day conversions! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 9, 2012 17:05:31 GMT -8
:)yes. mr. niel is rite on, the shipping world has always been engrossed with this branding thing, and many traditional liveries have been tampered with and disposed of, ie. Cunard Holland America, P&O, the list goes on, but rarely have any of these re-brands been an improvement, usually they are just political tampering with tradition! and sometimes the old liveries are re-invented by latter day conversions! :)mrdot. Going back to the "Queen" labels, the correct answer has nothing to do with political correctness or our ties to the Monarchy. The reason why "-- Queen", and "Queen of -- "existed is that W.A.C. saw the Canadian Pacfic /Union Steamships vessels prefixed by Princess. He figured the new ferries are better than that so he insisted that the label "Queen of" and -- "Queen" be used. The labelling carried over to the larger Department of Highways ferries, but not all of them, as there was "Comox Queen", "Quadra Queen", "Cortes Queen" and "Texada Queen". Passenger ships are indeed branded. One only has to look at Holland America. A class of ships are named after points of the compass, while another are named after Dutch cities. Princess cruises are suffixed naturally by " -- Princess" and another series of ships can best be grouped together as "Something of the Seas". The two North Coast ferries were deliberately branded as "Northern --". There was a call for the new ship to be named related to Hartley Bay (even its T'lingit name), I wrote a few letters to a person I knew on the BC Ferries board in support of a name relatedto Hartley Bay as a testimonial to the souls up there who rescued the passeners. But he said "it would be considered"but also said BCF had a new marketing plan in the works. At that point I thought "ooo boy, so much for that idea". Another tradition of the sea relates to naming ships. Renaming a ship that is still alive is considered bad luck. As for gender, the traditional aspect is that ships are a "she". I believe it was actually Monty Aldous who suggested it to W.A.C. Bennett. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 9, 2012 17:09:52 GMT -8
I don't recall BC Ferries ever saying anything about removing gender from vessel names, and I don't think it has anything to do with the pros or cons of a royal association. It's simple branding. There was a complete restructuring of operations in 2003, and Hahn & Co. made it quite clear they wanted a new image. If BC Ferries vessels had previously all been known as Coastal this-or-that, the new organization might just as easily have started naming them 'Queens of'. In any event, I can no longer work up any anguish over the wave logos on the stacks, dark blue stripes on the sides, the banishment of royalty, or the lack of dogwoods on the carpets. I'm more concerned about where the money's going to come from to renew the fleet and keep operations affordable for the communities that need them. I suspect that's also where most of the public's attention is focussed. In fact, I specifically remember, during the naming of the Coastals, that one of the requirements for submission to the contest was that it cannot have the word "Queen" or "Spirit" anywhere in the name. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 9, 2012 18:58:45 GMT -8
I've moved the recent "ferry names" discussion from the Queen of Esquimalt thread to this here existing thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jan 9, 2012 22:42:49 GMT -8
Going back to the "Queen" labels, the correct answer has nothing to do with political correctness or our ties to the Monarchy. The reason why "-- Queen", and "Queen of -- "existed is that W.A.C. saw the Canadian Pacfic /Union Steamships vessels prefixed by Princess. He figured the new ferries are better than that so he insisted that the label "Queen of" and -- "Queen" be used. The labelling carried over to the larger Department of Highways ferries, but not all of them, as there was "Comox Queen", "Quadra Queen", "Cortes Queen" and "Texada Queen". We know that, but the public might not. The 'Queen of' most certainly shouts "Monarchists!" in big bright flashing letters to anyone who doesn't know the actual story, which would be most people. I doubt Average Joe Traveler #37,903,098 and Average Jane Traveler # 52,613,930 would pay much attention to the history behind the name. The first thing one thinks is what people often stick with. When I was very young, (younger than 7 or so) I just assumed that Vancouver has a queen, and we named the ship after her.  |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 9, 2012 23:00:29 GMT -8
I have been riding on BC's 'Queen' ferries since 1963 and a no time have I ever been under the impression that these names were somehow connected to the British Royal Family. The CPR had 'Princesses' & 'Empresses', Union S/S had its 'Ladies', CN had its 'Princes' & so BCF's opted to have 'Queens'. Simple as that. As pointed out above it was apparently Monty Aldous who suggested the 'Queen' theme.
Now, of course, the bright (& highly remunerated) sparks running BCFS think we should have 'wanna be' cruise ship names on our ferries. For me, I prefer the 'Queens'.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,185
|
Post by Neil on Jan 9, 2012 23:07:02 GMT -8
The 'Queen of' most certainly shouts "Monarchists!" in big bright flashing letters to anyone who doesn't know the actual story, which would be most people. No, it doesn't. They're just names. In all the years since these 'Queens' were launched, I never heard any anti-monarchists complain about the names, and never heard anyone express pride that we were commemorating the British royals by naming our ferries so. Boats can have princess or queen in their name without any association to any particular royal house; even CP's Princess ships were not all named for dead Brits. (Apologies to White Coast for any duplication of sentiments; your post appeared while I was writing this.) |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 9, 2012 23:17:56 GMT -8
Apologies to White Coast for any duplication of sentiments; your post appeared while I was writing this. [/i][/quote] It does not hurt to have similar sentiments expressed twice. Perhaps this young fellow CV will learn a thing or two from us 'old timers'. In this instance he is well off the mark. |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jan 10, 2012 0:30:08 GMT -8
To quote the story in the book, "Ships of British Columbia", page 73, titled "A Blizzard of Construction".
....With the expanding fleet and the diversity of the names, Premier Bennett asked Aldous if he had any suggestions. The general manager thought for a moment and point out that CP called all its ships Princesses. "Our ships are much better than theirs, so why don't we call ours Queens?" It appealed to Bennett's sense of humor and the policy struck: Major Ships would be Queen of and the minor vessels would have the Queen trailing their name.
Sidney and Tsawwassen, along with City of Vancouver and City of Victoria were immediately changed and were soon followed by the Queens of Saanich, Esquimalt, Nanaimo, New Westminster, and Burnaby....
.....The renaming of Chinook II was to produce a spark of outrage from W.A.C. Bennett. When Monty Aldous proposed naming her "Gibsons Queen", the premier snapped, "That's a terrible idea. Can't you see the Gordon Gibson (a prominent Liberal opponent) jokes!"
Black Ball veteran Gerry Barber, now superintendant of all terminals, recalls his first day a modern BC Ferries ship rounded the point into Horseshoe Bay. "We thought she was the Queen Elizabeth", he said.
Just to point out who Monty Aldous was for those who don't know, he was General Manager of BC Ferries from 1960-1974.
|
|
piglet
Chief Steward
Posts: 138
|
Post by piglet on Jan 10, 2012 9:51:55 GMT -8
Old times, old salts, one way or another the important thing is the passing, to those with less hull scraps under their belts then some of us, of the information which in turn they shall pass along to those still on the builders ways or in planning stages.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jan 10, 2012 10:12:31 GMT -8
:)if of british heritage, the old salts are limey's. as for my life time there have been a progression of princesses and queens, and in my waneing years some twisted travel industry raisensauce names!  mrdot. |
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on Jan 10, 2012 10:21:42 GMT -8
Anyway, I think we all more or less agree that the Queen moniker should have been retained to preserve our maritime heritage and to honor Mr.'s Bennett and Aldous' hard work and foresight for the people British Columbia.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,185
|
Post by Neil on Jan 10, 2012 11:26:06 GMT -8
Anyway, I think we all more or less agree that the Queen moniker should have been retained to preserve our maritime heritage and to honor Mr.'s Bennett and Aldous' hard work and foresight for the people British Columbia. I don't share people's veneration of WAC Bennett for starting BC Ferries. It had already been long established in Washington that the private sector could not adequately provide ferry service there, and I would argue that Bennett simply recognized the reality that was staring him right in the face- CP and Black Ball were not up to providing services that kept up with BC's growth at the time, and the two options for his government were either hugely increased subsidies to private firms, or the province starting it's own service. Other politicians for other parties may well have made the same decision, had they been in power. I would have been in favor of keeping the Queen moniker simply because it was synonymous with our 'BC' ferries and it was what we were used to. As Mileage Photo points out, when BC Ferries 'invited' the public to help name the Coastals, they forbade people to submit any name with Queen in it. That was putting their own branding agenda ahead of people's wishes for a fleet that was publicly owned, and it was wrong. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jan 10, 2012 14:13:14 GMT -8
:)I agree with much of what niel voyager says, but even many of wacky's opponents in the Barrett gov't gave credit to his ferry venture, and I was one of them, as I was an ndp guy back then! we can't just flush him out of that expansive period of our history! I even talked with mr. Straken, at the inagural of the first Queen of Surrey, and worked on the extensive model float than was developed at that time! :)mrdot.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,185
|
Post by Neil on Jan 10, 2012 15:30:53 GMT -8
:)I agree with much of what niel voyager says, but even many of wacky's opponents in the Barrett gov't gave credit to his ferry venture, and I was one of them, as I was an ndp guy back then! we can't just flush him out of that expansive period of our history! I even talked with mr. Straken, at the inagural of the first Queen of Surrey, and worked on the extensive model float than was developed at that time! :)mrdot. Of course, no one would deny that Bennett deserves credit for buying out the private interests and starting BC Ferries. I've always maintained, though, that he gets far too much credit for an idea who's time had clearly come. We don't hear our American members lavishing governors Wallgren and Langlie with hosannas for their role in beginning state ferry operations in Washington, and it took Bennett seven years in power after our neighbours to the south did it before he decided it had to be done here, and that meant years of inadequate service to Victoria with outmoded CP vessels. Bennett's reputation on this forum has also been stoked by some people reading two featherweight books on BC Ferries, both paid for by BC Ferries, and written when the operation was run by Social Credit governments. Credit where credit is due, Bennett made an intelligent decision and improved it by building all of the new vessels in BC yards. But I suspect the CCF would have done the same thing if they were in power, and perhaps even the old Coalition government if it had persisted. Bennett simply followed in the footsteps of Washingtonians and other jurisdictions where the private model no longer worked. He didn't re-invent the wheel, or as one of our members (tongue in cheek, I know) suggests, stretch ferries with his bare hands. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jan 10, 2012 17:23:42 GMT -8
:)I must comend you on your grasp of this period of our history, however the responce that wacky took on the ferries issue in the late l950's and 60's was immediate and quite stunning, and his immeadiate turn to local shipyards was equally bold! I don't think you can compare it to our friends in Washington state or anywhere else. Were I think we could learn, from the folks down south is how they have maintained their now ageing fleet, and kept their historic livery, over many changes in their politics! :)mrdot.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,185
|
Post by Neil on Jan 11, 2012 12:56:42 GMT -8
:)I must comend you on your grasp of this period of our history, however the responce that wacky took on the ferries issue in the late l950's and 60's was immediate and quite stunning, and his immeadiate turn to local shipyards was equally bold! I don't think you can compare it to our friends in Washington state or anywhere else. I think there are definite similarities in what happened. In BC and Washington, you had an established private setup serving similar sized markets, and on both sides of the border the private sector was either unable or unwilling to deliver the service required at a price the government thought was reasonable. I realize that the convoluted jousting between Peabody, stakeholders, and the state were not identical to the situation in BC with CP and Black Ball, but still... Within four years of WSF's start, they put the Evergreen State into service, with two more new boats to follow, all three built locally. They didn't need to build as much right away as we did in BC because they already had a serviceable fleet of proper car ferries. If WAC had followed his ferry intervention with even a speck of insight and forethought regarding BC's resource sector I might agree that he was some sort of visionary, but that's not the case, so with regard to ferries I think he was simply pragmatic, as were our neighbours to the south. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jan 11, 2012 14:43:30 GMT -8
:)I would agree that pragmatic is a good description for wacky, and he would adopt a ccf policy in a heartbeat, when he thought it was good politics, witness bc electric, and peabody's cdn. black ball fleet. however I think he had many flaws, but I feel the old anacronism of Bennett's navy was merited when you look at the mamouth building programme from 1959 thru 1966 when my old QPR came on line. that's more than a dozen, if you include the highways fleet! look at the picture that my brother posted from my collection of a mighty prowd godfather wacky and monte aldous looking over the builders model of the QPR! no he was very into that enterprise! hahn's new age fleet renewal is a joke put along side this ship order book! :)mrdot.
|
|
mrdot.