The Queen has set sail on a former car ferry for a week-long cruise around the Western Isles. The vessel was transformed into a luxury cruiser to celebrate the Queen's 80th birthday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
There was a change of government [1997]...that all important 'election year'.. Britannia was due to be retired.. the Conservatives had committed themselves to replacing her, but the new Labour Government deemd rather shortsightedly [imho], upon gaining 'power', that the costs were not justified & there would be no replacement.

Pam

---

[ 07-21-2006: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
There was a change of government [1997 but the new Labour Government deemd rather shortsightedly [imho], upon gaining 'power', that the costs were not justified & there would be no replacement.

---

Labour were simply reflecting the mood of the electorate and the media who though it was one hell of a waste of public money.

The Royal Family did not even want the general public to have access to Britannia (now a visitor’s attraction) they wanted to keep the commoners off and scuttle it. The funny thing is that we paid for it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:
The Royal Family did not even want the general public to have access to Britannia (now a visitor’s attraction) they wanted to keep the commoners off and scuttle it. The funny thing is that we paid for it!

---

I have never heard that before Malcolm? truly? Britannia brought no end of business to this country, as PeterUK says through Trade Fairs and all sorts of commercial enterprises overseas. A floating Ambassador for GB. The benefit though was incalculable as figures on a page. The general person living in the UK would have had no idea of what she [as in the ship] actually did.

I don't think the Royal Family used her all that much for themselves?

Years ago I remember she called in the Arabian Gulf and it was the bees knees to get an invite from the consulate for a visit and meal aboard.. everyone raved and it was quite something. No, I didn't get aboard, but my parents did, as did most of the Brit ex-pats and all of the local businessmen and 'dignatories'. One could actually say there was a time when one felt proud to be British... not often I'm afraid any longer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterUK:
There are still those who hope to fund a replacement privately.

---

I am glad that idea has not died a death, have not heard anything for ages over that. I do think we should have something. I am also sure it could be viable with leasing the vessel to various commercial companies on her travels. Afterall Aurora etc are occasionally chartered by companies for various events.. so there is a market.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
I have never heard that before Malcolm? truly?

---

I think the Royal family had so many private memories of the ship (honeymoons etc.) they did not want to share her!

See Here

Having toured Britannia is Glasgow, I must say that she is pretty small and surprisingly unimpressive internally, in terms of space and decor – although not unpleasant, either. I don’t think she would impress the world now if she was still in service.

The Hebridian Princess which I also toured is very attractive internally, although she is a little ugly, externally. Princess has about 30 cabins I recall, all with names, rather than numbers.

[ 07-21-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

"... a plea from the Princess Royal for Britannia to be scuttled if it could not be maintained in its current glory.." always knew she was the only sensible one of the bunch

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
"... a plea from the Princess Royal for Britannia to be scuttled if it could not be maintained in its current glory.."

---

I think thast is the offical statement, but I understand that the Royal Fasmily generally wanted her scuttled whatever condition she was going to be kept in.

There is a kit made by Deans Marine - I want to point that out AS IT IS REALLY, REALLY BAD! A lot of magazines praised it (for whatever reason) - and at a first glance it might look good - but it isn't. Not only that it is not accurate (there are pretty hefty mistakes) - the 'plan' does not match the model - and the superstructure is supposed to be made of rectangular boxes - not really fitting the sheer of the hull - as there is no proper plan one has to improvise (yes, I now have a lot of Britannia books and photos....) - not what one expects form a rather expensive kit - stay away from it.

[ 07-21-2006: Message edited by: Ernst ]

As I understand it, Her Majesty used to do a summer cruise on Britannia around the Hebrides most summers - 10 days or so. It was very much a family affair, with apparently lots of informality - picnics & barbecues on dserted beaches, etc. I'm lead to believe that HM's affection for the ship was that she had a lot of happy family times on Britannia, insofar as 'having a happy family time' can be deemed to be compatible with there also being a crew of RN matelots within earshot, and a destroyer/frigate combination patrollng within a couple of miles! Still, you can understand the Royal Navy being keen that no harm should come to HM while she was in their care....

Also, wasn't there an embarassing admission at some point (Falklands war?) that Britannia's alternative usage, viz that she could be converted to a hospital ship if required, turned out to no longer be possible? Something to do with the fuel she used? - different from anything else?

I think back to topic that this also means fore the Royal Fam. in Great Brittain. Way maintain such expensiff ship fore some flagwaving and privat usse. I think this have nothing to do with pride to be Brittish as there are manny other things to be pride of. If they wanted to cruise hey book a/b Aurora, Oriane, Arcadia, QE2, QM2 etc. (as oure Princess Margriet who cruise manny times a/b HAL on there own expence) Thene they no how the rest of Brittain go on Holiday and maybe the return litle bit to real ife.

Times of big spending are over certainly if the money are frome tax paying all day poeple as us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Burke:
Also, wasn't there an embarassing admission at some point (Falklands war?) that Britannia's alternative usage, viz that she could be converted to a hospital ship if required, turned out to no longer be possible? Something to do with the fuel she used? - different from anything else?

---

www.hebridean.co.uk

If you collect brochures, theirs is a very nice one indeed. In fact it's one of the more expensive looking that I've seen. Although the prices have far too many zero's!

I don't suppose an endorsement from the Royal Family will force the fares down, either!

[ 07-22-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Burke:
..Britannia's alternative usage, viz that she could be converted to a hospital ship if required...

---

In the initial stages of the design the Medical Director General of the Navy was consulted about the requirements for the vessel in her role as a hospital ship. It was thus possible to proceed with the designs for a hospital ship and a Royal Yacht concurrently, so that the conversion could be made in the most economical manner. In consequence, relatively little alteration to existing structure and equipment will be required in the unhappy event of war making the conversion necessary.

The wards, which will accommodate 200 patients, will be located in the after part of the ship. Most of the patients will be medical and surgical cases requiring normal hospital conditions, but provision has also been necessary for zymotic cases and those suffering from tuberculosis. Zymotics will be accommodated in glazed cubicles built within the drawing room, and these cubicles together with toilet and sanitary facilities will be isolated from the remainder of the hospital. Tuberculosis cases requiring ‘fresh-air’ beds will be accommodated on part of the veranda, whilst others suffering from this disease will be berthed in wards in the space now occupied by the Royal bedrooms. The remaining wards, including the cabins and ward room for sick officers and cabins for a few female patients will be sited in the other Royal apartments and in spaces now allocated to members of the Royal Household and Staff.

Particular care has been taken in the layout of bathrooms and sanitary facilities to ensure that as little alteration as possible will be necessary in these respects upon conversion.

The operating theatre, with its annexes and its adjacent steriliser and anaesthetic rooms, will be on the lower deck, where there will also be the other specialist facilities which include an ophthalmic room, a physiotherapy room, a pathological laboratory and an X-ray room with adjacent dark room. Full facilities for dental treatment including a laboratory, will be located on the main deck.

For the care and treatment of the patients, the naval medical complement will comprise 8 medical and dental officers, 5 nursing sisters, and 47 male ratings, for all of whom existing accommodation can be readily adapted.

The ship will be manned by a merchant navy crew accommodated forward in two and four berth cabins in accordance with usual merchant ship practice. Some partitioning of the present mess decks will be necessary for this purpose.

(Taken from: www.royalyachtbritannia.co.uk )

[ 07-22-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]