MengCiao
Posts: 180
Joined: 7/7/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk quote:
ORIGINAL: DBS Royal Navy ship names were, and still are, decided by a specific Committee. They still have to be approved by the reigning monarch - after all, they are His or Her Majesty's Ships - although this is pretty much a formality these days. There is almost always a common theme within a class - sometimes an initial letter, sometimes a genre of nouns and adjectives, such as the Flower class - albeit with the possibility as ever of exceptions for particular situations. As mentioned already, HM Ships Australia, New Zealand and Malaya in the Dreadnought/First World War period were all named for the Dominions which financed their construction. The current class of destroyers - Type 42s - are named for major regional towns, but their replacments, the Type 45, are going to be named with initial Ds - Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon, Defender and Duncan. Thus you have two heroic attributes, a gem, a generic military descriptor, a mythical beast and a famous RN admiral. Nowadays, with a smaller RN and so many names to choose from, the arguments can be quite fierce as to which to go with. For example, some are unhappy that one of the two new large carriers planned for 2012 will not be another Ark Royal. Rather, the names already chosen are HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - the latter not used since Force Z. Naming another ship POW has to be bad juju. BTW which Hood was the HOOD named for? the one that was blown up at Jutland or a prior one? The Juju question is interesting. Some names seem to be immune. Fro example HMS Invincible blew up with Hood on board at Jutland but HMS Invinicible did fine in the Falklands in 1982.
_____________________________
The corpus of a thousand battles rises from the flood.
|