# Britannia - merged threads



## alaric (Feb 27, 2012)

I do not agree with much of what the Telegraph publishes, but they seem to have belatedly recognised that the Royal Yacht was a valuable national asset. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/bring-back-britannia-to-rule-the-waves-after-brexit/
Re-commissioning Britannia is unrealistic and is harping back to a bygone age, but the prospect of a new, state of the art vessel, taking on features of the original as per the new London Routemaster bus is exciting.
Some ideas to incorporate?
Low carbon footprint in design, construction and operation incorporating some wind assistance. We are about to win the Americas Cup after all!
Merchant Navy manned, as per Gothic in pre Britannia times, to allow the RN to concentrate on defending the nation. Exception, the embarked Royal Marine Band.
A wonderful pipe dream?


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

I've no opposition to a new royal gin palace just as long as taxpayers aren't expected to pay for it.


----------



## borderreiver (Oct 11, 2008)

I agree a New Yacht. same size and UK built showing off our ship building skills. Not to be used by the younger Royals for parties. but as for showing off our skills and trade. a hide hole for our dear queen,


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Will they be still be able to run a gay brothel on the new one, like they did in Portsmouth?

John T


----------



## Chris Isaac (Jul 29, 2006)

Use RMS St Helena once she has finished serving the island


----------



## A.D.FROST (Sep 1, 2008)

Convert one of the Type45 Daring class destroyers since they are not doing much.


----------



## Dartskipper (Jan 16, 2015)

Braveheart may be available?


----------



## CliveH (Dec 18, 2008)

James_C said:


> I've no opposition to a new royal gin palace just as long as taxpayers aren't expected to pay for it.


If we are agreed that the Royal Yacht was a valuable national asset (and that it should be replaced by a new vessel) then of course we, the people of this nation, should pay for it. It would be a showcase for British industry and design and therefore representing us and our country. One would hardly want people of another country to see the new yacht come sailing into their harbour and say "Oh, there is the new Royal Yacht, the one the British people are too mean to pay for."


----------



## Dartskipper (Jan 16, 2015)

There was much discussion about the viability of Britannia when she was at the design stage, and from the history books the same arguments were heard about whether the Nation could afford such extravagance, especially at the time so soon after the expense of WWII. OK, we had a new, very young Monarch, but the Nation was still financially crippled. Eventually, it was suggested that Britannia could be rapidly converted into a Hospital Ship if necessary in times of conflict. Objections were overcome (sort of) and she was built. Loads of boys' magazines and comics carried articles and diagrams of how she would look in her two guises, but as we know, she never was used in her alternative role, not even for the Falklands conflict. It was a shame that her employment as a sales tool for British Industry was never widely publicised. The popular press only ever wrote about her when the Royal Family went on holiday somewhere, or some heirs to the Throne had a honeymoon on board. Having said that, she was always immaculate (except for one appearance at Dartmouth with a hastily painted long scrape on her Starboard Bow that was plain to see,) and when she was in attendance at the Dartmouth Royal Regatta there was many a mile of film used to record the event.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

CliveH said:


> If we are agreed that the Royal Yacht was a valuable national asset (and that it should be replaced by a new vessel) then of course we, the people of this nation, should pay for it. It would be a showcase for British industry and design and therefore representing us and our country. One would hardly want people of another country to see the new yacht come sailing into their harbour and say "Oh, there is the new Royal Yacht, the one the British people are too mean to pay for."


Why does such a vessel have to be a holiday bolt hole for the Royal family?
Indeed, if it's to be a showcase for British trade and industry then let that industry pay for it.


----------



## Dartskipper (Jan 16, 2015)

It could be funded from the Overseas Development budget. After all, Britain will be trying to develop overseas relationships very soon.


----------



## CliveH (Dec 18, 2008)

James_C said:


> Why does such a vessel have to be a holiday bolt hole for the Royal family?
> Indeed, if it's to be a showcase for British trade and industry then let that industry pay for it.


Well we were talking about the Royal Yacht being a valuable national asset and by their very nature royal yachts tend to transport members of a royal family. If you are now just considering a roving exhibition ship to be used solely to exhibit and promote British trade and industry then that is a somewhat different concept. Far better to have such a vessel that has a dual role of transporting/accommodating a member or members of the royal family on visits overseas as well as being a vessel to showcase Gt Britain in every way. The Queen only used Britannia as a holiday bolt hole for approximately 2 weeks each year en route to Scotland. True, there were a couple of occasions when it was used to enable newly wed royal couples to have a honeymoon but such trips were the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

CliveH said:


> Well we were talking about the Royal Yacht being a valuable national asset and by their very nature royal yachts tend to transport members of a royal family. If you are now just considering a roving exhibition ship to be used solely to exhibit and promote British trade and industry then that is a somewhat different concept. Far better to have such a vessel that has a dual role of transporting/accommodating a member or members of the royal family on visits overseas as well as being a vessel to showcase Gt Britain in every way. The Queen only used Britannia as a holiday bolt hole for approximately 2 weeks each year en route to Scotland. True, there were a couple of occasions when it was used to enable newly wed royal couples to have a honeymoon but such trips were the exception rather than the rule.


You're forgetting the week herself and various hangers on used the yacht as accommodation/a grandstand/floating gin cabinet so they could enjoy watching the yachties playing at Cowes week every year. Plus it was somewhere for Phil the Greek and his chums from the RYS to convene. Regarding the latter, I take it you don't recall that the DOE went on a worldwide jolly in the yacht for the best part of a year when he was bored stiff of court life?
As for actually transporting members of the Royal Family, that's a farcical notion as today they're only ever going to use air transport for a whole multitude of reasons, all of them practical and sensible. Regarding accommodation, we have embassies and high commissions for such a role. Plus not forgetting the rather obvious limitation of using the ship as accommodation - it assumes they wish to stay in a port city.
If the Royal family want to own a yacht then let them buy one - they most certainly can afford it. 
To provide them with such a vessel at taxpayer expense in the present day, in a time of austerity with yet more financial cutbacks and pain to come for the ordinary man and woman in the street would be an unforgivable act of ignorance and snobbery.


----------



## Baz1uk (Sep 28, 2006)

But we can afford to subsidize Millionaire lifestyles for corrupt dictatorships? Sorry, they call that Foreign Aid.


----------



## alaric (Feb 27, 2012)

James_C said:


> Indeed, if it's to be a showcase for British trade and industry then let that industry pay for it.


Does British industry still have the capability to build and fit out such a ship? I would hope so, but in the age of multi-nationals it is often difficult to tell. Take Rolls-Royce for example, usually described as a British company, but how much of its marine equipment is designed and built in Britain?


----------



## Dartskipper (Jan 16, 2015)

During the Cold War, and especially at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Britannia was intended to be a safe haven for HM Queen Elizabeth II if anything had kicked off. Britannia had state of the art communication systems installed for that purpose anyway. The British Government and certain key officials would have gone into a specially commissioned bunker at Corsham. Harold MacMillan would have instructed the Head of State to evacuate to Britannia and she would have sailed for safe waters.

There may not be the same requirement these days, but you never can tell.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Dartskipper said:


> During the Cold War, and especially at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Britannia was intended to be a safe haven for HM Queen Elizabeth II if anything had kicked off. Britannia had state of the art communication systems installed for that purpose anyway. The British Government and certain key officials would have gone into a specially commissioned bunker at Corsham. Harold MacMillan would have instructed the Head of State to evacuate to Britannia and she would have sailed for safe waters.
> 
> There may not be the same requirement these days, but you never can tell.


I do believe the intention was that with her VIP passengers embarked she'd lurk around the sea lochs in the NW of Scotland, no doubt in concert with the three HEBRIDES class ferries which were to be used as mobile command posts.
Quite how long that charade would have lasted in reality before the Soviet airforce or submarine arm blew them out of the water is anyones guess.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

alaric said:


> Does British industry still have the capability to build and fit out such a ship? I would hope so, but in the age of multi-nationals it is often difficult to tell. Take Rolls-Royce for example, usually described as a British company, but how much of its marine equipment is designed and built in Britain?


It's possible, but none of the three large scale shipbuilders still in existence in the UK have the capability at the moment to do so. Cammel Laird are building a new polar expedition ship for BAS, but they haven't built a proper ship in over two decades and the first bite of the cherry for the reborn company will be a somewhat complex and involved build.
The yard to go for would probably be the revamped Ferguson Marine, which has seen some £20 million of investment poured into it and is currently building two large Calmac passenger ferries.


----------



## Samsette (Sep 3, 2005)

Does Denmark still operate their royal yacht?

If Charles and Camilla ascend to the throne I would like to see them be given royal bicycles, that is all.


----------



## Keltic Star (Jan 21, 2006)

alaric said:


> I do not agree with much of what the Telegraph publishes, but they seem to have belatedly recognised that the Royal Yacht was a valuable national asset. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/bring-back-britannia-to-rule-the-waves-after-brexit/
> Re-commissioning Britannia is unrealistic and is harping back to a bygone age, but the prospect of a new, state of the art vessel, taking on features of the original as per the new London Routemaster bus is exciting.
> Some ideas to incorporate?
> Low carbon footprint in design, construction and operation incorporating some wind assistance. We are about to win the Americas Cup after all!
> ...


A wonderful pipe dream indeed. To sail into European ports and act as the UK's headquarters during Brexit negotiations would really put it up the EU leaders noses. Or, would that be considered gunboat diplomacy?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea but in reality, a total waste of money when, as currently, British trade can be promoted at vastly lower cost and reach a much wider audience by attending international trade shows. A Royal yacht promoting trade would only have space to host cocktail parties for political freeloaders, not the buyer with a cheque book. 

British exhibitors should be given a few invites to a reception at the local Embassy or High Commission where a Royal, of rank determined by the size of potential orders, be in attendance to press flesh and share a canapé or two. By Royal, I mean one close to the throne, not some hanger on down the line who's only contribution would be to drink the Embassy dry.


----------



## Keltic Star (Jan 21, 2006)

Samsette said:


> Does Denmark still operate their royal yacht?
> 
> If Charles and Camilla ascend to the throne I would like to see them be given royal bicycles, that is all.


Don't waste the money Samsette. With those ears he can run free before the wind


----------



## A.D.FROST (Sep 1, 2008)

If we wait, Phillip Greens yacht will be confiscate to pay his pension debit.(a great advert on how not to treat your workers)


----------



## Dartskipper (Jan 16, 2015)

A.D.FROST said:


> If we wait, Phillip Greens yacht will be confiscate to pay his pension debit.(a great advert on how not to treat your workers)


I surmised this possibility earlier in this thread, but your idea of using his yacht for "National Service" could be taken further by making it available free to the staff of Sports Direct for two weeks every year for a cruise around the Med. Phil Shifty would of course have to serve them as Chief Steward! All paid for out of the enormous fine levied after he makes good the deficit in their pension fund......B\)


----------



## CliveH (Dec 18, 2008)

I take it then that the statement made at the very start of this thread, that the Royal Yacht Britannia was a valuable national asset, is not agreed with after all.


----------



## YM-Mundrabilla (Mar 29, 2008)

Keltic Star said:


> Don't waste the money Samsette. With those ears he can run free before the wind


Better than into the wind. (Ouch)


----------



## Scatari (May 19, 2012)

Samsette said:


> *Does Denmark still operate their royal yacht?*


Yup: 

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/D/Dannebrog(1932).htm


----------



## Ken Wood (Sep 6, 2006)

The crew quarters on Britannia were disgraceful. Mind you, the size of the crew belonged to s bygone age. They have done alright chartering Hebridean Princess. Foreign trips would still be done by air, still at our expense of course.


----------



## Philthechill (May 8, 2007)

*HMY Britannia.*

Some MP's want to re-commission "Britannia" and have her sailing round the World as a trade-booster post our exit from the EU.

It would probably make more economic-sense to build a like-for-like replacement than re-commission "Britannia"! (But with diesels this time!). 

Despite her engine-room being kept in the same immaculate condition it was when she was still 'alive' I would doubt if she has been "laid-up" with a view to her being, one day, a working ship again.

Her boilers will probably be just masses of rust internally. Turbines will be in a sorry state and would probably all have to be lifted, (been there, done that!!!), bearings re-white-metalled and blades checked and maybe replaced. Motor-bearings will be badly "brinelled" through lack of movement, so would have to be re-bearinged. Main steam pipework would need replacing.

The list of work to get her back in steam would be virtually endless.

However the PM says, "there are no plans to re-commission her". 

Doubtless her "advisers" have voiced much the same as the above "list". Phil


----------



## McCloggie (Apr 19, 2008)

Although I would love to see Britannia re-commissioned I really think the concept is a complete non-starter.

As has been pointed out, the conditions on board would probably not meet the required standards - I can remember seeing the ship being re-stored by hand at Portsmouth. The state of the hull would also need to be seriously examined and if converted to an other fuel how would that work?

Having said that I have no problems with having a Royal Yacht. In reality it was never the Queen's "private" ship and was used for her private use a couple of weeks per year plus one or two honeymoon trips. If the USA can have Aircraft One why cannot our head of state have a ship? If people object to the concept of the ship being used for private use, HMQ could charter it as she has done with the Hebredian Princess.

There is no doubt that Britannia did bring in much work to the UK and helped UK exports - exactly as a state asset should do.

So, I would suggest that the vessel is replaced by something new. A replacement would create jobs, could be MN manned (possibly RFA?) and could be used to further UK interests outside Europe.

No doubt some "secondary" role could also be found for the vessel.

While I agree that it is quicker and probably cheaper to send heads of state abroad in aircraft, anyone who has seen the US President arriving somewhere and the additional planes with troops, protection people, cars etc. and then taking over the whole wing of, say, the Shangri La Hotel in Singapore, must ask how much this must cost.

With todays increased security risks, the concept of an independent Royal Yacht that can be used by everyone, host business conferences etc. and be made secure for all involved must also be a consideration.

McC


----------



## IAN M (Jan 17, 2009)

Ken Wood said:


> The crew quarters on Britannia were disgraceful.


I had a strong suspicion that this was the case, as, when visited the vessel several years ago, they were not open for inspection. There was a mock-up petty officers' double-berthed cabin on the quay and it was quite small and spartan.


----------



## RHP (Nov 1, 2007)

CliveH said:


> If we are agreed that the Royal Yacht was a valuable national asset (and that it should be replaced by a new vessel) then of course we, the people of this nation, should pay for it. It would be a showcase for British industry and design and therefore representing us and our country. One would hardly want people of another country to see the new yacht come sailing into their harbour and say "Oh, there is the new Royal Yacht, the one the British people are too mean to pay for."


The Queen might be understandably reluctant to go to sea against however the younger generation are extremely popular and well designed royal yacht steaming into New York, Cape Town, Auckland etc.. bearing William and Kate etc.. would create massive goodwill.

Some people didn't want to pay for the Olympics... did they turn their tv's off?


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

As well as a platform to deliver our Head of State about the world so that She can entice johnny foreigner to buy our goods (especially firesticks and their air and sea platforms) she might also be used to demonstrate innovative British (Commonwealth?) technology (A prerequisite should be K-H's Sharp-Eye. I have no idea why this is not sung about from the monkey islands). 

She should, like Britannia, also be a thing of true beauty (accepting, perhaps, that she may have not been that on the lower decks).

It is sad to know that inevitably Britannia will end up like one of those rotting ferries that the spivs thought might make novel gambling and night club venues.


----------



## Clifford Cocker (Jan 21, 2008)

*Brittania*

Unfortunately the politicians did not want a royal Yacht, if it was feasible to re-engine QE2 it could have been done to RY Brittania
Cliff Cocker


----------



## Aberdonian (Apr 7, 2011)

*Arms Sales*



Varley said:


> As well as a platform to deliver our Head of State about the world so that She can entice johnny foreigner to buy our goods (especially firesticks and their air and sea platforms) she might also be used to demonstrate innovative British (Commonwealth?) technology (A prerequisite should be K-H's Sharp-Eye. I have no idea why this is not sung about from the monkey islands).


In the 80s, as part of a sales drive, the MOD chartered a ro-ro ship to visit various ports in the Arabian Gulf with a wide range of armaments on board. When the vessel called at Dammam, Saudi Arabia, I was impressed by the professionalism of accompanying servicemen as they showed off wares which included fast launches handled in the harbour.

Keith


----------



## Engine Serang (Oct 15, 2012)

How's about HMS Golden Dreamer.
We have a tip-top crew waiting to serve.


----------



## BobClay (Dec 14, 2007)

A.D.FROST said:


> If we wait, Phillip Greens yacht will be confiscate to pay his pension debit.(a great advert on how not to treat your workers)


I'd be more than happy to see that yacht used to test a torpedo, preferably with Green on it.


----------



## Lurch (Jul 29, 2011)

This is almost exactly the same size as the proposed replacement


----------

