Talk:Royal Mail Ship

RMS title
As far as I am aware, the only ship to still carry the title of RMS (and according to their site) is the RMS St Helena. http://www.rms-st-helena.com/abouttheship.html

The Queen Mary 2 does not hold this title as neither does the QE2. If anyone can prove I am wrong I would like to see the evidence. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.86.66 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Hmm, well how about a quick look at either ships entry on their owner, Cunard's website? Both are clearly listed with the prefix 'RMS'. Mauls 11:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Correction - Queen Mary 2 is listed on the Cunard fleet list as RMS, whereas the QU2 is not: c.f. http://www.cunard.co.uk/uploads/CUNARDFLEET.pdf deadlink
 * Mauls 11:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * QM2 had the RMS title conferred on her by Royal Mail when she entered service in 2004 on the Southampton to New York route as a gesture to Cunards history ref Royal Mails employees Courier newspaper page 20 August 2007 (Palmiped 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC))


 * There appears to be the start of an edit war regarding Cunard's Queen Mary 2 and whether or not the vessel retains Royal Mail Ship status with her registry change to Hamilton, Bermuda. The publication Courier for UK Royal Mail employees, dated August 2007, has been cited as the reference the vessel being granted this prefix in 2004. Unfortunately the online issues go back only as far as 2010 and it would only answer the question of the original grant of that status, not any change applicable today.  There are two ways that one can infer that the QM2 no longer has the RMS prefix 1) all mention has been removed from Cunard's website and 2) when the question was raised on a social network moderated by Cunard the comment was repeadly deleted. If this RMS prefix were to be kept Cunard would not hesitate to say so. Mariepr (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunards website refers to QM2 as RMS QM2 here...QM2 facts on pages 2&3 --palmiped | Talk  22:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

QE2
The entry for the QE2 list a future date and fate. Is this mere prescience and should not its present status be reflected? Oxonhutch 09:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

RMV?
Should the designation RMV be in this article, as there are current vessels which carry this prefix, such as RMV Scillonian III? Scillystuff (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is now- but why ‘vessel’ and not ‘ship’? What is the difference? 2A01:4C8:1029:E9E9:F4B8:B5D4:81C4:8C8C (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

RMS Somerset
RMS Somerset, 1878 Pvladko (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oruba
I added this ship because it is mentioned at http://newspaperarchive.com/jm/kingston/kingston/kingston-gleaner/1909/03-10/page-32?tag=beutinger&rtserp=tags/?pl=beutinger&page=3&pci=4. (Second column from the right.) BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

RMS Segwun
While the RMS claim for Segwun is not improbable, the exceptional statement that, uniquely, only Segwun retains RMS status in Canada requires a good citation, and I have tagged the ship's article accordingly. So far as this article is concerned, some parts may need tweaking also, particularly in the lead:
 * Segwun is not a "seagoing vessel"
 * Neither has the ship ever been "under contract to the British Royal Mail". Canada has had its own postal service since the 1860s, also known as Royal Mail, though Canada Post apparently phased that name out in the 1960s - nevertheless it remains a crown corporation in relation to "Her Majesty in right of Canada". Davidships (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Samaria
It was scrapped. Why does the entry say ‘wrecked’?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:35FC:7CB4:19B6:F6E1 (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)