Proper Etiquette

[Coog]

It seems at one time I heard that it was not proper to refer to a ship using "the" before her name. If I remember correctly, the reason given was that a ship should be thought of as a lady. I've seen "the" used and not used in various writings and sometimes both ways in the same writing. Is the practice maybe more common to the British? Can anyone elaborate on this?

[David Manley]

It is acceptable (and indeed optional) in most cases if you are only using the ship's name (so its fine to talk about Victory, the Victory or the Constutution) , but never "the HMS Victory" or "the HNLMS Tromp"

Its also traditional to refer to the name of the ship in italics or capitals (although its a tradition that is observed more in its omission these days. In RN official writing the name of British ships should be in capitals, oveseas ships in italics. I'm not sure what the USN official style guide says.

[Berthier]

(With apologies to all US naval advocates and said with tongue firmly planted)

US ships should be in bold, italics, underlined and coloured red-white-blue in alternate letters strictly starting with a blue letter only. This does cause problems with the white letters and necessitates the use of a contrasting background if you wish to be able to see the entire ship name.

They are always referred descriptively as "superior", "heavier", "stronger" or any other term denoting naval supremacy over any and all other navies. They are never to be referred to in the same sentence as the words, inept, defeated, cowardly or unchivalrous.

Apart from those minor restrictions the ships may be named at will.

[Gaz67]

Thanks Daniel, now I have to mop tea off my keyboard, I damn near choked!!
At least I get to continue my day with a smile!

[Mark Barker]

Daniel, that has made my day !

Oh, and just to confuse matters I think the Germans call their ships "he" ....

Mark

[Anav]

(With apologies to all US naval advocates and said with tongue firmly planted)

US ships should be in bold, italics, underlined and coloured red-white-blue in alternate letters strictly starting with a blue letter only. This does cause problems with the white letters and necessitates the use of a contrasting background if you wish to be able to see the entire ship name.

They are always referred descriptively as "superior", "heavier", "stronger" or any other term denoting naval supremacy over any and all other navies. They are never to be referred to in the same sentence as the words, inept, defeated, cowardly or unchivalrous.

Apart from those minor restrictions the ships may be named at will.

WOW .....

[csadn]

(With apologies to all US naval advocates and said with tongue firmly planted)

US ships should be in bold, italics, underlined and coloured red-white-blue in alternate letters strictly starting with a blue letter only. This does cause problems with the white letters and necessitates the use of a contrasting background if you wish to be able to see the entire ship name.

They are always referred descriptively as "superior", "heavier", "stronger" or any other term denoting naval supremacy over any and all other navies. They are never to be referred to in the same sentence as the words, inept, defeated, cowardly or unchivalrous.

Apart from those minor restrictions the ships may be named at will.

And don't any of you ever forget it. ;)

(We save terms like inept, defeated, cowardly, and unchivalrous for where they belong -- specifically, in descriptions of Douglas MacArthur. >:) )

Seriously: US ships follow the normal conventions -- referred to in the feminine (ironic for something long, hard, and... :) ); name italicized (or underscored, for the low-tech user).