Why have a dress code and not enforce it?

[keithm]

Originally Posted by pepperrn

My pleasure, have a great time. The theatre on QV is amazing, doesn't feel like it is on a ship at all. The views from the Commodore Club are superb, the Golden Lion lunches are not to be missed. .

I thought Commodore Club on the QV was better than the one on QM2.

[keithm]

Originally Posted by Whitemarsh

Taking a holiday is a choice. No one has to go on a cruise, or has to pick a cruise line that doesn't fit with their particular holiday preferences.

If someone were to say at the dinner table "oh we had to take this cruise" I think I would be very perplexed.



That's great. Sounds like you'll have a good time, as will those on board with you. Everyone's happy.



That's what stateroom 8129 is for - removing the problem people.



Despite the well-worn path of various people making their way to the Cruise Critic Cunard board to complain about Cunard's dress code, the fact is that the vast majority of people who travel on Cunard ships do so, partly, because of the dress code, not in spite of, and therefore the adherence to the dress code is nearly 100%. Those that don't adhere, just end up looking like the pitiful attention seekers and try-hards that they obviously are.



I suppose the best way to explain why it's annoying (when someone doesn't adhere to the dress code) is to try and imagine attending a classical music concert. You're sitting there enjoying yourself and all of a sudden someone nearby turns their Ipod on and starts rocking out to some heavy metal. Sure, they've got earphones on, but you can still hear the music.

Is your enjoyment of the classic music concert impacted? Yes.

I suppose the 'Ipod' guy could turn around and say "why don't you just sit there and enjoy your classical concert, whilst I'll enjoy my heavy metal playlist". But it doesn't really work that way. It's hard to enjoy the ambiance of the Queens Room, in your formal gear, if the party next to you are dressed like hipster faux hobos attending a rave.

Outstanding responses.

[shinyshoes]

Suppose you are at dinner in the MDR, it's formal night. The guy to your right is dressed 'correctly' tux, self-tied bow, patent pumps etc. etc. but he is an absolute pain in the orifice, loud, opinionated, offensive, vulgar, flashy, insert your own derogatory adjective. The guy on your left is clad in chinos, polo shirt, sandals but is interesting, erudite, intelligent, quiet and well mannered, a veritable paragon of a dining companion. He just hates dressing up, and the Maitre has become quite Nelsonian. Which one impacts on your enjoyment the most? And which one should be advised to choose another line in future.
Discuss.
SS
PS. Sod's Law dictates that the guy you will bump into the most frequently and who you will hear everywhere you go will be passenger A.

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by shinyshoes

Suppose you are at dinner in the MDR, it's formal night. The guy to your right is dressed 'correctly' tux, self-tied bow, patent pumps etc. etc. but he is an absolute pain in the orifice, loud, opinionated, offensive, vulgar, flashy, insert your own derogatory adjective. The guy on your left is clad in chinos, polo shirt, sandals but is interesting, erudite, intelligent, quiet and well mannered, a veritable paragon of a dining companion. He just hates dressing up, and the Maitre has become quite Nelsonian. Which one impacts on your enjoyment the most? And which one should be advised to choose another line in future.
Discuss.
SS
PS. Sod's Law dictates that the guy you will bump into the most frequently and who you will hear everywhere you go will be passenger A.

That is a very interesting point of view Shiny, and I have a little anecdote to tell that, I think, reinforces your point.

On a westbound TA in 2010 on QM2 we dined at a table for eight. Also at that table were a couple from Canada. The gentleman wore a blazer and tie, with a pair of slacks and lace up shoes. So, according to the general tenor of the discussion on this thread, on each formal night he quite deliberately, and presumably knowingly after the first occasion, infringed the dress code. His wife wore an ordinary dress every night, different each time but nothing special and certainly not what I, even with my limited knowledge of ladies' fashion, would describe as "formal".

So, unless I have completely misread and misinterpreted much of what has been written on this thread, the majority opinion here would demand that he should have been denied entry to the Britannia dining room.

Well, let me add a little background detail – about the gentleman in particular. He was a Canadian citizen but had served in the British Army. The blazer that he wore was that of the 15/19th Kings Royal Hussars, the regiment in which he had enlisted as a trooper at the beginning of World War 2. He fought in the Battle of France during which time his regiment served as the Divisional Reconnaissance Regiment for 3rd Infantry Division. The regiment was badly cut up during the German advance in 1940 and the survivors, including my dinner companion, were evacuated over the beaches at Dunkirk. Following Dunkirk, while the regiment was in UK, he was commissioned into 15/19 Hussars as a 2nd Lieutenant. Later, in 1944, he returned to Europe as a Lieutenant in command of a tank troop. By now, his regiment was with 11th Armoured Division and he fought through France and into Germany taking part, inter alia, in the Ardennes offensive, the battle of Hochwald and the Rhine Crossing - he was in Germany when the war ended and he was demobilised and returned to Canada.

So, am I correct in thinking that, in spite of that background, the Maitre D' should have stopped him entering the dining room? In my opinion, for what it's worth, he should have dined at the Captain's table every night! But instead, he had to put up with me – for my own part, I felt honoured beyond imagining to share a table with him.

J

[Slow Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

.......On a westbound TA in 2010 on QM2 we dined at a table for eight. Also at that table were a couple from Canada. The gentleman wore a blazer and tie, with a pair of slacks and lace up shoes. So, according to the general tenor of the discussion on this thread, on each formal night he quite deliberately, and presumably knowingly after the first occasion, infringed the dress code......

.....the majority opinion here would demand that he should have been denied entry to the Britannia dining room.

Well, let me add a little background detail – about the gentleman in particular. He was a Canadian citizen but had served in the British Army. The blazer that he wore was that of the 15/19th Kings Royal Hussars, the regiment in which he had enlisted as a trooper at the beginning of World War 2. He fought in the Battle of France during which time his regiment served as the Divisional Reconnaissance Regiment for 3rd Infantry Division. The regiment was badly cut up during the German advance in 1940 and the survivors, including my dinner companion, were evacuated over the beaches at Dunkirk. Following Dunkirk, while the regiment was in UK, he was commissioned into 15/19 Hussars as a 2nd Lieutenant. Later, in 1944, he returned to Europe as a Lieutenant in command of a tank troop. By now, his regiment was with 11th Armoured Division and he fought through France and into Germany taking part, inter alia, in the Ardennes offensive, the battle of Hochwald and the Rhine Crossing - he was in Germany when the war ended and he was demobilised and returned to Canada.

So, am I correct in thinking that, in spite of that background, the Maitre D' should have stopped him entering the dining room? In my opinion, for what it's worth, he should have dined at the Captain's table every night! But instead, he had to put up with me – for my own part, I felt honoured beyond imagining to share a table with him.

J

This begs the question as to why an ex-officer (of all people) in the British Army should wish to ignore the dress code on formal nights.
It also poses the question as to just what past achievements (military or otherwise) should justify or excuse a person from observing the dress code.
Make no mistake, as an ex British army man myself, I, and I'm sure, all fellow passengers have nothing but the utmost admiration for servicemen with distinguished careers. But should this exempt them from observing Cunard's clearly stated dress requirements? And, if so, would there be a cut-off point according to one's past history and achievements?
It's a very tricky situation and a very touchy subject as is clearly illustrated by this thread. Should Cunard enforce its dress policy - or should there be exceptions for particular people? Discuss!

[GCurry]

Originally Posted by BJH

On the 2nd occasion of finding my self 'tied' up, as per the dress code of the day, I asked the Maitre D why many other gentleman were being allowed to dine without a tie? His reply was, that it was something that he wouldn't enforce, as it was down to his discretion, and he was happy with a shirt and jacket, sans-tie!

Obviously the Maitre D had served on American Lines and was grateful he at least wore a coat!!
The Tux gets more rare every year especially the cruises homeported in the States. People are beginning to ask me to take them to their table.
White dinner jackets are even more unusual.
I do understand that there is some variance allowed to local custom ie., the Scots; so I assume that my hat and boots with the Tux wouldn't be out of line?

I'll be passanger "A" Shinyshoes, but then, you would be disappointed if I weren't!!

[shinyshoes]

The root cause of all this discussion is Cunard's pusillanimous attitude towards their own highly publicised dress code. If they were were to state unequivocally that no-one would be admitted to the MDR or theatre, Casino etc. on formal nights unless appropriately clad and that the only place for informality was the Lido or KC and back this up with frequent notices and announcements and so on then there would be no need for all this angst. Instead we have the weaselly worded 'Out of respect for your fellow guests', So unfortunately as long as Cunard pursues it's laissez faire policy with respect to the code then those of you for whom this constitutes a lessening of your pleasure will just have to put up with it. Personally although I am a conformist and quite enjoy the formality, I cannot say that my experience has ever been diminished by seeing someone not complying with the code and as a diamond member I have seen plenty very often with some degree of amusement. If it does impinge on your peace of mind then once you have noticed them there is no need for you to look at them again. Try and relax it's your holiday.
SS

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by shinyshoes

If it does impinge on your peace of mind then once you have noticed them there is no need for you to look at them again. Try and relax it's your holiday.
SS

Precisely. If you are the type of person who allows your holiday to be ruined by the fact that two or three people out of two thousand are not complying with the dress code then you really ought to consider getting yourself down to your local branch of Lives R Us and purchasing one straight away.

J

[bazzaw]

Originally Posted by ANSalberg

We've been on Cunard several times. The QM2 and Caronia before it was retired. As a VERY diverse clientel of cruisers -from Australians to Europeans to western USA to Canada -to EASTERN USA.....This how EACH area differs in their concept of WHAT "Formal" actually is??????? Now factor in age. [ I can't wear high heels any more, my Arthritis would make that dangerous] between teenage thru "old" [ me] NOW add luggage restrictions.
Of COURSE there are people who push - but there are also people who bathe daily, who wear what is "acceptable" in their neighbohoods, and who smile kindly at meeting new people. And after all- isn't THAT why we ALL cruise? To have NEW adventures......
Anne......from Colorado!!!!!!

Anne

You are a breathe of fresh air here.

There IS a wide range of people who cruise with Cunard - and to say that ALL of them do so just because of the formality of the ship and the dress code is nonsense. To claim that anyone (including CUNARD themselves) even knows why ALL of them choose to sail with Cunard is also nonsense.

I quite enjoy the formality of Cunard - and don't mind wearing formal wear. I personally adhere to the dress code completely -and my experience leads me to believe that the great majority of other passengers do also.

I have NEVER seen anybody dressed so far out of the "dress of the day" that it would in any way interfere with my enjoyment of the ambiance of a formal night. If I did see one person who was obviously flouting the dress code, I would simply consider that they were one in a Thousand - and regard them accordingly. The hyperbole used by some here (eg if the party next to you are dressed like hipster faux hobos attending a rave.) indicates to me something of their character. It seems to me that some have vivid dreams of participating in some past "Golden Age", with matching pretensions.

Barry

[cruiseluvva]

We were in the Britannia cLub one evening and sharing a table with a very elderly gentleman who was well into his 90s. He was wearing a zip up cardigan.

Now while we were dressed in formal wear, as was his wife, did it really bother us? No, not at all. He was obviously comfortable and at that age, in our opinions, he was entitled to be!

[Salacia]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

That is a very interesting point of view Shiny, and I have a little anecdote to tell that, I think, reinforces your point.

On a westbound TA in 2010 on QM2 we dined at a table for eight. Also at that table were a couple from Canada. The gentleman wore a blazer and tie, with a pair of slacks and lace up shoes. So, according to the general tenor of the discussion on this thread, on each formal night he quite deliberately, and presumably knowingly after the first occasion, infringed the dress code. His wife wore an ordinary dress every night, different each time but nothing special and certainly not what I, even with my limited knowledge of ladies' fashion, would describe as "formal".

So, unless I have completely misread and misinterpreted much of what has been written on this thread, the majority opinion here would demand that he should have been denied entry to the Britannia dining room.

Well, let me add a little background detail – about the gentleman in particular. He was a Canadian citizen but had served in the British Army. The blazer that he wore was that of the 15/19th Kings Royal Hussars, the regiment in which he had enlisted as a trooper at the beginning of World War 2. He fought in the Battle of France during which time his regiment served as the Divisional Reconnaissance Regiment for 3rd Infantry Division. The regiment was badly cut up during the German advance in 1940 and the survivors, including my dinner companion, were evacuated over the beaches at Dunkirk. Following Dunkirk, while the regiment was in UK, he was commissioned into 15/19 Hussars as a 2nd Lieutenant. Later, in 1944, he returned to Europe as a Lieutenant in command of a tank troop. By now, his regiment was with 11th Armoured Division and he fought through France and into Germany taking part, inter alia, in the Ardennes offensive, the battle of Hochwald and the Rhine Crossing - he was in Germany when the war ended and he was demobilised and returned to Canada.

So, am I correct in thinking that, in spite of that background, the Maitre D' should have stopped him entering the dining room? In my opinion, for what it's worth, he should have dined at the Captain's table every night! But instead, he had to put up with me – for my own part, I felt honoured beyond imagining to share a table with him.

J

J - It is distressingly ironic to think that the passenger you wrote about, could be (under strict enforcement of the dress code rules) turned away from the main dining room on a formal night because he was dressed in semi-formal attire rather than formal attire. That someone who fought against tyranny and oppression could find himself denied a seat at the table because he wasn't dressed in a tuxedo is beyond the pale.

I have an extra closet full of clothes to prove that I abide by the dress code. But I do not insist, nor do I care if every other passenger is dressed in formal attire. Good will and good intent are far more important when thousands of people are together on the the same ship.

And if you ever meet your tablemate again, please give him and his wife my thanks.

Cheers,
Salacia

[Whitemarsh]

Originally Posted by shinyshoes

Suppose you are at dinner in the MDR, it's formal night. The guy to your right is dressed 'correctly' tux, self-tied bow, patent pumps etc. etc. but he is an absolute pain in the orifice, loud, opinionated, offensive, vulgar, flashy, insert your own derogatory adjective. The guy on your left is clad in chinos, polo shirt, sandals but is interesting, erudite, intelligent, quiet and well mannered, a veritable paragon of a dining companion. He just hates dressing up, and the Maitre has become quite Nelsonian. Which one impacts on your enjoyment the most? And which one should be advised to choose another line in future.
Discuss.
SS
PS. Sod's Law dictates that the guy you will bump into the most frequently and who you will hear everywhere you go will be passenger A.

Both actually; I'd ask to move to another table.

The guy on the left should be advised to choose another line in the future.

I love how the folklore on this board is that the people dressed in formal gear are the snobs, and the ones dressed in jeans are the 'interesting and worldly' people.

In reality, snobs, and interesting people, come in all shapes and sizes and no one item of clothing can be solely identified with either group.

Originally Posted by Cruachan

On a westbound TA in 2010 on QM2 we dined at a table for eight. Also at that table were a couple from Canada. The gentleman wore a blazer and tie, with a pair of slacks and lace up shoes. So, according to the general tenor of the discussion on this thread, on each formal night he quite deliberately, and presumably knowingly after the first occasion, infringed the dress code.

Formal evening wear consists of an evening or cocktail dress or smart trouser suit for ladies, a tuxedo, dinner jacket or dark suit for men. Military or Award decorations may be worn on formal nights.

Was the blazer a dark one? What about the shoes and slacks? Were they both dark? Could it have passed for a suit?

Originally Posted by Cruachan

Well, let me add a little background detail – about the gentleman in particular. He was a Canadian citizen but had served in the British Army. The blazer that he wore was that of the 15/19th Kings Royal Hussars, the regiment in which he had enlisted as a trooper at the beginning of World War 2. He fought in the Battle of France during which time his regiment served as the Divisional Reconnaissance Regiment for 3rd Infantry Division. The regiment was badly cut up during the German advance in 1940 and the survivors, including my dinner companion, were evacuated over the beaches at Dunkirk. Following Dunkirk, while the regiment was in UK, he was commissioned into 15/19 Hussars as a 2nd Lieutenant. Later, in 1944, he returned to Europe as a Lieutenant in command of a tank troop. By now, his regiment was with 11th Armoured Division and he fought through France and into Germany taking part, inter alia, in the Ardennes offensive, the battle of Hochwald and the Rhine Crossing - he was in Germany when the war ended and he was demobilised and returned to Canada.

What if he decided he wanted to eat in the Queens Grill? Should the maitre d' of the Queens Grill evict him if he rocks up and takes a seat? Or does his (very admirable) war record give him carte blanche to make his own rules?

Originally Posted by Cruachan

So, am I correct in thinking that, in spite of that background, the Maitre D' should have stopped him entering the dining room? In my opinion, for what it's worth, he should have dined at the Captain's table every night! But instead, he had to put up with me – for my own part, I felt honoured beyond imagining to share a table with him.

I'd need an answer to my above question about the colour of the jacket and pants before I could give a definitive answer. However, I do think that the maitre d's have probably got their hands full dealing with those that are making it quite obvious they're trying to give the dress code 'the finger' (blue jeans and no jacket etc). Which, I think is the correct path to take, start with the worst offenders and then make a judgement call on the rest.

Originally Posted by Slow Foxtrot

This begs the question as to why an ex-officer (of all people) in the British Army should wish to ignore the dress code on formal nights.
It also poses the question as to just what past achievements (military or otherwise) should justify or excuse a person from observing the dress code.
Make no mistake, as an ex British army man myself, I, and I'm sure, all fellow passengers have nothing but the utmost admiration for servicemen with distinguished careers. But should this exempt them from observing Cunard's clearly stated dress requirements? And, if so, would there be a cut-off point according to one's past history and achievements?
It's a very tricky situation and a very touchy subject as is clearly illustrated by this thread. Should Cunard enforce its dress policy - or should there be exceptions for particular people? Discuss!

Good point.

[shinyshoes]

Originally Posted by Whitemarsh

Both actually; I'd ask to move to another table.

Now come on - they can't both impinge on your enjoyment the MOST.

Originally Posted by Whitemarsh

The guy on the left should be advised to choose another line in the future.

Who should do the advising and when and how?

[quote=Whitemarsh;34770374]
I love how the folklore on this board is that the people dressed in formal gear are the snobs, and the ones dressed in jeans are the 'interesting and worldly' people. (/QUOTE]

I don't remember anybody saying that. I was positing a hypothetical situation. To extend the proposition supposing, just supposing, you found that you really enjoyed the informal guy's company and discovered him to be a fascinating dinner companion, raconteur par excellence, a wealth of experience and all round good egg. Then, Quelle Horreur, up he pitches on the first formal night incorrectly dressed. Do you then dismiss him as an ill mannered oaf and blank him for the rest of the voyage?

In reality, snobs, and interesting people, come in all shapes and sizes and no one item of clothing can be solely identified with either group. (/QUOTE]

I agree, that's twice!!

The plain truth and uncompromising reality is that there will always be people who for whatever reason do not and will not conform. And no matter how much the members of fora like this decry such behaviour, it aint gonna change. I am simply stating that we have to get used to it and if it spoils our holiday to any great extent then perhaps it is time to rethink our holiday plans.
As you have so correctly asserted before, cruising is a choice.
By far the majority of passengers on Cunard conform let's enjoy that for however long it lasts.
SS

[pepperrn]

Originally Posted by keithm

I thought Commodore Club on the QV was better than the one on QM2.

Yes, I’ve heard that said by some others. My preference however is for the original on Queen Mary 2.

On QV (and even more so on QE with no Chart Room) the Commodore Club can feel like the principal bar on board, and the large size means it can accommodate many passengers. As three walls are glass, it can have amazing views during the day. It is two decks above than the Bridge (whereas on QM2 the Commodore Club is three decks below). It is easy to get to; the “A” lifts outside the Golden Lion go straight there. After dinner it works well with Hemispheres (or the Yacht Club on QE) as a “late-nite-spot”, remote from cabins, one bar quieter than the other, complimenting each other.

On the far larger QM2 the smaller Commodore Club is just one bar of several, and therefore does not feel like the main bar. Given that it is more isolated than the QV/QE versions, is a destination in itself.
Many passengers leaving the Britannia Restaurant will stay on decks 2 & 3 for the Queens Room, Golden Lion, Chart Room, the theatre, cinema, casino, wine or champagne Bars, shops and G32.
To get to the Commodore Club either means a long, long walk forward... past both theatres, to find the “A” lifts, or taking a lift up to deck 9 and then walking forward, past dozens of Queens Grill cabins, to the Commodore Club*.This isolation makes for a more exclusive feel to the room, and with its smaller size, a more intimate atmosphere. It feels like its name, a “club”. During the day there is shade to be found when it is sunny (on QV/QE you have to move back into the room).

One problem on QV/QE with all that glass; at night it becomes three high-gloss black walls, cold and uninviting. On QM2, because the blinds are drawn at dusk, the focus of the room shifts back on the passengers, the conversations, the ripple of applause, the sophisticated atmosphere of a piano/cocktail bar. I like the fact that you can’t see all of the room from any one point, it feels endless (a trick that was also successfully utilised on QE2 in several of the bars and lounges with room perimeter “promenades”). One further point made by a friend; on QV/QE you can’t see the bow of the ship from the Commodore Club, but from QM2’s Commodore Club you can hardly miss that noble prow, and how marvellous it looks on a west, or east-bound crossing.

Very best wishes .
(*A third route, and my preferred choice, Grand Lobby scenic lift deck 3 – 7. Walk forward along the promenade, scenic lift deck 7 – 9. Perfect).

[shinyshoes]

Originally Posted by pepperrn

[font=Arial] I like the fact that you can’t see all of the room from any one point, it feels endless (a trick that was also successfully utilised on QE2 in several of the bars and lounges with room perimeter “promenades”).

I knew there was some significant difference between the CC on QM2 and the others not explained by the size difference. I just couldn't work out what it was. It does have more of an intimate 'clubby feel'. Thanks Pepp. SS.

[snowman]

Originally Posted by BJHdunmow

"Our of courtesy to your fellow passengers the dress code will be enforced" The above paragraph appears on the front page of every day's QM2 paper, but it appears that is not strictly enforced.

On the 2nd occasion of finding my self 'tied' up, as per the dress code of the day, I asked the Maitre D why many other gentleman were being allowed to dine without a tie? His reply was, that it was something that he wouldn't enforce, as it was down to his discretion, and he was happy with a shirt and jacket, sans-tie!

I'm in the camp where I don't really mind what the dress code is, but if there is one, you should adhere to it.

Has anybody else experienced or witnessed this?

We dress this way because we can, and will in the future.

[pepperrn]

Originally Posted by shinyshoes

I knew there was some significant difference between the CC on QM2 and the others not explained by the size difference. I just couldn't work out what it was. It does have more of an intimate 'clubby feel'. Thanks Pepp. SS.

No problem shiny, thanks . "clubby feel"... um... I wonder if the individual armchairs in QM2's Commodore Club are also a factor... against the two-seater leather sofas found on QV/QE's Commodore Club? Discuss .

(Back to the Peter and Barry show... ).