dsrdsrdsr

For one thing, if your cabin is on the left as you head north, then you'll be looking at Greenland. You need a cabin on the right to see Norway. But more importantly, it makes no difference. If there is plenty of sea room, the ship stands out to sea and travels in a straight line; it does not follow the coast. Therefore it makes no difference which side, you will only see the sea. If there is not much sea room, it's because you're in a fjord or between islands, in which case, again, it makes no difference which side you're on because there is land on both sides.

No. It's more convenient for them to discourage phone calls and follow their own system about ringing the phone line. They prefer not to cater for people that don't have mobile phones switched on at all times, anywhere in the world.

You may already know this, but when researching Kristiansand, don't make the same mistake as a port lecturer on one of my ships and confuse it with Kristiansund. They are sometimes known as Kristiansand S and Kristiansund N to avoid confusion. Cruise ships call at both places! Happily, no-one on this thread has got confused, so all is well so far! I could tell you about Kristiansund, but I had better not!

It saves VAT (or its American equivalent, I dare say) for the customer, and almost certainly saves tax for the crew. If it was a non-optional charge it would be subject to VAT at point of sale, certainly; and I suspect it would be taxable on the crew at home port rates rather than home country rates, though I'm not certain about that.

My most expensive (though not most expensive per night) was in 2011, an Alaska cruise that cost two of us a combined £16,000 or so, including excursions, tips, etc. Mind you, we did sail from Southampton, England. It's quite fun telling people we went to Rhode Island on an Alaska cruise and see them wondering if their American geography knowledge isn't quite what they thought! It was 72 nights, P&O's Arcadia.

Not necessarily. Ambassador's cheapest for 2024 is £8,800 per person (two sharing) for 120 nights.

The simple answer is to stop worrying. How much is the fee? You're flying to Europe, you're taking a cruise, you're going on excursions, and if you can find an online foreign exchange bureau you might save - say - $10? Don't let it spoil your holiday. I used to fret about exchange rates until I realised the best I could save would scarcely buy me lunch. Now I get foreign currency from the travel agent (UK) because it's far more convenient than a bank (they don't have limited hours when they can open the safe) and they have a good reputation on price. (I find in the USA that I want a lot of cash, because I have only 2 cards and one of them has a horrible tactic of ringing me at home to see if I really am in the USA. And stopping the card when I don't answer! Cash is king in that case.)

Cruises to Norway almost invariably dock close to the attractions, partly because the whole country is the attraction. It's a bit lacking in beach resorts, though.

One thing about travelling on the cheaper lines is that you are less likely to find the crashing snob who thinks you're a peasant for having less money than him or her. 🙄 A lot depends how you define luxury, of course. When I'm at home I don't get my room cleaned daily and I don't get unlimited food prepared for me. I call it luxury when that happens. Some people, who perhaps have a different home lifestyle than me, don't consider that to be luxury.

My travel agent (in the UK) would ring me up if I haven't paid them on time, and that means a fortnight before the due date. Mind you, I would hope that the cruise line could be flexible and accept that a simple mistake of two days is not valid reason for grabbing the deposit and cancelling the booking. They appear to be in the "let's screw the customer for all we can get" rather than "let's give the customer good service" line of business.

Fred Olsen have 3 "small" ships out of the UK, Ambassador have 2. Around 1,200 - 1,400 passengers. A little bigger than smaller ships used to be, but still smaller than Canberra. From reading here, it seems that in the US this size of ship is at the expensive end of the market. Is that true? Ambassador, at least, is the cheapest (or at least well up there).

I spent about that much, or the Sterling equivalent, on an Alaska cruise in 2011. Mind you, it did sail from and return to Southampton! It can be quite fun telling people I visited Rhode Island on an Alaska cruise, because it makes them think their US geography isn't as good as they thought! $14k on a fortnight cruise? No chance. I doubt I'll ever be able to repeat the Alaska one, either.

My next cruise costs less per night in actual pound notes (no need to adjust for inflation) than my first, in 1993. And nowadays we get our own bathroom! The food is similar. I don't want fancy dining with garlic in everything (or anything!) and twenty ingredients, and I don't get it. I don't want a butler, I'm not at all bothered about chocolates on the bed (though I still get them) or towel animals. I want a cabin and a bed, as much food as I want to eat, comfortable chairs in the public rooms, plenty of deck space, scenery, shore visits, Norway, some entertainment ... And I Get It! Yippee! And on a smaller ship than in 1993, as well. That was Canberra, 1800 passengers; this is Ambience, 1200 passengers. I'm massively privileged, but not spoiled. (I hope.)

You only need one packing list. Basically it lists everything you have ever taken on holiday, and just tick it once its packed or cross it once you've decided you don't need it.

Ambience was built in 1991, Ambition in 1999. That's not old for a ship. I've flown in older planes!

I'm pretty sure that if someone makes a claim on the basis that they had cruise cover and they thought Ambassador sold cruises, the insurance company couldn't legally weasel out of it by referring to the small print on page 12. If they wanted to say that they use a different definition of a word (any word) from how the rest of the world understands it, they have to do it loud and clear - not in the small print.

I wouldn't worry about 250,000 fans travelling. The participating teams get 20,000 tickets each, and the idea that a further 100,000 from each team (Manchester City and Inter Milan) will be travelling to visit a pub, is a bit fanciful. Certainly Man city fans won't travel like that. If a Turkish side was playing, it might be different!

A friend of mine was in Egypt, sharm-El-Sheik, and his little lad wanted a Barcelona shirt from a vendor. He just wanted to get to the beach and sit down, so wasn't fussy about price. So the vendor said £20, and my friend said OK and got his money out. Vendor said no, that's not how it works, you have to bargain for the price. My friend said "OK then, £10" and the vendor said "oh, you're killing me. My wife, my children will starve" at which my friend got his £20 note out again and said here, take it. In the end they settled for £15!

I wouldn't discount Kristiansand. Lovely harbour, little taxi-boats running round on a four or five stop round trip, a couple of nearby hills to climb, nice town. (Not to teach your grandmother, but be sure you don't confuse it with Kristiansund. We once had a port lecturer who did, and gave us some very impractical choices!)

Mine was last May, when the bad publicity was at its height (they advertised 10 weeks then as well) and it took 8 working days including postage both ways. The big delays were for new applications, not renewals, because new applications need actual paperwork, and the company outsourced to open the letters was running behind. And of course no-one in the offices to help solve anything because they were all working from home. It seems to have gone quiet now, so perhaps they've sorted it.

I don't think the OP was asking for ways of surprising the child at the last minute - which after all deprives the child of several months' anticipation just to give the parents a moment of exciting video - but a way of breaking the news early, in an exciting manner. And for that, I can't help! Sorry!

All world champions are famous. Famous enough to namedrop, anyway. 😉 I could mention a snooker world champion (Peter Ebdon) and a croquet world champion (Chris Clarke) as well, except I didn't meet them on a cruise.

Kenneth Wolstenholme the football commentator, and Tony Alcock the bowler. Both friendly people to get along with.

I think blind people might do very well with a smartphone in some respects, because it can read stuff out for them. I agree about those with impaired dexterity, though.

My mother's the same. Her memory isn't what it was and she doesn't learn new things easily. I really think that some people have no concept of the idea that as people get older, their minds often get less sharp and their learning capacity drops. If smartphones are made essential, which is certainly unnecessary, then it will restrict the activities of older people - and people who can use a smartphone now needn't think they're safe! As technology changes and the tech companies want to make more money, they will change things just for the sake of change.