^No, it isn't. As I've pointed out already with evidentiary support (see post #54
), there is abundant real-world precedent for using ship names without the definite article, just as there is precedent for using them with the article. The literal meaning of an individual ship name is completely irrelevant to the usage. It's far more general than that. The rule in commercial shipping seems to be to use an article, but in naval usage, some say there should never be an article attached to the name, while others say that large ships should usually be referred to with an article while smaller craft generally don't use it. It is never, ever broken down based on the literal definition of the ship's name.