| Author |
Message |
    
Dennis Foley
Member
Username: tophatter
Post Number: 21
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 - 11:26 pm: | 
|
I remember an old (1970s) interview in the Newark, NJ (no laughing!!) "Star Ledger" with then-U.S. Representative Milicent Fenwick who represented the district in NJ where I was living at the time. She stated that her mother perished in the Lusitania disaster of 1915. I found this rather interesting, however, nowhere can I find a passenger list of the fateful voyage. Two questions: (1) where can I find a passenger list; and (2) if I can't, can anyone confirm that there was a Mrs. Fenwick aboard (presumbably First Class since the family was apparently well off) who was "lost?" Thanks. Dennis |
Dennis Foley
Member
Username: tophatter
Post Number: 22
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 - 11:35 pm: |
|
Whoops! I left this part out. It is my belief that Milicent Fenwick was unmarried, at least at the time of the interview, and that her mother's name would have of course been Fenwick. Dennis |
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 505
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Millicent Fenwick's parents were Ogden and Mary Hammond. They boarded a port side lifeboat, which dumped. Ogden grabbed one of the ropes and so fell separately from Mary, who fell with the mass of other passengers and was killed. Ogden survived the 60 foot drop, but broke some bones. I have photos of both of them which I can send to you off board (they are copyrighted and so I can't post them) if you are interested. Mary was one of the most attractive woman aboard the ship. Hildo Thiel has posted an exhaustive list elsewhere on the Lusitania threads- if you can't find it you might want to contact him and ask him to forward it. There is also a "Hammond" website which contains Odgen's biography. |
Mark Baber
Moderator
Username: mab
Post Number: 471
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 - 11:58 pm: |
|
There's also some discussion of the Hammonds, with confirmation from Eric Sauder on this very question, in this thread.
MAB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OceanicSteamNavigationCo/
http://www.greatships.net/
|
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 506
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, October 3, 2002 - 12:24 am: |
|
Which will lead you to Hildo's passenger list.
A few other details about the Hammonds:
They booked passage on 26 April 1915, and occupied cabin D20- for which they paid $524. At which time, this exchange allegedly took place:
Q Will you tell us the result of your interview with him?
A (Hammond) I asked him if he thought it was perfectly safe to go over on the Lusitania, and I remember his statement was "Perfectly safe; safer than the trolley cars in New York City."
In his own words, concerning the torpedoing:
Q Where were you when the torpedo struck?
A I was in the lounge on A Deck
*****
Q What did you feel or hear of the torpedo?
A The blow felt like a blow from a great hammer striking the ship; it seemed to be well forward on the starboard side.
Q Did you hear any noise?
A It was like the blow of a great hammer; it was a muffled noise.
*************
Q What did you do then?
A My wife and I went out on deck and there was a good deal of confusion. We looked for life preservers, naturally; I couldn't find any. I wanted to go down to my stateroom and get my own, but she did not want me to leave her, so I stayed with her, and we walked back to the end of the A deck, and as we got to the end of the deck and found no life preservers we noticed them beginning
to lower the end boat on the port side. We were told to get in----
BY THE COURT: Q Who told you that?
A A petty officer, I should say, standing by the lifeboat, said: "Get in," and everybody at first held back. Finally I should say ten women got in. My wife refused to go without me, and we waited and waited and finally I agreed to get in, and i think I was the last man in, right up near the bow of the boat. The boat was half filled, about 35 people in it. They nstarted to lower the boat, and the man at the bow let the tackle slip, and I remember I grabbed it and that it pulled all the skin off my right hand. The bow dropped, the stern tackle held, and everybody fell out of that boat from the top deck, which I think is about 60 feet above the water.
BY MR BETTS: Q What happened after you all went in the water?
A I finally came up and someone grabbed me around the neck, as I remember, by my necktie, and i finally got rid of the man and i got an oar; when i got my breath back and recovered myself I floated on this oar back out into the channel, and from there lying out in the channel I watched the Lusitania go down, probably about three-quarters of a mile away from me at that time.
************
Q Was your wife found after the boat dropped down and you were all thrown in the water?
A No, her body was never recovered.
Q She was never found?
A No.
*************************
" We were then at the time with Lady Allan of Montreal with her two daughters and Mr. Orr-Lewis. I took Mrs Hammond and Gwendolyn Allan, and mr. Lewis took Lady Allan and Anna Allan. We found no life preservers and could not get any. In a minute or two Lady Allan's maid came with two life preservers for her, and Mr. lewis' valet came with one for him, which he gave to one of the Allan girls. Mrs. Hammond and I then started back on the deck looking for life preservers. e could not find any.
*****************************
Q Did you suffer any injuries as a result of this disaster?
A Well, in addition to my hand, I had a broken rib that I found afterwards. When I got to Dublin I found it, and my neck was badly hurt, probably in the fall.
**********************************************
In the 1916 Cunard Confidential Report there is an unidentified body (and I do not have the report in front of me so the details will be sparce) which generally fits Mary's description and is wearing a ring engraved M.H., but to counter that:
May 21, 1915
".....I examined a number of watches which were taken from drowned passengers and amny of them had stopped between 2:30 and 2:35 PM....." which implies that he spent some time in Queenstown after the disaster, probably at the morgue, and would have seen the body in question.
Mary, along with Theodate Pope, may have been "the ambassador's wife" Oliver Bernard recalls making an insulting remark to aboard the ship in his autobiography. |
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 507
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, October 3, 2002 - 2:25 am: |
|
From the Confidential Report:
#101. Female, 34 years, dark hair, slight make, height 5'4"
Property- 1 gold curb padlock bracelet; 1 9 carat square locket (engraved); 1 22 carat gold wedding ring; 1 18 carat gold plain ring, with heart; 1 9 carat signet ring with initials "M.H." and 1 9 carat gold necklet.
Buried Queenstown, May 10th; Grave C, 6th row, upper tier. |
Geoff Whitfield
Member
Username: geoff
Post Number: 755
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, October 3, 2002 - 8:12 am: |
|
Hi Jim,
I've always thought it strange that Mary Hammond was not identified if indeed it was number 101.
As you mention, Ogden was looking at the remains and surely would have spotted his wife? There is a five year difference in the estimated age and I wondered if the signet ring might have been a confusing issue? Over here, signet rings are usually bought well before a marriage and so, if this were the case , the "H" could have stood for a maiden name. As Mary was Mary Picton Stevens, it could confuse things even more!
The initials could, of course have stood for Margaret Hunter or Matilda (Hartley) Longden. Would be interested in your views.
Geoff |
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 508
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, October 3, 2002 - 11:53 am: |
|
I was also thinking about how, at the time, it was not uncommon to wear ancestral jewelry so it is possible that M.H. has nothing to do at all with the initials of #101. I've not seen the post-mortem photo of #101 and cannot compare it to the photo of Mary, but to judge by the other photographs which have been published it would not be surprising if an error of 5 years in either direction was made when they estimated the age. The stumbling block in the whole theory was that Ogden remained in Ireland, and although he wrote the May 21 letter from Dublin, he could have remained in Queenstown throughout the period in which the majority of the bodies were recovered. Of course, I was only assuming, by the line in his letter, that he had been AT the morgue - he might have had the opportunity to see the watches and recovered effects in an official capacity (but again, at the time he was a relatively minor official so that is another stretch) and, unfortunately, there is no hint other than the fact that the letter he wrote on the 21st was quite lucid, as to his mental state during the recovery process. One could speculate that he could have been in "denial" if one wants to introduce some bad history technique to the discussion. One could also speculate, like that unfortunate photograph in Coleman's "The Liners" of the unidentified woman still in the contorted drowned posture, that #101 was in a condition that even a relative would have been hard put to identify her. However, in terms of good research all of that speculation is irrelevant since there is no evidence to support it- I just tossed it out for the sake of the discussion. Somewhat more relevant is, of course, speculation on the condition that Mary Hammond would have been in at the time of her death, which, since the circumstances are known can be done with more confidence. She would have been thrown violently forward and then downward with at least 35-40 other people simultaneously. Chances are good that she received at least one blow to the face as the occupants were thrown forward, and probably a second and more severe head injury upon falling 60 feet with three dozen other people, all of whom would have landed in a compact area more or less in unison. A broken nose would have blackened her eyes (provided she lived long enough after the ejection) and left her nose distorted. The probable blow to the head upon impact would have resulted in either swelling or a concave depression depending on the nature of the injury and if she survived it long enough for swelling and distortion to take place. So, much like that little girl in the Hartford Circus fire (and talk about questionable ID techniques used there) #101, if it was Mary Hammond, might have been in a condition that a relative might not have been able to recognise, and clothing and effects are not as good a means of ID as one would think. Now, here is what gets me- the physical descriptions of the earlier bodies is uniformly sparce in the report "Woman- approximate age 40. Fair hair" being typical- it could apply to, most likely, any one of thirty woman. Later, 'though, the various mutilations of the bodies recovered in June and July , which are of no use whatsoever, are catalogued in minute detail. The description of #101 lacks relevant information such as eye color and spacing, condition and size of the hands, and even the inscription on the piece of jewelry marked "inscribed" in the description. But, getting back on topic, it could very well have been Margaret Hunter or Matilda Longden. If unpunctuated, the inscription could also have been a WH viewed wrong, which opens up a whiole other avenue of approach. She, #101, could also have been the daughter or granddaughter of M.H. or she could have been Mary Hammond. Given the paucity of information, and barring the publication of the Queenstown photo of #101, it will most likely remain "may or may not be her" with Ogden's presence in Queenstown throughout the recovery period weighing in favor of "may not." |
Geoff Whitfield
Member
Username: geoff
Post Number: 756
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, October 3, 2002 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Jim, Agree with you completely over the issues you have raised. I have grave doubts (pardon the pun) that body 75 shown in the Coleman book was indeed Alice Grimshaw Loynd. I reckon that this woman was much younger than Mrs Loynd and from the photographs that I have seen of Alice Loynd there is little or no resemblance at all.
The Cunard inter-office correspondence at the time states that "it is inevitable that errors will be made over identification and burials given the sheer numbers involved"
I do think though that even if Ogden Hammond had not recognised his wife he would at least have taken the time to examine the effects. The engraved locket should have given some clue (although quite what the engraving was is impossible to tell and must have not given any suggestion to those preparing the body.
I just wish that I could find the records giving full details of effects and making it so much easier nowadays to identify the victim. Some do exist and I have found them, but they are few and far between and do not contain the details of body 101.
As you say, Mary Hammond was quite one of the most beautiful women of her day, quite amazing how these beauties married men twenty years their senior wasn't it?
Geoff |
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 509
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, October 3, 2002 - 11:24 pm: |
|
I was wondering if the effects were preserved, and later lost or disposed of, or if they were buried along with the bodies. And I agree that Ogden most likely would have examined the effects of #101, being that he mentioned examining the effects of others - but because his account(s) are so sparing in evidence concerning that aspect of the disaster, and I haven't had the time to go over to 'Jersey to read through his papers for possible additional details I can't feel 100% assured that he did.
I did not see much resemblance to Alice Loynd, either, but it was the gruesome picture on the opposite page to which I was referring. I found an early US address for David Loynd near where I live in NY, on Bridge Street in Newburg, which I have been intending to visit for some time but keep putting off.
Concerning the age difference- at least in THIS case it can still be said that they made an attractive couple. The difference between 39 and 46 isn't really that pronounced- I find something unwholesome about the 18-55 split which pops up so frequently in Victorian/Edwardian marriage records. |
Geoff Whitfield
Member
Username: geoff
Post Number: 757
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Friday, October 4, 2002 - 8:29 am: |
|
What became of the effects of those unidentified is something of a mystery. Cunard wrote internally that "they should remain at Queenstown in the care of the Coronor's office until either claimed or a decision can be made as to their final destination". As Cunard were still receiving letters from people both in the U.K. and America/Canada up until 1918, asking if their friends or relatives might have been on the Lusitania - as they had not heard from them in a long time - it was probably thought prudent to hold onto the effects.
We've all seen what happens next, staff changes in offices etc. and what has at some time been seen to be important now becomes insignificant and is thrown out.
Cunard was quite thorough in their attempts to identify the dead, even wedding rings which with the passage of time were impossible to remove had to be cut off in case there was an engraving or clue inside.
Geoff |
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 512
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, October 4, 2002 - 11:20 am: |
|
Well, since they were sent to the Coroner's Office it is safe to venture a guess that they shared the same probable fate(s) of most of the Jack The Ripper files and evidence A) Disposed of B) Destroyed during the War C) Misfiled D) Purloined, either piecemeal or as a group. Choices C and D are the most appealing, but A and B are the more likely. |
Eric Sauder
Member
Username: eric
Post Number: 207
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, October 6, 2002 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Interesting conversation. To throw this into the mix:
Alice Loynd's body was identified by a relative with whom she and her husband David had been staying for quite a while in the U.S. before they sailed. From what I gather, Alice's sister in the States must have had a hand in identifying her remains as well. A Cunard memo reported "that they had just been able to identify Mrs. Loynd by the photograph and the ring and brooch mentioned in the list."
According to Mrs. Loynd's niece, the ring and brooch that were found on Alice were sent to her sister along with the original letter that Alice wrote on board. The letter has since disappeared. The items recovered from David's body were kept by the family in England.
Jim wrote: "the physical descriptions of the earlier bodies is uniformly sparce in the report <snip>. Later, 'though, the various mutilations of the bodies recovered in June and July , which are of no use whatsoever, are catalogued in minute detail."
That's probably because the later descriptions were taken directly from reports made by the local police where the bodies were recovered. Perhaps the police felt the more detail the better. And since they only had one or two bodies to deal with when writing the descriptions, they no doubt took more effort to get things right.
In Queenstown, there were dozens upon dozens of bodies to "catalogue" and photograph before being buried -- quickly. I wonder if the short descriptions are just because the Queenstown officials realized that they didn't have the time to write an adequate description for every body, or they felt the photographs would suffice for later identification.
Turning to body #101: Keep in mind that body #101 was first identified by a relative as Mrs. Tierney. It later turned out that it was not her because Mrs. Tierney was body #2. After the false identification, Cunard made a specific effort to identify body #101 by the effects but had no luck, and she remains unidentified. There's very little doubt in my mind that if body #101 had been Mary Hammond, she would have been identified.
An example of a disagreement in identifying bodies is that of the body supposed to be the Witherbee boy. Recovered in a very decomposed state and returned to Queenstown in mid-June, the unidentified body was buried, but in mid-July, the Witherbee and Luck families were still trying to determine whose son he was. The only way to identify him was by his clothing, and apparently the Witherbees "won."
Eric Sauder |
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 529
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, October 6, 2002 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Hi Eric- Thanks for the input. A minor point however- I understood why the earlier descriptions were so brief and the later ones so detailed. What I was questioning was why Cunard chose to include the more graphic details in the 1916 Confidential Report. Since Geoff has discovered that Cunard apparently had more detailed descriptions of at least some of the victims than appeared in the report it makes it even more puzzling. Specific to #101: since they had saved the jewelry, the omission of the inscription is also inexplicable. And yes, as I have said throughout this thread, I have little doubt that she, #101, was not Mary Hammond, but in the absence of a first person account by Ogden Hammond (or a Cunard document) specific to the reasons it wasn't her there will always be a small question. |
Geoff Whitfield
Member
Username: geoff
Post Number: 758
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Monday, October 7, 2002 - 10:26 am: |
|
Jim, I don't know if you are aware of the details of what happened to the Cunard Archives?
Cunard originally donated them to the University of Liverpool, probably during the 1960/1970's. Most likely because they were taking up space in the Cunard Buildings, which were being revamped and split up for use by other companies at that time anyway. When the new University buildings were completed, some bright spark decided that they were of no interest to anybody and they were duly consigned to a skip! Someone with an ounce of intelligence discovered them and promptly sold them to a Sussex based maritime dealer who, realising their importance, sold them at a later date...........back to the University who have "no idea" how they came to be in their hands!
I reckon that the full list of effects simply disappeared during the time that they were moving around - as has one of the larger files of relative's correspondence, so both files are likely either in private hands (which I think we would have heard about) or lost altogether which is a great shame. Some of the carbon copies of letters from Cunard to relatives do in fact give full details of effects and appearances which proves that at one time they did exist. I will continue looking however!
Geoff |
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 534
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 9, 2002 - 9:38 pm: |
|
Thanks, Geoff! That happened to vintage radio and television shows with appalling frequency during the '60's and early '70s, and I am all too familiar with the frustration of tracking something down only to discover that it was thrown out in the 1965-75 period when, for some reason, it seems that archival purging was in vogue. Good luck with the search. |
Cliff Mark Barry
Member
Username: cb139
Post Number: 13
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 15, 2002 - 7:57 am: |
|
Jim, not sure if you are interested but i have a copy of the Jewellery/money sent back to US on the "orduna and Cameronia" it gives the total value and relates to each body it comes from eg Mrs Hodges. I also have the complete effects includind description of Albert Norris Perry and Mrs Catherine E Willey if interested can be contacted at EMail addrtesss
Cliff |
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 539
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 2:36 am: |
|
Cliff- I am definitely interested in all of the above, and will contact you at the email address- but want to register my thanks here.
Jim |
Eric Sauder
Member
Username: eric
Post Number: 211
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Hi, Jim:
You wrote: "I understood why the earlier descriptions were so brief and the later ones so detailed."
Sorry. I must have misunderstood what you meant. What's interesting is that what I proposed was only a theory of mine. Since you readily agreed with it, though, perhaps you have some hard evidence that the later reports were taken from police files that I don't have?
You also said: "Specific to #101: since they had saved the jewelry, the omission of the inscription is also inexplicable."
I wonder if it's because the description actually says "engraved" and not "inscribed." Maybe there were no words engraved but simply a rose or something like that on the front. But, of course, that doesn't excuse any identifiable marks not having been included in the description.
"If unpunctuated, the inscription could also have been a WH viewed wrong, which opens up a whole other avenue of approach."
I'm sure you mean that the initials, if turned upside down, would be HW, not WH?
Eric
|
Richard Coplen
Member
Username: richie
Post Number: 57
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Initials engraved on jewelery is often inaccurate to go by - for example my girlfriend got me a signet-ring for my birthday recently and had it engraved with my initials. I was expecting them to look like RC, but they were positioned in such a way that they looked like CR - everyone i showed the ring to thought it said CR as well. Therefore it is possible that the initals on the Lusitania victim's locket, etc could have been HM or as said above HW...there are endless possibilities. |
Cliff Mark Barry
Member
Username: cb139
Post Number: 18
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 9:06 pm: |
|
Does anyone know what happened to Emily Davies * Annie Walker (maids of Lady Allen
many thanx
Cliff |
Ren-Horng James Wang
Member
Username: rjwang
Post Number: 17
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Has anyone done tests with mitochondrial DNA to see if there's a match between the various unidentified bodies and their descendants and other living relatives? Granted that this is probably only useful for the unidentified women passengers and crew, but it might help settle things a bit.
AIM: Aravantis
ICQ: 164747622
http://rmslusitania.info
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 7332
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, December 1, 2003 - 3:46 am: |
|
Not as far as I know. This is a fairly new technology so it may not have occurred to anybody until recently. Given the experience with the exhumations of the Titanic victims in Halifax, I'm not certain it could be done anyway. If the burials have completely decomposed, there won't be anything to test.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Arthur Merchant
Member
Username: arthur
Post Number: 26
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 8:00 pm: |
|
Getting back to pictures of Millicent Fenwick's family, I have a number of those "Old Photographs Series" books that feature a number of communities in my neck of the New Jersey woods (yes, we still have some :-)
The collection for "In the Somerset Hills" has a couple pages on Millicent and her family. The first page shows her signing the register for the 1970 term of the NJ General Assembly and a 1909 picture of the family mansion in Bernardsville.
The second page shows a pair of very sweet pictures of the family members from 1910. The first is Ogden Hammond holding an infant Millicent with her toddler sister Mary looking on. The other is of Ogden and Mary posing in front of their home along with Ogden's mother Sophie Wolfe Hammond.
Also, the page opposite the Contents page has a picture of Mrs. Fenwick's pipe.
Arthur |
|
