In his job he could inspect the ships every time he wanted, maybe you have seen that picture of Pirrie and Ismay walking allongside the hull during construction.
But it was the maiden voyage of the largest vessel in the world so.....Pirrie also wanted to go but he was ill.
Al lot of important people sailed, and that was a perfect way to let people see what White Star could do and to strenghen some contacts.
For example Ismay invited the director of the Holland-America Line(he didn't survive)
You could also visit Titanic in Southampton (of course you'd have to pay some money) when she was there, most of the photo's are from that day.
And I don't think he was there unofficially!
Remember he was in one of the 2 best cabins Titanic had when she sailed, but that could also be because Titanic wasn't fully loaded.
She could carry 3500 people, but on that trip she had about 2200 people(thank god).
It wasn't that I was asking if he sailed the Titanic unofficially. On his list of travels, ships like the Canopic and Romanic ( etc... ) were excluded. My question was did he sail on ships like those unofficially or did he just inspect them. Thanks for trying Remco.
I don't know really, i think it depended on the time he had, and the size of the ship.
Smaller ships weren't really inportant fo him to inspect I think, for sure if they didn't sail on the transatlantic route.
Ok Teri, here's where you're wrong. For those who have read last year's Commutator (I think it was issue #149) or who have read about Ismay, they'd know that Ismay ever only sailed on 3 of his ships' maiden voyages. The Adriatic (if I'm correct) the Olympic and Titanic. He did not sail on any other maiden voyages of ships belonging to his company.
If you're going to pretend to be Ismay, you might as well do it with real facts, otherwise people will catch you out.
Without taking sides or speculating on who we all once were (or weren't), I note that on 26 April (believe it or not) 1883, with Bruce Ismay on board, Ionic I (on charter to the New Zealand Shipping Co.) left on her maiden voyage, from London to Wellington via the Cape of Good Hope. (Sources: Haws' Merchant Fleets; Anderson's White Star.)
What I post here on this messageboard I am very careful of.
I leave the pretending to the actors and actresses of the film industry.
Oldham's book was written by Oldham. Oldham was not Bruce Ismay, therefore Oldham would have no personal recollection of the maiden voyages Bruce took on his vessels.
Many a published works are inaccurate. The truths lie within the memories of the person himself. And it is up to the person himself to reveal those truths whatever they might be, and this is the reason for my site.
Please....If you understood anything about reincarnation, you'd know that the carry-over of past-life memories is subconscious and is generally only stimulated through "regression." You act as if you consider yourself to BE Bruce Ismay now. You are not. And if you once WERE Ismay, you would still not be able to sit around and tell HIS story as though it happened to you in your present life.
You seem either very young or very shallow, or worse very confused, not to realize how ludicrous this all sounds.
As for Oldham, he was an historian, who like many of us here are serious researchers and not mere enthusiasts; therefore he has more credibility in one syllable of text, drawn from documented archival sources,than you could muster in any of your supposed past-life memories.
My memories of Bruce's life were not written in a regression session. I have never had one of those and don't plan to. The memories that I write about are written with me fully awake and conscious. The memories I write about are remembered much like how you might remember how you brushed your teeth yesterday, or how you said hello when the telephone rang. There is no difference between remembering memories of 1912 and remembering things I did last week like going to a movie. Only dates they took place are of any difference between the two.
I do not expect everyone to believe in reincarnation like I do. All people have a right to choose for themselves, and I respect their rights to choose. I would never poke fun of anyone that didn't believe in the same things as I do. If they get it, great. If they don't, well then they could be on their merry little way, no big deal.
It seems that the historians stick together and the reincarnationers stick together. This is a good thing. At least on this board we know who is who, huh?
Teri, I seem to recall Phil Hind saying that enough was enough on the re-incarnation thing and that you would respect that. I think you would be wise to keep that promise. As the site owner and moderator, his word on such matters is law.
On the matter of re-incarnation itself, you already know where I stand. Suffice to say that if it isn't supported by solid empirical evidence, I don't buy into it, and I don't assert matters of faith as fact. Historians rely on solid documentary and forensic evidence. Those who believe in re-incarnation and any other religion have no such evidence.