C37 to B77


Dec 4, 1998
119
1
261
Has anyone yet figured out why Her Ladyship The Countess of Rothes and her cousin in law, Miss Cherry, switched to stateroom B77? Was Miss Cissy Maioni’s original stateroom B79 (as that was where she stayed, right next to The Countess). Did anyone occupy C37 after Her Ladyship decided on an ampler stateroom?

I thank you for your attention.
 
Dec 4, 1998
119
1
261
Philip -

The Earl of Rothes has confirmed that the only statement in that 22 April 1912 New York Herald article that is true is 'I went to bed'. In other words, Lady Rothes was never interviewed as seems suggested in this article. She was in stateroom C77, not B77 as this article would suggest. Just thought to let you know of what His Lordship informed and wanted to know if you would like to add that quickie comment on the bottom of the Countess's page.

I also have duplicate copies of Miss Gladys Cherry's letters (3) written to her mother, two from Carpathia and one from New York if you would like to have some fresh information.
 
Dec 13, 1999
296
2
261
Hello Jeffrey, thanks for that information. It's quite interesting to see the Earl of Rothes confirming facts about the late Countess. So, if I understood well, B-77 is not a number to play with. It was completely made up by the reporter?

And just a little correction to an error you made: I think it's C-37 and not C-77, as you mentioned above.

Finally, could it be possible to have more information about Miss Cherry's letters. You certainly know the interest I have in First Class passengers and would appreciate more details. You can contact me via email if you want.

Thanks for your help,

Charles
 
Dec 4, 1998
119
1
261
No, the stateroom they occupied was C77 as The Earl informed me. Who better to know than Lady Rothes' grandson? I will ask him about the C37 to C77 bit.

I certainly will write out her letters to you (as best I could read them), but I ask you, please do not give these letters to anyone for anything as this information has cost me money. I shall email you as soon as possible and write verbatim (as best I can read) Miss Cherry's letters.

Your good friend,
Jeff

PS (Yes, if you go and read that article by the New York Herald dated 22 April 1912, the only statement Lord Rothes says is true is the paragraph which started as 'I went to bed ...', which was what she testified to the American Official Inquiry in Los Angeles. By the time that article came out, anyhow (22 April 1912), Lady Rothes and her husband The Right Honourable The 19th Earl of Rothes were in Pasadena, California.)
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
12
313
Jeffrey Kern wrote:

>I certainly will write out her letters to you (as >best I could read
>them), but I ask you, please do not give these >letters to anyone for
>anything as this information has cost me money.

Hi, Jeffrey!

Please be aware that copies of Miss Cherry's three letters are already in the collections of a number of Titanic researchers. (I'm telling you this so that you won't blame Charles Provost if those letters should ever appear in print in the future.)

All my best,

George
 
Dec 13, 1999
296
2
261
I bet the Earl of Rothes mingled B77 and the accurate number, C37, and thus, without knowing, he created his own number: C77.

You know, C37 is clearly mentioned on Herbert Cave's cabin allocations list, and there is actually no errors on it. No, C37 is our good number, trust me.
 
Dec 4, 1998
119
1
261
I doubt that Herbert Cave’s list was correct. If his grandmother knew where she and her cousin were situated, and testified that, under oath, then it seems unlikely otherwise. She stated clearly that she was on ‘Number 77 on Deck C’ (to correct what the newspapers said about her being on B Deck).

"I went to bed at half-past seven," she said, "and my cousin, Miss Gladys Cherry, who shared my room--No. 77 on deck B (said to be C)--also retired. It was bitterly cold. I was awakened by a slight jar and then a grating noise. I turned on the light and saw that it was 11:46, and I wondered at the sudden quiet. Gladys had not been awakened and I called her and asked did she not think it strange that the engines had stopped. As I opened our cabin door I saw a steward. He said we had struck some ice. Our fur coats over our night gowns were all the clothes we had. My cousin asked the chief steward if there was any danger and he answered, 'Oh no, we have just grazed some ice and it does not amount to anything.'

Again, if this is what she had testified, then I believe it all the way. There was no crewman on that ship that would have known better than she did. I also believe that the Earl would not mistake what his grandmother testified, especially if he holds with him the evidence of this and I am not certain if any other historian has it (although it is most likely). If one can prove that Lady Rothes was in C37 and not C77, then there is the correct answer that I shall believe. If not, however, then I am staying firm to the proper and appropriate source.
 
E

Elly Tanner

Guest
Jeffrey,

Just to jump in for a moment in this. I'm sure others agree with me that you're research into the Countess of Rothes' story is to be congratulated. However, may I ask to what extent you have actually been in correspondence with her descendents? Is the present Earl her son or grandson, etc? I ask because he may not have actually known her and so would not really know for sure. In any case, unless Lady Rothes left an authentic, detailed account of her experiences it may be that the Earl is mistaken on the cabin issue. I agree that the Cave list may not be infallible but there's also no real evidence that the Countess and entourage moved to another cabin. I think something as inconsequential as a cabin number may well have been forgotten in time. I'm sure Lady Rothes never expected it to be a point of debate.
 
Dec 4, 1998
119
1
261
Lord Rothes is her grandson, and he was an adult well enough to remember if he would have had a conversation with his grandmother by the time of her death. And her son, his father, would have been told I am sure. But I think I asked if it is true that she switched staterooms; I could never confirm that she did or not. Or maybe Herbert Cave made an error in his listing? One really cannot know and you are therefore correct that there may be no real evidence, but the only reason I agree with the Earl is because he is her grandson, and again would have remembered a conversation with her, as would her son, who lived until 1975, time when the current Earl would have been in his latter years. But you are very much correct that one could not really be certain. I am only going by the horse's mouth itself in that aspect.
 
Dec 4, 1998
119
1
261
I had forgotten to mention to you: Lady Rothes gave her interview in Los Angeles, California, before the British Vice-Consul immediately after the disaster (when she and her husband left New York), so I am certain the evidence may have been clear.
Also: you are right. I do not think she would have wanted this to turn out into a debate. : )
 
D

Daniel Rosenshine

Guest
Herbert Cave is getting more credit than he should for this cabin list. The list is only named after him, since it was one of the items found on his body. He was a dining-room steward. He certainly did not make up or write the list. The list itself would have been printed in the printing room aboard, and the "cabined lists" would have been distributed amongst the crew (only). A non cabined passenger list would have been distributed amongst the passengers. There is another list, presumably identical to the Cave list (I don't know much about the "other" list, but it is as far as I know the same as the Cave list) which was saved by another member of the cew and who escaped in a lifeboat.

Just thought I'd clear up Jeffrey's mistake and say a bit about the Cave list.

Daniel.
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
291
278
This has probably been answered on another thread, but was C-73 a valid cabin number ?

(Couldn't seem to locate the earlier thread.)

(Re: CD-ROM game, "Titanic - Adventure Out Of Time")
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Any information if it was occupied, and if so the name of the occupant ?<<

Not that I'm personally aware of, but that's not been an area of major interest to me. It could have been a mob or Casper The Friendly Ghost for all I know. The only documentation on the ship known to have survived was the partial list found on the body of the unfortunate Herbert Cave, who did not survive. You can view the list at https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/cave_list.html