Cabin number

Ben Lemmon

Member
Oct 9, 2009
525
0
46
Hello to all, again.

I was wondering if there were any records as to which cabin Frankie Goldsmith and his mother might have been staying in. I know that he was Third Class, and that he and his mother would have likely been sequestered from Frankie's father, Thomas Rush, and their other traveling companion (the name escapes me at the moment) in the stern of the ship. Other than that, there is little I know about what area they were in and what their cabin number was. Any information on the topic would be appreciated.
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,046
56
208
UK
I don't think the Goldsmith's cabin number is known, but they would have been together as a family in one of the 4-berth rooms at the stern. From Frank's accounts of the family's route to the boat deck, I think the most likely general area would have been M section on E deck.
 

Allan Wolf

Member
Mar 11, 2007
51
0
76
Asheville, NC
Ben and Kyrila,

I'd be interested in the Goldsmith cabin info as well. I was under the impression that families (including the husbands) were allowed to stay together, aft, with the single women. Single men, as I understand it, were generally housed forward.

Bruce Beveridge, et al, in TSTM, vol two, states that all aft areas of Third Class were "reserved for families and single women."

Since there were no 3rd class accommodation above D deck, this means that Frankie and Emily G, could only have been in one of six possible sections, on four possible decks:

D deck, section "O" (room numbers 127-137), reserved for families and single women. Had 2 or 6 berths each. There were lavatories for both gents and ladies.

E deck, Sections M and K (room numbers 101-126), these rooms had 2, 4, or 6 berths and generally accommodated families (including the fathers). These rooms are located on the portside, just aft of the 3rd class gangway door, and they are provided with latrines for both men and women. Another section even further aft, section "Q" was reserved for women only.

F deck, Section R (rooms 168-202) with 2, 3, 4, or 5 berths. Any passengers in these rooms would have to schlep up 2 decks to use the D deck latrines.

G deck, Sections "N" and "S": Section N (rooms G1-G41) were fitted with 2, 3, or 4 berths and, with slightly nicer furnishings, could be used as 2nd class if necessary. Section S (rooms 201-221), was the typical 3rd Class accommodation located aft of section N. Section S had a very long haul to the bathroom. These two sections were separated by a watertight bulkhead with no watertight doorway to provide access. So the Goldsmiths and Abbotts could have been in one of these two sections, but not both.

According to Robert Bracken, in VOYAGE article, "The Mystery of Rhoda Abbot Revealed," (and a few other secondary sources) Rhoda Abbott and her two boys had a cabin nearby the Goldsmiths, as did Amy Stanley, and May Howard. Bracken also writes that Rhoda Abbott's cabin was located among the "family cabins at the far aft of the ship." As long as the Bracken article is to be trusted, we can assume that the Goldsmiths were located in the stern, nearby the Abbotts. So in trying to determine where little Frankie and his mom were, you might also consider where the Abbotts were. And consider, too, where Amy Stanley's room was since she says very specifically in a letter to her parents that Rhoda Abbott's cabin was "next to mine." May Howard is another passenger reported to have had a cabin near the Goldsmiths.

Here's an idea. Could Howard and Stanley have been housed in the single women's section (section Q on E deck) which would place them right down the hall from the two "family" sections (M and K) where the Abbotts and the Goldsmiths may have been? It's only a guess. But it IS feasible. This scenario is also consistent with Bracken's description of how the Abbotts left the sinking ship.

Bracken writes that, on the night of the sinking, Rhoda and her two boys "entered the crowded hallway and followed the human chain moving forward, passing through an opened watertight door which opened to a stairway leading to the deck above." He states that they then waited in the "second class saloon area." If this is true, the "deck above" would be D deck which implies they came UP from decks E, F, or G. The Goldsmith cabin would, then NOT be located on D deck.

If Bracken is correct, the wording: "moving forward, passing through an opened watertight door which opened to a stairway leading to the deck above" would be consistent with the two sections, M and K, of E Deck, which not only housed many families but also were divided by a watertight bulkhead fitted with a watertight door that joined the hallway between the two sections. This COULD be the watertight door Bracken refers to, as it leads directly to the emergency doors that led many 3rd class passengers up to the Second Class Saloon.

So sections M or K on Deck E are both plausible locations for the Goldsmith cabin. That said, the other stern sections of decks F and D are possible. If I had to list a likely order of probability I'd guess E deck (either section M or K), D deck (section O), and then G deck (section R).

A related question becomes whether or not Alfred Rush (on the cusp of manhood, about to turn 16) would have stayed in the same cabin with the 3 Goldsmiths. Also what about Tom Theobald, I've always assumed that Theobald and Rush were in a separate area for the single men toward the bow, but I have no primary source. Alfred Rush and Tom Theobald were traveling on tickets separate from the Goldsmiths. And Rush and Theobald paid the same amount which implies their accommodations would have been similar. Not knowing how else to read these clues, I have always assumed that the Goldsmiths shared one cabin, while Rush and Theobald shared another one somewhere else on the ship among the other unattached males.

But young Alfred Rush, as I understand it, was being looked after by the Goldsmiths, so perhaps it would not have been appropriate to house him with Theobald. Again, I'm just guessing.

I know this may be more detail than Ben is asking for, but the location of the Goldsmith cabin and the Abbotts has been a personal question of mine for a while now. There may be some reliable PRIMARY source that could make all this conjecture moot.

I have not yet put my hands on a rare copy of ECHOES IN THE NIGHT, Frank Jr.'s autobiography. I've read only the snippets that have been quoted elsewhere. Perhaps more clues reside within the pages of this book.

It sounds like Kyrila may have a copy. I hope this at least helps to narrow the possibilities until someone points out some hard evidence that I'm not aware of.
 
Feb 23, 2007
79
1
76
Hello to all. My Grandfather (Frank J. W. Goldsmith) never told me a cabin number for his family, what he did tell me was that their cabin was across the hall or aisle from second class cabins on the starboard aft side of the ship. It accommodated both his parents and him. I hope this helps. Tom
 

Allan Wolf

Member
Mar 11, 2007
51
0
76
Asheville, NC
Hello Tom,

From Tom Goldsmtih: "what he [Frank Goldsmith, Jr.] did tell me was that their cabin was across the hall or aisle from second class cabins on the starboard aft side of the ship. It accommodated both his parents and him."

Just to clarify: do you mean to say that the Goldsmith cabin was on the starboard aft side? Or are you saying that the second class cabins were on the starboard aft side?

Also, thanks, Tom, for the personal e-mail. I've got a few questions to float your way, if it's not an imposition.
 
Feb 23, 2007
79
1
76
Hi Allan,
I meant their cabin was in the starboard aft section. I believe I have a newspaper clipping with a photo of Grandfather pointing this out also. E deck is probably the deck because he only mentioned going up one deck to the second class dining saloon. As far as the questions you have, send them my way. I will try to answer them to the best of my ability.
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,046
56
208
UK
The 3rd Class cabins at the after end of E deck, where the Goldsmiths were almost certainly located in M section, were on the port side. As Frank correctly remembered, there were 2nd Class cabins on the opposite side at that point - ie on the starboard side. This can be easily confirmed from the deck plans.
 

Allan Wolf

Member
Mar 11, 2007
51
0
76
Asheville, NC
Regarding Tom's assertion that his grandfather says the Goldsmiths occupied a cabin starboard side aft:

According to Beveridge (TSTM, Vol II, page 403) there were no 3rd class cabins on the starboard aft side which were also situated across an aisle from 2nd Class. The only 3rd class cabins located E deck, starboard aft were in the very back section, Section Q, which Beveridge says were "generally designated for single ladies." This means that (assuming the Goldsmith cabin WAS on E deck) either a) your grandfather was housed in section Q, or b) he was mistaken and he mixed up starboard and port.

A)
If your grandfather was correct, that he was berthed starboard side, aft, that means he was in section Q, and the "general" designation for single ladies was not followed. There are seven four-berth cabins located here that could have housed the Goldsmith 3-some (as well as the neighboring Abbott 3-some). Leaving his cabin on the night of the sinking, the Goldsmiths would have crossed from starboard to port and then walked forward through the open watertight door into section M where they then would have turned right through an emergency door that opened onto the staircase that lead one deck up to the second class saloon.


B)
If your grandfather was mistaken and the 2nd class cabins were across the hall on the starboard side while the Goldsmith cabin was on the port side, this would be consistent with the description of Sections M and K, on E (Upper) Deck, (Beveridge, TSTM, p. 403). I understand that Frankie recalled running down the wide "Scotland Road" alley which would also be consistent. Also, in this scenario, we can assume that Frankie and his dad would have walked forward down "Scotland Road" to go visit young Alfred Rush and Tom Theobald who would have been berthed in the bow.

So IF we are correct (I agree with Bob) about Sections M and K (and that's a big IF), we can assume that your grandfather (and your great-grandparents) were housed in one of the four-berth cabins. Thus we can eliminate the six-berth cabins and the two-berth cabins as possibilities. This leaves only the four-berth rooms of those two sections. There were ten as far as I can see. Rooms 107, 110, 113, 117, 120, 123, and 126 were all four-berth cabins with sidelights (portholes). Rooms 118, 119, and 121 were four-berth cabins without portholes. So perhaps if little Frankie or Emily mentioned whether or not their room was equipped with a sidelight, this could help to narrow the educated guess even more.

Again, there is nothing absolutely definitive in any of this.
 
Feb 23, 2007
79
1
76
"It wouldn't be the first time Goldsmith has mixed up port and starboard" Paul, I read the info you have on your link. The only thing that I can say is that as far as I know both he and his mother told the same story about their experience on the boat deck. This story includes how calm and organized it was while they were moving to the boat. From what I know of the situation taking place on both sides of the ship, this would have been found on the port side because of the following factors, 1) Senior officers in charge, 2) men were being allowed in the boats on the starboard side and various reports of chaotic events taking place on that side of the ship, 3) collapsible 'A' being worked on by the crew and other men would have been clearly in view of them both while entering 'C', and 4)one very important detail never being mentioned by either, the fact that Ismay was in 'C'. Unfortunately none of us were there to know for sure, all we can do is give a best estimate. The quest for truth often leads us to uncomfortable positions but is always a worthwhile effort. I cannot speak for everyone in the family but as far as I am concerned, Grandpa was in 'D' until proven otherwise. If anyone has any documented evidence to the contrary I would welcome copies because I would rather be wrong and know the truth than to stay ignorant. As far as his route to the boat I know what he told me and from the information supplied from others through their research it is possible that he was telling me the truth that he remembered and I possibly have mixed some details up. For instance he definately said that they were in the area of second class whether it was adjacent to, across the hall or aisle from, I recollect him saying the latter. He told me that this was probably why they were saved because the ships surgeon came through telling people to get their life jackets on.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
There is ample evidence to suggest that he was in C, not D:

a) Frank's mother said that Chinamen were in the boat. This applies to boat C, not boat D.
b) The boat scraping down the Titanic's rivets on the way down; this is DEFINITELY boat C and NOT boat D which hung away from the ship.

Then there are other factors, such as the use of gunfire to herd back the people trying to get in the boat. Frankie said that there were shots fired in the air. This doesn't apply to boat D as far as I know.

I got your email and having seen Walter Lord's files, I haven't seen any letter from him saying that Frankie was in boat D. What I do see in a lot of Lord's letters was a gushing sycophancy; if Frankie wanted to know if he was in boat D based on a photo, then Lord would definitely have told him this. Lord was not the "master detective" that many people make him out to be. He didn't bother to ask Sylvia Lightoller because of his awe of the 2nd Officer and we lost vital information forever.

Let us return to your post. You said that Frankie was in boat D because:
"1) Senior officers in charge,"

Same for boat C as for boat D

"2) men were being allowed in the boats on the starboard side and various reports of chaotic events taking place on that side of the ship,"

'Men being allowed in the boats'? We still don't know how Ismay and Carter wound up in boat C. They may not have been officially let on board.
Wasn't there some confusion for boat D too, with arms being linked to prevent men getting on board? I recall Rose Abbott saying this same thing, and this deterred her from getting in boat C. I don't think any man boarded boat D (though Woolner and Steffanson did jump during the descent), and the linked arms story says that men were prohibited from boat C too. Your assertion could point to either boat.

"3) collapsible 'A' being worked on by the crew and other men would have been clearly in view of them both while entering 'C',"

So was collapsible B. Did they see boat B being readied?

"4)one very important detail never being mentioned by either, the fact that Ismay was in 'C'."

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Neither Frankie nor mum mentioned seeing Ismay as far as I know, but did they know what he looked like?
Ismay got into the rear of the boat and even Rowe didn't notice that Ismay was on board until he turned round to look. In the darkness after leaving the Titanic, no one would be recognisable unless they had a torch or matches etc.

The thing that clinches it is the scraping of the boat down the rivets. The Titanic had a list to port at this time, and this means it is boat C we are talking about.
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
1
86
Thomas,
Hello! With all due respect to your grandfather and you, Frank and his later opinion that he was in Collapsible D was definitely incorrect. As Paul said, your grandfather even stated at one point that he was rescued from the starboard side, and he mentioned this to more than one Titanic researcher.

In your grandfather's own accounts, he mentions the collapsible he was in rubbing up against the ship's side. Frank's mother also described the same thing in a highly detailed interview conducted right after the disaster in 1912. She said that the ship caught on the rivets as it was being lowered, and that they had to push it off the ship's side to keep it lowering.

Titanic had a 10 degree port list at the time Collapsible C was lowered, which caused Collapsible C to hang up against the ship's side as they both described. Both Quartermaster Rowe and Bruce Ismay also testified that Collapsible C hung up against the ship's side and had to be pushed away to be lowered.

Conversely, when Collapsible D was lowered, it hung several feet away from the ship's side, which several witnesses, including Hugh Woolner and Bjornstrom-Steffansson attest to.

Additionally, Frank's mother specifically mentioned four chinese "stowaways" as being in the collapsible they were in. These four chinese passengers are also mentioned by Rowe and Ismay as being in Collapsible C. There were 8 Chinese passengers aboard. Two died, one was rescued from the water by Fifth Officer Lowe in boat No. 14, and one escaped in No. 13. The four remaining passengers were in Collapsible C.

Additionally, both your grandfather and great-grandmother mention warning shots in the air at the collapsible they were in as it lowered away. Although the topic is very controversial, several people mention gunfire in connection with Collapsible C, while there is really no evidence that shots were fired at Collapsible D.

There is evidence that Chief Officer Wilde and First Officer Murdoch were involved in the loading of Collapsible C, so senior officers were involved there as well as at Collapsible D.

Like I said, with all due respect to your grandfather, he was simply mistaken in his identification of Collapsible D as the boat he was in.

Kind regards,
Tad
 

Ben Lemmon

Member
Oct 9, 2009
525
0
46
I was thinking about this discussion, reading posts in my e-mail, when a thought occurred to me. Is it possible that Frank Goldsmith and his mother's story was altered by the British Inquisition into the disaster?

Colonel Gracie's account of the disaster in The Story of the Titanic, As Told By Its Passengers lists the times the boats were lowered according to the British Inquisition. It mentions that Collapsible "C" was lowered at 1:40 AM. Later accounts of the disaster mention the same boat leaving at 2:00 in the morning, a full twenty minutes later.

If the Goldsmiths read that Collapsible "C" lowered at 1:40 AM but knew that their boat was being lowered, say, at about 2:00 AM (later accounts attested that "C" was lowered around this time), then perhaps this is where the "screw-up" occurred. They might have read the British Inquisition and saw that "C" was lowered about 1:40. If the time was closer to two, and the Goldsmiths knew it was closer to two, then perhaps they thought they were in Collapsible "D", which was lowered closer to two (the British Inquisition would attest it leaving the ship at 2:05-2:10).

Forgive me if I am not making any sense. I hope you understand what I am saying, and I look forward to seeing what anyone has to say.
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,046
56
208
UK
In the chaos of the final minutes it's not likely that anybody was checking their watch (if they had one)and making mental notes of the time for posterity. But I do think it possible that the idea of being in 'the last boat' is the key to Frank in later life changing his recollections from starboard to port. If at the time he heard calls that "this is the last boat" and later discovered that the last boat to leave the ship was in fact collapsible D, then he might have felt that his initial recollections of leaving from the starboard side (ie boat C) were wrong. There are numerous instances of survivors who later claimed to have been in 'the last boat', but that generally means they were in the last boat to leave the particular side/end of the ship from which it was lowered, as in each case the other three groups of boats were out of sight, out of mind.
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
1
86
Good point Bob. For example, I have seen several statements from survivors in No. 15 who stated that their boat was the "last boat", "last boat away from the ship", etc. Obviously, No. 15 was not the last boat away from the ship, but they were correct from the standpoint that their lifeboat was the last one of the aft starboard boats to get away, and they may not have been able to see boats still onboard elsewhere.

The idea that Frank may have later heard that Collapsible D was the last boat lowered away, and that is why he shifted his opinion from saying he was on the starboard side to the port side is entirely plausible in my opinion. This shift happened later on, so it is possible that is why he believed that.

Interesting thoughts guys.

Kind regards,
Tad
 
May 27, 2007
3,916
3
0
This is an interesting discussion! I, myself have always wondered if there was ever a passenger who thought they missed the supposed "last boat" and perhaps gave up leaving by boat or leaving at all if they were older thinking there were no more life boats to be be had on the ship when this wasn't the case.

This doesn't really fit into the discussion just me theorizing! Really this is why ships should have an Evacuation Plan! I could see the above scenario playing out very easily if someone didn't know the layout of the ship or wasn't aware that there were more boats and thought they were all gone.
 

Ben Lemmon

Member
Oct 9, 2009
525
0
46
quote:

In the chaos of the final minutes it's not likely that anybody was checking their watch (if they had one)and making mental notes of the time for posterity.
True. However, one would think that even if time seemed to go by extremely slowly, they would still be able to tell the difference between leaving the Titanic 20 minutes before it sank versus 40 minutes before it sank. Also, there were people who recorded the time the Titanic sank as 2:20 AM. Perhaps the Goldsmiths thought that there was no way they had left the boat 40 minutes before it sank. So when the Inquisition's findings came out, they thought they were in Collapsible "D" instead of Collapsible "D" because it seemed more like 15 minutes than 40 minutes.

This is pure conjecture, and I am only trying to support my point. No offense was intended if it was taken. I was only trying to give another possible explanation of the possible occurrences.

And I do agree with you, Bob. The scenario mentioned is probably just as likely (if not more likely) than the scenario that ran through my caffeine-filled head. I just wanted to say what I thought might have happened.
happy.gif