Children's Bodies

[Alexis N. Marlow]

I realized that I'd already asked a similar question, but I was just wondering, what are the chances that bodies # 1, 4, and 67 were not who they were identified as? Obviously, there are other choices, but anyplace I read about the subject, it seems they "confirm" that's who the body was. I recall reading that Frankie Goldsmith met up with a little band of seven other boys. Of the eight, two were saved, the remaining six were lost. Perhaps the boys were meeting in Will Sage's room the following morning and this boy had put Will's cabin number on the ticket? And if body #1 was Walter van Billiard, why did it posess Danish coins, and two hankerchiefs marked, "A"? My theory is that this could have been either Filip or Clarence Asplund, seeing as they would have passed through wherever Danish coins are used(bad geography skills, I have) and the two hankercheifs are marked with the first letter of their last name. As for body #4, I can only think of one other possibility, that of Eugene Rice. Sidney Goodwin was a brown haired child, like his parents and siblings, and Panula sounds like a Italian or Spanish name, thus blonde hair is not an opition. I would be very pleased if someone could respond to these thoughts, if they believe their own ways upon the identities of the three children who were identified by the Mackay-Bennett.
In my opinion, this is what I believe is right:
Body #1- Filip Oscar Asplund(13) or Clarence Gustaf Hugo Asplund(9)
Body #4- Gösta Leonhard Pålsson(2)
Eugene Rice(2), or Arthur Rice(4)
Body #67- Eugene Abbott(13), William Frederick Goodwin(11), Harold Victor(9), James van Billiard(10), Walter van Billiard(9), William Anthony Sage(11), or Willie Johnston(9)

Anyone with any disputs, please post a reply!

Alexis Marlow

 

[Ben Holme]

Hi Alexis,

Regarding body #1. Although there are no solid or reliable sources to confirm it, it is highly unlikely that the van Billiards in Pennsylvania were not able to positively identify their loved ones. There may have been some confusion as to which brother was in the casket (Walter or James), but they would surely have recognised an "outsider" despite the inevitably poor condition of the body.

Regards,
Ben

 

[Emma Richardson]

Hi Alexis, did you read somewhere that those boys that you have listed next to #67 were Frankie Goldsmiths 'friends' or do you think that those were the most likely candidates? Warm wishes Em.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

Also, Mr Van Billiard's first name was Austin, which might explain the "A" on the handkerchief, and the Danish coins may have been misidentified - Mr Van Billiard had been in Amsterdam prior to the sinking, and the family had travelled from South Africa, so it is possible that the coins might have been Dutch rather than Danish. Didn't Judith Gellar mention that the Red Cross had identified the body?If true, has some record been preserved of to how they did it?

 

[Geoff Whitfield]

Hi Ben, Why would the van Billiard relatives be able to identify the children? They had never seen them in life and a dead body bears little or no resemblence to a living person. I had the awful task of identifying my mother some years ago and even though I had seen her on a regular basis, it was very difficult. Hair colouring also doesn't appear to always run in families, my wife has brown hair, whilst one daughter is blonde and another auburn (it's so long since I parted with mine, I can't recall just what colour it was!)

Geoff

 

[Ben Holme]

Hi Geoff,

Interesting. Thankfully, I have never been through the grim process of identifying a family member (and I can't imagine how awful that must have been for you) so, no doubt you are better qualified to give an opinion on the matter. I believe the Pennsylvania relatives were the grandparents (Austin's parents) who were meeting the boys for the first time. I was thinking more along the lines of photographs, which I'm supposing they had.

One would like to imagine that these bodies looked as they did during their lifetime, but I seem to recall I was barely able to recognise my great-grandmother, following a stroke, even before she died (and hows that for a cheerful bit of info!)

Ben

 

[Alexis N. Marlow]

Wow, thanks to everyone who responded! Emma, no I didn't read anywhere that Frankie Goldsmith's friends could have been #67, but yes, they do seem the most likely canidates. I also read someplace that decomposure makes the body age, as in the case of a 26 year old second class male passenger, mistaken for a man in his late 40's. Perhaps bodies #1 and 67 were even younger children, as little as five and six years old. Makes me wonder how all three of these children happened to be boys...also recalled reading that many of the unidentified females under 18 were posible younger girls, as young as five and six also....just wondering.
Thanks again for all your responses!
Alexis Marlow

 

[Erica Corbin-Reed]

Hello everyone,
Can anyone tell me the names of all the babies an little kids on Titanic and how many there were?

Thanks,
Erica

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Hi Erica,

There were ten infants aboard. See this thread for their names. As for the number of children on board, there were 106 including the number of infants. Far too many names to post, so I would recommend that you go through the biographies which lists the ages and go from there.

I hope this helps.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Well, Lester has been kind enough to post the information. So there you have it.

 

[Lester Mitcham]

And Lester has just realized that at 9:43pm on the 23rd of April 2003 he could not count. He had 11 names, but counted 10!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

I stand corrected then. So that would make it 107 total on board. Thanks Lester.

Don't you mean the 28th of April?

 

[Erica Corbin-Reed]

Thanks guys

 

[Lester Mitcham]

Jason,

When I wrote my paper [published on this web-site] I accepted 107 children/infants. -
"5" 1st Class; "22" 2nd Class and "80" 3rd Class.
Thanks to Hermann I subsequently found out that Mathilde Lefebvre was 12, not 11 and as such an adult, so 107 became 106.
The 2003 error [yes 28th not 23rd]is simply that I had 11 names, but counted them as 10.

Where did you get 106 from in your 10:25pm post as I do not see that figure in the 2003 thread?

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Hi Lester,

I got 106 from your 28th April 2003 post, as I included the infants with the children 1 year and older. I was also referencing your article. Since your post was more recent, I went with that number.

So it is after all 106 children/infants. Thanks again.