ET Deck Plans C-Deck and D-Deck Occupant Identification

Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
I was looking at the ET deck plans (yet once again) and noticed that occupant identification for cabins on those decks is not provided as is the case on A-Deck, B-Deck, and the after part of E-Deck. I was wondering why. Many of the occupants on those decks have been substantiated (such as Astor = C-62, Strauss = C-55, Thayer = C-68, Widener = C-80, Peuchen = C-104, Gracie = C-51, and Isham = C-49, not to mention scores of others). I am just wondering when these will be filled in with the 'click-on' feature. I think that's a nice touch. Anyway, just wondering...

Take care
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
8
168
Mark,

The C62 cabin allocation for Astor is another one of those incorrectly attributed cabin numbers. Believe it or not, the Astors did not occupy that parlour suite, and thus were not in C62/64.

Daniel.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
Actually, that's the signified parlor suite in every source thus far, therefore I'm not the one who would initially be incorrect, as I have been passing along information established by so many others. If you have evidence from a particular source to the contrary, I suggest you provide it. I would really like to see it. If they weren't in C-62/64, then where were they? Please share.
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
8
168
Mark,

Sorry, I'm not accusing you of being wrong. I have never seen any primary source place the Astors in C62. The only source which did place the Astors there was Titanic Triumph and Tragedy, but I assume that Eaton and Haas were guessing that's where they were because of Astor's wealth. I think the C62 for Astors went from there.

One of the biggest pieces of evidence that they were not in C62 is Peuchen. His cabin C104 was directly across from C62 and when asked about the Astors he did not know where they were, but said that he spoke to two ladies who had a cabin near the Astors.

Had the Astors been in C62, Peuchen surely would have known.

Regards,

Daniel.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,242
5
198
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Hi Daniel,

That's interesting, I've never come across that piece of evidence before. While I also do not believe the Astors were in C62, I'd like to know where I can look that information up, as I may be able to use it in the biography I'm writing on Peuchen.

Best regards,

Jason
happy.gif
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
8
168
Jason,

It's in his US testimony. It has been a while since I read it. I cannot remember if he's directly asked where the Astors were, but he definitely mentions that he spoke to two ladies who had a cabin near the Astors, and if the Astors were in C62, he ought to have known where they were!

Daniel.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,242
5
198
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Cheers Daniel, I think I vaguely recall that part of his testimony now. I'll have to go through it again, to see how the question was worded. It's been a while since I read it as well.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
Sorry I snapped. It's been one of those kind of days. ;)

>>Sorry, I'm not accusing you of being wrong.<<

Daniel, I don't mean to make a big deal out of it, but I want to make a point. The previous statement, "the Astors did not occupy that parlour suite, and thus were not in C62/64," seems accusatory to me. In asserting that my comment was incorrect, you're actually saying that I'm incorrect, or wrong. Since you've not confirmed 100% that your assertion was correct, then telling me I'm wrong is out-of-line. That was one reason why I initially snapped. Please don't tell others they are wrong unless you have undeniable proof to the contrary. That's being courteous and responsible. I am not upset or bent out of shape about it, as I'm generally an easygoing guy, but it's just a friendly reminder.


>>I have never seen any primary source place the Astors in C62. The only source which did place the Astors there was Titanic Triumph and Tragedy, but I assume that Eaton and Haas were guessing that's where they were because of Astor's wealth.<<

Omission does not mean the opposite, meaning that just because the Astors' may not have appeared in any primary sources as having been placed in C62/64 does not mean they weren't. It's not necessarily a confirmed thing, several experts over the years have placed them in the portside C-Deck parlor suite. It can be assumed that these experts, or researchers, had been privy to information to which most other people haven't had access. There's also a thing such as educated assessments. Experts, while not always right, know more about their subject than lay-people. Hence, the title 'expert.' The page I left you represents the belief of all (or most) of the experts here. If it is incorrect, then I am liable to question their judgments. However, There have been several Titanic authorities who have agree on this placement. Eaton and Haas weren't the first; I remember older books--one, I remember, was by Don Lynch--that made this claim.

As for the Astors, it doesn't surprise me that they may not have been in one of the parlor suites (if, in fact, they hadn't). It seemed to me that they were trying to maintain a low profile on account of his young wife's pregnancy ("delicate condition"). The larger suites would, of course, attract attention. Therefore, it's possible that they may have had an inconspicuous cabin, but that's still not a certainty.

Like Jason, I am as well intrigued by your story. What did the women tell Peuchen about the Astors? Which cabin did these women occupy? Of course this second question is very important to your point. Can you share more details, please? Where did you find this story?

JASON: Why don't you believe the Astors were not in C62/64? I would be interested in your reasoning.

Take care and Talk with you soon.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
>>but he definitely mentions that he spoke to two ladies who had a cabin near the Astors<<

Again, which cabin did these ladies occupy?

I have read bits and pieces of the Inquiries. That point I do remember reading, but I don't remember as to which cabin the women told Peuchen that they occupied. That would definitely make a difference.

Also, please keep in mind that just because Peuchen was close by doesn't necessarily mean that he would have had to know the Astors were right next door. Gracie spent the entire cruise never having seen or met Elizabeth Isham, who was right next door in C-49. In fact, it's inferred by his testimony and his book that he really didn't hear about her until after the tragedy (There is a quote around here somewhere which describes that. When I find it, I will post it, unless Inger would be kind enough to repost it here for me). If the Astors were trying to maintain a low profile, it would make sense that they remained invisible much of the time. Still, that's no certainty, but it is a viable contention.
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
8
168
Mark/Jason,

Some of you might know that I originally used to research 1st class passengers and their cabin occupancies. As such I have published two article here on ET, one about where Margaret (Molly) Brown was, and one a thorough assessment of the "Cave List".

Since then my interests have strayed elsewhere, and although I was once going to do something with my research (in some published form) I no longer have as much interest in that. As such, I might as well share all my thoughts on the Astor cabins.

Mark you're on the right track that the Astors we possibly trying to avert attention. In my Cave List analysis I suggest that the Astors are left off the cabin list. They booked before it was printed, but are not mentioned on it. This can be proven by the fact that the nurse does appear on the Cave list and the entire party booked under the one ticket.

In fact, the nurse's cabin is the most vital clue to the puzzle. Speaking of which, if the Astors were in C62 or any of the other larger suites more aft on C deck, has no one ever wondered why on earth Endres was in C45 rather than close to her employers?

The truth of the matter is than Endres was close to her employers. Once again, it has been a while since I researched all this, but hopefully I'll remember enough evidence to prove my point.

My doubts about the Astors being in C62 first began when Randy Bigham posted an account of the disaster by Mrs. Astor ... which is still buried somewhere on ET in the passenger section.

It wasn't from this account, but from a different account where Mrs. Astor said that after the collision, JJ Astor went to look out the porthole where the ice had just scraped by. This immediately places them on the starboard side.

Mrs. Astor also says that her nurse's cabin was nearby (thus C45 was near where the Astors were). The two women who had a cabin near Mrs. Astor were most likely the Fortune sisters. Arthur Peuchen knew the Fortune family, and no doubt spoke to them on the Carpathia where they told him the story.

All this leads to the fact that the Astors most likely occupied cabins C17 and C21. Mrs. Astor mentions that her husband came into her room, thus revealing that they did not share the same cabin. I cannot be sure whether the maid and manservant occupied C19, or whether the manservant even shared a room with Astor or whether they had other nearby cabins like C15 or C43 for example ...

I'm not certain about the servants cabins, but we know that Endres was in C45, and that her employers were in nearby cabins, Mrs. Astor's being most likely opposite the Fortune cabin C25, and her husband's cabin adjoining hers. Thus this leads me to believe they had C17 and C21.

Craig Stringer, Lester or others interested in cabins might also have a few words to add, but these are the clues that I've collected about the Astor cabins. They certainly were trying not to get hassled by not going for the deluxe suites, rather settling in more modest, but still comfortable 1st class accommodation.

I wonder what other sources the "experts" have. Mrs. Astor's accounts are few, but they're not rare. The fact that she says her nurse's cabin was near her own is a dead give away. I still think cabins are an interesting topic. Its fascinating unraveling the clues, but unfortunately my primary interest has moved to other areas of Titanic. :)

Best Regards,

Daniel.
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
8
168
One more point,

Peuchen is a funny character, he knew his cabin number, but was very vague about most others. The Allisons were fellow C deck occupants but he had no idea where they were. Although he was good friends with the Fortune family, I doubt that he knew where their cabins were either.

He was very good friends with Molson (having booked together -- but separate tickets) and he says that Molson was in A2. I think I'd believe Peuchen on that as he visited Molson's cabin several times during the voyage and after the collision. He also knew that Ross/McCafry and Beattie were nearby on A deck, but he was very vague about their cabin numbers despite having visited them.

Daniel.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
Daniel,

That's all that I asked, and I can see where you're going with it. Now that you've presented the necessary details, I can see the reasoning in your argument, and it does make sense. I remember reading a bit of Mrs. Astor's account, but it has been a long time. Now that you've presented the details, some of it is coming back. I'm in the middle of getting back into reading through it again and in greater depth.

It is at this point, then, that I question ET's profile on the Astors, especially where the cabin/suite number is concerned. I realize that there are errors and outdates, so I use this as a reminder of a potential mistake which may need correcting.

Take care
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
Daniel,

By the way, post number 1123 should have been your first post above as your initial response to me. It introduced your background, your qualifications, and your reasoning right up front. When telling someone that he's wrong about a given point, that reasoning or evidence supports that assertion.

Just a thoughtful suggestion for the future.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,242
5
198
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Hi Mark,

"Why don't you believe the Astors were not in C62/64?..."

For pretty much the same reasons as Daniel has presented, so I don't have really much more to add. Except that, I'm almost certain as well Peuchen would have known if the Astors were across the hall from him or not. As we all know, JJ Astor was a prominent member of society so Peuchen would have had to know who they were and what they looked like.

Senator SMITH. Do you know of your own knowledge whether any alarm was sounded to arouse the passengers from their rooms after the impact?

Maj. PEUCHEN. There was no alarm sounded whatever. In fact, I talked with two young ladies who claimed to have had a very narrow escape. They said their stateroom was right near the Astor’s, I think almost next to it, and they were not awakened.

Senator SMITH. They were not awakened?

Maj. PEUCHEN. They slept through this crash, and they were awakened by Mrs. Astor. She was in rather an excited state, and their door being open - and I think the Astor door was open - they think that was the means of their being saved.

Senator SMITH. On what deck were they?

Maj. PEUCHEN. I do not know, sir. It was only conversation told me on the Carpathia.
Since the Fortune family was in C23/C25/C27 as Daniel has pointed out and with Peuchen's testimony above, the pieces fit the puzzle as to why the Astors could not have been in C62/C64.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,242
5
198
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Daniel,

I agree, Peuchen is quite a character. It's difficult to speculate as to why he remembered his own cabin number, but not could recall Beattie's, Ross' or McCaffry's.

I've had an interesting time with trying to include it all in the biography.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
Jason,

I see the logic in his findings, and I'm not in dispute. The only thing is that the ET profile on Astor is left in question. If these findings are correct, than ET is incorrect and should change the cabin number(s) stated there, otherwise false information is given despite this forum. Just an observation.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,480
3
166
An even better case in point is that according to the "Cabin Allocations" Margaret Brown was in B-2, 4 or 6 [?]. Thanks to Daniel it has been known for sometime that she was the lady in E-23; yet the "Cabin Allocations" remains un-updated.

The case for the Countess of Rothes being in C-77 is stronger than for her being in B-77; yet B-77 appears with no query against it in the "Cabin Allocations".

At least with C-62/64; it is highlighted and questioned.

Lester
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
Les,

I would be very curious as to hear his reasoning on the actual Brown and C of R allocations.

As for the site, I just think it should reflect accurate info, as not every visitor is liable to read the forums.