John Burns

  • Thread starter Encyclopedia Titanica
  • Start date
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
The above man is the only John Burns to board the Titanic as far as I could find out. He was a 31-year old able seaman and part of the delivery crew. He disembarked at Southampton.

According to ET, he was married but did not have any children.

So, what should we make of this article? It has appeared in other sources on the web and was posted by an ET member in another thread..

AFAIK, there was no laundry superintendent named John Burns on the Titanic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jason D. Tiller
Jason D. Tiller

Jason D. Tiller

Staff member
Moderator
Member
AFAIK, there was no laundry superintendent named John Burns on the Titanic.
You're correct, there wasn't. In fact the position of Laundry Superintendent did not exist, aboard Titanic. So I think that error somehow crept in, or the writer simply didn't do their research.
 
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
In fact the position of Laundry Superintendent did not exist, aboard Titanic.
That's what I thought. That story reminded me of another non-existent position "Chief Night Baker" Walter Belford, he of the rolling rolls and no underpants.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Samuel Halpern
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
This is the article about John Burns but there isn't any evidence he was on the Titanic... perhaps sadly he just abandoned his family?
That is a very poor article, full of errors and melodramatic embellishments. But in 1937, when the article was published, the Titanic tragedy was not as famous as it is now.

I think that you have a really strong poin in thinking that John Burns, the laundryman from North Carolina, simply abandoned his family. But if so, his acions would have been before the Titanic's maiden voyage, with which he had no connection. But his wife might have mistakenly believed that he was on the Titanic or made up a story that he was to "explain" his leaving her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas Krom and Jason D. Tiller
Top