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..
The two Winston-Salem granddaughters of John Burns, a 28-year-old laundry superintendent on the Titanic, said their grandfather didn't have much of a chance. He was stationed four decks above the
journalnow.com
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.
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.
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.