Most sources/records simply say something like British/non-British. However, in his RMS Titanic Passenger and Crew List booklet Hermann Soeldner has a column [in the Passenger List section] headed Nationality. If you are interested [please e-mail me privately] and I will; give you Hermann's e-mail address. You could purchase a copy of the booklet; go through it and arrive at your own Nationality figures.
I am compiling a list of the passengers nationalities from Hermann Soldner's excellent book RMS Titanic: Passenger and Crew List. I have come up with the following numbers for the First Class Passengers after Queenstown: Total 324
A really useful analysis, Neal. Draws attention to a number of situations that are not otherwise obvious, like the appalling casualty rate for the Bulgarians in Third Class - 33 souls and not a single one survived. Confirms also that the hordes of desperate 'Italians' so often described by witnesses simply didn't exist.
I was also shocked by the low amount of Swedes that survived, only 27 out of 113. It was interesting that the amount of 1 in 3 of the British that survived was about the same for the Irish.
I'd always been led to believe before I found ET, that the Irish had lost more than any other country? Maybe that opinion was influenced by the films I've seen?
Even without taking the crew into account, Britain lost far more than any other nation, followed by the USA and Sweden and then Ireland. Most of the Irish were travelling in Third Class and again they figure high among the steerage casualties, but not as high as Sweden or Britain. You'll notice though that in Third Class the survival rate for the Irish is more than twice as high as the Brits. It's my opinion that this reflects a trust which the British working class had for figures of authority - and which the Irish did not share. So the Irish were more likely to seek their own salvation while the Brits waited patiently for orders which, if they came at all, came too late.
Neal, allow me to put in a patriotic protest. There were two Australian passengers. Arthur McCrae was in second class and Charles Dahl was in third. McCrae was lost but Dahl survived.
In those days, Australians were often counted as British, especially if they did something good. While researching Titanic, I came across a demand that the British Olympic team should consist of athletes drawn from the whole empire. The British didn't do very well in the 1912 games and were hoping to borrow Aussies, Canadians and so forth. Nobody bought that idea, including the Aussies. We'd been competing as Australia before we actually had a nation and we were beating the English at cricket!
Your work, which I'm sure was tedious, is a useful contribution, as are Bob's comments on the Irish and the English. I've long thought that one of the biggest blots on the record is the loss of large English family groups, such as the Goodwins. There was no language problem, yet they were lost.
Good point, Dave. The Canadians have been considered separately though they too were listed at the time as British, as indeed were the Irish who, in Constitutional terms if not in spirit, really were British back in 1912. There were only two Aussies, of course, but that's 100% more representation than Japan or Mexico.
Dave and Bob,
I apologise to the Australians for leaving them out of the statistics, but it confirms a worry that I had while compiling the lists. There seems to be many Syrians with their residence given as the Lebanon, and many Austrians with residence as Croatia.
Could this be the same for the passengers that were Lebanese and Croatian that they were called Syrian and Austrian?
Not your fault at all, Neal. Problems of this sort are partly due to a lack of geographical expertise on the part of the clerks who made up the original lists (especially when there were language difficulties to contend with) but mainly to the re-drawing of political boundaries especially after the two World Wars. In 1912, for instance, Croatia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire so, just as the Irish were listed as British, the Croats were listed as Austrian. Similarly, the Lebanese (mostly Christian refugees) were listed as Syrians. In short, many of the sovereign nations on the political map of the modern world simply didn't exist back in 1912.
I suspected that might be the case. Checking through the list again, I don't believe there are many others that can brought in to question. I think we can just add that Croatians, Slovenians, and Bosnians, were listed under Austria. Lebanese, and possibly Egyptians and Lybians (one passenger residence Tripoli, Lebanon?) were listed under Syria.
Just to add, the Australian Charles Dahl was listed as N for Norway rather than Great Britain.
Interesting. Karl (Charles) Dahl was Norwegian born and emigrated to Australia in 1892. In 1912 he perhaps didn't share Dave's opinion that he was Australian, as it appears he didn't intend to return there. I suppose that's why he gave his nationality as Norwegian, but he did eventually change his mind and took up residence again in Oz four years later. Have I got that right, Dave?
The version I have from Norwegian contacts is that Dahl regarded himself as Australian. Hence the name change from Karl Edwart to Charles Edward. He spent much of his life here but I'm doubtful about some of the material on this site. In particular, I've found no trace of him in Adelaide, where I live. Although there are certain dates that don't match up, I'm wondering whether he was the Charles Dahl who lived for a time in Adelaide Street, Brisbane, but I lack the resources to research material that's only available in Queensland.
I have asked this question before but, for some reason, the question has not appeared. Quite simply, how can the Irish passengers be distinguished from their English, Scottish, Welsh, Manx and Channel Island counterparts when, in 1912, they shared a common nationality?
A common citizenship in the British empire, at least - and had since the Act of Union was implemented in 1801. The Irish nation was an entity within the association of nations known collectively as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".
Definitions of 'nationality' often have a nebulous quality to them - Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, for example, apparently did not regard himself as Irish. When it was pointed out he was born in Dublin, he is reputed to have responded along the lines that "everything born in a stable is not a horse". On the other hand, many people of Irish parentage born in other nations would identify themselves as "Irish". There's ethnic/cultural groupings to consider as well as geo-political definitions.
Ireland in 1912 had its own administrative infrastructure (although elected representatives still travelled to Westminster, and the ultimate authority was the administrative hub of the Empire). It conducted its own census - discreet from the British census - so this is one source for identifying who is "Irish". Crew agreements and passenger lists can also help identify the Irish-born. Whether their self-identification is as Irish, English or other is a more complex matter.
The idea that Ireland conducted its own census is surely incorrect - they were held at the same time throughout the British Isles. To have done otherwise would have compromised the whole exercise because people would have been counted twice.