Status
Not open for further replies.

Lee Gilliland

Member
Feb 14, 2003
511
9
183
May I interject that, all other things being equal, Stanley Lord was NOT a "bus driver" as he carried no passengers? All he had to worry about was his ship and crew?
 

Don Tweed

Member
May 5, 2002
590
12
183
I do not know if the lines spoken were true, but in ANTR Lord was told by one of his officers about the passengers and Lord replies: "They wouldn't be with us if they were in a hurry"
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Respectfully, Don
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,043
107
333
UK
Right as far as I can recall, Don. Maybe they weren't carrying passengers on that particular trip, but if they did have a full complement there would have been almost as many passengers as crew. The Californian had, I believe, a crew of about 50.
 

Tracy Smith

Member
Nov 5, 2000
1,646
11
313
South Carolina USA
The Californian carried passengers on the voyage immediately preceding the one we are most familiar with. On this voyage, a photo was taken of Lord, his officers, and two little girl passengers. This photo has appeared in several Titanic books and I'm sure many here are familiar with it.
 

Noel F. Jones

Member
May 14, 2002
857
6
183
To reiterate: the re-cycled question was:

To which shipmaster would you entrust your family for a spring passage across the north Atlantic?

Would it be Capt. Smith, Capt.Rostron or Capt.Lord?


A simple choice of three. Put them all in command of the Mauretania if you like.

It's not a "loaded" question.

There are no loaded answers.

Only loaded silences!

Noel
 

Matthew Lips

Member
Mar 8, 2001
304
12
183
Okay, let me try and answer the "recycled" question.

Strange as it may sound given his end, I would lean towards Smith. He didn't rise to the very top of his profession without good reason, and sad to say that his handling of Titanic was nothing more than standard practice for the time.

What happened is a little like repeatedly exceeding the speed limit on the highway - eventually you will be caught, but it doesn't necessarily make you a dangerous driver. Smith chances his arm once too often, but let us not forget the very long and successful career he enjoyed before that fateful night.

Rostron is a hero, but he took far greater risks that night than Smith ever did. He got away with it, but let's be honest, he used up about half a lifetime's worth of luck.

Lord was a careful master - perhaps too much so. He would be my second pick, much as I admire Rostron for what he achieved, but when all is said and done I will stick to the only one of the three who went down with his ship.

Odd? Maybe - but Smith got to where he did not (like Rostron) because of one inspired magic moment and its ensuing publicity, but strictly on his merits as a seaman. No plodding Californian-type clunkers for him. He was repeatedly entrusted with the best and newest of the WSL fleet. Despite his end, he must have had a helluva lot going for him.
 
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
4
313
Well, I think I'd have to agree with Dave Gittins on that. My own choice would likely be Captain Moore of the Mount Temple, who can assuredly be said to have neither endangered his ship unduly nor left his passengers with the possible shame of having simply abandoned a sinking ship to its fate.

Dave's comment about the various ships' speeds are also right on the money. Had Captain Lord been at the helm of a 22-knot vessel, there little reason to suppose that snapping the log line would yet have been the worst of his problems after encountering his own ice.

Sorry, but that's strictly a case of "There but for the grace of God ...".

And since Canadian Pacific insisted that their ships avoid reported ice at all costs, they certainly get my vote of confidence.

(It was a loaded question as you originally phrased it, Noel. If it were not, why broach it in the exceedingly irrelevant context of a petition to re-open Captain Lord's "case". But I'll humor you in this one instance.)

John
 

Don Tweed

Member
May 5, 2002
590
12
183
Noel,
What I mean by "loaded question" is this; Almost everytime a question is put to the board concerning Cptn. Lord it is like opening Pandoras Box. Many threads that are started under a certain topic go off on different tangents and offshoots. There is no rule saying any one individual has to stay on a strigent line of thought.
I chose Cptn. Lord and gave my reasons.
Discussing the particulars of ones choice is not avoiding the question.
Respectfully, Don
 

Noel F. Jones

Member
May 14, 2002
857
6
183
Well.... at least we now know how much some of us value our families!

If I may now re-cyle Robert Louis Stephenson:-

To arrive is better than to travel hopefully.

Noel
 

Tracy Smith

Member
Nov 5, 2000
1,646
11
313
South Carolina USA
The Californian may have been unglamorous, a "plodding clunker", but if you'd booked passage on this ship, at least you would have had the consolation of arriving alive at your destination.
 

Don Tweed

Member
May 5, 2002
590
12
183
Now there is a loaded answer Noel.
I chose Cptn. Lord and stick by it, but talking about an individuals value of his\her family is kind of touchy.
Maybe I just took your wording wrong. If I did. I apologize.
Respectfully, Don
 
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
4
313
The Californian may have been unglamorous, a "plodding clunker", but if you'd booked passage on this ship, at least you would have had the consolation of arriving alive at your destination.

Tracy: Well, perhaps -- under that particular set of circumstances, at that particular time, yes. But again we're discussing, to a very large extent, the flip of a "cosmic coin" and the required horsepower to self-destruct. When all was said and done, nothing Captain Lord did personally served to prevent his own ship's minor mishap in the ice. (And I suspect that if his had been a 22-knot ship, that mishap might *not* have been so minor.)

But I wouldn't have categorized the Californian as "unglamorous" myself at all; slow perhaps, by Titanic standards, but certainly not lacking in her own modicum of luxury. She apparently featured some relatively elegant appointments for the benefit of her small complement of passengers, and was reportedly the carrier of choice for an elite, "far from the madding crowd" type of clientele who preferred their voyages leisurely and uncongested.

Don: I think I must be mistaking Noel's wording too. For the outgrowth of a supposedly non-loaded question, that obtusely cynical, broad-brush "summation" certainly *seemed* to represent a hasty and loaded conclusion. (Of course, if I'm wrong, I too apologize.) ;-)

However, to twist the issue ever so slightly (and perversely) to my own ends, I'll bet there was one captain that night who was VERY glad that he *wasn't* in fact carrying anyone's family at the time. Stanley Lord already had enough trouble on his hands just dealing with those crew members who chose to speak out; paying *passengers* are not known to be notoriously easy to silence!

Can you imagine the possibility of 47 "Quitzrau's" awake aboard the Californian? It certainly boggles my mind! And coming round full circle, that really *is* the essence of Stanley Lord's "case".

Cheers,
John
 
Jul 4, 2020
26
11
23
I think his name should be clared, he was not to blame in any way, about what happend that night, his radio man had told the titanic about the ice but was told to shurt up old man and keep out, the only thing i would say may be captain lord should of worken up his wirless man to check what the rockets wear but a lot of things happend that night that caused this, it is esayer to blame to fall guy I.E Lord than the white start line who did not have enough lifeboats on board.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,593
1,369
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I think his name should be clared, he was not to blame in any way, about what happend that night, his radio man had told the titanic about the ice but was told to shurt up old man and keep out, the only thing i would say may be captain lord should of worken up his wirless man to check what the rockets wear but a lot of things happend that night that caused this, it is esayer to blame to fall guy I.E Lord than the white start line who did not have enough lifeboats on board.
Hello Linda!

The idea that there should have been a poll on this subject was , and still is, outrageous nonsense.
As for your observation? If the evidence as given had been accepted, then, in accordance with normal, accepted bridge practices of that time, Neither Lord or any of his men (except for a man named Gill) were guilty of any crime or misdemeanour.
 
B

Bob_Read

Guest
The poll doesn’t ask the readers to decide the guilt or innocence of Captain Lord. It asks if the investigation should be reopened TO CLEAR THE NAME OF CAPTAIN STANLEY LORD! What kind of investigation is opened with the stated purpose of arriving at a pre-determined result? What a poor question! Here is the question in case anyone thinks I am misstating it.
Do You Think the British Board of Trade and the United States Senate should be petitioned to re-open the 1912 CALIFORNIAN inquiry to clear the name of Captain Stanley Lord?

Yes___________________ No_________________
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,593
1,369
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
The poll doesn’t ask the readers to decide the guilt or innocence of Captain Lord. It asks if the investigation should be reopened TO CLEAR THE NAME OF CAPTAIN STANLEY LORD! What kind of investigation is opened with the stated purpose of arriving at a pre-determined result? What a poor question! Here is the question in case anyone thinks I am misstating it.
Do You Think the British Board of Trade and the United States Senate should be petitioned to re-open the 1912 CALIFORNIAN inquiry to clear the name of Captain Stanley Lord?

Yes___________________ No_________________
Hello Bob. Thanks for the clarifiction.
However, I am of the opinion that the question illustrated the limited knowledge of the questioner in that there was legal remedy for Captain Lord at the time. The problem as I see it was that those who judged had found the ideal subject upon which they could pile inuendo after inuendo and thus detract the attention of the public and the press from many real "truths" concerning what happened and the events leading up to it.

The real judges of Captain Lord were his peers... those who, in their daily working lives, could find themselves in a lifboat or in the water at a moment's notice nd withour warning
Sailors believed that that the principal signs of bad luck were.
You can bet your sea boots that if his peers had thought Lord was as he was being portrayed by the Inquiries and public in general, then not a single man would have signed-on with him and he, himself would have found himself on the beach. He most likely would have been added to the lists of "Johnas". None of the above transpired. In fact, in all the long years I spent at sea, I never hear the name of the man or his ship, mentioned. Mention of the name "Titanic" was an invitation to trouble
In truth, not until 2008, when I joined this illustious band of brothers, did I ever hear the name 'Captain Lord'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads