Titanic passengers who cancelled voyage


Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
720
401
108
Glasgow, Scotland
Seumas can I remind you so much of the real true of Titanic never came forward due to the lack of investigates took place before the start of inquires. Then they were so many more who could of given evidence but were never ask! Ones has to question the ones who did give evidence was it the real true or a case keeping your mouth shut not to jeopardise their job with the company?

It seems like you are more interested in sensational pseudo-history rather than cold hard facts.

There was no conspiracy. There were no plots. There were no cover ups.

Sorry if that disappoints you but it's the truth. Over the decades plenty of others in Europe and North America have looked high and low for evidence of menace and skulduggery regarding the loss of RMS Titanic but guess what ........ they found nothing.

Are you seriously suggesting for one moment that you have some kind of knowledge or evidence that the authors of "On A Sea of Glass" or the multitude of experts in various fields who contributed to "A Centennial Reappraisal" somehow neglected ? I wouldn't dare challenge them unless I had some crystal clear, rock solid evidence in my locker.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,594
722
188
Seeing a list of some very rich and wealthy who cancel at the last minute. Did they get inside information of the coal bunker fire in progress?

Not to intrude into this conversation but it is extremely unlikely that any of the passengers would have heard anything about the minor coal fire from the firemen.

Onboard the ship and socially, the firemen were heavily segregated from the passengers. On shore, Most passengers would be at or around the South Western Hotel, other hotels in Southampton or travelling on the Boat Train from London Waterloo. Meanwhile the firemen and trimmers would have been frequented local pubs or their homes. Neither groups would have bumped into one another and much less have talked with each other and discussed the coal fire.

Back to topic!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mike Spooner

Member
Sep 21, 2017
1,070
216
138
There was no conspiracy. There were no plots. There were no cover ups? If that was the case the Titanic story would of been a clear cut closed case with no story to tell and no Encycopedia Titanica to!
We only got to look at some of the experience members who have years more than we do have. Yet still find it hard to agree 100% what really did happen in April 1912. One of the key evidence is missing of the log books and map charts are all lost with the ship.
As I see becomes like a giant jigsaw puzzle with the middle parts missing and trying to work out what they look like.

Back to the coal bunker fire. First I do not believe the bunker fire was the course for the lost of Titanic. But I do see some very poor management decisions be made here resulting extra pressure been place on key crew members.
We do hear coal bunkers fires was not that unusual. Common as muck or an everyday event might be a bit over the top. Certaintly if ones has at sea you have no option to deal with it, that if you want to arrive at port in one piece.
But what I do find unacceptable is to delivery the worlds biggest brand new luxury liner at the time with a coal bunker fire!
Then look at how White Star deal with the problem. I see this very much the case of the shipyard problem H&W. Yet White Star decided to take on the job. What was also remarkable that the fact H&W had repair facilities in Southampton to. Clearly there is a fault here and the ship should of be rejected and it for H&W to fix the problem. As far the captain and chief engineer goes, they have no say in the ship schedule times. As highly as I do respect for there jobs within the company, but they are only employees of the company. The schedules are set by senior managers with the approval of Directors of the company. It is the Board of Directors who hold the power within the company and the Chairman who has the ultimate power and final decision.
At the time a national coal strike is in progress laying up many ships due to lack of coal. Were I can see a Director or Chairman has made a decision the Titanic will take preference over other ships for coal. Where 4,427 tons of coal is remove from 5 other ships for Titanic. I can see that is no five minute job and a back breaking job to, from the depths of the ships place in bags brought to the surface and placed on to a coal barge.
So why has Titanic taken preference over the other ships? As when looking at the passenger figures. Titanic leaves Southampton with just over 900 passengers and time leaving Queenstown about 1,316 passengers. Yet the ships they took the coal from could of done the crossing as well!
Was there financial pressure bearing down on them? As been disused before the financial to build the ship was well supported through a Mortgage Debenture scheme. White Star Line was also a profitable company to. So what was the rush?
So now the responsible fell down on the chief engineer and captain to out the mess after leaving Southampton.
Like any other brand new ships there are about to be teething problems to sort out and quite frankly the crew members have got quite enough on hand working around such a large ship at the time. I see this only placing more unnecessary human stress on key crew members and chief designer Thomas Andrews. Was the company Chairman a heatless human! After all he does not get his hands dirty!
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
551
388
Ok, this may be picking fly specks out of the pepper...but technically a "passenger" is someone who boards any sort of conveyance (boat, plane, train, bus, etc.) for the purpose of transportation. So, technically someone who bought a ticket for Titanc...but did not use it...was never a passenger. They were just a collector of expensive scraps of paper.

-- David G. Brown
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
720
401
108
Glasgow, Scotland
Not to intrude into this conversation but it is extremely unlikely that any of the passengers would have heard anything about the minor coal fire from the firemen.

Onboard the ship and socially, the firemen were heavily segregated from the passengers. On shore, Most passengers would be at or around the South Western Hotel, other hotels in Southampton or travelling on the Boat Train from London Waterloo. Meanwhile the firemen and trimmers would have been frequented local pubs or their homes. Neither groups would have bumped into one another and much less have talked with each other and discussed the coal fire.

Back to topic!

A bit of common sense is very refreshing.

Good post.

There was no conspiracy. There were no plots. There were no cover ups? If that was the case the Titanic story would of been a clear cut closed case with no story to tell and no Encycopedia Titanica to!
We only got to look at some of the experience members who have years more than we do have. Yet still find it hard to agree 100% what really did happen in April 1912. One of the key evidence is missing of the log books and map charts are all lost with the ship.
As I see becomes like a giant jigsaw puzzle with the middle parts missing and trying to work out what they look like.

Back to the coal bunker fire. First I do not believe the bunker fire was the course for the lost of Titanic. But I do see some very poor management decisions be made here resulting extra pressure been place on key crew members.
We do hear coal bunkers fires was not that unusual. Common as muck or an everyday event might be a bit over the top. Certaintly if ones has at sea you have no option to deal with it, that if you want to arrive at port in one piece.
But what I do find unacceptable is to delivery the worlds biggest brand new luxury liner at the time with a coal bunker fire!
Then look at how White Star deal with the problem. I see this very much the case of the shipyard problem H&W. Yet White Star decided to take on the job. What was also remarkable that the fact H&W had repair facilities in Southampton to. Clearly there is a fault here and the ship should of be rejected and it for H&W to fix the problem. As far the captain and chief engineer goes, they have no say in the ship schedule times. As highly as I do respect for there jobs within the company, but they are only employees of the company. The schedules are set by senior managers with the approval of Directors of the company. It is the Board of Directors who hold the power within the company and the Chairman who has the ultimate power and final decision.
At the time a national coal strike is in progress laying up many ships due to lack of coal. Were I can see a Director or Chairman has made a decision the Titanic will take preference over other ships for coal. Where 4,427 tons of coal is remove from 5 other ships for Titanic. I can see that is no five minute job and a back breaking job to, from the depths of the ships place in bags brought to the surface and placed on to a coal barge.
So why has Titanic taken preference over the other ships? As when looking at the passenger figures. Titanic leaves Southampton with just over 900 passengers and time leaving Queenstown about 1,316 passengers. Yet the ships they took the coal from could of done the crossing as well!
Was there financial pressure bearing down on them? As been disused before the financial to build the ship was well supported through a Mortgage Debenture scheme. White Star Line was also a profitable company to. So what was the rush?
So now the responsible fell down on the chief engineer and captain to out the mess after leaving Southampton.
Like any other brand new ships there are about to be teething problems to sort out and quite frankly the crew members have got quite enough on hand working around such a large ship at the time. I see this only placing more unnecessary human stress on key crew members and chief designer Thomas Andrews. Was the company Chairman a heatless human! After all he does not get his hands dirty!

Maybe it's because I'm an idiot but I am not seeing any evil plot there at all in the slightest.

Your opinions are not facts.

Isn't it strange how our best Titanic historians past and present - Walter Lord, Geoffrey Marcus, John P. Eaton, Charles Haas, Don Lynch, Paul Quinn, Michael Davie, Bill Wormstedt, Tad Fitch, J. Kent Lanyon etc etc - all have never twigged this supposed (utterly ridiculous) plot to warn wealthy passengers of a supposedly catastrophic coal fire (which it most definitely wasn't) and yet you have ?

Count me out. Pseudo-history is bilge and a waste of time.

If you truly believe you have evidence for this nonsense then have the courage of your convictions and present a research article for peer review by historians who know the Titanic far, far better than you or I ever will.

Ok, this may be picking fly specks out of the pepper...but technically a "passenger" is someone who boards any sort of conveyance (boat, plane, train, bus, etc.) for the purpose of transportation. So, technically someone who bought a ticket for Titanc...but did not use it...was never a passenger. They were just a collector of expensive scraps of paper.

-- David G. Brown

Damn lucky people I call them !
 

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
49
Halifax, Nova Scotia
It seems like you are more interested in sensational pseudo-history rather than cold hard facts.

There was no conspiracy. There were no plots. There were no cover ups.

Sorry if that disappoints you but it's the truth. Over the decades plenty of others in Europe and North America have looked high and low for evidence of menace and skulduggery regarding the loss of RMS Titanic but guess what ........ they found nothing.

Are you seriously suggesting for one moment that you have some kind of knowledge or evidence that the authors of "On A Sea of Glass" or the multitude of experts in various fields who contributed to "A Centennial Reappraisal" somehow neglected ? I wouldn't dare challenge them unless I had some crystal clear, rock solid evidence in my locker.

There are some who will even go so far as to say that the entire tragedy was a hoax and the wreck is fake. Not kidding.
 

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
49
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Since the company is in business from 1824, the chocolate brand did exist in 1912. As for whether the Cadbury chocolate bars were on the Titanic, I cannot say that for certainly. I'm sure they definitely had similar chocolate treats on the ship - but I haven't seen any Cadbury chocolate dessert in any Titanic menu.

Here's some information on the manufacturer behind's this British treat:



More on the food served on the RMS Titanic: