What if Andrews survived and Ismay died?

[Logan Horning]

Hello, everybody. We all know that Bruce Ismay and Thomas Andrews were the masterminds behind the construction of the Titanic, and played a large role during the voyage and sinking of the Titanic, and how in the end, Thomas Andrews doing down with the ship, and Bruce Ismay survived in Collapsible C, got blamed for the sinking of the Titanic, and lost his career as the owner of the White Star Line. But I was wondering, what do you think would have happened if Thomas Andrews reluctantly survived the sinking in one of the collapsible boats, and Bruce Ismay went down with the ship? I would be interested to see how the Inquiry would have went in that way.

 

[Thomas Krom]

Good day to you Logan,



I cannot imagine which important information would have gone down the Titanic if Mr. Ismay also died during the sinking and if Thomas Andrews survived in his place instead so I would like to imagine if both survived the sinking in this scenario.



Thomas Andrews Jr would have been asked quite similar questions about the ship during the American and British inquiry as Edward Wilding and would have been seen as one of the most important witnesses due his key role in the story of the Titanic (her designing phase (since he was head of the drafting department), construction (He oversaw the construction since he was Manager of Construction Works of Harland and Wolff for more than 10 years), voyage (As head of the guarantee group he and the guarantee group noted down improvements and I believe every important report immediately went to him after one of the 8 members on-board noted it down or heard it) and the sinking (Thomas Andrews of-course inspected the damage and estimated she would stay afloat for “a hour and a half at best.”)). They certainly would have asked him about what he saw during the sinking.



But that is something you off-course already know.



Let us look after the inquiry if he survived the sinking. He would most likely return on the RMS Adriatic along with Mr. Ismay (if he survived in my propsed scenario). I do not think the press would have turned on him since unlike Mr. Ismay, Thomas Andrews Jr did not had any problems with William Randolph Hearst (who as you may know turned the press on Mr. Ismay due some conflicts in the past). Outside that I must report that Andrews was very respected in Belfast, especially at Harland and Wolff. I believe if the press would leave him alone and did not blame him for the sinking he would return to his wife Helen (who he always called Nellie), his young daughter Elizabeth and their 5 servants at Windsor Avenue 12 (now number 20) in Belfast and would continue his position at Harland and Wolff and he would make sure that hull 433 (the Britannic) would become even safer than her ill-fated sistership. He also might would have had another child with his wife Helen if he survived. It is possible when his Uncle (lord) William Pirrie died in 1924 he might would have become the president of Harland and Wolff at age 51. I believe if he survived the Titanic disaster he would most likely died somewhere in the 1950s like his older brother (the Honourable John Miller Andrews) and his younger brother (Sir James Andrews).



Yours sincerely,



Thomas



PS: forgive me for any mistakes in my sentences, I am quite ill at the moment.

 

[Celtic Spirit77]

I don't think Thomas would have handled the guilt and remorse very well, from an emotional perspective. He was said to be naturally very empathetic, always thinking of others and their feelings. Emotionally, it would have hugely affected him. He wouldn't have been the same again.

 

[Thomas Krom]

I agree.

 

[Christian Homeier]

Hello to you all,

well, I think Mr. Andrews would have had a big problem in society. Not enough that he survived as a man, he would have been blamed for the accident. Because he was one of the main people at H&W when it came to the design and equipment of the ships. He should have put up with the questions regarding the number of lifeboats and had to live with the fact that HIS ship cost 1,500 lives. His life would have been over either way.

Regards

 

[Thomas Krom]

Good day to you Mr. Homeier,

I have to disagree with that statement that society would give him a hard time, atleast the press for that matter. Thomas Andrews Jr was quite beloved by society before the disaster is the first point I would like to mentioned. The second one is, unlike Andrews, Mr. Ismay made a powerfull enemy in the past named William Randolph Hearst. Hearst used his influence to destroy Ismay his life with articles that blamed him for the sinking (among with the fact that he claimed that Ismay was in the first boat (lifeboat 7) to leave the ship, which we all know was not the case.), Andrews always remained friendly towards people and was pure of heart. Thirdly, both the inquiries did not blame Harland and Wolff in any way, among with the press as far I am away, and the final point, Andrews was not the chief designer of Harland and Wolff until July 1910, the chief designer of the Olympic class was the right honorable Alexander Carlisle (who retired due his health on the 30th of June 1910) and he had to sign with his signature that the Olympic class would have 20 lifeboats (14 30 feet lifeboats with a capacity of 65 people, 4 25 feet Engelhardt Collapsible boats with a capacity of 47 people and 2 25 feet Cutter lifeboats with a capacity of 40 people (1178 people in total)). Of-course he would feel guilty for the disaster without a doubt, I am not stating that he would not. But The Rt Hon. Alexander Carlisle was also not blamed for the disaster.

One other final thing I want to mention is that 1496 people are believed to have died during the sinking of the 2208 people onboard based on the research of the late historian Phil Gowan.


Yours sincerely,

Thomas

 

[Michael H. Standart]

well, I think Mr. Andrews would have had a big problem in society. Not enough that he survived as a man, he would have been blamed for the accident.

I don't think so. Thomas Andrews had nothing to do with the actual navigation of the ship. He was not in a position to use an iceberg as a can opener, and the watch teams on the bridge were.

I suspect he would have faced a lot of hard questions concerning the design and construction of the ship, what changes were made, the reasoning behind any design changes as well as who made the decisions, and it would have started in New York or Washington D.C. (Remember, Senator Smith & Co had first crack at the survivors!)

 

[Thomas Krom]

I agree Mr. Standart.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I find it very hard to even consider a man like Bruce Ismay willingly going down with the ship. He comes across as someone with a great survival instinct; I don't despise him or his entering Collapsible C just before it was lowered. In his position, I would have probably done the same. Ismay might not have been a very likeable person but at least he was not a two-faced hypocrite like one other famous survivor whom many still regard as a hero.

The only way Ismay could have died is if he had miscalculated the rate of Titanic's sinking and left it too late, perhaps not being able to make it on board Collapsible A or B. In that case, he would have probably been seen in a similar light as Captain Smith in posterity, although as far as is known, the latter never made any attempt to save himself.

Likewise, I don't think Thomas Andrews would have made a serious attempt to save himself. As designer of the ship, he would have felt too much guilt over the loss of so many lives and going down with the ship as he did was effectively a form of suicide. If he did survive, it could only have been under circumstances similar to Captain Turner of the Lusitania, being pulled out unconscious from the water. If that had happened, he might have taken some flak during the subsequent investigations but given his character, I don't think he would have been vilified like Ismay was. Buy in any case, he would have been a guilt-ridden broken man for the rest of his life.

One question that I'd like to ask here is what was Andrews' own response to Alexander Carlisle's suggestion that Olympic and Titanic have a full complement of 48 lifeboats?

 

[Thomas Krom]

I find it very hard to even consider a man like Bruce Ismay willingly going down with the ship. He comes across as someone with a great survival instinct; I don't despise him or his entering Collapsible C just before it was lowered. In his position, I would have probably done the same. Ismay might not have been a very likeable person but at least he was not a two-faced hypocrite like one other famous survivor whom many still regard as a hero.

The only way Ismay could have died is if he had miscalculated the rate of Titanic's sinking and left it too late, perhaps not being able to make it on board Collapsible A or B. In that case, he would have probably been seen in a similar light as Captain Smith in posterity, although as far as is known, the latter never made any attempt to save himself.

Likewise, I don't think Thomas Andrews would have made a serious attempt to save himself. As designer of the ship, he would have felt too much guilt over the loss of so many lives and going down with the ship as he did was effectively a form of suicide. If he did survive, it could only have been under circumstances similar to Captain Turner of the Lusitania, being pulled out unconscious from the water. If that had happened, he might have taken some flak during the subsequent investigations but given his character, I don't think he would have been vilified like Ismay was. Buy in any case, he would have been a guilt-ridden broken man for the rest of his life.

I agree with the statements Mr. Vajpey.

One question that I'd like to ask here is what was Andrews' own response to Alexander Carlisle's suggestion that Olympic and Titanic have a full complement of 48 lifeboats?

It is widely believed that Thomas Andrews was quite supportive of Alexander Carlisle his choice to have 48 lifeboats onboard.

 

[Matthew Quayle]

Honestly, the universe in which Andrews survives is one with a great deal more information. Andrews would have had testimony that no-one else could give, not just about the mechanics of the sinking, but also about the whereabouts and conversations he had with the Captain during the sinking. One of the enduring mysteries of the Titanic that sticks in my mind is the actions of Andrews, Smith and Wilde when none were watching, the history of their actions during the night aren't as well documented as say Moody, who can be tracked reasonably well right up until the wave hitting the forward Boat Deck.

Of course, such things would be just common facts in such a universe, I'm sure the answers to those questions are mundane. There are a few key survivors that give us very detailed accounts, like Beesley, Gracie and Boxhall. The loss of any of these would have a dramatic effect on the information we have, and Andrews is, to my mind, one of these key victims who took a great deal of unique information with him to the bottom.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I would agree with this. If Andrews had survived, he would have given a clear account of what he felt, if anything, in his cabin during the collision, the time he went - or was summoned to - the bridge, the initial impressions there, the subsequent 10 to 12 minute 'damage assessment' tour - initially with the Captain before splitting up and subsequent decisions and orders by Smith.

Although Andrews is not very prominently mentioned after the 'damage assessment', he might have thrown important light on subsequent events as well, especially the final 15 to 20 minutes. Being Thomas Andrews, he would have remained on board the Titanic (as he actually did) in those final hectic moments, expecting to go down with the ship (as he did). But if he had donned his lifejacket and remained afloat long enough to be pulled aboard one of the lifeboats, be might have survived to bear witness.

 

[David G. Brown]

The future does not reveal its alternative. None of us knows tomorrow's events. All we can possibly know or speak about with meaning is what happened today and yesterday. Not meaning to damage anyon's reputation, but "What if"s are generally indulged in in place of serious research.

-- David G Brown

 

[Matthew Quayle]

"What if"s are generally indulged in in place of serious research.

What is an internet forum for, if not random indulgences?

 

[Kyle Naber]

The future does not reveal its alternative. None of us knows tomorrow's events. All we can possibly know or speak about with meaning is what happened today and yesterday. Not meaning to damage anyon's reputation, but "What if"s are generally indulged in in place of serious research.

-- David G Brown

That’s why we have a category for these messages. I wouldn’t click on them if I thought they were useless...