Did Mr. Allison see Alice Cleaver?

Perfectly understandable and it is not a typo. Once things settled down (relatively speaking) on board the Carpathia, Alice Cleaver would have quickly realized that the rest of the Hudson family had not survived, making her own position rather difficult. Also, there was the probability of a confrontation with Sarah Daniels and some not very friendly exchanges. Those IMO are adequate reasons for Alice Cleaver to give her name as Jean rather than having to face awkward questions from the press before she had a chance to get her mind and body in some sort of order.

I would like to know at what stage the confusion between Alice Catherine Cleaver, the innocent Titanic survivor and Alice Mary Cleaver, the one who was convicted for killing her child, began. Neither 'Alice' nor 'Cleaver' are such uncommon names and so confusion simply because of similar name is unlikely. I wonder someone who did not like Alice Cleaver tipped off the press, judging by that 20th April 1912 article? I am not mentioning any names, but judging by another quite ridiculous article that appeared in the Chicago Daily Tribune, a possibility does come to mind.
Do you know off hand when that first appeared in print? The claim that she was the killer I mean? The typo I was referring too that her bio says went back down to Second class to gather up the family. Getting pickey I know but the Allisons were in first class not second.
 
Do you know off hand when that first appeared in print? The claim that she was the killer I mean?
Not the exact date, but it must have been soon after the accident. Judith Geller's book Titanic: Women and Children First, there are 4 pages devoted to the Allison family and Alice Cleaver (pp 15-18 inclusive) and it starts with a Newspaper account in 1912. But the chapter itself is almost hilariously defamatory, describing Alice Cleaver by silly negative superlatives. The obvious howler is that Geller was describing Alice Mary Cleaver, while the woman who survived the Titanic disaster was, as we all now know, Alice Catherine Cleaver, no relation to the other.

The problem with that chapter and indeed the whole book is the vagueness as far as the author's own opinion is concerned. It is difficult to tell how much she is quoting from other sources and how much is her own conjecture. Alice Cleaver is described as a child murderer, of unstable character, most unattractive, scheming and a selfish coward; of course, she was none of those.

To answer your question Steven, my guess (and no more) is that the story about Alice Cleaver's alleged notoriety started sometime soon after the disaster. But we have to bear in mind that she was initially praised as a heroine for saving the baby - the New York Herald called her the "Brave nurse who saved the baby" (24/04/1912) etc. It was only a little later that the poison started to infiltrate and that makes me feel that there was a third party passing on information to the press that they knew was not true but would nevertheless be swallowed by the news hungry reporters.

Now who could that "third party" who tipped off the American reporters have been? It had to be someone who had lived in England and knew about the Alice Mary Cleaver case; someone who worked for the Allison family household; someone who had issues with Alice Catherine Cleaver, probably leading to a personal grudge; someone who was on the Titanic, also survived and had confrontations with Cleaver over baby Trevor on board the Carpathia; Someone who gave a ridiculously implausible story about the Allisons' last moments and their own survival; someone whose whereabouts after the disaster are rather vague and they eventually dropped off the public radar. Now, who do you think fits the bill perfectly?


The typo I was referring too that her bio says went back down to Second class to gather up the family.
I don't think that is a typo but rather a misleading choice of words. What the bio means is that after collecting her charge Trevor Allison, the "selfish" Alice Cleaver took time to go down to Second Class to alert other members of the Allison "household", meaning servants, not family. Sadly, only Mildred Brown, the cook, survived out of that group. Of course, that gesture meant that Alice Cleaver and Trevor Allison, as well as Miss Brown only managed to get into Lifeboat #11 that was lowered at about 01:30 am while the "guileless" Sarah Daniels got off on Lifeboat #8 launched 30 minutes earlier.
 
Not the exact date, but it must have been soon after the accident. Judith Geller's book Titanic: Women and Children First, there are 4 pages devoted to the Allison family and Alice Cleaver (pp 15-18 inclusive) and it starts with a Newspaper account in 1912. But the chapter itself is almost hilariously defamatory, describing Alice Cleaver by silly negative superlatives. The obvious howler is that Geller was describing Alice Mary Cleaver, while the woman who survived the Titanic disaster was, as we all now know, Alice Catherine Cleaver, no relation to the other.

The problem with that chapter and indeed the whole book is the vagueness as far as the author's own opinion is concerned. It is difficult to tell how much she is quoting from other sources and how much is her own conjecture. Alice Cleaver is described as a child murderer, of unstable character, most unattractive, scheming and a selfish coward; of course, she was none of those.

To answer your question Steven, my guess (and no more) is that the story about Alice Cleaver's alleged notoriety started sometime soon after the disaster. But we have to bear in mind that she was initially praised as a heroine for saving the baby - the New York Herald called her the "Brave nurse who saved the baby" (24/04/1912) etc. It was only a little later that the poison started to infiltrate and that makes me feel that there was a third party passing on information to the press that they knew was not true but would nevertheless be swallowed by the news hungry reporters.

Now who could that "third party" who tipped off the American reporters have been? It had to be someone who had lived in England and knew about the Alice Mary Cleaver case; someone who worked for the Allison family household; someone who had issues with Alice Catherine Cleaver, probably leading to a personal grudge; someone who was on the Titanic, also survived and had confrontations with Cleaver over baby Trevor on board the Carpathia; Someone who gave a ridiculously implausible story about the Allisons' last moments and their own survival; someone whose whereabouts after the disaster are rather vague and they eventually dropped off the public radar. Now, who do you think fits the bill perfectly?


I don't think that is a typo but rather a misleading choice of words. What the bio means is that after collecting her charge Trevor Allison, the "selfish" Alice Cleaver took time to go down to Second Class to alert other members of the Allison "household", meaning servants, not family. Sadly, only Mildred Brown, the cook, survived out of that group. Of course, that gesture meant that Alice Cleaver and Trevor Allison, as well as Miss Brown only managed to get into Lifeboat #11 that was lowered at about 01:30 am while the "guileless" Sarah Daniels got off on Lifeboat #8 launched 30 minutes earlier.
Ok. Got it. Lots of things about this story don't make sense but it sounds like somebody had it out for her. Maybe because they blamed her for the Allison's not getting on a boat. I don't blame her. To borrow a phrase sometimes you have to fish or cut bait. Too bad she couldn't have took the little girl too with her.
 
Lots of things about this story don't make sense but it sounds like somebody had it out for her.
It certainly looks that way, doesn't it? While we now know that Alice Catherine Cleaver, Trevor's nurse and fellow Titanic survivor was NOT the same woman who was accused of killing her own child back in England - that was Alice Mary Cleaver.

My point is that if the convicted child killer was called Hildegard Noseworthy-Footloose and a young woman with the same name had become baby Trevor Allison's nurse, then anyone can be excused for assuming that they were one and the same. But Alice Cleaver is a very commonplace sounding and there were probably several young women with that name in England in 1912. Therefore, someone would have had to make a deliberate effort - a tip-off, if you like - for the American press to get one Alice Cleaver mixed up with another. In those days, it was quite difficult to check authenticity of such things across the Atlantic and in any case, the press would not have bothered as long as they got a good story. Remember, in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, a few papers even reported that Sarah Daniels and her employer Bess Allison (nee Daniels) were sisters.


Maybe because they blamed her for the Allison's not getting on a boat.
No, I believe that the animosity between Alice Cleaver and Sarah Daniels went back further than the Titanic voyage. We will never know what the household chemistry among the Allison servants was like, but I suspect there was some mutual mud-slinging going on. Both women were travelling in First Class as part of the Allison entourage on Ticket #113781 and they were allocated Cabins C22 and C26. That could mean that the Allison family had Cabin C26 (larger, with en suite) and Sarah Daniels and Alice Cleaver shared the adjoining Cabin C22 , a nice recipe for some not very friendly exchanges and brewing tensions. That probably explains Alice's attitude on board the Carpathia in not allowing Sarah access to baby Trevor, although I don't believe in the nonsense that the baby was plaintively stretching his arms towards the maid and such.

One does not have to be a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to guess who that "somebody" who had it out for Alice Cleaver was.
 
Last edited:
We'll never know the full story of what exactly happened, and who bears the full responsibility.

Sarah Daniels might have been an alias, for the maid. We know that she was one of several survivors to have "disappeared" after the tragedy. She probably found employment elsewhere, married, and died never mentioning the Titanic, again. Whether she lived out her life in Canada or could have remained in England nobody knows for sure.

Hudson's two brothers were not pleased at all, when they learned that only Trevor survived. Could they have helped spread stories. Possibly.

When the prison records were found, it was assumed that the chance of two women having the same name were born close to the same time was rare.
I heard that the family of Alice Catherine Cleaver did meet with D.L. But there seemed to be some lingering resentment. And Titanic An Illustrated History was not republished after that, either. So no updates made.
And nobody mentioned it. But I would not be surprised IF the awful 1996 CBS Mini-Series stirred the emotions of the Cleaver family, since the Alice Cleaver child killer story was featured in it.

And regarding the book Women & Children First: take anything read there "with a grain of salt". It turned out that Judith Geller did not give full credit to some of her alleged sources. So it was stated that at least one person gave her false and misleading information, that would be corrected once Ms. Geller sat down and consulted with him.
Instead, Ms. Geller rushed the book to publication, and did not acknowledge that person.
So a lot of the stories are not factually true.
 
Sarah Daniels might have been an alias, for the maid.
I highly doubt that her last name would have been an alias seen we know quite a bit about her life before the Titanic. It has been suggested that her first name could have been either "Sadie" or "Sallie" but since we know about her family I doubt that her last name could have been an alias.
 
Sarah Daniels might have been an alias, for the maid. We know that she was one of several survivors to have "disappeared" after the tragedy. She probably found employment elsewhere, married, and died never mentioning the Titanic, again. Whether she lived out her life in Canada or could have remained in England nobody knows for sure.
While it is not impossible that the name was an alias, I tend to agree with Thomas Krom that enough was known about her life in England before the tragedy to conjecture that Daniels was her actual surname. I haven't heard her first name being 'Sallie' at any time (but acknowledge that it might be true) but I think 'Sadie' is mentioned in a few Titanic works. At the time of the voyage, she was certainly called Sarah Daniels.

Yes, Sarah Daniels is one of those who 'dropped off the radar' a few months after the tragedy but IMO those stories about her settling down to an obscure life in Canada are true. Also, I believe she wanted it that way herself. It is quite likely that Sarah Daniels had a few closet skeletons from her past life in England and it is even possible that some of that was the cause of animosity between Alice Catherine Cleaver and her.

Hudson's two brothers were not pleased at all, when they learned that only Trevor survived. Could they have helped spread stories. Possibly.
Well, I read that to start with the Allison family back in America hailed Alice Cleaver as a heroine for saving Trevor's life. It was only later that they started to change their minds and held her responsible for the deaths of Hudson, Bess and Loraine Allison. Since it would have been obvious to all concerned that those three had not survived since the Carpathia arrived in New York, one has to wonder what led to this change of heart. In my opinion, Sarah Daniels deliberately spread false rumours about Alice Catherine Cleaver to the American press as well as the Allison relatives. Being from England, she would have known about the trial and conviction of Alice Mary Cleaver a few years earlier and so it would not have been too difficult to falsely accuse Trevor's nurse of being the same woman. In those days, people believed newspaper stories to a large extent since there was no other medium and finding out the truth from across the Atlantic - even if someone bothered to try - would have been difficult.
And regarding the book Women & Children First: take anything read there "with a grain of salt".
I am taking most of the accounts in that book with a large CHUNK of salt.
 
BTW, I used Ancestry.com and it led me to a Find a Grave page, which lists a Sarah Daniels who died on October 28, 1913, in Antioch (California), which is north and east of Oakland, in Contra Costa County. She is listed as buried in Oak View Memorial Park.
It's speculation on my part, but it would not be surprising if that was THE Sarah Daniels who was on the Titanic. Her birthdate was listed as 1875, with the age estimated at 37 or 38.
Reference Sarah Daniels (1875-1913) - Find A Grave Memorial and U.S., Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current - Ancestry.com

Antioch is accessed, now, on California Highway 4. So I can imagine that it was a bit of a trek to get there in 1912 and 1913, though its point, near where both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers empty to the various bays that lead to the San Pablo, then San Francisco Bay would have made it ideal as a shipping port.

Both Sarah Daniels and Alice Cleaver were hired by the Allisons just before the Titanic's maiden voyage. I agree that animosity could have developed between Sarah and Alice, perhaps a clash of personalities. And IF the Titanic had made it to New York and the Allisons had moved to their new home in Chesterville, Ontario (south of Ottawa) then Sarah and Alice could manage to avoid each other while going about their duties. But sharing a cabin on the Titanic was ideal for resentments to occur.
Perhaps the story of Sarah being persuaded to enter Lifeboat 8 is correct. After that she could have embellished her story about crewmen assuring her that the Allisons would have been notified. Afterwards she might have wondered why it was only baby Trevor Allison and Alice Cleaver who survived. Resentment might have lingered in her.
And as was stated the reporters were eager to publish any story from the Titanic survivors, whether true or not.

Afterwards, the families of Hudson Allison took over caring for Trevor; so I can imagine Alice and Sarah dismissed. Sarah could have headed west on someone's recommendation, to seek employment in Northern California. There she might have contracted a virus or disease and died in 1913; or her health was never good. That would account for her disappearance as far as Titanic researchers were concerned.
 
I used Ancestry.com and it led me to a Find a Grave page, which lists a Sarah Daniels who died on October 28, 1913, in Antioch (California), which is north and east of Oakland, in Contra Costa County. She is listed as buried in Oak View Memorial Park.
There is quite a bit of verified information about Sarah Daniels' personal and family background here in her ET bio. That includes her parents and siblings names, date and place of birth etc. I used some of that information and got matching details on Family Search and My Heritage. They list the same details including the date she was christened but not her date of death, which remains a blank.

While it is possible that she died in 1913 (which would explain why no one heard of her later), IMO it is unlikely. Both Sarah and Daniels are very common names and so even with the year of birth as 1875, we would need more evidence to think that the Titanic Sarah Daniels is the same woman. Because, there is another Find-a-Grave page where she (with details matching) is mentioned as lost at sea only to be corrected by someone.


As you can see, they have not researched with care. The date of birth mentioned is correct, which would make her 36 going on 37 when she survived the Titanic disaster and yet they say she was 33 years old at the time.

Perhaps the story of Sarah being persuaded to enter Lifeboat 8 is correct.
I think it is. Considering that the Allisons were reluctant to believe that the ship was in danger and Sarah Daniels left in the first port Lifeboat launched at 01:00 am, she can't have tried too hard to persuade her employers to follow suit. Mind you, I don't blame her one bit for looking after herself but the fact that she survived on an early lifeboat makes some of her statements questionable.
 
One of the issues that I have been interested in and tried to do research based on available information combined with educated speculation is the fate of the Allison family from Montreal, Canada. As we all know Hudson and Bess Allison both died in the tragedy and took their poor little 3-year-old daughter Loraine Allison with them. I tried to make some sense of why they were unable to save themselves based on statements from surviving members of their entourage and other survivors who reported seeing them on the boat deck that fateful night. In trying to piece together what could have happened, I confess that I have had to make some conjectures but IMO while there is no solid evidence for these, none of them are outlandish. I also had a rethink of some of my own earlier views on the related sequence of events.

Right at the start I want to apologize for the long post. Of the various threads already there on ET about the Allisons, I felt that this one was the best place for it because the title is a major key in the sequence of events as I believe them.

Although the actual collision occurred at 11:40 pm on Sunday 14th April 1912, it took some time for most of the passengers to become aware of the seriousness of the situation. This would be particularly true for most First Class passengers in the upper decks and their servants, including Sarah Daniels and Alice Cleaver, who were berthed on C-deck, the same level as their employers.

Depending on which of the several rather inconsistent statements made by Sarah Daniels one chooses to believe, after the collision she is supposed to have gone out to explore what was wrong, realized the ship was in danger, returned to warn Alice Cleaver (with whom she very likely shared cabin C-22) and then went to C-26 to warn Hudson & Bess Allison. Again depending on which statement one accepts, Daniels did that once or twice; in the latter scenario, she was rebuffed at the first attempt by a sleepy Hudson Allison who refused to believe that anything was wrong. Sarah Daniels reportedly tried again after dressing warmly herself, this time to be angrily dismissed by Hudson for needlessly disturbing them. After that, Daniels went to the boat deck where she was "persuaded" to get into Lifeboat #8, the first port boat to be launched at 01:00 am. She was the first of the Allison entourage to be rescued.

I find Sarah Daniels' account of Hudson Allison's reaction to the report that the Titanic could be in danger very hard to believe. He was a responsible family man, a devout Methodist travelling with his wife and 2 small children; hardly the sort of a man who would dismiss a warning from anyone - let alone his wife's maid - without checking and making sure. Also, if Sarah Daniels had done all that she claimed that she did, I doubt if she could have made it to Lifeboat #8 on time. Her credibility is further reduced when one reads the fanciful and error-ridden letter that she wrote to the Chicago Daily Tribune only 2 days after arriving in New York. (Link courtesy of ET). Although not attested to the effect, it is generally believed that Sarah Daniels wrote that letter.

She would not leave her husband and went down with Titanic.

Alice Cleaver's account on the other hand seems far more plausible. According to her, after realizing that there was something seriously wrong, she went to C-26 and with some difficulty managed to wake up Hudson Allison and persuade him to go and check outside; in this she could have been supported by the nervously inclined Bess Allison. After Hudson had left to find out what was wrong, a steward popped in to advise the two women to dress themselves and the children warmly and to go the boat deck as per the Captain's orders. That made Bess even more anxious to the point of hysteria but she complied with the advice, perhaps with Cleaver's help. According to the nurse, she then picked-up baby Trevor Allison, who was specifically her responsibility and told Bess to take care of Loraine before going out. There she met Hudson Allison (the topic of the OP in this thread), returning from his exploration with the realization of the very real danger that the ship was in. According to Cleaver, she told Hudson about the same thing as she had told Bess a few minutes earlier and then continued on her way with Trevor in her arms.

Judging by the timeline of related events before and after, Alice Cleaver's interactions with the Allisons would have taken place just before 01:00 am. It seems that the Allison couple did realize that they had to leave by what the steward had told Bess and Alice earlier and what Hudson had learned from his exploration. Either way, they appear to have dressed hurriedly and made for the port side of the boat deck, only some 10 minutes or so behind Sarah Daniels. Hudson Allison probably knew already that men were not being allowed into lifeboats (on the port side) and so bundled his reluctant and still somewhat uncomprehending wife and daughter into Lifeboat #6, as witnessed by Major Peuchen and Colonel Gracie. Hudson himself either stood back with the other men or, more likely, left the scene deciding to try his luck on the starboard side.

The issue here is that if Alice Cleaver left C-26 around 1 am with baby Trevor Allison, the question arises why they could only board Lifeboat #11 that was lowered at 01:32 am, just over half-an-hour later. Surely, a young woman carrying a baby would have been prioritized on any boat? I suspect that answer is that after leaving Hudson Allison in the corridor, Alice briefly went back to C-22, the cabin she had shared with Sarah Daniels. But the maid had already left and even then was in Lifeboat #8 that was being lowered. Uncertain whether their colleagues George Swane & Mildred Brown in Second Class on F-deck were aware of the situation, it is highly likely that Alice Cleaver went there with little Trevor in tow. Swane, the chauffeur, might have already been alerted but according to one of her roommates, Selina Cook, Mildred Brown was a very heavy sleeper and on the night in question they had considerable difficulty in waking her up and convincing her that the ship was in danger. Selina Cook said that at one point George Swane came into their cabin to warn them but his movements after that are unclear. In any case, all that would have delayed Alice Cleaver and Trevor Allison and so the fact that they could get onto the boat deck only in time to make into Lifeboat #11 is understandable. The fact that Mildred Brown was with them and rescued on the same lifeboat makes this conjecture very likely.

Therefore, there is evidence (Peuchen, Gracie, possibly others) that Bess and Loraine Allison were actually sitting in Lifeboat #6 but got out and back onto the deck of the Titanic just before the boat was lowered. What caused Bess to take that action? IMO, not to look for baby Trevor, whom Bess knew was safe with Alice Cleaver. Moreover, Bess would have never even gone near a lifeboat if she had thought that Trevor was still somewhere on the ship. I believe that while sitting in Lifeboat #6 Bess realized that no men were being allowed even if there was room (true, on the port side) and got out to look for her husband Hudson who must have left the scene by then. Since Lifeboat #6 was lowered at 01:10 am, it would have been around that time when Bess and Loraine got out of it in the last second.

Next step would be to try and imagine what Bess (and Loraine) Allison did after getting out of #6. Bess would have frantically started searching for her husband Hudson, not an easy task on such a large ship with the boat deck relatively dark, increasingly crowded and noisy. My guess (and only that) would be that Bess first searched up and down on the same side that she was on – Port; there is the possibility that Hudson Allison at the time was on the starboard side (with George Swane?), where all the forward boats except Collapsible C had been already lowered. If Hudson had gone there after he left his wife and daughter safely inside Lifeboat #6, he and perhaps Swane could easily have found places on one of the aft starboard lifeboats where men were being allowed if there was room. Therefore, for some time after she got out of #6, Bess Allison might not have found her husband.

But we know that Hudson Allison did not get into any lifeboat himself and was lost. If he had gone to the starboard side as I assume, the question arises WHY he was not saved. One possibility is that after finding that there were still 4 more aft lifeboats on the starboard side where men could be allowed, Hudson decided to make sure that his reluctant and anxious wife had actually remained with their daughter in Lifeboat # 6 where he had left them before trying to find a place for himself. He could soon have learned that they had actually got off it at the last moment and so he would have frantically started searching for them even as they were searching for him. The question is how long it took for them to find each other on the crowded and darkened deck? It could have been quite some time, especially if one or both of them when down to A-deck where Lifeboat #4 had been lowered on port side forward or where first the partially loaded Lifeboat #13 and then #15 were lowered on the starboard aft side. Depending on which lifeboat she was saved in, it could have been during one of those excursions by Bess and Loraine Allison that Winnie Troutt saw them.

So, I think that it is safe to assume that by the time the Allisons found each other, most of the lifeboats had already been launched. There could still have been a few left, like #10, #4, Collapsible C and Collapsible D, but I expect between Bess’ hysterical refusal to board any lifeboat without her husband and Hudson’s own uncertain dithering, they missed out altogether. That is all the more likely if, towards the end they had remained mainly on the port side forward where Lightoller was not allowing any men into either #4 or Collapsible D.

In summary therefore, after it became apparent that the Titanic was in fact in danger, IMO Sarah Daniels mainly looked after herself without really checking about her employers or colleagues. Alice Cleaver on the other hand, took charge of Trevor Allison – her designated responsibility – with full knowledge of the baby’s parents and then proceeded to warn her colleagues on the F-deck. Although reluctant at first, Hudson, Bess and their daughter Loraine Allison got to the boat deck with plenty of time and Hudson then saw his wife and daughter safely on board Lifeboat #6 before leaving them to try for a place himself. But between Bess’ reluctance to leave her husband behind, Hudson’s failure to assess the situation correctly etc made the couple waste time searching for each other till it was too late.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for sharing this. The Allisons’ story is really sad and devastating. Bess was searching frantically for her son but she totally ignored the fact that her daughter had to be saved too. I think that Trevor and Bess didn’t make it to a boat because they never thought that Titanic will sink. She was unsinkable after all. Anyway. It’s a pity that this young family lost their life.
 
Bess was searching frantically for her son
That belief is what I wanted to question. IMO Bess Allison certainly and most likely also Hudson Allison knew that baby Trevor was with his nurse Alice Cleaver and would not have risked their and little Loriane's life searching for him. There is evidence (statements of Gracie, Peuchen etc) to accept that at one stage Hudson had persuaded Bess and Loraine to board Lifeboat #6. Bess would never had agreed to that if she thought that baby Trevor's whereabouts were unknown. I believe that when Bess realized that men, including husbands of other women already on board #6 would not be allowed to enter even when there was room, that she got off Lifeboat #6. Hudson Allison very likely had left the vicinity by then and she spent time looking for him, not Trevor.

I think the myth about baby Trevor being practically kidnapped by Alice Cleaver arose because of the utterly false story that spread soon after the disaster that Cleaver was a former child killer who had covered her tracks and so on. It is not known how that rumour started but I would not be one bit surprised if Sarah Daniels was behind it. People like the Allisons would have researched very very thoroughly inti the background of a young woman whom they intended to appoint as their only son (and heir) Trevor's nurse, a huge responsibility. The truth was that the person they chose, Alice Catherine Cleaver, although only 22 years old, had a clean sheet and lot of relevant experience, having worked since her teens as a baby nurse for a few rich and influential families. Other than the fact that she was from London, the Alice Cleaver on board the Titanic had absolutely nothing to do with Alice Mary Cleaver, the aforementioned woman convicted of killing her own child in a fit of "depression" a few years earlier.

The only reason that Alice Cleaver was on board the Titanic and going to Canada with the Allisons was was because she was their son Trevor's nurse. Therefore, she had full responsibility for him and all concerned would have understood that her priority would have been to take Trevor and keep him safe with her. As she stated herself, she did that right in front of Bess and in doing so might have felt that she was making it easier for the parents to look after just one child - Loraine Allison - under those difficult circumstances rather than two. Unfortunately, it was those parents - and not Alice Cleaver - who made a mess of their responsibility and that resulted in Loraine's death.
 
I totally agree with you. The fact that a mother didn’t put her child’s life first angers me. Even if she didn’t want to be separated from her husband she should have put little Lorraine into a lifeboat under the protection of an adult she knew and trusted.
 
Even if she didn’t want to be separated from her husband she should have put little Lorraine into a lifeboat under the protection of an adult she knew and trusted
Agreed, but there is such a thing as maternal instinct, the degree of which might have significant personal variations. At one extreme, there are women who never bonded with their babies and abandoned them for one reason or another; at the other end of the spectrum are those who are suicidally inclined but who simply cannot bear the thought of their child in someone else's hands and so kill him/her before killing themselves. Logical thought would be difficult for people at those extremes, especially under circumstances such as those on board the sinking Titanic.

Bess Allison was known to be a woman inclined towards anxiety and found herself in a "damned if I do and damned if I don't" sort of situation that night. While frantically searching for her husband, she would have been very reluctant to lose sight of daughter Loraine as well and so the idea that she might be inadvertently endangering Loraine's life by her actions probably never entered her head. By the time she found Hudson and the couple realized that they had procrastinated too long, it was probably too late.
 
I see. I didn’t know that Bess was so anxious . That’s new to me, but it explains a lot about the fact that Bess was so disorientated during the disaster.
Titanic 1996 miniseries based the portrayal of Alice Cleaver to that story of this child-killer you’ve mentioned before. Now I know that’s totally inaccurate. Alice Cleaver of Titanic was indeed a decent woman.
 
Back
Top