Roger Lightoller's Birthdate

[Inger Sheil]

Lightoller wasn't alone among the Titanic's crew in regards to questioning the inquiry's method of gathering information. Hitchens, for example, had a few words on the subject when he returned to the UK. One of the few aspects of the inquiry Lowe was to comment to his family about was Smith's role in it. Even while they were still in Washington he was so incensed at the question regarding whether or not he had been drinking that he considered taking the matter further and demanding of Smith who had made the allegation (Smith responded with a clarifying statement that satisfied Lowe). It's interesting that Lowe had already encountered some of the figures at the British Inquiry during an earlier BOT case for which he was called as a witness.

Pat, I've wondered if perhaps Lightoller's efforts in the Hotel were an attempt - consciously or unconsciously - to assert some sort of control over the situation. While a BOT inquiry was a legal obligation (and one at least two of them had first hand experience with), it must have been an utterly disconcerting experience, coming on top of extraordinarily traumatic events, to be called before an unprecedented congressional inquiry.

Sharon, were these the Lightoller letters that, among other things, referred to the publication of his book? I believe there were some letters written by Roger in there as well - I have them kicking around here somewhere.

 

[Pat Winship]

Hi, Ing

Well put. He did think the British Inquiry was the proper one, and that the American was totally out of line, of no consequence, and just shouldn't have happened. Of course, we, historians all, are delighted that it did-- we would be missing a huge amount of fascinating material otherwise. But I can sympathize with Lightoller, with Harold Lowe, with Hichens, and the rest of the crew, being put through that sort of wringer.

Pat

 

[sharon rutman]

Lightoller totally detested the american Inquiry which he dismissed as a farce. Lightoller also resented the deplorable accomodations in Washington which may have been good enough for some, but not the crew of the Titanic. there was practically a mutiny among the burned out crew and it took Lightoller and the British Ambassador to try to restore the peace.

 

[Inger Sheil]

Sharon, that's the version that Lightoller gave in his memoirs 'Titanic and Other Ships'. Wade, working from a pro-Smith POV, gives another slant to his interpretation in which he suggests the crew were not as unhappy as Lightoller stated so many years later. The truth probably lies somewhere in between, I suspect. I don't know whether the accomodation in Washington could have been quite as bad as all that - standards on the Titanic might have been good by the practices of ships berths of the time, but many of these men (e.g. the stokers) were not exactly accustomed to the luxury implied by Lightoller's reference to the ship (the officers had seen far worse in their day as well - it was only a short time before that Moody had a cabin where the damp ran down the walls).

I've read through many contemporary newspaper accounts and found at least one where a group of crewman, lead by Frederick Fleet, were critical of Lightoller because they were under the rather mistaken impression that he had been given funds for the relief of the crew and had not distributed these to them.

I've also come across accounts of the visit of crewman to the British Ambassador - it was categorically denied to the media that this was in order to complain about their treatment at the inquiry, but rather was because the British Ambassador wished to congratulate these men on their conduct during the crisis. Of course, this is very possibly - and even probably - a cover story, but one cannot be certain what degree the British diplomats intervened in managing the crew.

Wade refers to many of the men enjoying themselves in Washington. I haven't found too much material on this, but I have found some on the very understandable desire of some to return home to England as soon as possible - adequate motivation for resenting the inquiry, even apart from questions of how it was conducted. Of the officers, contemporary sources report that Lowe was very disgruntled - but this was primarily attributed to the question he had been asked about his sobriety (although no doubt he had other gripes as well).

It's difficult to ascertain where the truth lies because both sides have an interest in either downplaying or emphasising the quality (or lack thereof) of the accomodation, and in interpreting the mood of the crew differently (either happy to comply or deeply resentful).

 

[Pat Cook]

The Amazing Inger wrote: "Wade refers to many of the men enjoying themselves in Washington. I haven't found too much material on this,..."

If you can lay your hands on a copy of "Titanic Voices" by Hyslop, Forsyth and Jemima, there are four photos of the same six crewmen (possibly sightseeing) around Washington, D. C. - one in front of the capitol dome itself. These include George Symon and George Moore, along with Senator Cary - pages 205, 207, 208 and 209 (in the paperback version). In one caption it states that some of the others may be "possibly Able Seaman Ernest Archer, Quartermasters Walter Perkis and Arthur Bright".

Hope this is of some help, m'dear.

Warmest regards, as always,
Cook

 

[Inger Sheil]

Cheers the Cook with his ever alert eye! Have that one, but thanks for the reminder. Think there are a few 'tourist' shots in the newspapers as well. Interesting to note that the visit to the newspaper offices, when Fleet had a grumble about Lightoller, came after a day of sightseeing when they'd run out of funds...

 

[Pat Winship]

Hi, Ing!

Thank you for that fact about Fred Fleet's complaint. I didn't know that. And hasn't this thread gotten turned around in some unusual directions? Oh well, at least we've kept it in the family, eh?

Pat W.

 

[sharon rutman]

The reason I suspect Titanic and Other Ships had such a short shelf life is that Lightoller was always so blunt regarding his impressions about everything (No Political Correctness claptrap from Lights). Among Lightoller's pet peeves were the way the American inquiry was conducted, the end of the sailing vessel in favor of steam ships and the way he despised submarines. Lightoller thought submarines and their crews were the lowest of the low. Lights would roll over in his grave if he knew his grandson had become a submarine officer!

 

[JHPravatiner]

Well, no grave to roll over in, as he was cremated, but perhaps he's up there on some misty cloud still grumbling about the ignominy of it all...;-)

Alternatively, in suggestion to the limited output and sales of "TaOS", is it possible that since the thing was puslibhed in what...'35?...that it hit a low ebb in interest?

After all, things hit a good spike when Walter Lord published ANTR, then again when the ship was discovered, then too when Cameron's travesty was released.

But after the initial hue and cry of 1912 to the '50's, the ship seems to have lain largely dormant in minds. Had Lightoller published in, say, late '12 or early '13 as Gracie had, he probably would have had a hot run on his hands.

Senior survivor and all that: same now as Lt. Cmdr. Muellenheim-Rechberg's story about the Bismarck is well known, as he was the senior survivor of that disaster.

But in 1935, those who had lived it seemed to have wanted to forget it, and those who hadn't didn't appear to have much interest. The content may have played a part, but I think the time of slow interest in Titanic may have also contributed to the lack of success to TaOS.

Had Lights, Lowe, or pretty well anyone else published shortly after, their story would eagerly have been snapped up--as many were, not all precisely...ahem...factual. (Thinking of Charlotte Collyer, maybe...) If he had published near his death, which was close to ANTR's publication, that too might have helped due to renewed interest a generation later.

I think he just hit a time when the older generation had lived through the disaster and didn't want reminders, and the younger generation perhaps wasn't so concerned.

After all, when such books as Pelligrino's and the book suggesting the Olympic switch can sell now, you know Titanic is a hot market. Were Lights' book out now, it'd probably have fair decent sales.

Anyone else think that the timing of release was a factor? Just my brain futzing around with the idea here.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I suspect that the published authors here would gladly tell you that timing is everything in a market as fickle as the book publishing world. Befor anything will even be considered for publication, there has to be a viable market for it. I suspect that had wreck never been discovered and Cameron's movie never been made, a lot of Titanic books out on the shelves now would never have made it to the shelves.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Pat Winship]

Okay, now Inger please correct me if I'm wrong; you know more about this than I do!

The short shelf life of Titanic and Other Ships had more to do with the fact that the Marconi Company sued his a**, than a lack of interest in the subject. It had to be withdrawn soon, quick, and fast after it came out for this reason. Now you may be right that there was nothing like the intense fascination with the sinking then, that there is now. But that's not why the book is so difficult to obtain.

I'll post the original version of the offending passage, and his revision of it later today; I haven't got both available at the moment. And you will get a little insight into just how hardheaded Lightoller could be. He changed it, but he didn't back down!

 

[Bob Cruise]

Another reason that fascination with the RMS Titanic did not surge until Lord's book is that two world wars followed in the disaster's wake. Minds in the ensuing years were not necessarily concerned with looking back.

Also, historians have told me before that, in order to assess any event's place in history, a period of about 30-50 years must pass before a good, objective call on it can be made.

Lord's book was one of the first which illustrated the sinking as much more than a disaster. To us, it dramatically marks the end of an era, and describes situations/lifestyles which captivate our imagination - but I doubt those who grew up with it viewed it as such.

(I mean, seriously, how many of you would shell out big bucks at an auction for a piece of the former World Trade Center? Or call up a victim's relative for an in-depth interview concerning 9/11?)

 

[Rosanne MacIntyre]

Pat,

Looking forward to reading the passages from both
editions.

I always thought the book was pulled because of
some rather strong criticism toward a Captain who
was still navigating the waters!

Rosanne MacIntyre

 

[Inger Sheil]

I believe you're correct there, Pat - Lightoller's private correspondence refers to legal difficulties with Marconi over his characterisation of the handling of the wireless messages. And yes, the differences in the reworked passage were hardly startling!

Possibly the lull in interest was also a factor. Given the tenor of other interwar books, I doubt 'political correctness' as we now understand the term had too much to do with it - I have some glorious (and popular) examples of splendid jingoism on my shelf that were published during the same era.

 

[sharon rutman]

Wade's book was incredibly hostile to Lightoller as I recall. He accused Lightoller of bringing the British caste system with him--officers do not bunk with ordinary crewmen and actually had the nerve to demand a decent room. Remember Lightoller just witnessed a horribly traumatic event and saw almost everyone he'd worked for and worked with over the years die a horrible death. He, himself, just barely survived after being pinned to a flimsy grating as the ship went down. talk about pure chutzpah--Wade was totally nasty and hostile