KAREN ANGSTADT
Guest
I would think that the survivors would have been extremely more traumatized by the site of dead bodies being pulled onto the ship also. I know I would have been. Karen
The Straus incident
- Thread starter Bill DeSena
- Start date
Bill DeSena
Guest
Mr Himmelsbach makes an interesting point regarding ladies clothing sinking through saturation faster than men. I think that might also account for the disproportion of female recoveries by the Mackay Bennett.
The idea that different currents dispersed the bodies so widely that some were located in a large grouping by the Mackay Bennett while others were presumably picked up by different currents and drifted farther away from the scene of the sinking I don't agree with. As we know the waters were extremely calm on the night of the sinking which added to the difficulty in seeing the iceberg due to no breaking waves around its base forming white caps in the surface. I,m by far no expert in ocean current dynamics and leave this study to those more qualified, it's just my opinion that when the Mackay Bennett arrived it found the majority of bodies still floating fairly close together and if diverging currents played a role in the dispersal I don't think this would have been the case. I do think that the Mackay Bennett didn't recover all the bodies that were in the vacinity due to a number of factors, time, distance, visual observation etc.. Mr's Straus may have been overlooked in the search due to either of the aforementioned reasons or as Mr. Himmelsbach mentions the saturation of her clothes may have caused the body to float deeper than others until finally sinking and not being as easy to see as the others by the recovery team. Having been both a costume designer at an early point in life myself I can support his conclusion on this point. I also was a police officer and pulled more than a few "floaters" out of the salt waters of my jurisdiction up to several weeks after drowning and deposit by their killers. Even in thier advanced state of composition and the effects of marine life, the bodies do float back to the surface as the gases from decomposition fill the addominal area and make them bouyant again, hence it is possible that a body with a saturated lifebelt and heavy clothes might sink and then still return to the surface as the effects of decomposition take place. Sorry for the grisly forensics!
Regards
Bill
The idea that different currents dispersed the bodies so widely that some were located in a large grouping by the Mackay Bennett while others were presumably picked up by different currents and drifted farther away from the scene of the sinking I don't agree with. As we know the waters were extremely calm on the night of the sinking which added to the difficulty in seeing the iceberg due to no breaking waves around its base forming white caps in the surface. I,m by far no expert in ocean current dynamics and leave this study to those more qualified, it's just my opinion that when the Mackay Bennett arrived it found the majority of bodies still floating fairly close together and if diverging currents played a role in the dispersal I don't think this would have been the case. I do think that the Mackay Bennett didn't recover all the bodies that were in the vacinity due to a number of factors, time, distance, visual observation etc.. Mr's Straus may have been overlooked in the search due to either of the aforementioned reasons or as Mr. Himmelsbach mentions the saturation of her clothes may have caused the body to float deeper than others until finally sinking and not being as easy to see as the others by the recovery team. Having been both a costume designer at an early point in life myself I can support his conclusion on this point. I also was a police officer and pulled more than a few "floaters" out of the salt waters of my jurisdiction up to several weeks after drowning and deposit by their killers. Even in thier advanced state of composition and the effects of marine life, the bodies do float back to the surface as the gases from decomposition fill the addominal area and make them bouyant again, hence it is possible that a body with a saturated lifebelt and heavy clothes might sink and then still return to the surface as the effects of decomposition take place. Sorry for the grisly forensics!
Regards
Bill
Michael H. Standart
Member
Bill, in regards to currents, ocean currents do not make any discernable disturbances on the surface, and while they move slowly,(about 3 to 5 mph) they are nevertheless backed up by the sheer mass of the entire ocean. Icebergs, for example, are carried south by oceanic currents until they finally reach the Gulf Stream where they melt very quickly in the warm waters. It is entirely possible for the masses of bodies to be moved several hundred miles in a few days if they are caught in the mainstream of any large oceanic currents. The wonder of it was that any were found at all.Even on the first search within less then a week of the sinking, it took the Mackay Bennett over a week to find and recover 306 bodies. As time wore on and the currents did their work, those recovered by other ships were far fewer in nunmber. The last body recovered was that of saloon steward James McGrady on 8 June of that year by the S.S. Algerine. It had left St. Johns on 15 May. McGrady's body was the only one they recovered.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Randy Bryan Bigham
Member
MEANDERING (AND PERHAPS TO SOME TRIVIAL) OBSERVATIONS ON 1912 FASHIONS AND WHAT EFFECT (IF ANY) THESE MAY HAVE HAD ON TITANIC WOMENS' ESCAPE AND SURVIVAL
Re: Himmelsbach's comments as to the heaviness of women's clothing which may have prevented women on Titanic from swimming to safety:
This is largely true - but not because of full skirts & petticoats which were decidely not the fashion at the time. The 1910-14 era saw the streamlined ideal in women's clothes at its zenith - pencil slim, ankle-length skirts (necessitating only a slim, slip-like petticoat),high waistlines, etc. Corsets and underclothes were also paring down but would still be considered positively voluminous by standards today.
But narrow skirts would certainly have posed their own problem - hence the popular term "hobble skirt." These were so tight, women could hardly walk without mincing (or hopping as the humor magazine "Punch" jested) - much less swim for their life. The press in fact was full of stories in these years of women falling off trolley cars or splitting their hems while climbing steps & careening to the ground, or other such accidents due to the high fashion fad of tight skirts.
On Titanic, since most of the women left behind after the last boats had left were 2nd or steerage class, who would probably have not been into the maddest Paris trends, one might safely eliminate the hobble skirt as their dress of choice that night. Still, corsets (even the lightly - boned types which were becoming the norm) would have been very absorbant & would therefore have impeded movement in the water. And moderately straight or slightly flared skirts would also have slowed down or completely impaired progress unless, like Lady Margaret Mackworth in the Lusitania disaster, the women had the presence of mind to unhook their skirts.
Women's coats would have been full-length as well which would have added tremendously to their weight once waterborn. A fur or fur-lined coat would probably have become so waterlogged a woman would not have been able to move at all.
As a conservative example of what many women, irrespective of class, may have worn that night, let us examine Mrs. Straus' probable choice of wardrobe. She has been brought up by others as the centerpiece to this discussion so it is fitting to select her as our focus. More likely than not Mrs. Straus had on a woolen suit or dress with a skirt cut on practical, flared lines (no "hobble" would have been indulged in by an elderly lady).
Underneath, though it may seem indelicate to envison, she would have worn a flannel or linen straight-cut petticoat over knee length drawers, often called cami-knickers or petti-bockers. She would have been in a corset, heavily boned & rather tightly laced, due to her girth; younger or slimmer women would have had corsets w/ only light "stays," & moderate lacing.
Straus would have worn high top shoes, either buttoned or laced, over wool or lisle stockings. (Younger women may have opted for high-vamped pumps over silk stockings as these were lately fashionable.) Lastly she surely had on a thick coat or fur wrap, a hat and/or scarf or a head covering of some form. As one can imagine this garb would have presented the wearer with a hopeless predicament once in the water.
We don't know to what extent the chic & much lampooned "hobble skirt" was adopted by younger first class women on Titanic April 14 but we can assume it was worn by many. (The outcry over the "hobble" was not unlike that over the "mini" in the 60s). But we do know, for instance, that fashion columnist Edith Rosenbaum, later Russell, wore a "hobble" and that it caused her difficulty in getting into a lifeboat. She even reported losing one of her buckled slippers in the scramble, which she wasted valuable time trying in vain to recover.
Most of us have also seen the photo taken on the rescue ship of a hobble-skirted Mrs. George Harder sitting w/ her husband & another lady. Mrs. Harder's skirt is so tight it appears to have ridden up a bit on her legs, revealing her high button boots right up to her calves.
In light of the fact that the tight skirt was known to have caused a number of accidents on land, we might reasonably speculate that similar occurences on board Titanic were also due to the fad for the "hobble" - for instance Mrs. Harris' plummeting down stairs (& breaking her arm) earlier on the 14th, Mrs. Candee's tripping as she boarded a lifeboat, and Mrs. White's twisting her ankle sometime during the voyage.
And poor Edith Evans, who was somehow unable to get into the last lifeboat though she seems o have had time to do so; did a hobble skirt encumber her?
We may never know what true victims the Tyrant Fashion claimed the night the Titanic went down.
Re: Himmelsbach's comments as to the heaviness of women's clothing which may have prevented women on Titanic from swimming to safety:
This is largely true - but not because of full skirts & petticoats which were decidely not the fashion at the time. The 1910-14 era saw the streamlined ideal in women's clothes at its zenith - pencil slim, ankle-length skirts (necessitating only a slim, slip-like petticoat),high waistlines, etc. Corsets and underclothes were also paring down but would still be considered positively voluminous by standards today.
But narrow skirts would certainly have posed their own problem - hence the popular term "hobble skirt." These were so tight, women could hardly walk without mincing (or hopping as the humor magazine "Punch" jested) - much less swim for their life. The press in fact was full of stories in these years of women falling off trolley cars or splitting their hems while climbing steps & careening to the ground, or other such accidents due to the high fashion fad of tight skirts.
On Titanic, since most of the women left behind after the last boats had left were 2nd or steerage class, who would probably have not been into the maddest Paris trends, one might safely eliminate the hobble skirt as their dress of choice that night. Still, corsets (even the lightly - boned types which were becoming the norm) would have been very absorbant & would therefore have impeded movement in the water. And moderately straight or slightly flared skirts would also have slowed down or completely impaired progress unless, like Lady Margaret Mackworth in the Lusitania disaster, the women had the presence of mind to unhook their skirts.
Women's coats would have been full-length as well which would have added tremendously to their weight once waterborn. A fur or fur-lined coat would probably have become so waterlogged a woman would not have been able to move at all.
As a conservative example of what many women, irrespective of class, may have worn that night, let us examine Mrs. Straus' probable choice of wardrobe. She has been brought up by others as the centerpiece to this discussion so it is fitting to select her as our focus. More likely than not Mrs. Straus had on a woolen suit or dress with a skirt cut on practical, flared lines (no "hobble" would have been indulged in by an elderly lady).
Underneath, though it may seem indelicate to envison, she would have worn a flannel or linen straight-cut petticoat over knee length drawers, often called cami-knickers or petti-bockers. She would have been in a corset, heavily boned & rather tightly laced, due to her girth; younger or slimmer women would have had corsets w/ only light "stays," & moderate lacing.
Straus would have worn high top shoes, either buttoned or laced, over wool or lisle stockings. (Younger women may have opted for high-vamped pumps over silk stockings as these were lately fashionable.) Lastly she surely had on a thick coat or fur wrap, a hat and/or scarf or a head covering of some form. As one can imagine this garb would have presented the wearer with a hopeless predicament once in the water.
We don't know to what extent the chic & much lampooned "hobble skirt" was adopted by younger first class women on Titanic April 14 but we can assume it was worn by many. (The outcry over the "hobble" was not unlike that over the "mini" in the 60s). But we do know, for instance, that fashion columnist Edith Rosenbaum, later Russell, wore a "hobble" and that it caused her difficulty in getting into a lifeboat. She even reported losing one of her buckled slippers in the scramble, which she wasted valuable time trying in vain to recover.
Most of us have also seen the photo taken on the rescue ship of a hobble-skirted Mrs. George Harder sitting w/ her husband & another lady. Mrs. Harder's skirt is so tight it appears to have ridden up a bit on her legs, revealing her high button boots right up to her calves.
In light of the fact that the tight skirt was known to have caused a number of accidents on land, we might reasonably speculate that similar occurences on board Titanic were also due to the fad for the "hobble" - for instance Mrs. Harris' plummeting down stairs (& breaking her arm) earlier on the 14th, Mrs. Candee's tripping as she boarded a lifeboat, and Mrs. White's twisting her ankle sometime during the voyage.
And poor Edith Evans, who was somehow unable to get into the last lifeboat though she seems o have had time to do so; did a hobble skirt encumber her?
We may never know what true victims the Tyrant Fashion claimed the night the Titanic went down.
Re clothes: My wife still talks about the difficulty of moving around in the corset she wore for the Titanic film. I recall reading an article how some of the woman on the Carpathia were physically ill from not having their corsets - it turns out there bodies were used to being supported by all that whalebone, strings and whatever else went into them and the ladies bodies were not used to this "new freedom". In any event I don't see how anyone could actually swim in one of those things. The "body extras" certainly did not.
Jeffrey M. Kern
Member
Could it be that Mrs Straus gave to Miss Ellen Bird, her maid, not only her fur coat but her lifebelt? Just a simple thought. And as to people with lifebelts who died - most certainly many were not found, i.e. Edith Corse Evans or maybe even Anne Eliza Isham (I wonder what happened to her?). But as to fashion - indeed, that could be a problem, such as with Miss Edith Rosenbaum (Russell) and her dress. Needless to say more ...
Randy Bryan Bigham
Member
Edith Rosenbaum (later Russell) was wearing a hobble skirted dress, meaning a tapered, ankle-length skirt which was difficult to walk in. It was a fad of the time. She had difficulty getting into the lifeboat because of it. She mentions this in her article for the Ladies' Home Companion (1964) and in a radio interview (1950s?).
Dave Gittins
Member
The hobble skirt, oddly enough, was supposed to be the mark of a modern, adventurous woman. It is said to have originated with Katherine Wright, who wanted to go flying in France with her brother, Orville.
She climbed onto the lower wing and sat beside him, then tied a rope round her skirt to stop it blowing up. The idea caught on and some hobble skirts actually had a piece of cord round them.
My understanding is that they peaked in 1910 and by 1912 they were going out of favour, though skirts remained narrower than they had been before. I recently came on a 1912 article from a doctor condemning the hobble skirt for preventing normal exercise. The strange seas Titanic takes us into!
She climbed onto the lower wing and sat beside him, then tied a rope round her skirt to stop it blowing up. The idea caught on and some hobble skirts actually had a piece of cord round them.
My understanding is that they peaked in 1910 and by 1912 they were going out of favour, though skirts remained narrower than they had been before. I recently came on a 1912 article from a doctor condemning the hobble skirt for preventing normal exercise. The strange seas Titanic takes us into!
Randy Bryan Bigham
Member
Dave,
You're right re: the hobble skirt being a mark of modernity but it had nothing to do with freedom! Suffragettes used to march in those things! Can you imagine what a sight that was and what a mixed message? But to be true to history, the hobble skirt was invented by Paris designer Paul Poiret who brought it out in his spring 1910 collection. Skirts had been tapering since 1907 but the "hobble" was the extreme end of the progression. Most meausured 28 inches to a yard in circumference at the hem. Lucile, by the way, promoted a slit hobble skirt so that women could have the tapered look but without the strain.
You're correct too re: the cord thing. Some early examples had a band at the knees that could be buttoned are drawn together with elastic to produce the narrow effect.
Hobble skirts were heartily attacked by press pundits, health experts (as you mentioned), and the Vatican even issued a writ against it. But it was high fashion well into 1912-13. Actually though by that time less extreme versions were coming into style - ones with slits a la Lucile or ones with an inverted kick-pleat. Also by 1912 skirts were beginning to be draped with a crossing in front so that the ankles were free and peeked through as the wearer walked.
Very interesting re: the Orville Wright thing. Never heard that before. Where did you read that by the way? I'd like to have a reference.
You're right re: the hobble skirt being a mark of modernity but it had nothing to do with freedom! Suffragettes used to march in those things! Can you imagine what a sight that was and what a mixed message? But to be true to history, the hobble skirt was invented by Paris designer Paul Poiret who brought it out in his spring 1910 collection. Skirts had been tapering since 1907 but the "hobble" was the extreme end of the progression. Most meausured 28 inches to a yard in circumference at the hem. Lucile, by the way, promoted a slit hobble skirt so that women could have the tapered look but without the strain.
You're correct too re: the cord thing. Some early examples had a band at the knees that could be buttoned are drawn together with elastic to produce the narrow effect.
Hobble skirts were heartily attacked by press pundits, health experts (as you mentioned), and the Vatican even issued a writ against it. But it was high fashion well into 1912-13. Actually though by that time less extreme versions were coming into style - ones with slits a la Lucile or ones with an inverted kick-pleat. Also by 1912 skirts were beginning to be draped with a crossing in front so that the ankles were free and peeked through as the wearer walked.
Very interesting re: the Orville Wright thing. Never heard that before. Where did you read that by the way? I'd like to have a reference.
Bill DeSena
Guest
Heh Folks, aren't we getting way off the topic with all the fashion stuff? Its interesting enough to start its own topic on the Titanic fashions and how they may have contributed to loss of life. Don't get me wrong, I love fashion but I think we're on a totally new topic that deserves its own place here.
Regards
Bill
Regards
Bill
Randy Bryan Bigham
Member
Very well. Bill, lead the way. If there's something new to add, feel free. I was only replying to others but, as your point is well taken, for my part I'll reply privately to people if they have their e-mail attached so as not to bother others with "fashion stuff."
Randy
Randy
Mike Herbold
Member
Randy:
I think you misunderstood Bill. The "fashion stuff" is very interesting and much appreciated and should be kept online. But this thread started with the Strauss' and somehow ended up on Orville Wright's sisters dress. Bill is just saying start a new thread.
You're not the only guilty party -- we all meander in our conversations and often don't realize it till much later.
I think you misunderstood Bill. The "fashion stuff" is very interesting and much appreciated and should be kept online. But this thread started with the Strauss' and somehow ended up on Orville Wright's sisters dress. Bill is just saying start a new thread.
You're not the only guilty party -- we all meander in our conversations and often don't realize it till much later.
Randy Bryan Bigham
Member
Mike,
You hesh up! I know what the man meant! He done started a new thread & I re-sponded to it! You's the cause of too much worry round here!
Randy
You hesh up! I know what the man meant! He done started a new thread & I re-sponded to it! You's the cause of too much worry round here!
Randy
