I'm kinda with you Laura. It would depend on if my husband survived with me. If he had, I think I would be able to talk about it and give statements to the press. But if he perished, I would never be able to talk about it. Probably just hearing the word Titanic would scare me or make me cry. Sometimes when I think about losing loved ones, I get teary eyed, so I couldn't imagine losing them in such a horrific way as this.
-
Let's stay in touch! Sign up for our occasional (but interesting) newsletter.
Discover new research on all aspects of the sinking, interesting Titanic facts, and learn more about the Titanic's passengers and crew.
What If You Were A Survivor
- Thread starter Darren Honeycutt
- Start date
Laura Melinda Varjo
Guest
You know Mia, as I was reading Women and Children First by Judith Geller, the stories of the Asplund, Dean, and Goldsmith families,they differ so much. I mean Mrs. Dean and Mrs.Goldsmith married after the tragedy of losing their husbands, while Selma remained unmarried, oh yeah, so did Mrs. Laroche. What would you do ? First of all, I would never recover from depression, and most certainly would not remarry, no matter what, that would be cheating on my husband, who died in the disaster, but every year I would hold a memorial for him with my children. Now, if I would have no children by the time Titanic sank, as much as I love children, I still wouldn't remarry.
Laura
Laura
Inger Sheil
Member
It's such a highly personal thing, Laura, but I don't think re-marriage would be cheating on a lost husband. Many Titanic widows did so, but I don't think it represented a betrayal of the love they felt for the lost ones on the ship. Some, of course, could not countenance loving another person. But I don't believe falling in love again means that you must love the lost one any less.
To turn to another 1912 tragedy, we can look at the loss of the Scott polar expedition. Kathleen Scott accompanied her husband to New Zealand, where she and Robert Falcon Scott said goodbyes that were to be for all time.
As he was waiting for death on the ice barrier, he wrote to her the following:
Kathleen did indeed take the whole thing 'very sensibly'. She received the news that he had perished calmly from the captain of the ship as she was en route back to New Zealand to meet Scott (as an aside, after being told her husband had perished she had a Spanish lesson, then lunch, and then read a book about the Titanic). Later she was happily re-married, just as 'Con' had suggested. But that doesn't mean she ever forgot him, or that she ever ceased to love him or fiercely guard his memory.
Over 35 years later, she wrote of her farewell to 'Con' in New Zealand. No one can doubt the love, tenderness and loss in the passage as she describes his ship, the Terra Nova, pulling away:
Laura Melinda Varjo
Guest
Wow, I didn't know about all this, this man 'Con' was very sweet indeed.
Now I'm confused. I don't know, but I feel I still would be that person, who couldn't countenance loving another person, I just couldn't, it's just like if my parents would divorce, and let's say I'd be with my dad, he would remarry, I wouldn't love my stepmom as my own mom, I would cry for leaving her every day.( I even cried for her once at breakfast, when my brother spotted me tear-eyed& made fun of me-just two years ago when I went home to visit some family members, I was 15 !)
But anyways, I wanna learn more about this Terra Nova ship, can I on ET ?
Laura
Now I'm confused. I don't know, but I feel I still would be that person, who couldn't countenance loving another person, I just couldn't, it's just like if my parents would divorce, and let's say I'd be with my dad, he would remarry, I wouldn't love my stepmom as my own mom, I would cry for leaving her every day.( I even cried for her once at breakfast, when my brother spotted me tear-eyed& made fun of me-just two years ago when I went home to visit some family members, I was 15 !)
But anyways, I wanna learn more about this Terra Nova ship, can I on ET ?
Laura
I dont have a problem about remarrying. If I fell in love again. I would always remember my husband and never ever stop loving him, but that doesnt mean that there is no room in my heart to ever love again. Something so tragic as this is not even fathomable for me. I mean, I could not imagine going through what those poor people went through. If I lost my husband on the Titanic, like so many women did, I would wish I had died with him because the pain would be unbearable. But after time, my heart would heal and I would be forced to go on and live a life. Its just what you have to do. Of course I wasn't there and I actually have no idea how I would handle it, so I cant really say truthfully.
monica e. hall
Member
I don't know how true it is, but I have heard it said many times that those who were blissfully married are those most likely to re-marry relatively quickly after a tragedy. Probably does make sense, if you think about it.
Inger Sheil
Member
That's an interesting idea, Monica! I've seen it in action before as well.
Laura, be warned - once you get into the golden age of Antarctic Exploration, you may find it as addictive as the Titanic! Robert Falcon Scott is today best remembered for his heroic but failed attempt to reach the South Pole first (he was beaten by the brilliant Norweigan explorer Amundson). On the return from the South Pole, in March 1912, he and all other four men of his party perished. You might have heard before of one of the men, Captain L.E.G. Oates who - suffering from frostbite in his feet and unable to go any further - crawled out of the tent into a blizzard to try and give his colleagues a better chance of survival, murmering 'I am just going outside, and may be some time.' The letter I quoted above, written by Robert Falcon Scott ('Con' to his friends and loved ones) was written soon after, as he and the other two remaining members of the party lay waiting for death, a mere eleven miles from a depot of food and supplies that might have saved them. You'll find a lot of material on the expedition - here's a good site to start with that includes a rather good photo of Kathleen:
http://www.south-pole.com/p0000090.htm
There was an excellent recent biography of Scott by Sir Ranulph Fiennes that tackled some of the more scurrilous revisionism that Scott has been subjected to recently. His remarkable relationship with Kathleen is one of the most interesting aspects of his life and personality - he was a rather staid, formal, shy man - she was an extroverted, rather bohemian artist, a sculpter who studied under Rodin. And yet they loved each other very much. In his last letter he asked her to raise their son, Peter (named for Peter Pan, the creation of Scott's great friend) loving the natural world. His request was fulfilled, and Peter Scott became a reknowned naturalist.
When Kathleen died, she asked to have the words 'Kathleen. No happier woman ever lived' on her headstone. As Sara Wheeler has commented, 'What could be more heroic? Her biographer wrote of her that, 'She took hold of her life with a rare glee, and raced through it without shame, without fear and with scarcely a backward look.'
For a very different personality, who dealt with the loss of a loved one under monumentally tragic circumstances in a different way, we need look no further than the wife of Edward Wilson, Scott's second in command. He perished next to his leader on the return from the Pole. His wife was a dedicated, quiet, reserved woman named Oriana. Wheeler notes 'The cool, aloof Ory had never remarried. Her few close friends thought it would have been out of the question: "the loss of him clung to her."'
It's a deeply personal response, and I think unless we've lived it we don't necessarily what we'd do. The loss of our partner might cling to us, making the thought of remarriage impossible. Or, we might 'take the whole thing very sensibly' and move on...but doing so wouldn't mean a betrayal of the lost and loved. We might hold only a memory, but hold it 'for a lifetime.'
Laura, be warned - once you get into the golden age of Antarctic Exploration, you may find it as addictive as the Titanic! Robert Falcon Scott is today best remembered for his heroic but failed attempt to reach the South Pole first (he was beaten by the brilliant Norweigan explorer Amundson). On the return from the South Pole, in March 1912, he and all other four men of his party perished. You might have heard before of one of the men, Captain L.E.G. Oates who - suffering from frostbite in his feet and unable to go any further - crawled out of the tent into a blizzard to try and give his colleagues a better chance of survival, murmering 'I am just going outside, and may be some time.' The letter I quoted above, written by Robert Falcon Scott ('Con' to his friends and loved ones) was written soon after, as he and the other two remaining members of the party lay waiting for death, a mere eleven miles from a depot of food and supplies that might have saved them. You'll find a lot of material on the expedition - here's a good site to start with that includes a rather good photo of Kathleen:
http://www.south-pole.com/p0000090.htm
There was an excellent recent biography of Scott by Sir Ranulph Fiennes that tackled some of the more scurrilous revisionism that Scott has been subjected to recently. His remarkable relationship with Kathleen is one of the most interesting aspects of his life and personality - he was a rather staid, formal, shy man - she was an extroverted, rather bohemian artist, a sculpter who studied under Rodin. And yet they loved each other very much. In his last letter he asked her to raise their son, Peter (named for Peter Pan, the creation of Scott's great friend) loving the natural world. His request was fulfilled, and Peter Scott became a reknowned naturalist.
When Kathleen died, she asked to have the words 'Kathleen. No happier woman ever lived' on her headstone. As Sara Wheeler has commented, 'What could be more heroic? Her biographer wrote of her that, 'She took hold of her life with a rare glee, and raced through it without shame, without fear and with scarcely a backward look.'
For a very different personality, who dealt with the loss of a loved one under monumentally tragic circumstances in a different way, we need look no further than the wife of Edward Wilson, Scott's second in command. He perished next to his leader on the return from the Pole. His wife was a dedicated, quiet, reserved woman named Oriana. Wheeler notes 'The cool, aloof Ory had never remarried. Her few close friends thought it would have been out of the question: "the loss of him clung to her."'
It's a deeply personal response, and I think unless we've lived it we don't necessarily what we'd do. The loss of our partner might cling to us, making the thought of remarriage impossible. Or, we might 'take the whole thing very sensibly' and move on...but doing so wouldn't mean a betrayal of the lost and loved. We might hold only a memory, but hold it 'for a lifetime.'
Laura Melinda Varjo
Guest
Oh, wow, thanks for all this. Ok, I think it's working on me-I became a little addicted already to the story. But I also think I've read in my last history book about these two men(and their crew)-racing to reach the South Pole. But I've never thought all that was going on. Oh yeah, so it was that Amundsen dude who cynically left the note for Scott, only to be starved to death for nothing, when they were ready to sail back.
Thanks again. Laura
Thanks again. Laura
Susan Leighton
Guest
"I dont have a problem about remarrying. If I fell in love again"
I don’t think the remarrying thing had too much to do with love. It had to do with necessity. There were not a lot of options for woman of that era. There were few job opportunities. The jobs were reserved for the men. Women couldn't even vote. For a widow, surviving was the issue, and they stood a much better chance of that if they had a husband. At least he could get a job. It was even more difficult for widows with children. Very few men would marry a woman and care for another man’s children.
...so what is a widow going to do in 1912 if she doesn't get remarried?
I don’t think the remarrying thing had too much to do with love. It had to do with necessity. There were not a lot of options for woman of that era. There were few job opportunities. The jobs were reserved for the men. Women couldn't even vote. For a widow, surviving was the issue, and they stood a much better chance of that if they had a husband. At least he could get a job. It was even more difficult for widows with children. Very few men would marry a woman and care for another man’s children.
...so what is a widow going to do in 1912 if she doesn't get remarried?
Laura Melinda Varjo
Guest
Susan, you have raised some very good and true points. However, I do disagree with you about remarrying. First of all, like I've said I could't remarry, secondly, marriage is not entirely for necessity-I mean you can be lifepartners, or friends and support each other, and not marry,but marriage is for love, in my opinion. If you have been living in 1912, mind as well live with a brother, or cousin, for your necessity, sure they could support you. Quite a lot of women worked in factories, like the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory, which burned down in 1911, (other factories as well) then there were dress makers, teachers, shopkeepers..., the jobs were out there, not every occupation was reserved for men. Few men sew clothes, shoes, pants, socks, dresses, few were nurses, men took the more manual labor, such as miners, railway conductors... Why would voting be so necessary for you, when you have just seen your husband, brother, sister, parents, or even your own little children drown ? After these tragedies, life wouldn't matter much for me, anymore. It would have no meaning. Ok, maybe for some women surviving was the issue,but they could certainly survive without remarrying, after losing their husband. (Take Margaret Rice, for instance.)(You would, as Selma Asplund,& numerous others get a monthly sum from the WSL for your lost loved ones.)So you're basically saying you would like to remarry, so you could be taken care of by your husband, don't be spineless.
...so maybe start working !
-Laura M. Varju
...so maybe start working !
-Laura M. Varju
Inger Sheil
Member
G'day again Laura! Don't be too hard on Amundsen - he was a brilliant, well-prepared explorer, who earned the respect even of the notoriously xenophobic Captain Oates for the efficiency and skill of his dash for the Pole. His note to Scott was not a 'nyah-nyah' gesture - he honestly didn't know if he himself would make it back alive, and - figuring that Scott would make it there after him - left the note in case anything happened to his expedition. He just wanted the Englishman to let the world know he'd made it.
Susan, I agree that in some instances re-marriage was a matter of economic necessity, although as Laura suggests there were some other options (not all of them palatable to us today!). Some women were reliant on payments from the benevolent funds - I've followed a couple in the UK. But if it came to a choice between eking out an existance on a factory worker's pittance and some charitable contributions or remarrying if the opportunity arose, I'm sure some chose the latter. Not that it was really any easier a life for those on the lower rungs of the financial ladder.
Others, however, had no financial necessity at all to remarry - Madeleine Astor certainly didn't need to do so. She even incurred some financial loss in doing so.
Susan, I agree that in some instances re-marriage was a matter of economic necessity, although as Laura suggests there were some other options (not all of them palatable to us today!). Some women were reliant on payments from the benevolent funds - I've followed a couple in the UK. But if it came to a choice between eking out an existance on a factory worker's pittance and some charitable contributions or remarrying if the opportunity arose, I'm sure some chose the latter. Not that it was really any easier a life for those on the lower rungs of the financial ladder.
Others, however, had no financial necessity at all to remarry - Madeleine Astor certainly didn't need to do so. She even incurred some financial loss in doing so.
Laura Melinda Varjo
Guest
G'day to you too, Inger. Yeah, that was just what I've thought, but I guess he wasn't cynical about it. (I kinda would have been.) Oh well.
Yeah, today is a very different world from 1912, people are beginning to lose ethics, I suppose.
Laura
Yeah, today is a very different world from 1912, people are beginning to lose ethics, I suppose.
Laura
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
What would I do?
First, I'd mourn the lost and come to terms with my own mortality, then I'd do a 'Lawrence Beesley.'
I'd of course share the insights of my book with the public by doing speeches and open discussions. What good are the insights of experience unless you share them with others?...
By the way, Inger, I sent you an email yesterday. I was just curious as to whether or not you received it. Sometimes my emails do not go through, so I do checks. Did you receive it? If not, please let me know and I will resend it. Thank you.
Take care
--Mark
First, I'd mourn the lost and come to terms with my own mortality, then I'd do a 'Lawrence Beesley.'
I'd of course share the insights of my book with the public by doing speeches and open discussions. What good are the insights of experience unless you share them with others?... By the way, Inger, I sent you an email yesterday. I was just curious as to whether or not you received it. Sometimes my emails do not go through, so I do checks. Did you receive it? If not, please let me know and I will resend it. Thank you.
Take care
--Mark
Inger Sheil
Member
No worries, Mark - I received the email and will hopefully get a chance to answer it today.
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Okay. Just wanted to make sure.
Similar threads
