Re: Who was on the Titannic

On Apr 29, 5:20 pm, "Mark E Sievert" <Siever...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<wm.k...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b0b58921-014f-47d2-937d-20fe4cf3c20e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 29, 10:30 am, "Mark E Sievert" <Siever...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





<wm.k...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b9fc8fdf-a446-4db0-ace7-e8efcefce211@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 22, 5:53 pm, Chuck <charleswolf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 21, 11:11 am, "mcclur...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mcclur...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Did the nobility travel on cruise lines much (anymore) after the
Titannic was sunk? The movie is one of my favorites, but it seemed to
give them a bad rap. I remember somewhere reading a daughter of
Abraham Lincoln died.

Bob

You can forget about the daughter of Abraham Lincoln. He had four
sons and no daughters, and only his son Robert, the former US
Secretary of War, was alive at that time. As to the other three sons,
one died at the age of three years ten months before Lincoln became
President, Willie died in the White House and Tad died in 1871. As to
grandchildren, President Lincoln's only grandson died in 1890 at age
17 years, and his granddaughters died in 1938 and 1948.
Unfortunately, the most high-and-mighty personage now associated now
with the Titanic - The Queen of Schmalz and Schlock herself - was not
aboard.

No. Molly Brown was indeed aboard.

MESievert- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I thought about this question as I rode the Toronto subway this
morning and noticed not a single Duke among the 300 in my car. Perhaps
we were a little too dismissive of the orignial poster. Although there
were many royals and nobles in Canada both before and after Titanic, I
cannot recall a single one who was here other than in an official
capacity. Queen Victoria herself could simply not be induced to cross
the Atlantic even though such a visit would, during difficult times,
have driven patriotism here through the North Pole. The difficulties
of the journey were always cited, although she did risk the Prince of
Wales in 1860.  I don't think the United States enjoyed great
popularity in Europe either, especially after Dickens wrote about it
in 1842. Incidentally, there is a wonderful photo of the Britannia
(one of the great ships of its day and the one which upon which
Dickens travelled) beside the Queen Mary. Britannia looks like
something out of a box of Cracker Jacks.
My point - I don't think there was much in North America to attract
visitors of means, to whom so many places of greater interest were
accessible with so much less trouble (and where nobles could be more
assured being treated as such).
Bill King

Really?  Oscar Wilde thought rather highly of the United States after he
toured here, and he was much more fun to read than Dickens.

In any event, it seems Americans were always tripping over themselves when
royals and nobles came to call.  So I have no reason to believe they would
have been mistreated.

MESievert- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That IS mistreatment. People who want to be fauned and obsequiated
over are nouveaus, not nobles. Nor would I think a reference from
Oscar Wilde worth the stationery; isn't he the one that Churchill
accused of giving sodomy a bad name?

But if you are suggesting that New York in the early years of the 20th
century was a better tourist draw than Canada in the middle of the
19th, well, as self-admiring as we Canadians tend to be, I couldn't
disagree with you. I am sure that the number of high-born holiday
makers embarking for a grand tour of America did rise with the
progress of both America and the great steamers (notwithstanding the
premature disembarkation of the ones aboard Titanic).
.

Quantcast