Jump to content

Talk:British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additional notes

[edit]

A few additional notes:

  • "Sir Archibald Denny (1860-1936), Scottish shipbuilder who chaired a 1912 British committee to investigate the Titanic sinking". This appears to be the "Bulkhead Committee" which reported in 1915: "Soon after the Titanic disaster, in fact, on the 17th May, 1912, the Board of Trade appointed the second Bulkhead Committee, with Sir Archibald Denny as chairman". This bulkhead committee is mentioned several times in the British inquiry transcripts. Mentioning it here to avoid confusion.
  • Two more books (there are obviously lots more, but these are suggestions) are The Myth of the Titanic (Richard Parton Howells, Palgrave Macmillan, 1999) and The Other Side of the Night: The Carpathia, the Californian and the Night the Titanic Was Lost (Daniel Allen Butler, Casemate Publishers, 2009). The latter has Chapter 8: 'The American Investigation' and Chapter 9: 'The British Inquiry'.
  • Cyril Furmstone Evans testified at both inquiries, Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon mentioned in the article but not linked or cited yet. Other entries are possible from Crew of the RMS Titanic.

May add some of these later, but putting them here for now. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations.

[edit]

My compliments on the article. It's concise and clear, in a way that isn't always achieved in Wiki articles. regards Norloch (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article section 5 - dubious statement ?

[edit]

Quoted from Section 5 .... " Captain Lord of the Californian was heavily criticised for failing to render assistance to Titanic though no action was taken against him due to legal technicalities."

The above statement seems like POV. It doesn't appear to bear any relationship to what Lord Mersey and the Attorney General actually said in their discussions, at the British Inquiry 'Final Arguments'. ( See British Inquiry transcripts - day 36 ) . The subject was dealt with at length on that day, and one of the stated objectives seems to have been to avoid specific criticism of individuals who had been called as witnesses. ( Lord Mersey even noted the legal reasons for that !) It seems relevant to quote the following from Attorney General Isaac's summation.......

" I should be very sorry to do an injustice to Captain Lord, and I am very anxious that in any event nothing should be said as a conclusion by your Lordship which would suggest that he had committed a misdemeanor. Of course, as your Lordship says, no such question is put to you and no such question is made by me." .......

That seems clear enough, - therefore, if the Inquiry did use words of 'heavy criticism' specifically with regard to Stanley Lord, it would be sensible to quote those words in the article section, rather than making some unspecified allegation. It would also be most interesting to have details of the 'legal' technicalities which prevented Stanley Lord from subsequently being charged with any offense. Norloch (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It refers not to the Final Arguments that you are quoting, but to the report, which is most definitely critical of Lord; I've added the exact words to the article. I don't know what the technicalities in question were, I'm afraid. Prioryman (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the clarification. The phrases you've quoted in the article ( 'most reprehensible'... 'grave responsibility'... etc.) actually come from the final report of the US Inquiry. That's maybe a bit confusing to be included in an article which is specifically about the British Inquiry.
Attorney General Isaac's words, which are quoted above, relate directly to Lord Mersey's British Inquiry final report and conclusions. - In other words, the Attorney General and the Wreck Commisioner were agreeing that their Inquiry did not have the authorisation, or intent, to make specific accusations or criticisms against Captain Lord. Those were matters which had to be dealt with by the appropriate Authorities, in accordance with due process of law. ( It's a pity about that 'legal technicalities' part. The authorities never did charge Stanley Lord with any offence. The reasons for that have often been speculated upon and it would've been interesting to know something definite. ) regards Norloch (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right about those phrases - apologies for that error. I've taken that bit out. I'm sure you're right about the inquiry not having the legal power to accuse Lord, which is presumably why the Board of Trade's representative pushed for a separate inquiry into Lord's fitness to be in command. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, - thanks again. Interesting observation, with regard to the B.O.T. 'pushing' to have Captain Lord investigated and charged - because that's also what Stanley Lord was doing, at the time. Makes you wonder who was then obstructing the proceedings! - In the latter part of 1912, and again in 1913, Lord publicly challenged the authorities to charge him with some offence. Normally, that would be a very risky strategy for any captain to undertake, since the old Board of Trade could make life difficult for those who challenged them. Their marine department had a long collective memory and a thousand bureaucratic ways to obstruct ship captains - if they chose to do so. Considering all that, Stanley Lord must have been remarkably confident that he was bullet-proof ! Norloch (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It makes you wonder if there was a political consideration at work - finding (living) individuals responsible for malfeasance in the disaster would have opened a major can of worms, as there was plenty of blame to go round. Maybe they thought it was better not to go there and just put it all behind them? Prioryman (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may be right. Perhaps we're drifting towards the realm of conspiracy theories, but the possibility can't be entirely excluded. Lloyd George and Churchill would no doubt have been more comfortable if the whole matter had just disappeared from the headlines as quickly as possible. They'd been successive presidents of the BOT during that critical period 1906 to 1910, when the BOT should have been giving it's most urgent attention to the subject of obsolete regulations. Churchill was also in office when the terms of the 1910 Brussels Convention were being negotiated (though it was in fact his successor, Buxton, who signed on behalf of the UK government). At the time, Buxton, himself, was said to have had ambitions to be a future Prime Minister but, since he was unfortunate enough to be in the hot seat when the Titanic foundered, his prospects were probably damaged beyond repair. However, it's unlikely that there will ever be enough hard evidence for any of that to appear in a Wiki article ! regards Norloch (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in a coal Bunker

[edit]

No mention in this article of the fire in the coal bunker, discovered prior to leaving The shipbuilders yard and not extinguished till already on the maiden voyage out of Southampton. BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Titanic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The French link of this article is wrong, it links to the French page fr:Commissions_d'enquête_sur_le_naufrage_du_Titanic which actually corresponds to the United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic and not to the British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic...I can't figure how to fix it. SelimaHaddad (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SelimaHaddad: The French page is in fact about both the American and the British inquiries. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Wreck_Commissioner%27s_inquiry_into_the_sinking_of_the_Titanic&oldid=1213089910"