Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the ONLY way to cross the atlantic, is 'transatlantic'.
by water or by air and soon, by highway...
As in transatlantic liners, as transatlantic air travel did not become a credible option until much later and the quote was clearly taken out of context.
Commercial Airships didn't offer transatlantic routes until the 1930's and their demise happened in 1937 with the Hindenberg disaster in 1937.
The first credible commercial transatlantic flight were also not until the late 1930's and include Pan Am's 1939 'Flying Dixie' service which was a flying boat aircraft.
As for hot air balloon they were never a credible safe passenger option or a very comfortable option, so at the time Tranatlantic passenger ships known as liner services, were the only credible passenger options, which is why I didn't need to elaborate in terms of transatlantic crossings, as they were the only game in town, and it wasn't until the 1950's that aircraft services started to really compete with the ocean liners.
I also suggest your quote was taken out of context.
Your quote -
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetireinPA (Thread Post 50)
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Transatlantic crossing were the only way to cross the Atlantic
My actual post -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World (Thread Post 16)
Transatlantic crossing were the only way to cross the Atlantic at the time, and were essential in this respect, and they are not really comparable with modern cruises which are usually more to do with non essential holiday/vacation type travel.
At the time New York was a global hub for such vessels, and the sight of such magnificent vessels entering New York harbour would have been quite glamorous, and would have added to the glamour of the city.
As for the prefix RMS (Royal Mail Ship) ait meant that RMS Titanic was contracted to transfer and deliver mail on behalf of the British Royal Mail Postal Service.
As for the thread title, it's clearly off by 10 years, and it's 112 years since the sinking of the RMS Titanic sank on 15 April 1912.
I think everyone was well aware of the mistake in the title, however it was clearly just an honest mistake, so was not really a big issue.
Last edited by Brave New World; 05-02-2024 at 05:29 AM..
As in transatlantic liners, as transatlantic air travel did not become a credible option until much later and the quote was clearly taken out of context.
Commercial Airships didn't offer transatlantic routes until the 1930's and their demise happened in 1937 with the Hindenberg disaster in 1937.
The first credible commercial transatlantic flight were also not until the late 1930's and include Pan Am's 1939 'Flying Dixie' service which was a flying boat aircraft.
As for hot air balloon they were never a credible safe passenger option or a very comfortable option, so at the time Tranatlantic passenger ships known as liner services, were the only credible passenger options, which is why I didn't need to elaborate in terms of transatlantic crossings, as they were the only game in town, and it wasn't until the 1950's that aircraft services started to really compete with the ocean liners.
I also suggest your quote was taken out of context.
Your quote -
My actual post -
As for the thread title, it's clearly off by 10 years, and it's 112 years since the sinking of the RMS Titanic sank on 15 April 1912.
I think everyone was well aware of the mistake in the title, however it was clearly just an honest mistake, so was not really a big issue.
as the brits would say, Im taking the pi** with you...but at any rate, ANY crossing, of ANY type, in ANY year is 'transaltantic' After all, it is kinda what the word means?
I guess it's more spooky than anything else. There's obviously no significance to the fact that I decided to go for a jog on April 14, 2024.
But there was a similar situation in my personal life. My Dad died on January 5, 1973 when I was 15. He had an illness and "officially" was told on December 15, though I really knew a while before. But I digress.
The next weekend, I took myself to White Plains by bus to purchase the January 1973 National Lampoon. I don't know if anyone remembers that magazine but each issue had a theme for satire. Once it was violence, including "Ten Japanese Methods of Self Defense." You get the picture. That month it was "Death." I bought the magazine and didn't look at the cover until I got on the return bus to my town. I thought it was uproariously funny, despite the personal topicality of the subject.
As far as the song goes, it was also unusually relevant, though not planned. Returning to the OP question, why has the Titanic's sinking held the public imagination in its sway more, say, than the similar in time and equally deadly San Francisco Earthquake or natural disasters?
I think the sinking of the Titanic has gotten the attention it has for a series of reasons:
1. It was not a natural disaster, but man made one that was largely brought about by a series of mistakes;
2. The absence of sufficient lifeboats on the ship for everyone was incomprehensible even more than a hundred years ago;
3. The thought of all those poor people freezing or drowning in the ocean is hard spectacle to get out of your mind;
4. The travesty that occurred when the nearest ship to the Titanic (the California) failed to answer SOS radio messages is dumbfounding;
5. The ship was labeled "unsinkable" and became a monument to hubris and stupidity.
The White Star Line flag is raised on all current Cunard ships and the Nomadic every 15 April in memory of the Titanic disaster.
The new ship Queen Anne was delivered to Cunard on 19 April 2024, the first new ship for the line in over 14 years.
She arrived in Southampton on 30 April 2024.[ The ship departed on her maiden cruise from Southampton to the Canary Islands on 3 May 2024, and she will be officially named in Liverpool in June.
I think the sinking of the Titanic has gotten the attention it has for a series of reasons:
1. It was not a natural disaster, but man made one that was largely brought about by a series of mistakes;
2. The absence of sufficient lifeboats on the ship for everyone was incomprehensible even more than a hundred years ago;
3. The thought of all those poor people freezing or drowning in the ocean is hard spectacle to get out of your mind;
4. The travesty that occurred when the nearest ship to the Titanic (the California) failed to answer SOS radio messages is dumbfounding;
5. The ship was labeled "unsinkable" and became a monument to hubris and stupidity.
Contrary to the popular interpretation the White Star Line never made any substantive claims that the Titanic was unsinkable - and nobody really talked about the ship's unsinkability until after the event.
Whilst I agree with most of your points, the Titanic actually exceeded the legal requirement in terms of Lifeboats and was deemed safe.
At the time Lifeboats were expected to be used to ferry passengers from a sinking ship to a rescuing ship, meaning that lifeboats could be reused for multiple passengers. Of course, this wasn’t the case with the Titanic. Another tragic fact is that due to the chaotic circumstances, many lifeboats were not filled to capacity, leaving seats empty.
In terms of the rescue of passengers, RMS Carpathia which was operated by Cunard, rescued the survivors of the rival White Star Line's RMS Titanic. The Carpathia bravely navigated ice fields to arrive two hours after the Titanic had sunk, and managed to rescue 705 survivors from the Titanic's lifeboats.
Sadly RMS Carpathia was sunk six years later during the latter stages of World War I on 17 July 1918 after being torpedoed three times by the German submarine U-55 off the southern Irish coast.
Why is there still fascination about the Titanic to this day? Because Hollywood decided that it should be.
We, the masses, are told how to think and what to think and we don’t question it. Not at all.
I don't know who "we" are, but not everyone needs to be told what they like and don't like.
I became interested in Titanic when I read the National Geographic article upon the discovery in 1985. As an 11 year old I was fascinated that it was discovered and amazed by the photos (and renderings). I read as much as I could and even into adulthood read books on other ocean liners.
Sometimes you find things that interest you and expand your knowledge.
The role of the captain in Titanic 1997 was not a major role in the movie (although obviously an important one) but Bernard Hill stood out enough that a few years later I remember talking to people that the "guy who played the captain is going to be one who plays King Theoden in Lord of the Rings". Bernard Hill stood out.
Cunard have had built some of the most beautiful liners going. That Queen Anne looks more like a cruise ship, and really is ugly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
