AFFIRMATIVE PRE-TITANIC DISASTER REPORTS

"' ':
Hingley's Order Book for February 1912: Gigantic.
On February 20th 1912, Messrs. N. Hingley & Sons, Ltd., recorded the order for Yard Number 433's anchor outfit.
Although other orders were merely given using a vessel's shipyard number, in the case of Yard Number 433, the name
Gigantic was given. It was subsequently crossed out and amended to read Britannic.
Courtesy: Dudley Archives and Local History Services
The
igantic
Question
By Mark Chirnside and Paul Lee
Mark Chirnside is a researcher specialising in the Olympic-class ships. He has published numerous articles and has
also written about White Star's Majestic 11 and Cunard's Aquitania. He earned his degree as a Bachelor of Arts, in History
and Politics, from the University of Leicester,
Paul Lee, 36, has a PhD in Nuclear Physics from the University of York. He has been fascinated by Titanic since
1985, and has researched many aspects. He is writing a book about the Californian saga.
Many researchers have f o u n d the name of
the third sister to be an interesting study and
area of debate. It continues to be so, even as
new i n f o r m a t i o n is uncovered and made
available. In this article, the present authors
intend to provide a s u b s t a n t i a l analysis of a
number of sources, assessing the case. We take
advantage of new evidence that is becoming
available, adding new ingredients to the mix
and offering one of the most detailed
assessments to date. How widespread was the
use of the name Gigantic? In our examination of
news reports, it seemed to be more widespread
than is commonly believed.
AFFIRMATIVE PRE-TITANIC DISASTER REPORTS
D u r i n g the two years b e f o r e the Titanic
disaster and the month immediately following
it, there are a number of newspaper and other
references that mention the name Gigantic in
connection with the third sister of the
'Olympics." All newspaper sources should be
treated with the necessary caution, as with any
secondary source material, yet they are
nevertheless worthy enough to be recorded.
As early as October 9 th 1910, shortly before
Olympic was launched, the name 'Gigantic' was
m e n t i o n e d by a r e p o r t e r for an A m e r i c a n
newspaper, The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette,
No. 180 The Titanic Commutator 181
I n t e r e s t i n g l y enough, it was mentioned in
connection with Olympic herself:
'Nothing less expressive than slang will do
justice to the Olympic's giganticness. So here
goes: the Olympic will be "some ship" when she
is completed. Her owners, the White Star Line,
might have adhered to their system of giving
their vessels names ending with "ic" and might
have called her the Gigantic were it not for the
fact that the Olympic's sister ship, also under
c o n s t r u c t i o n , is to be n a m e d the Titanic.
Gigantic and Titanic might sound j u s t a trifle
too b o a s t f u l , even for a big steamship
company 1
Although this particular article seems to
have escaped attention for decades, it does
raise the intriguing question as to whether the
name Gigantic had ever been considered for
Olympic. Given that Olympic's name had been
announced more than two years beforehand,
a n y such s u g g e s t i o n w o u l d p r e - d a t e t h a t
a n n o u n c e m e n t . Did the reporter speak to a
White Star Line official and paraphrase that
official's remarks? Whether they did or not, any
interpretation would be merely speculative. It
is unclear whether it is even the reporter's
speculation. No other reference to Olympic
under a different name has yet surfaced.
When the Olympic was triumphing in the
s u m m e r of 1911, an article a p p e a r e d in a
prominent American newspaper—the New York
Times on July 24th 1911:
'NEW WHITE STAR GIANTESSP
The Gigantic Will Follow the Olympic
and Titanic in 1913, It's Said.
'Some of the men on the White Star liner
B a l t i c which arrived yesterday brought in a
r u m o u r that the line c o n t e m p l a t e s building
another gigantic steamship of the same type
and size as the Titanic and Olympic. The vessel
will be built in the yards of Harland & Wolff,
Belfast, and the r u m o u r had it that the new
vessel will be launched in 1913. She will be
called the Gigantic.
The new steamship, it is said, will contain
i m p r o v e m e n t s , the result of w a t c h i n g the
o p e r a t i o n of the Olympic and Titanic. The
shipbuilders will carefully study the behaviour
of both, and the proposed liner will be built to
correct every shortcoming found in the other
two.'A
It is clear from the article that, the month
after Bruce Ismay had decided to go ahead with
the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a t h i r d s i s t e r of the
'Olympic' class, rumours were circulating that
182 The Titanic Commutator No. 180
she was to be called Gigantic. In this case, the
name is not j u s t m e n t i o n e d as t h a t of some
' f u t u r e ' White Star steamship, but is clearly
applied in relation to the Olympic and Titanic's
sister.
One of the most f a m o u s r e f e r e n c e s is the
article that appeared in the New York Times on
November 25th 1911:
'London, Nov. 24. (by telegraph to Clifden,
Ireland; thence by wireless) - Remarkable details
are now known of the t h o u s a n d - f o o t liner, the
Gigantic, w h i c h t h e W h i t e S t a r L i n e h a s
c o m m i s s i o n e d H a r l a n d & W o l f f to b u i l d at
Belfast.
The beam will measure between 111 and 112
feet; the displacement will be 70,000 tons, and
the gross tonnage over 50,000. The levels[sic]
will be a dozen or thirteen, with the highest over
seventy-five above the water line. The passenger
accommodation will be increased in the first class
from 800 to 1,000 or more, and the t o t a l
passengers that can be carried will number over
4,000.
The Gigantic will not be an ocean greyhound,
but a seven-day b o a t . She will have both
reciprocating and turbine engines. The cost is to
be close on to £2,000,000, or $10,000,000. She
will have a cricket field, a tennis court, golf links,
and reception and ball rooms, and restaurant and
v e r a n d a c a f e s , which will b e pl ace d f o r w a r d
instead of aft. There will also be a plunge and all
kinds of baths, and a gymnasium.
'There will be a most e l a b o r a t e scheme of
decoration.'
While there are plenty of discrepancies in the
article and description, some are quite easy to
explain. Considering the incorrect f i g u r e of
66,000 tons given for Olympic and Titanic's
displacement,! an estimate of 70,000 tons
displacement for their enlarged sister would not
be too far off the mark. This assumes that the
source may have taken the 66,000 ton figure and
merely added a few thousand tons. The ship's size
and passenger numbers are e x a g g e r a t e d . The
d e s c r i p t i o n of the f e a t u r e s of the f ir st class
accommodation is also exaggerated, but with this
in mind it is easy to forget the many similarities
between the ship described in the article and the
third sister ship herself. According to a final cost
estimate, the third liner's value was a little under
£2,000,000, while her gross tonnage was given as
a p r o j e c t e d 5 0 , 0 0 0 t o n s at the t i m e of her
launching. She did have the same arrangement of
combination machinery as did her older sisters,
and was also designed for comfort rather than
speed. Including the first leg of a transatlantic
voyage and the stops at Cherbourg and
Queenstown, leaving Southampton on
W e d n e s d a y and a r r i v i n g in New York the
following Wednesday, then the crossing time of
'seven days' seems to be based on the
assumption that the new ship's speed was to
m a t c h Olympic's. As e x p e c t e d , the ship's
a c c o m m o d a t i o n w a s p l a n n e d t o b e even
grander than Olympic's, and she was planned to
have a gymnasium and plunge b a t h . Bearing
this in mind, the description in the article albeit with a number of errors - seems intended
to fit the third sister ship, and indeed it was
published at around the same time as her keel
was laid down.
Soon afterwards, on December 12th 1911 the
Galveston Daily N e w s , a Texas n e w s p a p e r ,
carried a report from London the previous day,
which a p p e a r e d to dispel some of the
i n a c c u r a c i e s with regard to the new liner's
exaggerated dimensions:
'WHITE STAR STEAMSHIP WILL NOT EXCEED
THE OLYMPIC AND
THE TITANIC SAVE IN DEAM
'The s t a t e m e n t made t h a t the White Star
Line is a b o u t to lay down a third o c e a n
leviathan, bigger by far than the Olympic and
Titanic, is r a t h e r discredited by a well-known
shipping a u t h o r i t y , who told a News
correspondent that the report was hardly up to
date.
'"Some months ago," he remarked, "the keel
of a sister ship to the Olympic was laid at the
yard of Harland & Wolff, but it is absurd to say
that because the gantry has been extended 100
feet t h a t the new vessel will be that m u c h
bigger than Olympic and Titanic. She may be a
few feet bigger, but nothing more.
'The White Star C o m p a n y is building her
because two vessels are not sufficient to
m a i n t a i n its service. It is only reasonable to
assume that the White Star Company is not so
foolish as to i n j u r e itself by building a vessel
t h a t w o u l d be far and away bigger t h a n the
Olympic.
' N o w a d a y s persons rush to travel by the
Olympic, and such vessels as the Oceanic, the
Majestic and the C e l t i c are not patronised as
they used to be. Men of leisure prefer to wait
for the Olympic, and it is a logical assumption if
something better was put on the water
travellers would prefer that to the Olympic, The
keel of the new craft was laid some few months
ago, and beyond a little bigger beam she will
not differ much in construction to the two
mammoth vessels now afloat.'B
While there was no direct reference to recent
reports as to the new liner being 1,000 feet long,
it does seem apparent that the 'well known
shipping authority' was seeking to dispel the
myth that she would be much larger than
Olympic and Titanic by stating that the third ship
of the class w o u l d be the same length as her
sisters, yet with a slightly greater beam. The
reference to the keel being laid 'some months
ago' would seem to be inaccurate, although the
person's statement as to the White Star Line not
wanting to build a vessel significantly larger than
the Olympic may be questionable in light of the
fact that they built the Olympic in the first place.
After all, the Olympic's gross tonnage was around
21,000 t o n s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e A d r i a t i c ' s equivalent to the Celtic! However, it is merely
their personal opinion. Of particular interest is
the lack of any name in the article. The source's
statement as to the new sister's size (length and
breadth) appears entirely accurate, yet
frustratingly there was no comment or denial as
to the name Gigantic. Although this report might
appear to lend some credence to the name, as
there is no denial of it, the lack of any name at all
m e a n s t h a t it can h a r d l y be c o n s i d e r e d a
definitive argument, f
An interesting mention of the name Gigantic
comes on February 2nd 1912 in Engineering:!
'CONTRACTS. - Messrs. Andre Citroen and Co.
have received a contract from Messrs. Harland &
Wolff, Limited, for the gearing equipment of the
steering engines for five large steamers. One of
these is the s.s. Gigantic, the largest liner in the
world, which is being built for the White Star
Line. The contract is the result of the satisfactory
w o r k i n g of the C i t r o e n gears on the S.S.
Olympic...'
It does appear strange that the new liner was
described as the largest in the world, in light of
the k n o w l e d g e of the new G e r m a n vessels.
However, if that statement throws the source's
accuracy into doubt, how accurate is the rest of
the text? Citroen had supplied the gears
c o n n e c t e d with the Olympic, and since they
appear to have worked well for Olympic there is
no reason to think that they would not have been
used again. Certainly Engineering's r e p u t a t i o n
appears to help lend credibility to the name, but
this is a dangerous argument and stating that the
new liner would be the largest in the world rather
No. 180 The Titanic Commutator 183
than the largest British-built liner does seem an
obvious mistake.
The Daily Mirror published an article that
apparently referred to the third sister on the day
after Titanic sank—although in Britain the news
had only broken that she had been in collision
with an iceberg:
'ANOTHER LEVIATHAN BUILDING
'The accident to the Titanic calls attention to
another great ship for the White Star Line, the
keel of which was laid during the past week in
Messrs. Harland & Wolff's Belfast yards.
'This vessel, which will be named the
Gigantic, will be 924 feet long, 94 feet broad,
and of nearly 54,000 tons gross register, and will
thus be considerably larger than any other
vessel.'
The length of '1,000 feet' cited in the article
is exaggerated, yet the details about the third
sister's design being changed have a ring of
truth about them, even if the inner skin that
was eventually installed was not comparable to
the d o u b l e b o t t o m in a s t r u c t u r a l sense. It
would be entirely natural that Harland & Wolff
would need to e x a m i n e the i m p l i c a t i o n s of
Titanic's loss on the design of her y o u n g e r
sister.
The following day, April 23rd 1912, the name
Gigantic was mentioned yet again by Shipping
Gazette and Lloyd's List which reported:
'It is expected in Belfast that after Mr. Bruce
Ismay has recovered from his ordeal in New
York he will give orders for those changes [i.e.
safety improvements] to be made in the plans of
the Gigantic, the third vessel of the "Olympic"
J u d g i n g f r o m t h e o p e n i n g p a r a g r a p h , i t class, now being built by Messrs. H a r l a n d &
would seem to be a safe bet to think that the Wolff.'
article was speaking of the third sister. The
In the same issue, their Belfast
breadth is accurate, although the length given of
'924 feet' is an interesting deviation from the correspondent spoke of Titanic's loss:
4 Of Mr. Chisholm, it is sufficient to say that
length of 1,000 feet mentioned in the New York
Times article several months previously. Perhaps he was one of the most brilliant draughtsmen in
the gross tonnage would be more accurate if the t h e B r i t i s h s h i p b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y . I t w a s
length had been correct. Another problem is certainly a personal triumph for any man, as it
that the third sister's keel was not laid during was for him, to h a v e charge of the plans of
the first part of April 1912, and had in fact been t h r e e vessels like the Olympic, Titanic and
laid down at the end of November 1911. The Gigantic.'
article does seem to imply that the liner was to
He had earlier claimed to have spoken to 'at
be an improved version of Titanic, and it was
least
a score' of men involved in shipbuilding,
quite common for newspapers to make some
and
Titanic's
construction. If that was the case,
errors with regard to technical data. Indeed, the
and
these
men
were involved, then it does seem
ship's breadth is correct and although the length
odd
that
none
of
them appear to have disputed
and g r o s s t o n n a g e m e n t i o n e d are a l i t t l e
the
name
of
the
third
sister.
exaggerated, they are not wildly different from
Even
if
the
name
Gigantic was being given
the third ship.
as
t
h
a
t
of
the
new
liner
j u s t days a f t e r the
One particularly interesting article,
Titanic
disaster,
the
White
Star
Line denied that
published seven days after the Titanic disaster in
the
name
had
even
been
considered.
On May
the New York Times, clearly linked the name
18
th
1912
the
Southampton
Times
recorded
that:
Gigantic to the t h i r d liner then b u i l d i n g at
'
M
r
.
I
s
m
a
y
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
t
o
on
the
Belfast. While some of the technical details were
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
,
and
he
has
replied
that
the
Managers
wrong, it is clear which vessel the reporter was
never had any intention of calling the new ship
talking about:
Gigantic/
'CHANGE NEW WHITE STAR BOAT
'Builders to Provide Oouble Bottom
and Sides for the Gigantic.
The paper recorded that they had first seen
it 'in an American journal,' and continued:
'London, April 21. - It is understood that the
Tt was shortly after the maiden voyage of the
plans of the White Star Line steamship Gigantic, Olympic, and an enterprising journalist in the
which is now being built at Belfast and was to States waylaid one of the stewards of the new
have been 1,000 feet long, will be modified.
ship. Some leg-pulling ensued and the steward
Tt is probable that the new plans will provide unfolded all the secret plans of the White Star
for double cellular bottom and sides, such as the Line to the unsuspecting pen man. "Vessels of
Mauretania and Lusitania have, as a stipulated e x t r a o r d i n a r y size a n d l e n g t h w e r e b e i n g
condition of receiving Government subsidy'
ordered, in comparison with which the Olympic
184 The Titanic Commutator No. 180
was a m e r e flea b i t e , and the n a m e of the
largest...was given as the Gigantic." It was all a
gigantic joke!'2
There certainly was some 'leg-pulling' since
there is no evidence that the White Star Line
were ordering the construction of a number of
liners - as the article seems to imply - that
would have made the Olympic look like a 'mere
flea bite.' Certainly the upcoming Titanic and
the last of the three sisters were larger,
although it is correct to say that the third sister
was planned to be the largest. Yet it is hard to
dismiss the tale as simply a 'gigantic j o k e . '
Although the new ship had been mentioned, it
was only later in 1911 that more exaggerated
reports appeared.
Although we have already moved into the
territory of post-disaster denials that Gigantic
had ever been the intended name for the third
sister, aside from the reports quoted there are
other sources that merit some mention first.
It is known that the name Britannic was not
r e s e r v e d u n t i l May 1912, a c c o r d i n g to a
c o m p a n y v o l u m e t h a t has s u r v i v e d giving
registration details of some White Star Line
ships. This seems interesting in that this was
the month following the sinking, and the same
month that the name Britannic was announced
publicly for the new liner (a report which we
will t u r n to l a t e r ) . On J u n e 1 s t 1913, the
application for the use of the name Britannic
was renewed, and c o n f i r m e d when she was
launched on February 26 th 1914. Although the
timing could be taken to suggest that the name
had been decided upon that month, May 1912,
it is also possible (and more probable) that it
was merely registered when its use became
public knowledge. Indeed, John Eaton has
noted a letter from Walter J. Howell, secretary
to the Board of Trade, sent to Messrs. Ismay,
Imrie & Co. at 30 James Street, Liverpool. It
reveals that Ismay, Imrie & Co. had written to
the Board on May 30 th 1912 requesting the
n a m e Britannic to be reserved for the new
liner. 3
On May 11th 1912, the Southampton Times
<S> Hampshire Express published an article:
indication of a change in their policy.'
While the paper voiced the widespread
a c c e p t a n c e t h a t the name Gigantic had b e e n
chosen, it is r e m a r k a b l e that it said 'the
company's officials are not aware that the
designation has been considered by those in
authority!' They neither confirmed nor denied
the reports. This begs the enduring question as to
where the name Gigantic came from.
There is intriguing information from Cuthbert
C. P o u n d e r , a f o r m e r D i r e c t o r and Chief
Technical E n g i n e e r at H a r l a n d & Wolff who
referred to the subject several times during the
late 1950s and early 1960s. He once stated that:
The original conception was three mammoth
ships, bearing the names suitable for such
vessels, namely: Olympic, Titanic and Gigantic.
After the catastrophe which overtook Titanic on
her maiden voyage in April 1912, it was decided
to drop the name of the third vessel as it was felt
that the public might be alarmed at the thought
of travelling in a vessel the name of which was
Gigantic, considering what had overtaken a vessel
so l a r g e as to be c a l l e d Titanic. The m o r e
c o n v e n t i o n a l name B r i t a n n i c was then
substituted.'3
Pounder's statement, often cited to support
the view that the name Gigantic had been chosen
y e t s u b s e q u e n t l y c h a n g e d a f t e r t h e Titanic
disaster, will be referred to later.
Aside from the date that the name Britannic
was first registered, and Pounder's belief that the
ship's n a m e was to have been Gigantic, it is
i n t e r e s t i n g to s p e c u l a t e as to the n a m e s in
context with those of Olympic and Titanic. There
seems to be a fitting progression in the names
Olympic, Titanic and Gigantic; from the immortal
Olympians on Mount Olympus, the Titans, to the
Gigantes - the Giants of Greek mythology. Prior
to the war, the German liner Vaterland flew the
flag, yet she had originally been named Europa.
Britannic certainly had a patriotic sound to it, yet
it does not q u i t e have the same progression
alongside the names of the two earlier sisters. It
did have the advantage of harking back to White
Star's first Britannic, as she enjoyed a long and
successful career (as did the third ship of the
'Why Gigantic?
'It seems to be generally accepted that the name), and certainly sounded fitting for 1914.
Looking back through the pre-Titanic disaster
big White Star liner now under construction at
Belfast has been named the Gigantic. All the newspaper articles, it is obvious that there are a
L o n d o n p a p e r s give her t h a t n a m e , but the great deal of references to the name Gigantic. It is
company's o f f i c i a l s a r e n o t a w a r e t h a t t h e possible to opine that the name arose in articles
designation has been considered by those in simply from the size of the ship, and her status as
authority! That she will be gigantic in size is an i m p r o v e d version of the Titanic. Yet one
certain. At any rate, the company has given no wonders where the use of the name came from.
No. 180 The Titanic Commutator 185
Olympic was a greater leap forward in terms of
size than either of her sisters. When Olympic
was being constructed, newspapers had
managed to record her name with reasonable
accuracy, save for at least one r e f e r e n c e to
'Olympiad and she was not being mistakenly
r e f e r r e d to as the Gigantic. It is also quite
proper to say that these articles are not
authoritative in calling the new ship Gigantic,
since there are a number of errors with regard
to her l e n g t h , b r e a d t h and gross t o n n a g e .
However, bearing in mind the statistics of the
Britannic—even at the time of her launch in
1914 she was described as being 'about 900 feet
l o n g ' — t h e s e m i s t a k e s are s o m e w h a t more
understandable. We have seen that Olympic's
statistics were sometimes given incorrectly
while she was under construction. Why was the
use of the name Gigantic so widespread? To our
knowledge, there was no public report prior to
April 15th 1912 which spoke of the new liner
being called anything but Gigantic; nor does
there seem to be a single public, pre-disaster
denial by the White Star Line that they
intended to call their new ship by that name.c
NEGATIVE PRE-TITANIC DISASTER REPORTS
It might be instructive to examine some of
the arguments against the view that the name
Gigantic had been considered or intended, as
well as mentioning some pre-disaster sources
that appear to cast d o u b t on the use of the
name.
We note an article dating from June 9th 1911
in The Shipping Gazette and Lloyd's List, which
referred to a third sister without noting a name:
"Queen of the seas
The Olympic in Dock"
'Those who were yesterday invited to
inspect the Olympic, and the new deep-water
dock at Southampton in which she lies, were
informed at the luncheon table by Mr. Harold
Sanderson, of the White Start Line, t h a t the
mammoth steamer is "only the f o r e r u n n e r of
two such vessels." The expression was a little
e n i g m a t i c . It m i g h t b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s a n
allusion to the advent of the Titanic at the end
of the year.
Tt might also mean that a third leviathan is in
contemplation. When the point was put to Mr.
S a n d e r s o n he f r a n k l y s t a t e d t h a t there will
u l t i m a t e l y be a third ship of the "Olympic"
class.'
A l t h o u g h no name was m e n t i o n e d , it is
i n f o r m a t i v e that Lord Pirrie mentioned the
difficulties in building ever larger steamers:
186 The Titanic Commutator No. 180
' A c c o r d i n g to Lord P i r r i e , a ship one f o o t
longer than the Olympic will scarcely squeeze
herself into the dry dock at Belfast, and the liner
is j u s t about as big as S o u t h a m p t o n can
comfortably accommodate under the new
conditions.'
Even if the White Star Line had wished to
build a significantly enlarged third sister, at the
time the new liner was laid down this would not
have been practical. It has been known for some
time that the hull framing plans and registration
documents show t h a t the third sister was
precisely the same length as Olympic and Titanic,
thanks to a little-known work Charles Dragonette
did for the THS.4
Another report from the same source dates
from November 14th 1911. Although 'not as yet
officially confirmed,' Harland & Wolff 'intend to
lay down a vessel which will bring us to all
intents and purposes to the 1,000 foot ship,' it
stated. In the same issue, the length between
perpendiculars was given as 960 feet, the overall
length 992 feet, and the beam 94 feet 6 inches.
'Time must be left to tell whether the figures are
a c c u r a t e or not,' it was observed. In fact,
although the reported breadth was near enough,
the length was clearly exaggerated by more than
one hundred feet.
On November 28th 1911, a report from Belfast
the previous day was printed. Again, no name
was mentioned. It informed readers that local
residents had been interested in the statements as
to the liner's size:
'It is clear that the statements were simply an
amplification, in characteristic American style, of
what appeared about three weeks ago in several
London and provincial newspapers. At all events,
it may be taken for granted that the new boat will
neither be 1,000 feet long, or 125 feet wide. Such
a jump would be too big even for these days. It is
expected that in the course of a few days definite
information will be forthcoming.'
While there does not appear to have been any
such i n f o r m a t i o n in The Shipping Gazette and
Lloyd's List, the December 12th 1911 report in the
Galveston Daily News (the American newspaper
q u o t i n g a L o n d o n s o u r c e ) comes to m i n d .
Quoted earlier, this report corrected some of the
exaggerations as regards the liner's size.
There was a fairly well-known article in the
Belfast News-Letter from January 1st 1912, which
stated that the White Star Line had ordered the
construction of the largest British liner in the
world. A length of 882 feet 6 inches was quoted,
just three inches short of the accepted length,
while the breadth of 93 feet 6 inches appears the point that newspaper reports do not always
to have been the moulded breadth rather than get their facts straight. Each report needs to be
the 'extreme' (and normally quoted) beam of j u d g e d on its own merits, as some were rather
94 feet which included the extremities of the more accurate than others, and this brings us to
side hull plating. In turn, the estimated gross consider other sources as well.
tonnage of 47,000 tons appears close to the
OTHER SOURCES
mark, yet the article did not give a name for
If some news r e p o r t s l a c k e d a n a m e and
the new liner. Further confirmation appears to appeared to cast doubt on the widespread use of
come from a mention in The Shipbuilder, dating the name G i g a n t i c , then i n f o r m e d or o f f i c i a l
to around the time of Titanic's maiden voyage sources come into focus. It is possible to question
as it mentions that Titanic had departed on Pounder's statement as to the substitution of the
April 10th 1912. There was a statement as to a name B r i t a n n i c instead of G i g a n t i c , following
n e w 4 7 , 0 0 0 - t o n l i n e r t h a t 'has n o t b e e n Titanic's loss. Certainly it seems entirely plausible
named.' This seems curious, in light of the fact that the White Star Line would not have wished
that construction had been underway for to name their new liner so that she immediately
almost five months. If the name Britannic had sounded similar to her lost sister, particularly
been intended at this time, then it would seem w h e n c o m p e t i t i o n w a s i n t e n s i f y i n g o n t h e
p r o b a b l e t h a t The Shipbuilder w o u l d — o r Atlantic. It has been argued that:
s h o u l d — h a v e been made aware of it. That
'One would have thought that as a relatively
being the case, there was no confirmation of high r a n k i n g e m p l o y e e of H a r l a n d & W o l f f ,
the name Gigantic either.
Pounder would very likely have had some idea of
An article a p p e a r e d in the Southampton what he was talking about, but the problem with
Times & Hampshire Express on June 22nd 1912.
his bold statement is that he does not provide it
'America has had two goes at christening with any reference. Was it written as a result of
the White Star Line's next mammoth steamer. some long lost Harland & Wolff internal memo,
The Gigantic having been scratched, they find or could it just be that Pounder himself was as
consolation in the good old word B r i t a n n i c . s u s c e p t i b l e to the m y t h s and l e g e n d s of the
Needless to say, the vessel's name has not yet Titanic as anyone else?'5
been decided upon.'
The problem is that whichever interpretation
The paper may have been taking a naughty is placed upon it, the lack of Pounder citing a
swipe at American journalism, yet it's strange specific source does not automatically discredit
that it stated 'the vessel's name has not yet his comments. However, it certainly does make
been decided upon.' As we shall see, the name h i s c o m m e n t s p r o b l e m a t i c . I t m a y b e t h a t
Britannic was made public in May 1912, and P o u n d e r f e l t t h a t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w a s
Bruce Ismay had already denied that the name authoritative and he was expressing it with that
Gigantic was g o i n g to be u s e d . Why it o p i n i o n i n m i n d , o r h e m a y h a v e s e e n
dismissed the name Britannic seems difficult to documentation at the time that was subsequently
explain.
lost. As always, the best course of action is to
O t h e r r e p o r t s a p p e a r m u c h m o r e look at Pounder's statement in conjunction with
a u t h o r i t a t i v e t h a n t h e y r e a l l y a r e . T h e the rest of the available evidence.
Deathless Story of the Titanic, published by
A l t h o u g h Dave Gittins had u n e a r t h e d a
Lloyd's Weekly News in 1912, gave the name valuable register kept by Charles Payne, one of
Gigantic in a table of existing and upcoming Harland & Wolff's managing directors,6 which
l a r g e l i n e r s . The ship's d i m e n s i o n s were gives the details of the Olympic-class, it is not
exaggerated once again, and she was recorded specifically dated. The notebook shows no sign
as 1,000 feet long. Despite the name, the paper that the name Gigantic was ever included in it and
was not associated with Lloyd's of London. c h a n g e d , yet the issue of the d a t e m a k e s it
Although 'a cheap paper purveying sensational problematic to regard it as a definitive document
stories to the masses,' Dave Gittins noted: 'In as far as the name debate is concerned. It could be
1912, readers would have been aware that it argued that the third sister's name was included in
had no connection with Lloyd's of London but the register when it was finalised, and that the
by 1985 even Lloyd's of London Press Ltd. was only name to be finalised by the White Star Line
c a l l i n g i t "a r i v a l m a r i t i m e p u b l i s h i n g was Britannic. However, while that suggestion is
company."'
possible it cannot be proven.
Ultimately, however, it seems to illustrate
No. 180 The Titanic Commutator 187