To find out more details about my new paperback book on the Titanic and the Californian, including ordering details, please look here.

Repeated without question for nearly 100 years, many have accepted the old fable that the Britannic was to have originally been called Gigantic, this name being quietly discarded after the Titanic disaster as it felt like it was tempting fate too much, or that the name was too pompous. But is this true?

Some historians and maritime buffs, such as Dave Gittins and the Britannic's owner, Simon Mills, dispute this and claim that the ship was never to have been called Gigantic. Who is right?

In an effort to confirm or refute this story, this author instigated a long and arduous trawl through contemporary newspapers, and attempted to contact as many companies involved in the constructions of the three Olympic class vessels as possible to see if they had any evidence that would illuminate the whole name change hypothesis. It was not easy. Many of the companies no longer existed, and surviving archives were either missing (the Darlington [Steel] Forge Company's), destroyed (the Citroen company's, lost in World War 2), incomplete (Stohert and Pitt Ltd, who made the electrically powered cargo cranes) or unavailable (Utley's, who supplied the ports for the ships. They initially responded that they had records from 1908, but this it would not be possible to view their detailed records. They had been only too co-operative a few years previously to someone else though!).
Napier Brothers presented a mystery. The Titanic's bronze topped capstans are embossed with the name of this Glasgow firm, but they claim to have only been in existence since 1920. Many companies, such as the descendants of the Welin lifeboat company, did not reply.

Correspondence with author Michael Moss suggested that the archives of the Bank of England possessed files which corroborated the Gigantic/Britannic story in its accouting of the mismanagement of the White Star company during the Lord Kylsant days. Although a search of their records did not yield anything, fascinating material relating to the Titanic was found

The old records of Harland and Wolff seem to be unavailable and incomplete; long ago donated to the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, the collection is (still) reported to be uncatalogued and accessing them is very difficult. Simon Mills have accessed the order book and found, contrary to many people's expectations (and Tom McCluskie's errant memory), the entry for ship no. 433 does not have the name Gigantic crossed out and then replaced with Britannic.

The only fruitful source of information was from Dudley Archives, near Birmingham. In July 2007, they provided copies of some documentation from the nearby firm of Noah Hingley's, who had constructed the anchors for the three ships. Copies of the documentation relating to the Gigantic are below. This is the first documented proof ever found, outside of newspaper reports, that the name Gigantic was ever considered and used.

Click for larger versions

The dates in these documents are significant, as they detail correspondence well after the Titanic had foundered. Obviously, Hingley's had not kept apace with developments in the shipping world; if they had, then they would not have made the mistake of referring to the Gigantic. Hingley's do not seem to have been a firm that relied on rumours and stories within the press to refer to ship's names.

This evidence forces me to conclude that the name Gigantic was indeed considered by the White Star Line and Harland and Wolff, but dispensed with before it became official. I believe Hingley's may have been given an unofficial name, or have been told informally. Why did not the White Star Line announce the name of the third in the Olympic class vessels? They had announced to the world that there would be a third ship while the Olympic had its inaugural visit to Southampton prior to her maiden voyage. Why was no name mentioned there?

Rival shipping firms may have provoked this (lack of) announcement. The HAPAG liner Imperator's keel had been laid down in 1910, a year before the Olympic's maiden voyage, and before the announcement of the "third ship." The Imperator was well in excess of the length of the Olympic and the Titanic, then fitting out. The name Gigantic may not have seemed appropriate for a vessel that was not going to be the largest in the world, even after completion. The name Olympic does not imply size, but Titanic and Gigantic certainly do...but it was too late to change the name of the second vessel in the class...the name of the third could certainly be changed, as it was ordered significantly after the first two...
So, the name was quietly dispensed with. Why the Harland and Wolff papers do not mention the Gigantic is a mystery; Hingley's prove that the name was certainly mentioned, but perhaps it was never adopted officially?

Mark Chirnside and I collaborated on an article for the Titanic Historical Society Commutator; part 1 can be read here and part 2, here

Update:
The excellent "Titanic in Photographs" book revealed another mention of the third Olympic class ship. About February 8th, 1912, Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was scheduled to have visited Harland and Wolff, but due to the turmoil at the time because of the Home Rule debate, he sent along a representative who reported that "A ship even larger than the Titanic is now being built. It is to be called Gigantic, and I walked under her keel..." Who told the representative this news about the Gigantic is not reported.

Click here to go up a level.