Was watching coast again last night in regard to the Great Eastern being broken up at New Ferry. Was it just an urban myth that a body or maybe two were found in the hull of the ship? Allegedly they had been there since the ship was built.
If this is true, what happened to the remains? They should at least have had a decent burial but knowing the times, I suspect they would probably just been put in a paupers grave?
Following a talk at Liverpool History Society by a descendant of one of the Great Eastern's last owners a while ago, at his request I searched through the local papers for 1889-1890 at the Archives for any references to the scrapping of the vessel. There was surprisingly little mention of it, particularly considering the fact that the breakers reputedly had to resort to using a demolition ball on the hull 24 hours a day in order to get the job done. You'd have thought this must have produced a hell of a racket and prompted some complaints to the local press or the Corporation, but I couldn't find anything. Perhaps in those days a background of continual industrial noise was just accepted as part of normal life, particularly by those living in the vicinity of somewhere like Laird's. As far as the two skeletons supposedly found within the hull are concerned, disappointingly I could find no contemporary mention of their discovery in the Birkenhead News or the Birkenhead and Cheshire Advertiser, nor any reference to any inquest on any human remains.
I just watched the Time Team programme about the Great Eastern on Channel 4. It was very interesting - but what spoiled it was that they couldn't be a****d giving the proper location when they told where the ship was broken up.
Calling the Rock Ferry / New Ferry foreshore 'Liverpool' was unforgiveable - and they did it more than once.
Do they think people are so stupid that they won't be able to recognise anywhere else but the name of Liverpool?
Even if they could not bring themselves to mention such places as Rock Ferry, what harm would it have done to have said 'across the Mersey from Liverpool', or something like that? It was lazy and unprofessional scripting.
But I bet if you pointed it out to the programme makers, they'd have no idea what you were talking about.
Liverpool, old chap? Well, that's near enough isn't it?
Last edited by yoller; 11th Nov 20111:11am. Reason: add
That was truly terrible and a waste of an hour. They had 60 minutes to show some fantastic photos or some history about it (like the cable laying) but they wasted it on other ships.
Baldrick couldn't be bothered to get his backside oop North to see the final resting place.
The "Liverpool foreshore" faux pas.
And they didn't even bother to dig up bits, they found it more important to put a huge team on excavating the launch slipway down south instead.
Kudos to BBC and the OU for their Coast coverage which was far superior.
I just watched the Time Team programme about the Great Eastern on Channel 4. It was very interesting - but what spoiled it was that they couldn't be a****d giving the proper location when they told where the ship was broken up.
Calling the Rock Ferry / New Ferry foreshore 'Liverpool' was unforgiveable - and they did it more than once.
Do they think people are so stupid that they won't be able to recognise anywhere else but the name of Liverpool?
Even if they could not bring themselves to mention such places as Rock Ferry, what harm would it have done to have said 'across the Mersey from Liverpool', or something like that? It was lazy and unprofessional scripting.
But I bet if you pointed it out to the programme makers, they'd have no idea what you were talking about.
Liverpool, old chap? Well, that's near enough isn't it?
i watched it and also noticed they said it was 'Liverpool', and not Rock Ferry/New Ferry! at the beginning when they showed the round about it said New Ferry & Bebington!so why could'nt they say that? why do they all presume we are Liverpool? we are not!!!!!!! and most of it was about the South! and they should of mentioned the Great Eastern pub that was named after the ship and how it was pulled down!!!!!! i wasn't that impressed!
I too was less than impressed with the (predictable) London-centric bias and the emphasis on how great Thames shipbuilding was. I noticed that the map they showed of Britain's other shipbuilding centres included Belfast, the Clyde and Tyneside, but not the Mersey, which is somewhat ironic when you consider that Brunel only decided to build his second ship, the Great Britain, out of iron after seeing the Lairds-built paddle-steamer Rainbow at Bristol.
The Rainbow was launched on 14/10/1837 for the General Steam Navigation Co, to operate on their cross-Channel service between London and Antwerp. At 185 feet long, she was the largest iron ship then in existence, and was arguably the first proper sea-going iron vessel, earlier ones having been built for use on canals or rivers. Brunel saw the Rainbow loading cargo at Bristol in 1838, during her voyage down to London, and asked two of his associates to travel on board her to Antwerp and report back on her performance. Their report was instrumental in persuading Brunel, and his GWR backers, that the future of shipbuilding lay in iron not wood, particularly for constructing large ships. No mention of this from Messrs Robinson and Co though...
