Henry James Beauchamp

[Arun Vajpey]

I meant that he was reportedly leaving his wife to start a new life with my great grandmother. Presumably going out to North America for a new life and would then arrange for her to come over.

Thanks. As I have now understood it, your great-grandmother was the person Beauchamp had a relationship with in the UK with and begat a son and a daughter from her out of wedlock. The daughter was your father's mother, but could Percy Sharp have been the son? There has been some confusion with Sharp's middle name (Frederick or James) and there is the possibility that the man who travelled with Henry Beauchamp might not have been the same one who was that asylum inmate described in the ET bio here. I have had quite a few e-mails from others but one impression that I got was the Percival Sharp travelling with Henry Beauchamp was a lot younger than 29 years of age.

The wording of the letter that Beauchamp wrote to Streeton on board the Titanic suggests that the "past folly" was an old relationship, perhaps even before he married Harriet. But it could still explain the rift between them. Another thing is that if the Percy Sharp who died on the Titanic was your great-grandmother's son, it could been her who received that compensation from the Mansion House Relief Fund; the biological mother of Percival Sharp who as the inmate asylum died in 1891, suggesting that it the aforementioned confusion is a possibility.

 

[Tim Burt]

Details follow as promised:-
My great grandmother who we believe had two children fathered by Henry James Beauchamp was Lily Moody born 9th May 1974 in Landford, Wiltshire . The two children were Robert John Moody born in Whaddon Alderbury, Wiltshire 15th Apr 1897 and Lily Louisa Moody born Farley, Wiltshire 12th July 1898. These pre-date the marriage of Henry James Beauchamp in 1899. This may explain the reference to "past folly". Lily Moody (snr) did not in fact get married until 1914 and the story told by my grandmother (Lily Louisa) to my father was that her father was going on the Titanic to Canada and planned to send for them after arrival. There is another connection between our family and the Beauchamps in that the elder sister of Lily Moody (snr) married a William Beauchamp on 12th October 1895 in Salisbury who was a second cousin to Henry James.

We have no knowledge of Percival Sharp and had supposed that this was just a getting together of convenience to share a cabin and reduce cost.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Thank you very very much for that Tim. Very helpful.

My great grandmother who we believe had two children fathered by Henry James Beauchamp was Lily Moody born 9th May 1874 in Landford, Wiltshire . The two children were Robert John Moody born in Whaddon Alderbury, Wiltshire 15th Apr 1897 and Lily Louisa Moody born Farley, Wiltshire 12th July 1898. These pre-date the marriage of Henry James Beauchamp in 1899. This may explain the reference to "past folly". Lily Moody (snr) did not in fact get married until 1914 and the story told by my grandmother (Lily Louisa) to my father was that her father was going on the Titanic to Canada and planned to send for them after arrival.

That is quite an involving story and certainly explains Henry Beauchamp's allusion to a "past folly". Harriet Beauchamp must have come to know of her husband's history in the months leading up to the voyage. Her anger must have been because Henry had not told her about it, even though it happened before they were married - probably before they even met. Robert and Lily would have been teenagers by 1912 and there might have been other issues that put pressure on Henry leading to the breakdown of his marriage. I wonder if it also cost him his job as a Chief Steward at a posh London club, certainly a good one for the time.

We have no knowledge of Percival Sharp and had supposed that this was just a getting together of convenience to share a cabin and reduce cost.

I had not thought of that angle and I suppose it is possible that they merely decided to pool their resources to save money. But it still does not answer how the two men knew each other, at least enough to travel on the same ticket. Also, given the circumstances that Henry Beauchamp was leaving England, don't you think that he would have wanted to be alone with his thoughts and plans during the voyage rather than share his cabin with a man probably with a history of mental illness just to save a few pounds? Also, none of the other few surviving men or many women from Second Class even hinted at another passenger during the voyage who could have been Percival Sharp. Finally, there is still the question of the identity of the "dependent mother" who received compensation for Sharp's death; if he was the same man described in the ET bio, his mother had died in 1891.

 

[Tim Burt]

From what I have read there is a suggestion that many people travelling in 2nd and 3rd class did travel with strangers. There is another thread on this here:-

Shared Cabins Among 2nd & 3rd Class

I saw a similar thread, but I don't think this question quite belongs there. I've read that some of the 2nd class, and many of the 3rd class passengers shared their cabins with complete strangers. So my questions are a) how common was this, and b) were the passengers aware at the time they...

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

Given that the cost of a 2nd class ticket was £26 (over £3,000 in today's money) I would think that this could well have been prohibitive and although he may well have preferred to travel alone, sharing the cost may have been the only practicable option.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Once again, thank you very much for sharing the story. Please pass on my thanks and regards to your father for his help.

 

[Cranfar6]

From what I have read there is a suggestion that many people travelling in 2nd and 3rd class did travel with strangers. There is another thread on this here:-

Shared Cabins Among 2nd & 3rd Class

I saw a similar thread, but I don't think this question quite belongs there. I've read that some of the 2nd class, and many of the 3rd class passengers shared their cabins with complete strangers. So my questions are a) how common was this, and b) were the passengers aware at the time they...

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

Given that the cost of a 2nd class ticket was £26 (over £3,000 in today's money) I would think that this could well have been prohibitive and although he may well have preferred to travel alone, sharing the cost may have been the only practicable option.

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, but I've been feeling quite chatty this week due to the submersible thread, so excuse me for butting in with a question. How would they be on the same ticket if they're strangers? Would it have been similar to our modern airplane seating system--the equivalent of 'You both have tickets in row G'? Or is this still an outstanding mystery?

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I've been feeling quite chatty this week due to the submersible thread, so excuse me for butting in with a question.

That's fine as far as I am concerned as this is an open thread; I assume it is fine with Tim as well since he kindly volunteered with that bit of background information. In any case, it appears at this time that whatever the connection between Henry Beauchamp and Percival Sharp had been, it might not have had anything to do with the 'past folly' that the former referred to in his letter to Mr Streeton, contrary to what I had assumed before.

How would they be on the same ticket if they're strangers?

That's what I am wondering and reading the link Tim provided has not really answered that question. From that I understood that only someone who wanted a cabin to himself/herself had to pay extra for that privilege. If Henry Beauchamp did not mind sharing a 2-berth Second Class cabin with a stranger, it looks like all he had to do was buy a ticket for himself and leave it to chance if he got a roommate or not. I don't think that 2 people travelling on the same ticket would have saved any money - at least not enough to make a difference - than 2 strangers sharing a room. Otherwise, passengers would get wise quickly and start "pooling" their resources, which would lose the shipping line revenue in the long run.

On the other hand, two people travelling together on the same ticket would guarantee that they would be sharing a twin cabin, which is what I suspect Henry Beauchamp and Percival Sharp chose to do. So, since we know that they were travelling on the same ticket, they must have known each other beforehand, which is where the mystery lies. I don't believe that they were two complete strangers who met at the same ticket office and decided to travel together - their known backgrounds and personalities make this very unlikely. I don't want to speculate any further before more facts are revealed but I continue to believe that there is more to what meets the eye to this Beauchamp-Sharp mystery.

 

[wah3576]

This is my first comment here having spent a great deal of timing reading many threads and absorbing the different perspectives and approaches each member brings to Titanic history. I am struck that there could be another potential explanation. In this instance, certainly there is little to go on, but it is worth throwing into the mix. Perhaps they were romantically involved. It is entirely possible they were leaving together to commence a new life abroad. Past follies, “mental illness,” a broken marriage, etc. supply the bones of a narrative. Just a thought from a man who grew interested in the Titanic as a child in the 1970s American South. I spent many a night trying to place people in lifeboats based solely on a paperback version of A Night to Remember. The stories and mysteries are too many and too full of life. This is yet another of them, and I figured perhaps it deserved a mention. Since I have nary an interest in the technical operation of the Titanic (that an iceberg was involved and it sank answers those types of questions for me), I am deeply interested in the lives of the passengers and their testimonies and the social/economic/political environments of the era. The intersectional dimensions are so rich with possibilities as is the historiography which alone needs a study from a gender and sexuality perspective.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I am struck that there could be another potential explanation. In this instance, certainly there is little to go on, but it is worth throwing into the mix. Perhaps they were romantically involved. It is entirely possible they were leaving together to commence a new life abroad.

Yes, I suppose that is a possibility and would explain the sudden and unpleasant break-up with the family and the apparent use of different surnames later by Beauchamp's children, although officially they all remained Beauchamps for the rest of their lives. But the flaw with that reasoning is that there is no evidence that Henry Beauchamp and Percival Sharp even knew each other until perhaps a few weeks before the voyage; no one in the former's family or friends seem to have known the existence of Percival Sharp, who records show was an inmate at the London County Lunatic Asylum in Norwood, Middlesex till late 1911.

Still, I acknowledge that what you suggest is a possibility and given the public attitudes at the time, they could have kept the relationship a secret from everyone.

I spent many a night trying to place people in lifeboats based solely on a paperback version of A Night to Remember. The stories and mysteries are too many and too full of life. This is yet another of them, and I figured perhaps it deserved a mention.

One of the main reasons why I continue to be interested in the Titanic disaster is because the people on board, particularly the cross-section of passengers, collectively represented a microcosm of the changing world of the time. People from several different countries and a multitude of backgrounds and ambitions were travelling together to start a new life in what was then seen as the Land of Opportunity. For the Third Class and some Second Class passengers, many of the businessmen and other rich people in First Class might have represented examples of those who had already tried it themselves (or through their ancestors) and succeeded.

 

[marina_irc]

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, but I've been feeling quite chatty this week due to the submersible thread, so excuse me for butting in with a question. How would they be on the same ticket if they're strangers? Would it have been similar to our modern airplane seating system--the equivalent of 'You both have tickets in row G'? Or is this still an outstanding mystery?

You buy the cabin under one ticket. It's the same system as on modern Amtrak for overnight sleeping accommodations. You pay a fare for the accommodation, which is meant for two or three people, but you can have fewer people in it. On a train there's a base rate (the same as a coach ticket) per person. I'm not sure exactly how the White Star did it, but basically to game the system, you'd pool your money and buy a single ticket and then share the room. That lets you save a substantial amount of money per person.

Because 2nd and 1st class passengers did not go through Ellis Island and were privileged in entering the US for customs and immigration (this was the reason my grand-uncle paid for 2nd class fares on the French line for my paternal grandparents) someone who may have a history (like mental illness at the time, or infidelity or crime) that could result in them being banned from entry to the US if it came out, or was in poor health, would have a STRONG incentive to do this, as, as long as they could clean up and have one decent pair of clothes to wear for the customs agents, they'd stand an immeasurably better chance of being admitted to the US.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

On a train there's a base rate (the same as a coach ticket) per person. I'm not sure exactly how the White Star did it, but basically to game the system, you'd pool your money and buy a single ticket and then share the room. That lets you save a substantial amount of money per person.

Yes, but the Titanic was not a train and in that era WSL and other shipping lines relied upon transatlantic passenger travel for their revenue, immigration being one of the main contributors. I am not saying that people could not save money by pooling their money in the way you have described, but I'd like some proof that WSL allowed it. They would have been aware of that loophole if such existed and so IMO would have taken precautions to avoid potential loss of revenue.

Because 2nd and 1st class passengers did not go through Ellis Island and were privileged in entering the US for customs and immigration (this was the reason my grand-uncle paid for 2nd class fares on the French line for my paternal grandparents) someone who may have a history (like mental illness at the time, or infidelity or crime) that could result in them being banned from entry to the US if it came out, or was in poor health, would have a STRONG incentive to do this, as, as long as they could clean up and have one decent pair of clothes to wear for the customs agents, they'd stand an immeasurably better chance of being admitted to the US.

Specifically in case of Henry Beauchamp, he was a Chief Steward at a posh London Club at the time he travelled on the Titanic and so on paper he would have been a very respectable middle-aged man, a typical Second Class passenger on a luxurious ship. I doubt if his pre-marital misdemeanors would have been widely known in England, let alone at the US border and so IMO that's a non-issue. But I see your point about someone with a mental illness being denied entry into the US; but, even if Beauchamp and Sharp were able to bypass the Ellis Island checks, there was always the risk that Sharp could have been stopped later. If he was then found to be travelling on the same ticket as Beauchamp, would the latter not be putting his own entry into the US in jeopardy?

I suppose one could argue that Percival Sharp - or someone working with him - realized that he might have trouble entering the US on his own and plotted to hide behind a seemingly respectable middle-aged Englishman by travelling on the same ticket. But given the cloud under which Beauchamp himself was leaving his family and country, would he have fallen for such a trick just to save some money? To me, that sounds unlikely.