Encyclopedia Titanica

Emilie Kreuchen

Emilie Kreuchen
Emilie Kreuchen

Miss Emilie Kreuchen was born on 1 October 1882 1 in Germany. 

She was the daughter of Theodore Kreuchen and Anna Bauer and had at least one sibling, a sister named Anna(1879-1974)2. The family lived in Oldisleben, Kyffhäuserkreis, Thuringia, Germany.

Emilie had emigrated to the USA in 1897 3 and by the time of the 1900 census was living and working in St Louis, Missouri for William Berger, a banker, and his family. She had made at least one trip back to Germany and returned to the USA on 23 September 1907 aboard Kaiser Wilhelm II, sailing from Bremen. She later went to work for another St Louis family, lawyer Edward Scott Robert and his wife Elisabeth Walton McMillan Robert, appearing with them on the 1910 census. Mr Robert died in 1911 and Mrs Robert took herself, her daughter Georgette Madill, and Miss Kreuchen for a vacation to Europe. 

The party, including Mrs Robert's niece Elisabeth Allen, boarded the Titanic at Southampton (ticket number 24160 which cost £211, 6s, 9d). She probably occupied a cabin forward on E-deck close to that of her employer. 

On the night of the disaster, Miss Kreuchen stepped from her quarters into a passageway filled with water and went to the purser to ask what was wrong. She was told to return to quarters while parts of the ship were blocked off to slow the flow of water. Emilie hastened to the cabin of Elisabeth Allen telling her that the baggage room was full of water but was told not to worry and to return to her cabin which she did but found it flooded. Kreuchen recalled being summoned to a lifeboat by a whistle and shared the open boat with 20 other passengers. Their lifeboat, boat 2, was found shortly after daybreak. 

After the sinking Emilie travelled to Missouri with her employer where she also had relatives but would return to Germany the following year where she resided for several years. When she returned to the USA around 1916 she settled in San Francisco, California and was later married to a fellow-German immigrant named Wimar Wurm (b. 4 April 1880) who had first come to the USA in 1910; the couple had no children.

By 1918 (at the time of the latter's WWI registration) Emilie and Wimar lived at 907 Steinar Street, San Francisco and Wurm's employer was given as City of Paris Cleaning Company. The 1930 census shows the couple residing at 1025 Ellis Street in that city whilst the 1940 census shows them as residents of apartments at 350 Gough Street; on both occasions neither had any stated profession. They continued to sail back and forth across the Atlantic, one voyage being as late as August 1951 when they sailed aboard De Grasse.

Emilie Kreuchen and her husband Wimar

Emilie and Wimar in 1923

Emilie was widowed when her husband died on 2 January 1960. She herself passed away on 25 March 1971 aged 88 and was buried in Cypress Lawn Memorial Park in Colma, California.

Notes

  1. Her social security death record and death certificate give the year of birth as 1882. Emilie would claim slightly different ages throughout her life but the 1900 census states that she had been born in October 1881 and that she had just turned 18 the previous October. 
  2. Later Mrs Joseph Schneider; she was married in California on 18 February 1915. She is buried with Emilie. 
  3. The 1900 census states she emigrated in 1897 and the 1910 census states 1900. The 1930 census gives the year as 1895.

References and Sources

Photo: National Archives (Passport Applications File)

Newspaper Articles

Newark Evening News (23 April 1912) Titanic Survivor To The Defense Of Ismay
San Francisco Chronicle (29 March 1971) Mrs. Wurm, Titanic Survivor, Dies At 89

Images

Documents and Certificates

Search archive online

Comment and discuss

  1. Rolf Vonk

    Rolf Vonk

    Hello dear people, I was looking at the cabin list when there raised a question. On the list Miss Emilie Kreuchen is placed in the same cabin as Mrs Edward Scott Robert. Though the "cave list" indicated this, it isn't correct. Mrs Robert's niece Elisabeth Walton Allen mentioned the following: 'My aunt's maid came to my door and asked if she could speak to me. I went into the corridor and she said, "Miss Allen, the baggage room is full of water." I replied that she needn't worry because the watertight compartments would be shut and it would be all right for her to go back to her cabin. She went back and returned to us immediately to say her cabin, which was forward on Deck E, was flooded.' This is the evidence that Miss Kreuchen was on the forward part of E deck. I suggest she was in E11. Maybe even a cabin with a porthole, but probably not a cabin before E8. Mr Chambers and his wife were in E8 and he stated in his testimony: 'Our stateroom was E-8, on the starboard... Read full post
    : Reply

  2. Ben Holme

    Hey Rolf, You are correct in that Miss Kreunchen occupied an E-deck cabin rather than B-3. In any case, I think I'm right in saying that B-3 was a single birth cabin. This also rules out C-46 for the Cavendishes and their maid - too small. I agree that she must have occupied a forward E-deck cabin. E-11 is a good suggestion. She may even have been the "single woman" descibed by James McGough who occupied the cabin opposite i.e. E-23. McGough alerted her to the danger after the collision. On the other hand, E-23 may be too far aft. Hope this helps Best wishes Ben
    : Reply
  3. Daniel Rosenshine

    Daniel Rosenshine

    I wouldn't quite rule out a cabin more forward than E8. Chambers stated that only as far as he knew. It may be possible that there were no other occupied cabins in the passage where E8 was, but what about the other more forward cabins in the other more forward passage? He might not have seen Kreuchen walk that way. Also being a maid (and on Titanic) she wouldn't have spent much time walking around on E deck. On the other hand, Kreunchen was walking up and down decks, to and from her cabin so Chambers *might* have seen her had she walked far forward. Chambers makes no mention of seeing the 1st. class E deck corridor flooded so it is likely that he and his wife left before. When Kreunchen returned from her trip to B deck, she said her cabin was flooded, thus again she might have been making the trips when Chambers might not have seen her. I'm not saying she was in a cabin more forward than E8, all I'm saying is that you can't rule them out as even Chambers wasn't sure, it was... Read full post
    : Reply

  4. Ben Holme

    Hello Daniel, A point well made. I hadn't fully considered the layout of the E-deck cabins. Of course, the cabins were located in mini-corridors that lead into the main passage i.e "Park Lane". I can't imagine Chambers was so observant as to notice one woman tucked away in a forward cabin. Would you agree that this would tend to rule out an inside cabin for Miss Kreunchen? Regards Ben
    : Reply
  5. Rolf Vonk

    Rolf Vonk

    Hi there guys, Of course it could have been possible that Mr Chambers didn't noticed Miss Kreuchen or other passengers in a more forward cabin than theirs. But realise that there were only 2 other mini-corridors on the forward part of E deck beside the corridor of E8. One of them was the corridor with a staircase to D deck and F deck (the squashcourt)with four cabins. It's unlikely that Miss Kreuchen had a cabin in this corridor. I think it would be rather strange to put a lonely maid into a cabin with a capacity of 4 passengers. So I think that corridor can be deleted from the list. The other corridor was with cabins E1-E4. Miss Kreuchen could have been in one of these. But than it seems to me that she always took the forward staircase to D deck, when she was going up the decks. Otherwise I don't believe that Mr Chambers didn't noticed her. I think it isn't strange at all to look if the rooms in your corridor or the ones more forward were occupied or not. Beside who would put... Read full post
    : Reply

  6. Ben Holme

    Hi Rolf, As I mentioned in an earlier post, I personally consider it more likely that she occupied a cabin aft of E-8. As I said, she may even have been the woman observed by McGough. However, if in fact she did occupy one of the cabins in the first mini-passage i.e E1-E4, it occured to me that she would have had a very short distance to walk to the D-deck staircase. Therefore, she may not have been noticed as she went back and forth across "Park Lane". Also, if you look at the E-deck plan, you will notice that this first passage is located further forward than the D-deck stairway. Therefore, Chambers would have had no reason to pass this corridor, unless he was making a particulalry thorough exploration of the deck. I doubt Chambers would have ventured further forward than the staircase. Hope this helps Regards Ben
    : Reply
  7. Rolf Vonk

    Rolf Vonk

    Hey Ben, Yes, I see your point. I do also not believe that Mr Chambers would have seen Miss Kreuchen when she used the little staircase to D deck. However, as I already mentioned, it seems strange to put a lonely woman into a cabin with the capacity of 4 passengers (what all the four cabins in the little corridor had). I would choose the inside 1 berth cabin for my maid and not a strange 4 person berthroom. I don't know, but it's just a tiny little distance from mini-corridor E8 into the long parklane avenue and just around the corner to mini-corridor E1 etc. I doubt if passengers never saw a person walking in that part of the parklane to his/her cabin. I understand about the lonely woman McCough saw, but I think that E23 is too far aft or in the middle of the first class corridor. However, it could be possible that Miss Kreuchen went to her cabin, saw the water flooding over the floor of the entrance to the grandstaircase on E deck and went back. But Miss Allen said the maid... Read full post
    : Reply

  8. Ben Holme

    Hi Rolf, I agree, it does seem unlikely that Miss Kreunchen was placed in a cabin with a capacity of 4. However, Laura Francatelli, the Duff-Gordon maid occupied one such cabin. I realise that Miss F was a little more "upmarket" than a maid, but their situations are comparable in that the Duff-Gordons paid for her cabin...I think! I see your point about the unlikelihood of Miss K passing unoticed, but as Daniel pointed out, she probably spent very little time on E-deck in her own cabin. The detail of her cabin being descibed as "flooded" suggests to me that the cabin was indeed far forward. Also, there was a slight list to starboard at this point and although a mere list wouldn't prevent the flow of water at a later stage, it may have diverted the flow away from the cabins on the port side of park lane i.e the inside ones when she made her observation. Regards Ben
    : Reply

  9. Lester Mitcham

    Hi Ben, Rolf, My understanding is that Miss Francatelli was in E-36; which she seems to shared with Miss Wilson. E-36 was a 3-berth room. The only two 4-berth room that I know of in 1st Class were E-201 and E-203. The only rooms on the port-side of Park Lane in the forward section of the ship were for 3rd Class Passengers and for Crew. All of the 1st Class rooms were on the starboard-side of the ship. Park Lane or Scotland Road was the wide fore-aft passageway on the port-side of the ship. The name should not be applied to the Passenger's fore-aft passageway on the starboard-side. Rolf, I'm puzzled by your: In that case she didn't used the little staircase on D deck comment. Surely if her room was already under water then the stairway that went from E-deck upto D-deck would also have been under water? In case timing is of interest I have seem a number of postings about E-deck flooding and they conclude that the water had reached the Grand Staircase by 12.30 and that that... Read full post
    : Reply

  10. Lester Mitcham

    My apologizes Rolf, I misread your little staircase on D deck comment. On re-reading it you are saying she did not use it. We agree she could not have as it would have been underwater. Lester
    : Reply
  11. Daniel Rosenshine

    Daniel Rosenshine

    I was trying to post this yesterday, but ET wasn't responding for some reason, so here goes again: ======================================================= I'd like to also point out that Chambers and his wife did not sit around their cabin, thus it is an even smaller possibility that he could see the maid. He and his wife would have undoubtedly been probing the ship themselves. I'm not sure of the relationship of Kreunchen to her employer, whether she was more of a friend then a “tie up my corset” maid. If she was the latter, than no doubt, whilst all dressed for dinner she would have been up in B3 helping Mrs. Robert ... thus again Chambers would not have seen her. Woolner was in C52, with passengers on either side of him (and no doubt in other nearby cabins). When asked about this, he did not know anyone or whether others were in cabins close to him. Isham was in a cabin NEXT DOOR to Gracie, yet he had never seen her throughout the voyage. I doubt that Chambers was so... Read full post
    : Reply

  12. Ben Holme

    Hi Lester, Daniel, Daniel - to further your point, bedroom steward Andrew Cunningham apparently neglected to notice some of the passengers in the locality of his "section" i.e Frederick Hoyt and his wife in C-93 and the Futrelles in C-123 (possibly). Lester - I always thought "Park Lane" referred to the starboard fore to aft corridor for 1st class passengers on the starboard side. "Scotland Road" on the port side was for 3rd class and crew. Park lane seems more of an appropriate name for the starboard passage. I'd be surprised if both names referred to the port corridor, but I guess it could be true. Regards Ben
    : Reply
  13. Rolf Vonk

    Rolf Vonk

    Hi there, First of all I would see the parklane rather as the first class corridor, but I didn't know it was a real excisting name. I thought it was more like a kind of joke. However, I think it's almost certain that we can't place Miss Kreuchen in a specific cabin. We can only place her on the forward E deck and that's it. However I really think she is in one of the two forward mini-corridors and certainly not that little inside corridor with it four 4-person cabins. But I have to tell you that I don't trust that cabin list anymore at all. We are speculating about unknown cabins, but there must have been known cabins, who were also wrong. I have that idea with the Cavendish party and Mr Ross. But Daniel, as you think that the Chambers weren't the whole time in their cabin and when you see Miss Kreuchen as the silent maid, it could even be possible that Kreuchen and the Chambers were in the same mini-corridor. Their is no evidence for, nor evidence against this in my opinion.... Read full post
    : Reply

  14. Lester Mitcham

    Re Park Lane; Scotland Road. In ANTR Walter Lord says ".... the working alleyway on E deck ..... - the officers called it 'Park Lane', the crew 'Scotland Road'. Hope this helps, Lester
    : Reply
  15. Rolf Vonk

    Rolf Vonk

    Hi Lester, Thanks for the information. I haven't read Walter Lord's ANTR, however I have the movie. Though I can't remember that the name "Park lane" was mentioned in it. Regards, Rolf
    : Reply

Showing 15 posts of 33 total. View all.

Open Thread Leave a Reply Watch Thread

Titanic Passenger Summary

Name: Miss Emilie Kreuchen
Age: 29 years 6 months and 14 days (Female)
Nationality: German American
Marital Status: Single
Embarked: Southampton on Wednesday 10th April 1912
Ticket No. 24160, £211 6s 9d
Rescued (boat 2)  
Disembarked Carpathia: New York City on Thursday 18th April 1912
Died: Thursday 25th March 1971 aged 88 years
Buried: Cypress Lawn Memorial Park, San Mateo, California, United States

Linked Biographies

Page Options

 PDF    Print

Watch this page

 Watch this page

Improve this Biography

If you have any corrections or something to add please  get in touch