You are welcome, Eileen (and Pat). I think you do need a little bit more documentary corroboration of the link between George and Joshua and Martha before "inking it in". Although the Romsey connection is appealing and the dates fit, the fact that there were a number of (probably related) NEWMAN families in the area, means you should tread carefully His baptism record is unlikely to be of much help (though you should, of course, try and get a look at it via the LDS film), as at that date that church was not in the habit of noting fathers' occupations or addresses. Death certificates for Joshua and/or Martha might do the trick if George was the informant and gave an address which ties in with your guy. Otherwise, working up all the probable siblings would be a good idea, in case there was any mutual witnessing of weddings or sleep-overs of nieces and nephews. For what it's worth, I also think you might have to be prepared not to find the JAQUES connection. Family stories normally have some grain of truth somewhere, but not always where, or when, we are led to expect. But, having read earlier posts where you mention a possible Huguenot connection, it might be worth mentioning that Southampton (closish to Romsey) had a significant Huguenot community. Best wishes Caroline Sent from my iPad On 6 Sep 2011, at 18:30, "eileen/pat" <epfranchi@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Very many thanks Caroline. Brilliant. This ties in with the findings of my distant cousin. I had somehow found different parents, but hers were more logical and now you have confirmed it. I too cant find George and Harriett on the 1841 and had also found the birthplace in 1861 given as Romsey which confused me and led me down the wrong branch. Unfortunately my Newmans were originallly Jacques I have been led to believe from now deceased family, who changed their name but date unknown. So I guess not part of the considerable clan in Romsey!. Interesting though so very many thanks again. Eileen. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Caroline Bradford" <caroline.bradford@btinternet.com> > To: "'eileen/pat'" <epfranchi@blueyonder.co.uk>; <LONDON@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 5:25 PM > Subject: RE: [LON] NEWMAN 1841 > > >> Hi Eileen >> >> I cannot, for the life of me, find George and family in 1841! But Joshua >> and Martha are, I think, in St Bartholomew the Great in 1841 (HO10/724 Book >> 6, Folio 25). Having had a bit of a look at the family, I would think that >> Joshua and Martha are good candidates for George's parents. >> >> Unusually, this appears to be a case when a mistake over a place of birth is >> a godsend to the researcher. In 1861, George gives his place of birth as >> "Hants, Romsey". This is also the birthplace of Martha Snr (as per 1851 >> census, when she is a widow in Whitecross Street, which is in the parish of >> St Luke (Romsey mistranscribed by Ancestry as "Runcey"). >> >> Annoyingly, the page of the parish register of St Leonard's Shoreditch on >> which George's 1811 baptism probably lies is missing from the images on >> Ancestry. But there are baptisms there of a Martha (1823) and William Henry >> (1825). FamilySearch also offers the baptism of a Jemima NEWMAN to a Joshua >> and Martha in Romsey in 1808. I think she is probably the Jemima who >> married William WELLER in 1840 in Lambeth (father on marriage registration >> is Joshua, a carpenter - same trade as on the St Leonard's baptisms above). >> >> So we seem to have a Joshua and Martha NEWMAN arriving in London from Romsey >> (where there is a considerable NEWMAN clan) sometime between 1808 and 1811. >> >> >> Does this help? >> >> Caroline >> >> >> >> >>> Can anyone find George Newman, B 1811 St Lukes and Harriot/Harriet >>> Newman 1812 Woolwich, and family on the 1841. I should be delighted. >>> They have George 1836, Mary Ann 1839, Henrietta 1839 and possibly John >>> 1840. In (1851 they are in Finsbury with more family, Amelia >>> 1844,Thomas 1848,Rebecca 1848 amd possibly Martha 1851. In 1861 they >>> are still in Finsbury but have moved, George is an Artesian Well >>> Borer.) However its the 1841 I am most interested in because another >>> searcher has found George's parents on the IGI- Joshua and Martha who I >>> should also like to find on the 1841. Very Many thanks. Eileen. >