Find Ancestors

Something to note: at that time, it was illegal for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister.

That's why I'm the product of unmarried grx2 grandparents in one line. ;)

So if William Walker did marry the sister of his deceased wife, he did it without declaring the relationship, and illegally. Since, if recall correctly, he did it in two places remote from each other, presumably he could have got away with it.

He also claimed he was a batchelor despite having 7 children from his marriage to sarah!! I'm beginning to think I'm never going to solve this and the link is the two sisters, although john newton osborn was born and lived in surrey and his wife mary walker was born in herts. All I know is that john newton osborn seems to have been an "upstanding member of society", having served on the parish board of a charity, raised my gt gt grandfather and employed half of his own family and this other john osborns (1782)!! A mystery unsolved, don't like them! Regards Linda :)

Did you notice that there were apparently THREE witnesses
to John Osborn / Elizabeth Newton marriage in 1804?

from ancestry


London, England, Marriages and Banns, 1754-1921

Name: John Osborn
Spouse Name: Elizabeth Newton
Record Type: Marriage
Marriage Date: 19 Feb 1804
Parish: St Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey
County: Surrey
Borough: Southwark


from image:-

Witnesses, Wm Newton, Sarah Newton, S Newton




sylvia

hi sylvia, yes I had seen that. Unfortunately I'm not sure who sarah or Isaac are, possibly siblings? Regards Linda :)

Hi Linda,

I stand corrected on writing that John and Elizabeth had John and Sarah. Because everything is on one continuous line I miss-read it. It would be much easier with paragraphs and families separated.

I see that John Newton Osborn born 1813 [1812] was christened in the same church as John Osborn and Elizabeth Newton's children and now see why there may be a strong connection. However you wrote at the beginning that John and Elizabeth had their children in France.

Name: John Newton Osborn
Gender: Male
Baptism/Christening Date: 28 Jan 1813
Baptism/Christening Place: STOCKWELL NEW CHAPEL INDEPENDENT,LAMBETH,SURREY,ENGLAND
Birth Date: 25 Aug 1812
Father's Name: John Osborn:
Mother's Name: Mary Newton

John Osborn of Mitcham.
I want to establish if this record below is the John born 1783 married to Mary Ann Newton, or the other John born 1782 we are trying to relate to.

Name: John Osborn
Gender: Male
Baptism/Christening Date: 24 Nov 1782
Baptism/Christening Place: MITCHAM,SURREY,ENGLAND
Father's Name: William Osborn

Children of John Osborn and Elizabeth Newton

Name: William Osborn
Gender: Male
Baptism/Christening Date: 07 May 1809
Baptism/Christening Place: STOCKWELL NEW CHAPEL INDEPENDENT,LAMBETH,SURREY,ENGLAND
Birth Date: 10 May 1808
Father's Name: JOHN OSBORN:
Mother's Name: Elizabeth Newton

Name: Matilda Osborn
Gender: Female
Baptism/Christening Date: 17 Nov 1811
Baptism/Christening Place: STOCKWELL NEW CHAPEL INDEPENDENT,LAMBETH,SURREY,ENGLAND
Birth Date: 13 Jan 1811
Father's Name: JOHN OSBORN
Mother's Name: Elizabeth Newton

Name: Fanny Osborn
Gender: Female
Baptism/Christening Date: 19 May 1816
Baptism/Christening Place: STOCKWELL NEW CHAPEL INDEPENDENT,LAMBETH,SURREY,ENGLAND
Birth Date: 15 Sep 1815
Father's Name: JOHN OSBORN
Mother's Name: Elizabeth Newton

Name: Emma Osborn
Gender: Female
Baptism/Christening Date: 03 May 1818
Baptism/Christening Place: STOCKWELL NEW CHAPEL INDEPENDENT,LAMBETH,SURREY,ENGLAND
Birth Date: 31 Jan 1817
Father's Name: JOHN OSBORN
Mother's Name: Elizabeth Newton

Name: Frederick Osborn
Gender: Male
Baptism/Christening Date: 07 Mar 1819
Baptism/Christening Place: STOCKWELL NEW CHAPEL INDEPENDENT,LAMBETH,SURREY,ENGLAND
Birth Date: 17 Sep 1818:
Father's Name: JOHN OSBORN:
Mother's Name: Elizabeth Newton

Name: Amelia Osborn
Gender: Female
Baptism/Christening Date: 29 Apr 1810
Baptism/Christening Place: STOCKWELL NEW CHAPEL INDEPENDENT,LAMBETH,SURREY,ENGLAND
Birth Date: 29 Sep 1809
Father's Name: JOHN OSBORN:
Mother's Name: Elizabeth Newton

Other earlier Osborns born in Stockwell where we may pick up a connection.

Name: Frederick William Osborn
Gender: Male
Baptism/Christening Date: 21 Aug 1867
Baptism/Christening Place: Stockwell, Surrey, England
Father's Name: THOMAS OSBORN
Mother's Name: Sarah Osborn

Name: Edith Genney Osborne
Gender: Female
Baptism/Christening Date: 14 Mar 1875
Baptism/Christening Place: Stockwell, Surrey, England
Father's Name: THOMAS OSBORNE
Mother's Name: Sarah Osborne

Name: Annie Mary Osborn
Gender: Female
Baptism/Christening Date: 12 Jan 1873
Baptism/Christening Place: Stockwell, Surrey, England
Birth Date: 19 Dec 1872
Father's Name: HENRY OSBORN:
Mother's Name: Charlotte Osborn

Name: Annie Alice Osborne
Gender: Female
Baptism/Christening Date: 14 Mar 1875
Baptism/Christening Place: Stockwell, Surrey, England
Father's Name: HENRY OSBORNE
Mother's Name: Charlotte Osborne

Name: Thomas Samuel Osborne
Gender: Male
Baptism/Christening Date: 08 Oct 1876
Baptism/Christening Place: Stockwell, Surrey, England
Father's Name: JOHN OSBORNE
Mother's Name: Martha Osborne

Hi Gael, well I also stand corrected, and something to pass on to the descendant of john and elizabeth, who had told me they were all born in france!!. Given that I mainly wanted to try and establish a link between the two johns I hadn't pursued those details.

The john you found b 1782 is the one married to mary, going by the census records.

The later births you found may be the descendants of the children you found of john and elizabeth. I know that John newton osborn and his wife mary had no children.

Lordy, this gets confusing!! At the mo' I.m trying to search the other witnesses to john and elizabeths marriage as pointed out by sylvia, there are so many isaac newtons it;s crazy!! Regards Linda :)

So John's [married to Mary] father was William?

Please Gael, don't do that, any help is much appreciated, and while my post may not have been clear enough for some, there has been so much information about this family, that it takes a while to take it on board, and today is the only day I work and come home to find this. Identifying sources doesn't belie or verify the facts as they believe them to be, which is why people ask for help. My "source" has one family, I have another which we believe to be linked. Lord Janey, why be so negative, I seem to have really irritated you. For that I apologise, perhaps you might prefer to "help" someone else?

As to the question of whether the children were those of John and Elizabeth, the answer is yes. My "source" was extremely happy to be corrected and to be provided with the right details. Having never met him, I am surmising from his details that he is a more mature gentleman, reasonably new to this and has asked me to pass on his thanks.

Also yes to the father of John married to mary being william. I ascertained that from the census where he gives his age as being born 1782/3 in mitcham surrey, and that birth seems to ,match. Regards Linda :)

Well it goes on. It seems that John and Elizabeth had 13 children in all, those that Gael found, another selina christened 1805, and then elizabeth no dob, john ditto, sarah 1822, caroline 1823 and charles augustus 1825. This is my source's ancestor (his name is Ron by the by and I have his permission to post that on here!), Charles A is his ancestor and definitely born france,as perhaps are the others, as I can't locate them on family search. Still trying to forge a link between Isaac sarah and elizabeth. Regards Linda :)

n

Yes the info about the children was in error, the only incorrect piece if information here. However it was also totally irrelevant. I'm looking for the parents ancestry, not the descendants, and knowing their info doesn't help, as grateful as I am to Gael for finding the children, I think sadly,it's time to put this post to bed. Linda

Ah, but not before having the evidence deleted again, eh?

You gave unsubstantiated info that turned out to be wrong, and still aren't identifying the sources of other info. Sounds like time, indeed.

If you're doing to demand that someone's posts be deleted simply because you don't like them (no rules were broken), have the courtesy not to keep replying to them when you refuse to tolerate being answered.