Family Tree
Web page

James Beaman and the 100th Regiment of Foot

James Beaman and the 100th Regiment of Foot · Raking Leaves · Steve Rogers · 2012-04

Site
Raking Leaves
Page title
James Beaman and the 100th Regiment of Foot
Owner / publisher
Steve Rogers
Date published
2012-04

Researched article by a 3rd-great-grandson of James Beaman, drawing on British Army muster books and pay records, the Quebec Gazette, the National Library of Ireland index to St Paul's Arran Quay, and Canadian censuses 1851-1901. The author publicly corrected an earlier version that wrongly made James a War of 1812 veteran, which raises confidence in the rest.

Cited by

James Beaman and the 100th Regiment of Foot Secondary

James Beaman and the 100th Regiment of Foot · Raking Leaves · Steve Rogers · 2012-04

For James Beaman & Elizabeth Goodacre

"An entry for October 7, 1815 records the marriage of James 'Bayman' and Eliza. Gannon [St Paul's church, North King Street, Arran Quay, Dublin]."

From the NLI microfilm INDEX to St Paul's Arran Quay; the original register does not survive, and the index gives names and date only, no parents. OPEN CONFLICT: a Find a Grave memorial for a James Beaman gives his wife as Theresa Jane Vaughan, m. 1849, and no Elizabeth Gannon d.1871 appears in Canada on Find a Grave. That memorial may belong to the son James (1622, b. Jul 1826, aged 23 in 1849) rather than this man, but it is unresolved.

James Beaman and the 100th Regiment of Foot Secondary

James Beaman and the 100th Regiment of Foot · Raking Leaves · Steve Rogers · 2012-04

For James Beaman (1798–1881)

"James Beaman was born in County Down in 1799. On June 16, 1815, at the age of 16, he enlisted in the 100th H.R.H. the Prince Regent's County of Dublin Regiment of Foot... In 1821 James was awarded his land grant, 100 acres in Goulbourn Township, the east half of Lot 12, Concession 2."

Author cites British Army muster books and pay records. Corrects the widespread claim that James was a War of 1812 veteran: he enlisted after the war ended. The muster-book age of 16 in June 1815 independently supports the recorded birth year of 1799, so it is the marriage at 16 that is surprising, not the birth year.