Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brook Family of Droitwich

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Brook Family of Droitwich

    This is partly a call for help, but also partly a way of venting/organising my thoughts: just trying to sort all this out tends to give me a headache. :D

    My ancestor Thomas Tickle married Mary Brook on August 3 1729, St Peter de Witton.

    Their son, George, married a Mary Brook on August 20 1764, at Hampton Lovett, with the bride being of that parish and one of the witnesses being Philip Pomfrey.

    I found a headstone which lists John Brook having died 12 April 1772 aged 72 years, his wife Mary died 11 August 1783, aged 89 years, as well as Philip Pumfrey (died May 2 1772) and his wife (Mary, daughter of John Penrice) (died 14 April 1748), along with his grandson, Philip (died 11 August 1830). That gave me the first real clues.

    I then contacted a Pumfrey researcher: she revealed that Philip Pumfrey's son Philip John Pumfrey (known as known: a mercer and draper of Droitwich) married (sigh) yet another Mary Brook: there's another headstone for husband and wife. She died 21 Dec 1793, aged 62 years (meaning she was born around 1731). I have found a baptism for that year for a Mary, daughter of John and Mary, which, I think, is likely to be the one I'm after.

    The problem is the two Mary Brooks that married my Tickles and how they fit into all of this. A cousin found a baptism for the earlier one in 1716, St Peter de Witton, daughter of John (the only one for the time period in the IGI) but now I've gotten in contact with a man who appears to be descended from that Mary and she married someone else. :(

    As for the second one, I've found a baptism in 1735 for a Mary Brook, daughter of Edward and Elizabeth in St Peter de Witton and, yes, that could be her (George Tickle was born in 1733), but I'm not sure. I found her burial in 1775 but there was no age of death.

    The only real clues I have right now are a chronological list of all the baptisms, burials, and marriages I could find in transcriptions of the St Augustine, Dodderhill; St Peter de Witton; and Hampton Lovett parish registers, along with St Andrew baptisms and marriages from the IGI. That gave me some tantalising hints that might be my Brook family: occupations of clothier, glover, and weaver, considering that John Pumfrey (who married into the family) was a mercer and draper.

    I have to admit I've had it easy so far: contact with family members and easily accessible sources like the NSW bdm indexes, certificates bought by my mother, and the IGI have meant that this is the first real challenge I've faced, so I would welcome any ideas on how to sort out the Brook family and make sure that, when I put down the Mary Brooks parentage I have the right ones.
    Last edited by tanyal; 25-06-09, 05:25.

  • #2
    Hi Tanya

    We had a similar problem with our William and John Worners - too many of them altogether !!. I did a similar thing - collected all the baptisms and marriages, first. Then tried to match the couples and the children.

    If you looked at the baptisms of the two Mary Brooks children, and grandchildren, do the names give clues to her parents ?

    With our Worners, it was difficult when one William and Marys' baptisms overlapped another - but usually an "abode" or occuaption was helpful (luckily they all were not just ag labs or farmers, but ran half the town). Other than that, one branch used "Henry" but none of the others, and some married their cousins just to confuse things more.

    So, start with the Mary Brooks marriages, work out their children, and grandchildren if you can, then see if any of the possible parents fit with the names - difficult if both bride and grooms father was William and mother Mary, of course. Did anyone name a child after Philip Pumfrey ?

    Di
    Diane
    Sydney Australia
    Avatar: Reuben Edward Page and Lilly Mary Anne Dawson

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by dicole View Post
      Hi Tanya

      We had a similar problem with our William and John Worners - too many of them altogether !!. I did a similar thing - collected all the baptisms and marriages, first. Then tried to match the couples and the children.

      If you looked at the baptisms of the two Mary Brooks children, and grandchildren, do the names give clues to her parents ?

      With our Worners, it was difficult when one William and Marys' baptisms overlapped another - but usually an "abode" or occuaption was helpful (luckily they all were not just ag labs or farmers, but ran half the town). Other than that, one branch used "Henry" but none of the others, and some married their cousins just to confuse things more.

      So, start with the Mary Brooks marriages, work out their children, and grandchildren if you can, then see if any of the possible parents fit with the names - difficult if both bride and grooms father was William and mother Mary, of course. Did anyone name a child after Philip Pumfrey ?

      Di
      I guess you're right: a had slog and gradually narrowing things down is the only way to go. :D

      I haven't found a Philip among the Brooks and, unfortunately, all the Tickle children were named for the Tickle side of the family.

      The Brookes of Droitwich seem to have been more prominent than my Tickle line which may help. A "servant" of Edward Brooke (perhaps the grandfather of one of the Marys) was buried in 1722, so perhaps one or more of them left a will, registered in the local court (I've already done a search at the National Archives).

      Comment


      • #4
        Hmmmm. The slog might not be as hard as I thought.

        Just examining the chronology, things started to come together, in theory at least (ie, there's a baptism of a Mary Brook, the only one in the Droitwich area at that time, there's a baptism of a Edward Brook, ditto).

        In fact, the only one that doesn't fit at all is the earlier Mary.

        Anyway, I think I now know which Brooks to focus on. I'm feeling a bit silly, to tell you the truth: just setting out all the information in chronological order was enough to make it start making sense. :o

        Comment


        • #5
          I've got my Brooke family back (in theory, using the indexes: but everything fits) to 1650 and, in theory, back to 1630! :D

          I'm going to see if wills can get me back even further.

          Comment

          Working...
          X