brookman/vowles marriage/birth

[hyatt]

Hi
I need help in finding the whereabouts of birth and marriage certificates of
frederick brookman and his wife hannah vowles

Information obtained from the 1841 Somerset (UK) Census...
he owned/"worked on" a Farm in Lower Langford, Burrington, Somerset(shire)
1851 Census - Burrington, Somerset:
Frederick Brookman - 44 - Ag. Lab. - (Born in ) Churchill, Somerset
Hannah - 46 - Washerwoman - Listed as born in "Nemphett thrubwell
Elizabeth - 18 - Laundress - Sandford Somerset
John - 13 - Sidcott, Somerset
Benjamin - 7 - Burrington, Somerset
------

REF: 1841 census HO107/933 folio 7 page 8 - Lower Langford, Burrington, Somerset:
Frederick Brookman (Farmer) - 35
Hannah - 35
Joseph - 12
Elizabeth - 10
Sophia - 8
Thomas - 6
John - 4

as you can see he is listed as 44 in 1851 census
and in the 1841 census they are both listed as being 35
any help would be greatly apppreciated as I dont have birth details or marriage details of them.
I am also missing the birth details of thomas brookman their son said to be 6 on the 1841 census.
Christening records for Winscombe, Somerset, reveal that he was christened on the 26th of Feb. 1837.along with 2 of his siblings (same day)sophia and elizabeth both older than him. ( I cant find christening or birth details for the others)
he was admitted to hospital in australia in 1870 and said:
His Birthplace was "England".
His religion was given as Church of England.
The amount of years he had spent in the "Colony" (Australia) was given as "10".

I hope some can help me in locating all or some of these somersetians
(or are they called something else)

[mich]

There are two listings for Hannah-
Christened 18/12/1803 Newpnett Thubwell parents Samuel and Elizabeth
Christened 11/01/1804 Newpnett Thubwell parents Sam Vowles and Elizabeth

[hyatt]

There are two listings for Hannah-
Christened 18/12/1803 Newpnett Thubwell parents Samuel and Elizabeth
Christened 11/01/1804 Newpnett Thubwell parents Sam Vowles and Elizabeth

how can one family be such a headache.
thank you mich very much for helping hannah seems to be a family name with the vowles lot. would I be out in assuming they are the same family naming 2 daughters hannah the elder one dying so named the next one the same name.
seems to have been very common back then. but a headache for twig hunters.
I dont suppose they had a maiden name for elizabeth just lying around somewhere.
so now the question is how did hannah from nempnett thrubwell meet frederick brookman from churchill. and where did they marry.
the eldest son joseph is supposed to have been born in burrington.

[Pam Downes]

Remember that prior to 1st July 1837 when civil registration began that the most you can really expect are baptism and marriage entries in the PR with differing amounts of detail depending on the year. The really tricky entries are the baptism ones because year of baptism does not necessarily equal year of birth, though circa 1780 -1800 dates of birth were often given. I was extremely fortunate to find a baptism record which said 'born 20th September 1762' when the date of baptism was 7th April 1788.
Pam Downes

[Mythology]

"would I be out in assuming they are the same family naming 2 daughters hannah the elder one dying so named the next one the same name."

I wouldn't assume anything on the basis of those "two listings".
Mich does not state the source of these, but those two dates are both given on the IGI, so I assume that's where he/she got them from.

Neither of them are extracted entries from the parish register - they are both submissions by LDS members.
They are less than a month apart. It is *possible* that one person has a birth date which they have accidentally entered incorrectly as a baptism date.
It is also *possible* that there is a reference to her being "of Newpnett Thrubwell" on a marriage record, and they have *assumed* incorrectly that the word "of" means that she was born there.
If such a reference does exist, then somebody cannot spell, as "Newpnett Thrubwell" to use the IGI spelling, or "Newpnett Thubwell" to use Mich's spelling, does not exist. As all lovers of The Wurzels know, the name of the place is Nempnett Thrubwell.
With these privately submitted IGI entries, almost *anything* is *possible*, and including a non-existent village does not suggest high quality research, which tips the scales in favour of one possibility just as likely as those mentioned - that they are complete and utter rubbish.
As a basis for *investigation*, i.e., checking the Nempnett Thrubwell parish register, they are worth noting - and that's about all.

[Mythology]

"As a basis for *investigation*, i.e., checking the Nempnett Thrubwell parish register ..."

But, while that is the first place I would look, don't be surprised if she isn't there. I have quoted this one before, but it was while back, so it won't do any harm to repeat it.
If, using the IGI, you stick in the parents' names as Robert Debenham and Elizabeth, and look for births/baptisms 1793 plus or minus ten years, you will get nine results - some in Alpheton, some in Poslingford, and one (Sarah) allegedly in both, which suggests there are probably two submitters here.

Not one single one of these is correct. All Robert and Elizabeth's eleven children - the eight here plus three not listed - can be found in the parish register of Depden.

"Alpheton" probably comes from either the fact that this is where Robert (the father) was baptised in 1755, or from him being "of Alpheton" on his marriage record.

"Poslingford" probably comes from a reference to Robert (the son) being "of Poslingford" when he got married in 1815.

To add to the mess, Thomas is shown as 1796. Robert and Elizabeth's Thomas is 1790 - Thomas Debenham of 1796 is the son of Thomas and Ann, who, unlike Robert and Elizabeth, *were* in Alpheton!

Quite what "research" was done by the person or people who are happy to throw this garbage onto the IGI, I shudder to think - it really would be difficult to get it more wrong.
It is by no means *always* the case that these privately submitted entries are nonsense, but if you proceed on the assumption that the information is correct, there is a good chance of you wasting time and possibly money going further back on completely the wrong line - they need checking *first*, before you go any further.

[mich]

Hyatt

I was interested to read the comments from Mythology regarding my reply to you,
The information was from the IGI and I apologise for not mentioning the source.However I am sure that like myself you use the information as a finding aid only and verify your finding as you go along.
Forum members share information in good faith but they cannot guarantee that it is one hundred percent accurate.I for one much appreciate all the infomation I have been given wherever it has been obtained.

[Peter Goodey]

Can I take it that we are certain about the surname VOWLES? It's not from another patron submission is it?

[hyatt]

Can I take it that we are certain about the surname VOWLES? It's not from another patron submission is it?

the surname "vowles" came from thomas brookmans australian marriage certificate where his mother is named as hannah vowles.my son has verified this as he has now got this certificate.

also from the 1881 census joseph brookman another son of frederick and hannah is named in full joseph vowles brookman

"Joseph Vowles BROOKMAN Head M Male 52 Burrington, Somerset, England Farmer Of 20 Acres "
also "my" missing birth details thomas brookman named his son thomas vowles brookman.
and his daughter Hannah.

as for nempnett thrubwell however it is spelt...
I believe it was spelt incorrectly or hard to read on the census form where is is listed as birth place for hannah .( I still call fontmell magna fontmel magma so what chance have I got with nempnett thrubwell).

as for IGI there is no mention of a frederick brookman or of his marrying hannah vowles or of his son thomas anywhere. he was not in the 1881 census so all I have is what others have posted from the 1841 and 1851 census and 3 childrens christening records (all in the 1 day).

I do realise IGI is a source of information some good, some great, some about as wrong as it can get. but then that is part and parcel of tree hunting.
I have had family lines all correctly placed on IGI by others and branches mentioned who were wrong people right from the beginning of the tree (grandfather)simply because no one thought that there could be 2 william balls one married to a hannah and t e other married to an annie both naming their daughter elsie hilda (both born within a year or so) this was done in all good faith as at that time the indexes had to be searched manually. so the "real" mother of elsie remained missing for several years.

of course NOTHING can be taken as reasonably true unless you see the certificates and trace them back one by one double checkiederick brookman or of his marrying hannah vowles or of his son thomas anywhere. he was not in the 1881 census so all I have is what others have posted from the 1841 and 1851 census and 3 childrens christening records (all in the 1 day).

I do realise IGI is a source of information some good, some great, some about as wrong as it can get. but then that is part and parcel of tree hunting.
I have had family lines all correctly placed on IGI by others and branches mentioned who were wrong people right from the beginning of the tree (grandfather)simply because no one thought that there could be 2 william balls one married to a hannah and t e other married to an annie both naming their daughter elsie hilda (both born within a year or so) this was done in all good faith as at that time the indexes had to be searched manually. so the "real" mother of elsie remained missing for several years.

of course NOTHING can be taken as reasonably true unless you see the certificates and trace them back one by one double checking with bdms.
as sometimes errors were made by children and they gave wrong surnames for their mothers. as in "campbell" for scammell" and "clifford" for kefford" ,"rosewarne" for 'rosewall"
these furfies come from my families trees and took me ages to find the missing mothers real name and in all cases I found them through the generous help and effort of others.
then we have in my family, mothers registering children under their dead 1st husbands name...imagine the trouble some poor decendant will have trying to work out how this man could father several children 5-10 years after he died.
without even the added hassle that this man had 2 different surnames and half of his "real" children were registered under one name the other half under the other and not the first half and the second half... no all mixed up like a name out of a hat trick.

so the end result of my years of on and off semi madness and obsessive tree hunting is that I am very appreciative of ANY information no matter how small ........or even if it later turns out to be a real furfy.

after all isnt the chase and detective work half the fun not to mention the nice people we meet along the way

although I must admit it would be nice to have access to all the "real" info that is out there somewhere..but until then I have to make do with what is available free online and the generosity andng with bdms.
as sometimes errors were made by children and they gave wrong surnames for their mothers. as in "campbell" for scammell" and "clifford" for kefford" ,"rosewarne" for 'rosewall"
these furfies come from my families trees and took me ages to find the missing mothers real name and in all cases I found them through the generous help and effort of others.
then we have in my family, mothers registering children under their dead 1st husbands name...imagine the trouble some poor decendant will have trying to work out how this man could father several children 5-10 years after he died.
without even the added hassle that this man had 2 different surnames and half of his "real" children were registered under one name the other half under the other and not the first half and the second half... no all mixed up like a name out of a hat trick.

so the end result of my years of on and off semi madness and obsessive tree hunting is that I am very appreciative of ANY information no matter how small ........or even if it later turns out to be a real furfy.

after all isnt the chase and detective work half the fun not to mention the nice people we meet along the way

although I must admit it would be nice to have access to all the "real" info that is out there somewhere..but until then I have to make do with what is available free online and the generosity and help of others.

[Peter Goodey]

OK. Personally, I'd get young Benjamin's birth certificate to confirm it. But whatever...

As Mythology said, it's reasonable to check the Nempnett Thrubwell parish registers (baptism and marriage) because that's Hannah's birthplace shown on the census. That may or may not move you forwards (in genealogical terms - backwards in time!).

You may be able to get hold of the parish registers through the Mormons although looking at the FHL catalogue they only seem to have the BTs and very patchy coverage at that. Pity. Maybe check Somerset Archives.