.
.
Previous: Chapter 3.A Richard of Tewksbury
Section 3 : Tewkesbury
Section 3.B.2 John, William and Joan
With two (or possibly three) exceptions, no BRUSH children, other than the apparent offspring of Richard T2, Humphrey and Lewis (as considerd in section 3.B), appear in the Tewkesbury records until 1583 - which in broad terms is a generation later.
Also in 1548 there is a will made by Harry Rushall (of Tewkesbury) referring to John Brydge)
The exceptions are William[T502], baptised 17 March 1565 and Joa[T503] baptised 1568. The parish register gives their father's name as John[T503], who would seem to be the same generation(2) as Richard[T2], Humphrey and Lewis. He is not however mentioned in the will of Richard[T1] which suggests he was not a fourth brother(1). The name in the baptism records of John's children (above) look to me like Bruche rather than Brushe. That is not necessarily saying they are not related families but I think it reinforces the idea that John is not a sibling of Richard, Humphrey and Lewes. The most likely relationship would seem therefore to be that John was a cousin - the son of an unknown brother of Richard[T1]. We do not know if William is the first, last, middle or only child of John or how old John was when he married - but let's guess using the formula. 30 years before William's birth would have John born c1535.
Is this an extra, at Tewkesbury in 1562?
It is tempting to link these to six births registered at Upton on Severn, six miles up river, of children of John BRUDGE. Margery in 1563, Elizabeth 1565, Edward in 1567, Sibill in 1569, John in 1570, An in 1573. At first sight this seems to give an overlapping baptism in 1565 but William BRUSHE was baptised on 17 March 1565 (old style) which would be March 1566 new style. Elizabeth BRUDGE was baptised on 27th March 1565 - nearly a year earlier. There is no name conflict. For more on this possible connection see chapter xx
TEXT
Except for this one group of references to William[T503](3), Joan[T504](3) and their father John[T502](2) there is no other evidence in the Tewkesbury record during this 24 year period of there being any BRUSH family group other than Richard T1(1), his children and grandchildren. There are no other Tewkesbury individuals who could be siblings of John[T502](2) getting married, no other children born to John or to any possible brothers of John/cousins of Richard T2, Humphrey and Lewis. The burial registers do not begin until 15?? but after that date they show no deaths that cannot be attributed to names we do not know.
In the Herefordshire section I speculate that Willam[T503] might have been William[H1] who fathered children at Much Cowarne in the 1590s.
An isolated reference to a William appears at 1626 in Gloucester - which appears to place an adult William BRUSH at Dymock, which is about 25 miles west of Tewkesbury, about half way to Hereford. If he was William born 1565 he wouild be 61. But there are other younger candidates from the Brockworth families considered in section 4.
Inquisition taken at the Castle of Gloucester, 27th September, A 2 Charles I [1626], ht^oTQ Peter Birdy esq., escheator, after the death of William Wintour, esq., by the oath of Richard Packer, gentleman Joseph White, gentleman, Robert Showell, John Licence, Edmund Wicke, William Brush, John Cowesstance, William Ockle, William Yamoll, Thomas Keake, John Vounge, Henry Crompe, William Venn, John Holder, Thomas Goslinge, and John Hopkins, who say that William Wintour was seised in fee of the rectory of Dymock with appurtenances, and of all the tithes, oblations, and profits thereto belonging lying in the parish of Dymock : which said rectory is held of the King in chief by the twentieth part of a knight's fee, and is worth per annum, clear, ^3.
Looking backwards
The presence of John[T502](2) does however invite speculation about two or three additional characters. The 'everyone comes from somewhere' premise means that hiding offstage like Godot we must have "Father of John"[T501](1), who could be a brother of Richard[T1].
One generation further back, in "generation zero" born sometime around 1475, there have to be "Father of Richard T1"[T0](0) and "Father of T501(1)" [T500](0). It gets silly at this point since the nameless "T0(0)" and "T500(0)" could be one and the same person or could be brothers or could even be cousins. We just do not know. The possible options are considered further in a later chapter about early Gloucestershire individuals. If I should ever write a work of historical fiction I will create them. And if I do maybe the IGI will list them in the Ancestry file and future internet researchers will come to believe they actually existed(2).
Errors? More information? Comments? Please do get in touch: brushdw@gmail.com
(1) back to text It is of course possible that John[T501](2) was a son of Richard[T1](1) but that they had fallen out or he was sufficiently prosperous that he did not need providing for or that he was living away from Tewkesbury or……. Nothing is certain but Richard's will is quite a comprehensive document and the inference we have drawn seems a reasonable one.
(1) back to text An in-joke for those genealogists who have tried to work with the Ancestry file. We all love the IGI for the work they have done but the Ancestry file does not seem to be a helpful development and is responsible for the recycling of much speculative material , while giving it a spurious credibility.