.
.
Previous : Chapter 36.B : The children of Richard
Section 3 : Rooted in Tewkesbury
Section 3.C
The 3rd, 4th and 5th Generations
c.1550-c.1650
Multiple Richards
In Section 3.B we saw a series of baptisms of children of Richard[T2], Humphrey[T3] and Lewis[T4] - the three sons in generation(2) baptising generation(3). Before begining to look at Generation (3) we need to take a look at the puzzle of multiple Richards.
The last baptism by the eldest son Richard[T2] was in 1571. Baptisms at Tewkesbury naming the father as Richard resume in 1583 after a gap of 12 years and continue until 1603 when the break in the registers begins. By this date we estimate that Richard T2(2) is at least 53. It seems safe to assume that the parent is a different man from the next generation and that these children are generation(4). But it cannot be Richard[T22](3) the son of Lewes since he was only baptised in 1570. For him to have children before about 1595 would be unusual and anything before 1588 highly unlikely.
We therefore need to reference an as yet unknown Richard who we have labelled as [T8](3). We, that is my father and I, have (if only for convenience) placed him in the tree by making an unsupported assumption that Richard T8(3) is a son, probably the first son by naming convention, of Richard[T2](2) and that he was born in the years shortly before the baptism records begin - between, say, 1555 and 1558. At least four or five of the baptisms discussed below need to be attributed to mystery man Richard T8(3).
That Richard[T8] is a son of Richard[T2] is simply an assumption. It fits with, but is not substantiated by, the evidence. Richard[T8](3) could, alternatively, be a son of Humphrey - named for his grandfather Richard the Elder. He is not going to be a son of Lewes since Lewes already has a son called Richard T22(3) who was born in 1570. Or Richard T8(3) could be an older brother of William[T503](3), i.e. another son of John[T502](2), or the son of an unknown 'XY' BRUSH(2) - most possibly a nephew of Richard T1(1). John[T502] and his children are considered in section 3.B2
If 'XY(2)' existed he would have been born somewhere around 1530, well before baptism records begin and married before the Tewkesbury marriage records begin. Just not in Tewkesbury; there is no supporting evidence of family groupings in Tewkesbury outside the households of Richard[T1] and John[T502], Richard [T1] makes no mention at all of him in his extensive will (though he makes no mention of John either) and there are no 'spare' deaths. If XY did exist the most likely possibility is that he lived somewhere other than Tewkesbury but that his son Richard[T8] moved to be near the Richard T1 family group. Maybe the common ancestors of XY and Richard[T1] lived at that somewhere else? We will return to this idea later in section 4.
Outside Tewkesbury we only know of one Richard at this period- who makes his will at Fairford in 1593 and is probably from generation (2) rather than generation (3). Assuming this is not Richard T2(2) then we need another Richard in generation(2) and XY(2) would fit the bill.
There is no evidence one way or another. I firmly believe it is safe to conclude that John[T502](2), William[T502](3) and Richard T8(3) are all related to Richard[T1] but whether Richard T8(3) is a grandson or a great nephew of Richard T1 and who his father is we really cannot say. Let us choose to stick to our chosen assumption that he is an integral part of the family who we know were in Tewkesbury at the time. It is the least wild speculation.
Before leaving the three Richards we should mention two of the few recorded Tewkesbury marriages. The Tewkesbury marriage register is in the same book as the baptisms. There are relatively few marriages.
On 30 Jun 1567 a Richard BRUSH married someone whose name appears to be "Isaid Eastna". We will return to the mystery of Isaid shortly.
First, let us consider which Richard this was. Most probably not Richard[T1] who would have been around 62 years old at this point -assuming he had survived 9 years after writing his will and outlived Joan. It all seems highly unlikely, particularly since in these circumstances he would presumably have changed his will to reflect the new circumstances. His will of 1558 suggests a diligent approach, verging on the obsessive, to providing for his beneficiaries. The shadowy Richard T8(3) is assumed to be only about 10 years in 1567 and, on the assumptions made previously, it cannot be him, particularly since he survives until 1583 and beyond.
Richard[T2](2) was age c.37 in 1567, possibly older. He had already had at least 3 children, presumably by Margaret CAPPER, possibly four or more. There are no burial records to show if Margaret had died. The last birth with Richard named as father had been in 1560, seven years earlier. If Margaret had died, then remarrying with, say, four children under 11 would surely seem like a good idea. Baptisms by Richard resume in 1568 which would be consistent with having a new wife in 1567. Unless we are assume it to be 'XY', the father of Richard[T8], or the existence of yet another otherwise unknown Richard BRUSH, we have to conclude that Richard[T2](2) remarries following the death of Margaret T2a(2), to Isaid[T2b](2).
In his notes on the BRUSH families of Tewkesbury, my father, wrote: "The name "Isaid Eastna" has been examined very carefully in the original Parish Register. The only possible variation……."…….Richard Straley ….. the mystery of Isaid . Izod?
TEXT
In 1595 one of the Richards is recorded in the registers of Bushley, Worcestershire (the other bank of the Severn from Tewkesbury) as a suertie at the baptism of Richard Jacksons. It tells us nothing really about the Brush family but the transcript of these registers are a fascinating read with much more detail than many. It is also a reminder that Tewkesbury was surrounded by other parishes which the Brush family will from time to time have ventured into.
http://www.bushleyparisharchive.co.uk/Filename.ashx?systemFileName=BPCBDOC000004.pdf&origFilename=BPCBDOC000004.pdf
The summer of 2007 provided a reminder that Tewkesbury, on the junction of two important rivers, is from time to time (as in 1587) subject to flooding. Water entered the Abbey, for the first time since 1760, leaving the Vicar and staff marooned on an island.
An aerial view shows flood water surrounding Tewkesbury Abbey, on 22 July 2007. Torrential rain caused flash floods and brought transport chaos.
3rd/4th Generation
In the period 1583 to 1603, after which there is unfortunately a break in the registers, there are 11 to 14 BRUSH baptisms recorded at Tewkesbury Abbey including 10, 11 or 12 children with Richard named as the father. As discussed earlier they cannot all be children of Richard T22 who was too young in 1583-85. At least the first three have to be children of the otherwise unknown Richard T8 (who we are assuming to be the son of Richard T2). My father (who knew of eleven of the twelve) 'allocated' four daughters and a son, John T30, to Richard T8 and four boys and two girls to Richard T22 (the son of Lewes). How and why he did this I have not been able to find out.
1583(4) 17-Feb Elizabeth d of Richard 1584 10-Feb Margerie d of Richard T8 1585 03-Mar Anne d of Richard T8 1588 04-Jan Katherine d of Richard T8 1590/1 14-Jan John s of Richard T8 1590/1 15-jan Joan d of Richard 1592 07-Nov Richard T32 s of Richard 1595 Philip T33 s of Richard 1598 24-Apr Alice d of Richard 1599 11-Apr John s of Richard 1600 23-Nov George s of Richard 1603 23-Oct Elizabeth d of Richard and Elinor This last record is memorable as being the first entry for BRUSH where both parents are named. I said above that there were 10, 11 or 12 children. Two of the records (John 1590/1 & Philip 1595) are less clear than the others and deciphering the script as Brush is a bit of a stretchThe following text is based on a transcription (reformatted and sometimes paraphrased) of part of FWB's work "The Brushes of Tewkesbury" written in ?the 1990s?. The generation numbers are his classification. The numbering [Txx] preserves his numbering. The calander change was in 1752 so some dates show old and new style. Additional material inserted by me appears in red.
Richard [T8](3)
As assumed above, a son of Richard [T2]; [estimated birth 25-30 years before first baptism is 1553-1558 ] He had five children.
Elizabeth [T26] baptised 17 February 1583/4 Tewkesbury;
Margerie [T27] baptised 10 February 1584/5 Tewkesbury; Possibly died 31 March 1596 Tewkesbury. There is a entry in the Parish register showing the death on 31 March 1596 of "Margaret daughter of Richard" but there is no Margaret known who would have been young enough at that time to be described as a child and to have warranted the inclusion of the father's name. It could be that the entry applies to Margery, either because of an error in the register or because the names were regarded as interchangeable. (or is there another child Margaret [T310]?)
Anne [T28] baptised 3 March 1585/6 Tewkesbury
Katherine [T29] baptised 4 January 1588/9 Tewkesbury;
John [T30] baptised 14 January 1590/1; married Eleanor Willis 30 September 1623
Margerie [T21]
A daugter of Lewis [T4]. baptised 6 December 1567 Tewkesbury. She had one illegitimate child; no father's name being given in the register.
John [T31] baptised 7 March 1585/6 Tewkesbury
Richard [T22]
A son of Lewis[T4]. Baptised 28 May 1570 Tewkesbury. Married Eleanor. Richard buried 3 April 1604. They had six children.
Richard[T32] baptised 7 November 1592 Tewkesbury; buried November 1664
Philip [T33] baptised 1 March 1595/6 Tewkesbury; married Marjery Jenckes 24 October 1624 Tewkesbury. Died 1669.
Alice[T34] baptised 24 April 1598 Tewkesbury;
John[T35] baptised 11 April 1599 Tewkesbury; married Joan. A number of US trees assert that John[T35] was the father of one of the American lines but I can see no particular evidence to support this. The marriage to Joan seems much more compelling.
George[T36] baptised 23 November 1600 Tewkesbury;
Elizabeth [T37] baptised 23 October 1603 Tewkesbury;
Thomas [T??]
A son of Humphrey baptised in 1562.
There is one other entry from December 1592, which I do not believe has previously been recorded as a Brush entry :
Is the John baptised here a son of Thomas BRUCHE? The Ancestry site indexes this as BRIHE but an 'open' search against that name (all dates, all records, all forenames) returns only 24 entries in total - which seems to indicate it is not a real name. Real surnames return thousands of hits. It would be a good fit for Thomas bap 1562 the son of Humphrey.
There is an isolated record from Pershore which is ten miles north of Tewkesbury and eight miles east of Upton on Severn. Thomas, husbandman of Pershore, makes a will in 1612. He has a house in Priest Lane in Pershore He identifies a wife Alice and two sons John and Thomas. He also records that he has three sisters but does not name them. Who might Thomas be? Searches in Ancestry and 'Family Search' against Pershore throw up nothing but there is another isolated record of the baptism of John son of Thomas at nearby Besford in 1600. Which looks like a connection except that there is nothing in the 1612 will to indicate that John is a minor. He is left property without mention of any trustees etc. Interestingly the 1612 will is supported by a detailed inventory of his goods shown in the Appendix.
The only Thomas we know of at Tewkesbury is Thomas baptised 1562, the son of Humphrey. Who would be 50 in 1612 which is a reasonable fit. It would also fit with Thomas BRUCHE who baptised son John at Tewkesbury in 1592.
Although there is little from Pershore in the seventeenth century, there was still a Brush presence in Pershore as late as 2006.
Plague deaths 1604
In the Burials Register there are four burials against which the letters "pla" appear (plague ?)
3 April 1604 Richard Brush
14 April 1604 Elizabeth Brush
21 April 1604 Ann Brush
21 April 1604 George Brush
In addition Richard Straley says that Lewis [T4] was buried on 14 March 1603/4, which gives five deaths in as many weeks, strongly suggesting some epidemic. In no case is the burial of a child suggested, so it must be assumed the George and Elizabeth are George [T23] and Elizabeth [T25] children of Lewis [T4] and not the children of Richard [T22] though it seems to suggest that Richard himself succumbed. Who Ann is can be anyone's guess.
The entry for Lewis Brush on 14 March 1603/4
It seems clear there was an outbreak of Plague that year. The History of Tewkesbury by James Bennet "The plague broke out again in Tewkesbury [in 1604]. It was occasioned by some trowmen of the town bringing it from Bristol. Twenty-three persons died of it; all of whom, to avoid peril, were buried in coffins of wood." The History and Antiquities of Tewkesbury, written by William Dyde in 1790,says it broke out again in 1603 "when twenty-three persons died of it, all of whom were buried in coffins of board; which is commonly observed in regard to those who die of that cruel malady."
I am not convinced by FWB's arguments. In some burial registers there is a convention that children and married women are identified by reference to their father or husband. But in this register at this time that convention was not being followed. From July 1603 until 1612 only names are given.
At 1604 we know of at least three Richards. Richard [T8] born sometime around 1555/60 (so age around 45). Richard [T22] baptised 1570 (so age around 33) and his son Richard [T32] baptised 1592 ( aged around 9). Richard [T32] appears to survive, marry and have children but the death in 1604 could be either [T8] or [T22]. We know of five Elizabeths: [T5] the sister of Lewis born in the 1530s or 40s, [T17] baptised 1568/9, [T25] baptised 1578, [T26] baptised 1583/4, and [T37] baptised 1603. The only Anne we know of is Ann [T28] baptised 1585/6, the daughter of Richard [T8]. We know of two Georges [T23] a son of Lewis and [T36] a son of Richard [T22]. All this tells us is that the four/five deaths were not from the same household.
For a review of loose ends at 1604 see section 03.C.2
There is a 17 year gap in the baptism register of Tewkesbury from 1603 until 1620. In the period there could be further births of children of Richard [T22] of George [T23] (in both cases if it was not their death in 1604) and possibly of Michael [T12] . Applying the same rate of births as occurs before and after the gap there are maybe 8 missing births we might be interested in. One of the missing births appears to be Thomas, who appears married to Sarah as the father of Comfort in 1632.
There are also huge gaps in the marriage register from 1574 to 1623 and again from 1624 to 1654.
Only five of the twelve children born as generation(4) will feature in the continuing family history - The two Johns already mentioned plus Richard T32, Philip T33 and John T35, the sons of Richard T22, grandsons of Lewis. Inevitably they are the boys, since any girls who survived childhood to marry are normally (unlike Marjorie) lost to our investigation due to the lack of surviving marriage records.
Tewkesbury: the missing years
Although the Tewkesbury records begin in 1559 they are not a continuous record. Not all the registers have survived or are readable. There is a gap of 17 years in the baptism register from 1603 to 1620. Applying the same rate of births as occurs before and after the gap there are maybe 8 missing births we might be interested in. There is another gap of 14 years from 1639 to 1653 and 10 years missing between 1655 and 1665 - maybe another 14 missing BRUSHes. This brings the total missing births between 1603 and 1665 to somewhere between 20 and 25 individuals who we suspect will have been born bearing the BRUSH name. Of these, say, 5-10 could be men who survive childhood and can be expected to appear somewhere in the period 35 years after their birth getting married and having BRUSH children.
One of the missing births appears to be Thomas, who appears married to Sarah as the father of Comfort in 1632.
The marriage record is worse. For the period 1559 to 1685, a total of 104 years out of 126 are missing. We have only 8 BRUSH marriages compared with 62 recorded baptisms, maybe 84 allowing for the missing baptism registers. Even with adjustments for deaths in infancy or childhood (say 30- 40%?), those who never married (say 10-20% of the survivors) and men marrying outside Tewkesbury in the brides' parishes (half of the remaining men) we would hope to see around 30 - 40 marriages even without allowing for any instances of remarriage.
Fortunately the format of the baptism register changes in 1635 when it begins to record the Christian names of both parents which gives us some retrospective information about wives who marry a BRUSH husband and some burial records identify the deceased as "X, the wife, or widow, of Y".
4th/5th Generation
John T35(4) is born in Tewkesbury in 1599, the son of Richard T22(3) and the grandson of Lewis. He is baptised on 11 Apr 1599. If we assume he survives and marries we are looking for a marriage around 1627. 1623 and 1624 are the only two years for which marriage entries exist and one of them is the marriage of a John BRUSH to Eleanor WILLIS on 30 September 1623, the only Tewkesbury record of a John marrying. It looks promising - slightly younger than average at age 24 but quite possible. FWB notes list John T30 1591 as the husband of Eleanor However we also have as possible, albeit older, bridegrooms John T31(4) born in 1585 to Margery BRUSH T21(3) ( thus age 38 in 1623) and John T30(4) born in 1590 to Richard T8(3) ( age 33). Within the baptism record we have John T39(5) born 1622 "son of John" occurring before the 1623 marriage of John and Eleanor. Since he is not described as illegitimate or "base born" or "the bastard son" we must assume that one John had already married before John and Eleanor did so. 7 years after John and Eleanor marry, which is a long time for the period, we find two baptisms at Tewkesbury within a fortnight of each other. On 22 August 1630 Edward T50(5) son of John, is baptised and 12 days later Sara T38(5) daughter of John is baptised. If you only looked at the year the instant reaction is to say "must be twins" - but why would they be baptised 12 days apart? Maybe Edward had to be baptised in a hurry because of illness at or after birth or maybe Sara was unwell on the day set for their christening. I am not wholly convinced. DAVISON, Mary, of Kings Langley, marriage with BRUGIS, Henry, of Abbots Langley, Herts bond 1735 The other explanation is that they were the children of two different Johns. Though we only have a record of one marriage at Tewkesbury we do know there were three ladies called Mrs John BRUSH. In addition to Eleanor and the unnamed 1622 mother of John T39(5) there was also Joan. The registers from 1635 to 16xx identify four BRUSH children as the offspring of "John and Joan - Elizabeth, xxx, xxx and xxx. FWB notes list Edward T50 1630, Charles T51 1633, Elizabeth T52 1636 and John T53 1639 as children of John T35 and JoanJohn [T30]
A son of Richard [T8]. Baptised 14 January 1590/1 Tewkesbury, married Eleanor Willis 30 September [October] 1623 at Tewkesbury. They had one child. FWB does not explain why he believed the husband of Eleanor was John [T30] rather than John [T31] or John [T35] ]
Sara [T38] baptised 3 September 1630
John [T31]
The illegitimate son of Marjerie [T21]. Baptised 7 March 1585/6 Tewkesbury. He had one child.
John [T39] baptised 23 June 1622 I cannot find this baptism
Also in 1604, at Bibury, Lewes[G ] son of John is baptised. So John born c.1574? . Bibury is about 6 miles north of Fairford and 5 miles NE of Ampney Crucis. The Lewes name immediatly makes me think of Tewkesbury but there is no baptism known for a John at Tewkesbury around 1574. The nearest we know of was John[T31] baptised in 1585 which would make him only 19 at the baptism of Lewes. Normally this would make me suspicious of the link, but he was the illegitimate son of Marjorie BRUSH [T21] the daughter of Lewes. That the life pattern of an illegitimate child might differ from the standard pattern seems possible and the naming of the child after his grandfather.
Richard [T32]
A son of Richard [T22]. Baptised 7 November 1592. Buried November 1664. The Burial register gives November 1664 as the date of bural of "Richard Brush and his wife" but does not give the wife's name. He was probably the Richard mentioned in the Worcester Quarter Sessions Rolls for 28 November 1640:
1/1/77/96 28 November 1640"Recognizance before William Smyth by Richard Brush Parchment Maker John Dyer Card Winder and Robert Ferris all of Tewkesburie in the County of Gloucester to appear at Sessions and give evidence against John Harwood of Pipleton Husbandman charged with assaulting Henry Guillam of Tewkesburie Labourer"
He had four children. [No mention of marriage - during the missing register period. Children could have begun before 1620.] .
Eleanor [T40] baptised 28 January 1620/1 Tewkesbury [Richard's mother had been an Eleanor]
John [T41] baptised 1 August 1624 Tewkesbury
Richard [T42] baptised 24 September 1627 Tewkesbury
Margery [T43] baptised 21 October 1632 Tewkesbury
sarah widow f Thomas [T??]
Philip [T33]
The 1624 marriage of Philip.
A son of Richard [T22]. Baptised 1 March 1595/6 Tewkesbury. Married Margery Jenckes 24 October 1624 Tewkesbury. They had six children. Died 1669 Tewkesbury. Buried 2 Feb 1668/9 Tewkesbury The will of Philip, in which he refers to himself as "Philip the Elder" was made in 1667 , on 15th August, and probate was obtained in 1669 hence the suggested date of death. It is a very infomative Will and is reproduced in its entirety. Philip was a a fisherman. There is no mention of his wife in the will so she has presumably pre-deceased him - maybe in the period of missing burial registers 1653-1664.
Philip is clearly quite prosperous. He leaves his leasehold interest in "the house I now live in and the little house in the Backside" to Philip, and a lease in at least one other house to Francis Mayall. Plus £70.10.00 in legacies , plus furniture, effects and a residue.
Philip [T44] married Ann, buried 27 July 1708. The will of Philip[T33] suggests that son Philip is the first born since he receives most of the portable property. He also receives Philip's leasehold house and his fishing equipment. But I am not sure of this conclusion. He mentions Richard and Philip twice - in that order and Richard & Anne both get to share in the residual estate. FWB comments that the first child of Philip [T44] was however baptised in December 1669 which would seem to indicate that he was not married at the date of the will. Richard however already had six children and had married by 1653 at the latest. Had he already had his inheritance? Or was he sufficiently prosperous not to need one? Could Philip have been a younger son born in the register gap period of 1639-1653? Such a birth date would fit well with a first child in 1669, better than a birth date of c.1627 which would make him around 42.
There is also an inventory associated with the will in the National archives.
Richard [T45] baptised 23 November 1628, married Ann.
John [T46] baptised 22 February 1634/5, married Elizabeth.(see below)
George [T46] baptised 14 December 1637. He is not mentioned in the will of his father Philip [T33]
Ann [T47] baptised 28 April 1639, married William Guy September 1664. Anne Guy, is specifically mentioned in her father's will and mention is made of her husband in a way which indicates he is still living. This indicates that the Anne Guy, widdowe, who witnessed the will was someone different - presumably the mother in law.
A daughter (Elizabeth?)[T48] mentioned in the will of Philip [T33] as being the wife of William Mayall and having three sons, Francis, Philip and Thomas. Nothing more is known. The clear implication for me from the wording of the will is that the wife of Mr Mayall has already died. I cannot see where in the will FWB gets the name William Mayall from. He also says in a note "the name of the daughter who married Francis Mayall is not known" but the will does not mention a Francis senior. Was it a supposition from the reference to "young Francis Mayall" in the will? Francis and his two brothers are born between 1646 and 1667 as they are still minors at 1667. An Elizabeth Mayall was baptised on 11 September 1654, the daughter of Francis and Elizabeth Mayall - she was buried in 1655. Which looks like a perfect fit. Aso Francis son of Francis buried 1654. But also Thomas, son of John and Mary Mayall in 1657,
John [T35](4)
A son of Richard [T22] . John was baptised on 11 April 1599. Married Joan. They had four children. There are certainly four individuals, as listed below, who can be identified as children of John and Joan. The question is whether Joan's husband was John [T35] or one of the other Johns - [T ] or [T ].
One possibility is that John and Joan are the couple married in 1625 at Uffington in Lincolnshire. The bride is identifed as Joan RATLIFFE. There are also two baptisms at Stamford ( a mile from Uffington) of Elsabeth in 1626 and Sarah in 1629.
Edward [T50] baptised 22 August 1630 Tewkesbury "son of John". Married Mary. Buried 16 May 1682 Tewkesbury. Edward is placed as a son of Joan by the will of Charles [T51] who refers to "my brother Edward" .
There is another baptism, on September 1630 of "Sara a dau of John". If you only looked at the year the instant reaction is to say "must be twins" - but why would they be baptised 12 days apart? Maybe Edward had to be baptised in a hurry because of illness at or after birth or maybe Sara was unwell on the day set for their christening. Or maybe, as FWB has placed her, she was a daughter of John[T30] and Eleanor Willis. I cannot see why he has made this choice. The will of Charles makes no mention of Sara. It may be of course that Sara had died or become alienated and the burial records of Tewkesbury have lots of holes in the period.
Charles [T51] baptised 3 March 1632/3 Tewkesbury,"son of John" . Married Mary Hall 24 June 1672 Tewkesbury. Died 1692 Tewkesbury. The will of Charles is of interest for the information which it gives about the family of Edward [T50] and is reproduced in its entirety. Mary, the wife of Charles is shown as witness to a "Burial in Woollen" on 9 Sep 1684.
Elizabeth [T52] baptised 21 February 1635/6 Tewkesbury "dau of John and Joane". Married - Tinker. The will of Charles [T51] includes a bequest to "my cosen Samuell Tinker" who is probably Elizabeth's son. In his bequest to Mary [T72] Charles uses cosen where we would say niece. Ancestry, wrongly, records her 1635 baptism as a burial.
John [T53] baptised 10 February 1638/9 "son of John and Joane". Married (1)Ann. (2)Margaret
It is worth mentioning here the impact of the English Civil War - a great upheaval in English Society. Gloucestershire was in the thick of it. There are several ways on which the ECW may have impacted on the families. It is said that 1 in every ?? men in England fought on one side or the other at some point and that the death toll ???? . Armies were not static but were marched up and down the country from Northumberland to Cornwall and across to Essex. We must assume that some of the 17th century BRUSH men will have been involved. Not all will have returned home. Some will lie in an unmarked grave by a battlefield and others will have started new lives where their army moved them. Although billed as King versus Parliament the divisions had their roots in religion. Divisions between Catholics and High Anglicanism on the one side and a determinedly protestant, Puritan, camp against them. We do not know on which side of the conflict the various BRUSH families lived. The Puritanism which motivated Cromwell's armies also motivated the great migration to New England in the ten or fifteen years before the war .
Thomas [T???]
Thomas, possibly born around 1605 (my normal formula would say 1602) married Sarah. He is known only from the baptism of two children. FWB's list of baptisms's mentions a "Gap of 17 years" in the baptism record between 1603 and 1620. But this is a gap between Brush baptisms, not a gap in the registers themselves. The only possible parents for Thomas we know of at this time are Richard [T22]& Eleanor. Other men of his generation were George [T23],Thomas [T14] and Michael [T12]. Edward[T9] is possibly a little too old.. Richard [T8] appears to have stopped having children by 1591.
Comfort [T???] baptised 'the daughter of Thomas' on 23 September 1632. Probably the Ann who married Richard Taylor in 1654. FWB makes no mention of this, even though he was well aware of it.
Ann [T???] baptised 'the daughter of Thomas and Sarah' at Tewkesbury on 30 August 1635. Probably the Ann who married Richard Taylor in 1654. FWB makes no mention of this, even though he was well aware of it.
This entry, from which we know of Ann's marriage in 1654, illustrates how practice changed in the perid immediatly after the English Civil War, when the registers were not properly kept. Instead of banns being called in Church the intention to marry was announced in the market place.
5th Generation
Philip [T44]
A son of Philip [T33], married Ann. Buried 27 July 1708 Tewkesbury. They had two children. FWB suggests he was born c.1624. I have suggested it may have been c.1640.
Anne [T54] baptised 20 December 1669 Tewkesbury, married Maurice Pitt April 1695 Twyning, Gloucs. The marriage of Anne is based on a Marriage Allegation dated 20 April 1695. The contracting parties are Maurice Pitt of Tewkesbury, aged 24 and Anne Brush of Tewkesbury aged 25. Marriages usually took place the day following the date of the Allegation. Ancestry says marriage was on 20 May at Twyning, transcribes name as Gitt several children inc Sarah d of Maurice and Ann bapt Tewksbury 1706
Philip [T55] baptised 4 October 1675 Tewkesbury buried 7 January 1680.
Philip was one of the Assistants of the Borough of Tewkesbury appointed by the Charter granted by King William III, 13th July 1698.
"And we have assigned, nominated, created, appointed and made, and by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, do assign, nominate, create, appoint and make, our beloved ... Ralph Jeynes of the High-street, Philip Brush, ... Richard Pitt, ..., to be four-and-twenty chief and modern assistants of the borough aforesaid, to be continued in the same offices so long as they shall behave themselves well; which very assistants before named, and either or any of them, and the assistants of the borough aforesaid for the time being, and either or any of them, not behaving himself or themselves well in their offices, we will to be moveable at the good pleasure of the bailiffs and principal burgesses, being common council of the borough aforesaid, or the greater part of them, of whom either of the bailiffs of the borough aforesaid for the time being we will to be one. ( A fuller version of the text is in Bennett's 1830 History of Tewkesbury) is at
Richard [T45]
A son of Philip[T33] baptised 23 November 1628, married Ann (buried 9 April 1687 Tewkesbury). They had eight children. Richard and his children are included in the will of Philip[T33]. The order in which the children were born is not entirely clear. Richard, Bridget, and Philip although mentioned in the will do not appear in the register of baptisms because there are several gaps about the correct time. John and Susanna were obviously born after the Will was made. There is a National Archives record of a court case in 1670 between Katherine Wyatt (plaintiff) and Richard Brush (defendant) relating to property in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire and Bushley, Worcestershire - which is just NW of Tewkesbury.
Richard [T56] married Mary Stanway 5 August 1688 Tewkesbury and had five children whose story continues in Chapter 03.D . Buried 10 May 1700 Tewkesbury.A godchild of Philip who received £10.
Bridget [T57] A godchild of Philip who received £10. There is a marriage settlement in the Gloucester archives dated 1671? between Samuel Slicer of Tewkesbury, seaman, and Bridget Brush of Tewkesbury concerning two messuages in Tewkesbury, and Stone Mead in Ashchurch, which is just to the East of Tewkesbury.
[no title] D2079/III/211 1671 Contents: Marriage settlement between Samuel Slicer of Tewkesbury, seaman, and Bridget Brush of Tewkesbury Concerns two messuages in Tewkesbury, and Stone Mead in Ashchurch Date endorsed on deed is incorrectAnn [T58] baptised 4 October 1653 Tewkesbury, married Charles Dolby May 1677. Her marriage is based on a Marriage Allegation dated 21 May 1677. The contracting parties are Charles Dolby of Forthampton, yeoman aged 23 and Anne Brush of Tewkesbury aged 19.(The age discrepancy is not unusual; there are many instances of the bride reducng here age at marriage.) Received £5 from Philip.
Margery [T59] baptised 28 January 1655/6 Tewkesbury. Received £5 from Philip.
Philip [T60] Received £5 from Philip. Grimwade's "London Goldsmiths 1697-1837" includes details as follows:
Philip, son of Richard Brush of Tewkesbury, Yeoman.
Apprenticed to Edward Maddox 28 Jul 1682 in London
Freeman 25 Apr 1707
Entered as a 'Large Worke' 3 May 1707
Address: George Alley, Lombard Street, where Heal records him as a 'Plate Worker' of London 1714-1723(?)
It is possible therefore that the Philip of the Will and Philip the goldsmith are the same. Assuming that he married and died in London it is not really surprising that the Tewkesbury Register has no record of him. There are several churches in the immediate neighbourhood, the one most likely to have a record of his burial being All Hallow Lombard Street. I am unsure why FWB was so tentative. The identification seems so positive. If Philip was between 14 and 19 when he was apprenticed that places his birth as 1663-1668.
Elizabeth [T61] born 20 March and baptised 22 April 1667 Tewkesbury. Why the date of her birth is recorded is not stated - it is an exceptional inclusion in the Tewkesbury registers. Married John Parrott 9 August 1685 Tewkesbury. Received £5 from Philip.
John [T62] buried 1 September 1673
Susanna [T63] baptised 8 April 1675 Tewkesbury. Married John Hale 4 May 1699 Tewkesbury.
John [T46]
A son of Philip [T33] baptised 22 February 1634/5. Married Elizabeth. He is not mentioned in the will of Philip [T33]. This was not because he had died by 1667 as his children were born after this. He might have fallen out with his father but could it be that the John who married Elizabeth is not John [T46] but the son of someone else? Who could have been born in the 1639-1653 period of missing baptism entries. The baptism of William is when John [T46] is aged about 42. John[T46] is too young to be the shadowy John at the head of the Long Island family. .
William [T64] baptised 5 October 1676 Tewkesbury. Married Mary LOW 1 September 1698 Tewkesbury. They had two children, considered in Chapter 03.D . Buried 24 December 1732 Tewkesbury.
John [T65] b.1674 married Sarah Low 14 November 1699 Tewkesbury. They have seven children; the story continues in Chapter 03.D.
Philip [T66] baptised 9 September 1679 Tewkesbury. Buried 8 January 1679/80 Tewkesbury.
Charles [T67] baptised 3 July 1681 Tewkesbury.
Elizabeth[T68] baptised 13 July 1683 Tewkesbury. Married William Showell 28 January 1713/14 Tewkesbury. However there is a marriage licence dated 14 February 1714 giving the names of John Shakespeare of Bewdley in the Diocese of Worcester aged about 25 years and Elizabeth Brush of Tewkesbury, spinster aged about 27 years. Whether Elizabeth [T68] was the bride of Showell or Shakespeare will probably never be known. Whether the date is 1713/14 or 1714/15 it is after the marriage. Age 27 in 1714 indicates a birth date of 1686/7. Both of which suggest a different Elizabeth marrying John Shakespeare.
Mary [T69] baptised 30 March 1687 Tewkesbury
The link to Bewdley, a little north of Worcester, in 1714 could connect in some way to the otherwise isolated marriage of a John Brush at Claines (on the northern outskirts of Worcester) in 1718, mentioned in Chapter 36.A .
Edward [T50]
A son of John [T35] baptised 22 August 1630 Tewkesbury, married Mary. Buried 16 May 1682 Tewkesbury. Mary, the wife of Edward, is shown as a witness to a "Burial in Woolen" on 3 January 1678/9
Elizabeth [T70] baptised 18 December 1654 Tewkesbury. The absence of any reference to Elizabeth in the will of Charles [T51] might well be because she was married or dead by the time the will was made.
The period between the births of Elizabeth and Edward is one of the periods when there is a gap in the Tewkesbury baptism and burial records.
Edward [T71] baptised 8 August 1670 Tewkesbury. Married (1) Sarah Wargent 11 August 1698 Tewkesbury (Sarah ,wife of Edward, buried 24 June 1699) (2) Sarah Shield 26 December 1699 Tewkesbury (3)Ann Brucken 8 November 1719 Tewkesbury. Edward receives a legacy in the 1691 codocil to the 1680 will of his uncle Charles [T51].
Mary [T72] (FWB actually identifies her as '72a') Mary is not shown in the Register of Baptisms but her existence is deduced from the 1680 will of her uncle Charles [T51] in which he refers to "cossen Mary the daughter of my brother Edward" using cousin where we would say niece.
John [T???] (FWB actually identifies him as '72b') John is not shown in the Register of Baptisms but his existence is deduced from the 1691 codocil to the 1680 will of his uncle Charles [T51] in which he refers to "Widdow Broush" which is obviously Edward's wife Mary and "her son John Broush".
John [T53]
A son of John [T35] baptised 10 February 1638/9. Married (1)Ann (buried 20 October 1665 Tewkesbury) (2)Margaret.
Mary [T73] a child of John and Ann, baptised 23 September 1665 Tewkesbury. Buried 15 February 1665/6
Francis [T74] a child of John and Margaret, baptised 3 February 1670/1 Tewkesbury. Married Mary.
Mary [T75] baptised 8 December 1672
Tewkesbury records
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/4732/images/41511_633870_4402-00021 https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/4732/images/41511_633870_4248-00047 includes Philip marriage 1624 https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/4732/images/45386_263021009500_0554-00019 includes burial 1654 https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/4732/images/43137_609838_4725-00500 The big file 800 plus pages https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/4732/images/41511_633870_4405-00002 Baptisms Page 3 January 1629- Page 5 March 1632/3 later 1633 illegible. Page 6 July 1633 - Page 19 September 1642 Page 20 two entries from March/April 1650; then entries from June 1645, one entry from March 1644 then entries from August 1647, March 1648, september 1647, February 1651. may 1652, July1649 continues mixed up . A series of a few entries from 1648-1652 recording births from a few families rather than baptisms. More random entries from 1643-1661 in various hands. Page 21 Marriages and births mixed up dates 1646-1655. Left hand page of two not copied but existing. I could not see three entries in FWB list from 1653-1655/6 Page 22 structured record apparently beginning April 1656 - Page 23 December 1657. Page 23 then reverts to intermittent and out f sequence records of brths and baptisms 1653-1662 Page 24 appears to resume structure but very few entries from January 1660-November 1661; then random entries inc some back to 1633! Page 25 Marriage enries from 1657 plus some random birth entires Page 26 brief structured baptism record August 1662 then structured burials Nov1662 some random births on RH page Page 27 structured baptism record June 1663-64; random births on RH of page Page 28 structured baptisms from July 1665. average 6-8 per month - Page 41 -August 1683.Outline tree
Richard [T79] 1695-17xx; Gc1072
m. Elizabeth Gc1572. Fam 272
Thomas[T101] 1717/8 - 17xx Gc 1073
m. Penelope Gc1573 Fam 273
Richard[T102] 1724 -1724
Thomas [T81] 1699 -1749
m. 1720 Margaret Hanks ( ? - 1769)
William [T103] 1721
m. Penelope Feildhouse 1745
Thomas [T104] 1723
m. Elizabeth Williams 1753
Sarah [T105] 1726/7
m. John Linnell 1756
Samuel [T98] 1704/5 -
m. Elizabeth Ennett 1724/5
John [T106] 1727
m. Susannah Gifford 1749
Samuel [T107] 1730
m. Mary Plager 1752/3
m.2 Sarah Toovey 1760
Elizabeth [T108] 1732
Francis [T109] 17xx - 1766
Job [T110] 17xx - 1784
m.Elizabeth Hayward 1759
m.2 Mary Pye 1777
Benjamin [T111] 17xx - 1741.
Next Chapter:
Generations 5 & 6