RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Devon => Topic started by: grahamd15 on Sunday 09 June 24 02:20 BST (UK)
-
Hi everyone,
I am hoping to get some thoughts on the likelihood of two people being the same. If you look at my few previous posts: https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=883208.msg7560431#msg7560431, I'm looking into the Brent family and in particular Hugh Brent. According to the censuses' he was born in Shebbear around 1803 (or possibly 1811), he listed his father as Hugh Brent, farmer, in his marriage certificate to Mary Ann Townsend.
I have found a baptismal record of a Hugh Brent born to Hugh and Elizabeth in 1803 in Great Torrington: https://search.findmypast.com.au/record?id=GBPRS%2FDEV%2F005843486%2F00021&parentid=GBPRS%2FDEV%2FBAP%2F53811. The father Hugh Brent is said to be "of Shebbear". I believe that this Hugh and Elizabeth could be Hugh Brent (1771 - 1844) and Elizabeth Pettle (1771 - 1812). However, there is no mention of a son called Hugh in his will here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939F-5HJH-G?i=1030&cat=573927 . There is mention of a first cousin Hugh but I have been unable to find a marriage certificate to a woman called Elizabeth. Do you think that despite this Hugh Brent and Elizabeth Pettle could still be Hugh (b. 1803)'s parents? Could he possibly have been disowned and that is why he left for London?
-
FindMyPast has the baptism of Hugh Brent son of Hugh Brent of Shebbear and wife Elizabeth in Black Torrington 3 Apr 1803.
They also have the marriage of Hugh Brent of Shebbear and Elizabeth Pettle in Monkleigh 13 Apr 1803! (The marriage is indexed; the image can be found by searching the parish register on FindMyPast).
So there is a discrepancy in dates, and the mention of a second Hugh Brent to complicate matters. Perhaps you need to go further back to establish the cousin relationship and clarify the possible parentage.
-
Are you able, please, to outline the relationship of all the other people in that will?
On the face of it If Hugh & Hugh are first cousins (as it says) then they have a grandfather in common. And likely one of their ( the Hughs) fathers is also named Hugh. And probably the grandfather too.
-
I've done some digging into Hugh's family so I'll list them out now, I'll only include those that survived to adulthood and had children. The places of birth and death of near all of them are in Shebbear or Newton St Petrock
John Brent (? - 1729) m. Mary Heaman (? - 1721)
- John (1688 - 1773) m. Dorothy Smale (1697 - 1775)
- Mary (1724 - ?) m. Peter Judd
- William (1732 - 1799) m. Susanna Harington
- Dorothy (1766 - ?)
- Mary Judd (1769 - ?) m. Thomas Burnard
- Ebbett (1736 - 1820) m. Hugh Brent (1735 - 1821)
+ 1 son, 2 daughters
- Hugh (1694 - 1742) m. Dorothy Bowman (1697 - 1768)
- Hugh (1735 - 1821) m. Ebbett (1736 - 1820)
- Hugh (1771 - 1844) 1m. Elizabeth Pettle (1771 - 1812) 2m. Mary Ley (1798 - 1844)
- John (1773 - 1837) m. Wilmot Sheere (1780 - 1837)
- Dorothy (1775 - 1814) m. Bryan Reed
- John Brent Reed (1802 - ?)
- Thomas Reed (1804 - ?)
- Mary Reed (1806 - ?)
- William Hugh Brent Reed (1808 - ?)
- Dorothy (1810 - ?)
- John (1741 - ?) m. Elizabeth Broad (? - 1797)
- John (1762 - ?)
- Dorothy (1764 - ?)
- Hugh (1766 - ?)
- William (1770 - ?) m. Elizabeth Perkins
- Mary (1773 - ?)
+ 2 daughters, 1 son
+ 3 daughters, 1 son
Sorry if that is unclear and let me know if you have any questions about it. Essentially, all Reeds mentioned in the will are Hugh's nieces and nephews. His first cousin Hugh is the son of his uncle John and Elizabeth Broad. It appears that he never married so far as I can tell. I have also found the wills of Hugh Brent (1735 - 1821): https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939F-5HJS-V?i=1029&cat=573927
and his wife Ebbett https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939F-5HJS-2?i=1022&cat=573927
Although they don't give me much more clarity on how the Hugh Brent who went to London may be connnected to these Brents.
-
Good Morning
It does seem strange.Hugh would have been their only child before Elizabeth died of TB 10.1.1812.
And the marriage does seem to come after the baptism and neither are in Shebbear itself.
The marriage in Monkleigh is the bride's parish fine.But the Black Torrington baptism 3rd of April 1803 really seems to be the same couple ,it beggers belief if not.
It's not as though the Pettles are very poor.John is renting in 1798 but he is a yeoman on his marriage in 1770 and maybe not the richest in the county but hardly a pauper.
I have seen oldest sons especially removed from their father's Will. Usually the estate has already been settled on them.As one Will put it " our Eldest Son and Daughter have had their share already". If the Son is already settled in an Estate or Profession, there would be no need to support him ,whereas an unmarried daughter ,younger children yet to be trained or married would need more. Usually it's along the lines of money to maintain the children and set them up in an apprenticeship.
Obviously not the case here .
But it does tend to happen more if the Father is more affluent. I've had one eldest son removed from any inheritance because he had run up so many debts, selling the family estate and the newly built Cotton Mill, would still not cover the debts ,so the estate went to the younger son and the Mill was sold to support the First son's wife and children.
I've also seen an eldest son Charles Rix given £5 not to contest the Will and the whole Corkcutter business given to the second son Henry ,the other children getting £1000 each. That was in 1820.What ever poor Charles did ,he died in poverty ,after failing to set up a wine merchants business. The family seem to be quite Machivellian and that was only the start of the problems.
Unfortunately families fall out.Technically it looks like Hugh junior was illegitimate and would have little call to challenge the Will. I can't see another Hugh Brant and son anywhere in the area.It has to be them.
It could be they fell out over Hugh junior's marriage to Jane Squire who couldn't read and write .Perhaps Hugh had been sent off To Bath for a sensible medical reasons and came back with a wife that Hugh Senior just didn't approve of. William Tucker was one of the witnesses ,a relation of John Tucker mentioned in the will perhaps.
The family do look like the right one.
Ciderdrinker
-
Good Morning
It does seem strange.Hugh would have been their only child before Elizabeth died of TB 10.1.1812.
And the marriage does seem to come after the baptism and neither are in Shebbear itself.
The marriage in Monkleigh is the bride's parish fine.But the Black Torrington baptism 3rd of April 1803 really seems to be the same couple ,it beggers belief if not.
It's not as though the Pettles are very poor.John is renting in 1798 but he is a yeoman on his marriage in 1770 and maybe not the richest in the county but hardly a pauper.
I have seen oldest sons especially removed from their father's Will. Usually the estate has already been settled on them.As one Will put it " our Eldest Son and Daughter have had their share already". If the Son is already settled in an Estate or Profession, there would be no need to support him ,whereas an unmarried daughter ,younger children yet to be trained or married would need more. Usually it's along the lines of money to maintain the children and set them up in an apprenticeship.
Obviously not the case here .
But it does tend to happen more if the Father is more affluent. I've had one eldest son removed from any inheritance because he had run up so many debts, selling the family estate and the newly built Cotton Mill, would still not cover the debts ,so the estate went to the younger son and the Mill was sold to support the First son's wife and children.
I've also seen an eldest son Charles Rix given £5 not to contest the Will and the whole Corkcutter business given to the second son Henry ,the other children getting £1000 each. That was in 1820.What ever poor Charles did ,he died in poverty ,after failing to set up a wine merchants business. The family seem to be quite Machivellian and that was only the start of the problems.
Unfortunately families fall out.Technically it looks like Hugh junior was illegitimate and would have little call to challenge the Will. I can't see another Hugh Brant and son anywhere in the area.It has to be them.
It could be they fell out over Hugh junior's marriage to Jane Squire who couldn't read and write .Perhaps Hugh had been sent off To Bath for a sensible medical reasons and came back with a wife that Hugh Senior just didn't approve of. William Tucker was one of the witnesses ,a relation of John Tucker mentioned in the will perhaps.
The family do look like the right one.
Ciderdrinker
I agree, I can't think of a possibility where the Black Torrington Hugh is not Hugh and Elizabeth's son. Could it be that they had Hugh baptised in Black Torrington to avoid him being considered illegitimate? As usually there will be a note of the child being the "base son" or "natural son". Interesting to see Elizabeth died of TB, where did you find that information?
It does seem as if the Hugh that moved to London is one and the same as the Black Torrington Hugh that he was "disowned" early in the piece. As on the first few of his children's baptism (beginning 1832) he worked as a Coachman before becoming a Lodging House Keeper.
-
Hi
I very much agree.
I found the cause of death on Elizabeth's burial
Elizabeth Brent wife of Hugh Brent gent aged 40 buried 10 Jan 1812 phthsis which is TB.
The Vicar has kindly given a cause of death for most of the burials.
Ciderdrinker