Phillis Michell was born circa 1750, and baptized 4 April 1750 at Graffham, Sussex. She was the daughter of the Reverend Thomas Michell and Eleanor Ingram. She was the sixth of their seven children.
Phillis married for the first time at the age of 15, on the 15 December 1765, at St Edmund, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Her first husband was Samuel Bartholomew Case.
Samuel Bartholomew Case Samuel was born circa 1744 and baptized at Salisbury, Wiltshire. He was the son of Samuel and Mary Case. Mr Case went out to India in 1761 as a writer or “factor” for the East India Company. Unfortunately, “ever since his arrival in the country, [he] laboured under a very bad state of health.”[1] He was obliged in November 1764 to return to England to recover his health. He was commended for his diligence and good behaviour, and intended to return once his health returned.[2] It is probably during his convalescence that he and Phillis Michell contracted marriage. Days before his marriage, it had been announced to court that he was recovered and was allowed to take up his position again.[3] Whether Phillis travelled with him, or joined him later is not known, though it is certain she was with him in India for some time. Unfortunately, Samuel Bartholomew Case died in 1767, whilst in India. A letter to court states “We are extremely sorry to acquaint you that the last hot season has proved fatal to no less than 13 of your covenant servants”, including Samuel. [4]
It appears that Phillis remained in India after her first husband died. Who she lived with, and how she lived, isn’t known. She was still young, only 19, when she married George Rooke, also of the Honourable East India Company. They married in Kolkata (Calcutta), Bengal, on the 25 November 1769.
Still in India, their first child was born – also christened Phillis – on the 16 October 1770. Although I am not completely certain, I believe they returned to England by 1775, when their second child, Ann was born. Both Phillis and Ann were christened on the same day at Chitterne all Saints, in Wiltshire. It is possible that Phillis and her child returned without George.
Phillis was widowed for the second time at the age of 29, when her husband George died on the 25 February 1779.
She died young, at the age of 42 or 43. The mausoleum to the Michell family at Chitterne All Saints includes “To the memory of PHILLIS ROOKE, who died April 9, 1795, aged 42”.[5]
ENDNOTES
[1] “Letter to Court 26 November 1764”, Bhargava, K.D., ed., Indian Records Series (fort William India House Correspondence) Vol 4, National Archives of India, p. 275.
[3] “Letter to Court 13 December 1765”, Bhargava, K.D., ed., Indian Records Series (fort William India House Correspondence) Vol 4, National Archives of India, p.111
[4] Long, James, Selections from unpublished records of government for the years 1748-1767, p. 935
Or How I was able to discover more about Phillis Rooke (the Younger)
Many years ago, while Googling the name of an ancestor, I came across a long list of documents held by the Somerset Heritage Archive. The documents relating to the Baily and Turner families comprise a small part of a collection belonging to a solicitor in Wells, Somersetshire in the 18th and 19th centuries. The descriptions of the items sounded dry. For example, “Original bundle of letters from Phillis Baily and others on financial matters.” The documents include drafts of deeds, receipts and vouchers, indentures, and correspondence, mostly from the clients to the solicitor. I was just hoping for a few dates or tidbits, or maybe to figure out what property the family owned, and when.
But in fact, I found the sort of information that breathes life into our ancestors’ experiences. One that sticks out the most to me is Phillis Baily, nee Rooke. Over many years, she wrote hundreds of letters to the solicitor who helped manage the family’s legal affairs. Yes, there were some dry and hum-drum letters, but many of them were filled with details of a very difficult time in her life.
Bundle of letters at Somerset Heritage Archives. Photo credit: Nimrod Research
To begin, some background:
Phillis Rooke was born on the 16th October 1770 in Calcutta, India. Her father, George Rooke, was a Captain in the East India Company. Her mother was Phillis Michell, who had come to India with her first husband Samuel Case, who died young. George was the descendant of the sister of Sir George Rooke, a renowned admiral in the late 1600s. The Michell family were wealthy landowners in Wiltshire.
Young Phillis and her parents returned to England in 1775, and she and her younger sister Ann were both baptized on the 21 September of that year at Chitterne All Saints in Wiltshire, where her mother’s family came from.
The girls were very young when their father died in 1779, on his return voyage to India.
At the age of 19, Phillis (the younger) married Edward Seymour Baily, on the 9 October 1790. They married by license, with her mother and her uncle Robert Michell giving permission for the marriage.
From the parish registers of Wells St. Cuthbert, Somersetshrie
Both Phillis and Edward were, in theory, heirs to some sort of fortune. Edward had inherited Whiddon Park as the eldest son of Mary Baily, nee Seymour. Mary Seymour was an heiress or sorts, inheriting at least £16,000 from her father. Sadly, it is said that the Seymour-Baily fortune was much diminished by Mary’s husband John Baily.
Phillis inherited from both her father’s and mother’s families. George Rooke had inherited from the estate of Sir George Rooke (the Admiral). This inheritance comprised of freehold estates in Ivechurch (Ivychurch), Brookland, and Ashford, in the county of Kent. Phillis’s father George did not leave a Will, but in June of 1776 had signed an indenture with the purpose of providing for his wife and daughters in the event of his death. This included a “marriage portion” for Phillis of £1000, to be paid when she married, as well as half of the remaining estate when her mother died. Phillis Rooke the Elder had also received a portion of her uncle Robert Michell’s estate, when he died in 1779. After her death, her share was to be divided between her two daughters.
Of course, in the 18th century, upon marriage, a woman’s property became her husband’s property. In this case, a marriage settlement was arranged, and signed two days before the marriage in 1790. In this first settlement Edward put his property of Whiddon Park in Chagford into the hands of Trustees, making provision for Phillis’ “jointure” after his death, and for any children they may have. A second settlement was drawn up in 1792, presumably after Phillis turned 21, dealing with the Kent lands. When Phillis’ mother passed away in 1793, Phillis became entitled to half of her mother’s share of Robert Michell’s estate. Then when her sister Ann died in 1801, unmarried and with no issue, Phillis became her heir as well.
Unfortunately for Edward and Phillis, despite having inherited estates, their financial situation was gloomy. For example, Edward had no other assets besides Whiddon, and there was a mortgage on the property. Whilst serving in the navy he would have drawn a salary, but afterwards he had little in the way of income. On Phillis’ side, £3000 inherited from the Michell uncle had to be advanced to pay off the incumbrance created by George Rooke on his estate. In 1798, the Bailys petitioned for an Act of Parliament to sell the Kent lands.[i] The net amount received from the sale was £25,128. Half of this was Mrs Baily’s share, the other half belonged to her sister. Mr and Mrs Baily used their share to buy property closer to them, in Somerset. Funds were also invested in stocks. When stocks were sold the sum was advanced to Edward towards a mortgage on Whiddon, and also to purchase a house in Devizes, Wiltshire. Over the ensuing years, money was a fraught issue, as the correspondence from Phillis to the solicitor highlighted.
Edward and Phillis had two children. The first was Mary Jane Baily, born in 1793 in Hungerford, Berkshire. It was not until 6 years later that they had their second child, born in Bath and named after his father.
Around 1802, Edward left his wife. Although I have not come across the reason for this, it appears that he kicked her out of Whiddon, and denied her the income which was rightfully hers under the terms of their marriage settlement. Furthermore, he expected her to raise the children without much assistance from him.[ii] With a nine-year-old daughter and a son maybe 2 or 3 years old, I can imagine this must have been a devastating time for Phillis. I have not seen any letters for the period 1802-1803, but certainly in 1804, two years on, she was begging the lawyer, Edmund Broderip, to help her. For example, in May of 1804, she wrote to him asking if he had met Captain Baily “and if you could prevail on him to do any thing for the welfare of myself and children.” For several years, she wrote to Mr Broderip, asking for his advice, begging for him to speak to her husband, and frequently asking for the chance to talk to the lawyer in person. For example, in January of 1804, she wrote “let me know when & where I can see you as I must positively speak to you on my own affairs for I cannot depend on my own Judgement without the advice of a friend as well as a man of business and I have always met in you one of my best friends. I still hope you will continue such & give me your opinion when I ask it.”[iii] In September 1804, she wrote “life is Melancholy & a terable [sic] going on & my Debts so much press on my mind it makes me quite reched [sic].” [iv] It appears that she at least had the yearly £160 that came from her sister’s estate, but it is uncertain what else she received. Captain Baily appeared to show little interest in the children. Phillis wrote to Mr Broderip in May 1804 “Captain Baily has never troubled himself about them”.[v]
Snippet of a letter from Phillis Baily
Mr Broderip did – eventually – try to intervene in her situation. He wrote to Captain Baily in September of 1804. He pointed out to Captain Baily that he was not paying his wife what she was entitled to under their marriage settlement. On top of that, she had many unpaid debts. “I must try to call your serious attention to Mrs Baily’s unfortunate situation & the state of her affairs. You may remember I informed you that she was involved considerably in debt & that these debts must be paid.” He pointed out she was entitled under the marriage settlement to £160 a year out of the income of her own property to be at her own separate disposal “& this she is of course intitled to from the time you parted.” He added that her debts must be paid, and that Captain Baily must make a decision: if he is determined not to live with Mrs Baily again, something has to be done about her unfortunate situation. Furthermore he must think about his innocent children: “it is cruel that they should suffer which must inevitably be the case.”[vi]
As their son Edward got older, it was an ongoing refrain on Phillis’ part that her husband took no interest in their son’s education. In 1804, she wrote: “A Boys Education is what women do not understand & as Cap’tn Baily does not trouble himself about it”, she wanted to consult with her uncle, Thomas Eyre. She also said she did not want her son too far from home, as she was concerned about his health, wanted to keep little Edward near the sea. Yet she was reluctant to take up the issue directly with her husband, and asked Mr Broderip to “have the goodness to talk to him about the Child’s Education.”[vii]
In August 1808, she complained that “the School I now send him to is so near me that he is continually wanting to come home which at his age is a shocking thing as it unsettles him. It was always the wish of my friends to place him at a distance from me it was my wish also to do it but it is impossible to Educate him as he ought to be Educated. On My Sisters Income alone[viii], and any school [away] from Devizes is much more expensive. I do not think it improper or unjust my asking Captain Baily to contribute something towards his Son’s Education.” She wanted to send Edward to a Mr Bayly, “a Gentleman who is also a Clergyman” who her family had known for some years, a man of “unblemished character.” While this school was comparatively expensive, she felt “Edward’s delicate health makes me wish to put him at first where there are not so many Boys & Mr Bayly has a limited number.” She again wrote about sharing the cost of the school fees. “It seems to me a prevarication his Children’s Education hitherto has been of no expense to him, and I cannot help thinking it but fair for him to bear his share, or Edward’s expenses, he makes no objection to the school knowing Mr Bayly, nor does he think the price too much … I cannot Educate Edward without assistance.”[ix] She pointed out in another letter that she had given Mary a good education, inferring Captain Baily had not contributed to it[x]. By mid-1809, it appeared that Captain Baily was contributed something towards Edward’s education, but not enough, and by no means half. “His Board is an hundred Guineas a year besides books & the Expense of conveying him backwards & forwards which would be the case at any school, as I cannot Educate Edward properly with so small an assistance and keep House I must apply to my friends.” She expressed the concern that she might need to give up “housekeeping”, as she could not afford to keep house and pay for Edward’s school. Also, she pointed out, Mary is “just coming into life”, meaning her expenses would increase; and as for herself, “I flattered myself that I was settled Comfortable.”
Snippet of letter from Phillis Baily
At this point, her uncle, Robert Michell stepped in and wrote to his sister (Phillis’ aunt), Mrs Eyre. “Mrs Baily seems to be in much distress & has been advised to apply to me as her trustee to get Mr Edward Baily to do her justice as he has thrown the children on her to keep only allowing twenty pounds a year towards it, & withholding the hundred & eighty pounds a year[xi] which her mother settled on her for her separate use.” Mr Michell continued, “Mr Edward Baily has got her marriage settlement[xii] which certainly aught not be left in his hands, she requests therefore to have the settlement placed in proper hands & that he will pay her the hundred & eighty pounds a year, which is her just claim, when she will keep the Children without requiring more altho’ it would be only her right that he should be at least half that expense, I therefore beg you will have the goodness to speak to Mr Broderip about the above business and advise what is to be done in Mrs Baily’s behalf – in her marriage settlement I know Whiddon Park was settled on her & her children & I believe the hundred & eighty pounds a year also.” Mrs Eyre forwarded the letter to Mr Broderip with a cover note reading “It certainly appears a very hard case on Mrs Baily if she cannot have redress that he should receive all her fortune & pay nothing for the maintenance of his Children. What her Sister left her appears to have nothing to do with the first settlement & have the settlement come into Mr Baily’s hands appears to me as extraordinary.” [xiii] By August, the fact that Mrs Baily had formally applied to her Trustees to pay her the £160 a year as per the marriage settlement was communicated to Captain Baily, who needed to give direction so that the sum would be paid out of the rents on the estate which he receives.[xiv]
Conflict with Captain Baily’s sister, Mrs Mary Bruce
In her letters to Mr Broderip, Phillis also complained that her sister-in-law, Mrs Mary Bruce, was taking her daughter Mary out of school too often. The headmistress, Mrs M Whittaker, of Belvedere House, also made a pointed remark to Mr Broderip “[Miss Baily’s] absence could not but be a matter of regret to us as she had evinced an anxiety for her own improvement during the last half-year that had afforded us much pleasure, & we lamented so long an Intermission to her various employments.”[xv] Again in January of 1806, little Mary’s absence from school was commented on. Mrs Whittaker also complained to Phillis “that when Mrs Bruce come to Bath in the middle of the half year, Mary slept at her House five nights,” and that “it is impossible she can improve [if] taken out so much.”[xvi]
In one letter, Phillis comments that her Aunt Eyre did not like her staying with Mrs Bruce “as it was not a place for me.”[xvii] In late 1805, the children of an acquaintance told Phillis that it was “reported in the school that Captn Baily & myself were parted, Mary told it which I concluded she was desired to do, by Mrs Bruce.”[xviii]
At another point in time, young Mary had asked to spend part of the Christmas holidays with her aunt Mrs Bruce. Phillis replied, with some jealousy evident “I told her I expected her to be with me, as Mrs Bruce has her so often & I did not & also her extravagance of Dress with Mrs Bruce & going to Plays etc was what I could not afford nor did I think so much of it necessary at her age.” She added that if Captain Baily wanted Mary to stay with Mrs Bruce, then it must be at his expense. Later in 1807, she expressed a more serious concern. She told Mr Broderip that she did not have a copy of her marriage settlement, as she had left it at Whiddon. “Sometimes I think Mrs Bruce’s grand secret is that they have Destroyed it.”[xix]
Concerned what other people thought of her
Sometimes here letters showed a high level of anxiety, sometimes centred around what other people thought of her:
She seemed to feel the need to justify herself for seeking out her mother’s family for help and support. For example, in early 1804, she wrote “I hope you will not think I am extravagant but it is one of the greatest pleasures I have is to come & spend a little time with them [her uncles and aunts] as they are always glad to see me.” [xx]
She seems afraid of appearances. For example, she wanted to visit her aunt Mrs Eyre in Wells, but wanted Mr Broderips assurance that Captain Baily would not also be in Wells “because it would be awkward for him to be in the Town and not come there and see me”. [xxi]
At the same time, she was afraid of upsetting people: she had delayed accepting her aunt Eyre’s invitation, because she had not heard yet from Mr Broderip whether her husband would also be at Wells. She was afraid her aunt would be displeased that she had not yet responded.[xxii]
Phillis seemed concerned with whether people would think her a bad mother. She told Mr Broderip that she had written to her daughter Mary while the child was staying with Mrs Bruce: “Mrs Bruce cannot say that I never wrote to my Child or thought of her on my return from hence the other day she told me that if I did not Chuse to write to her & that Mrs Hopkins should say & all her friends that it was extremely odd I did not write to my child – this Mrs Bruce cannot repeat again.” [xxiii]
Where did Phillis and the children live during this time?
It appears from the earlier letters that she spent some time with her sister-in-law Mrs Bruce, as well as visiting for periods of time with her Michell uncles and aunts in turn. At some point, maybe from around 1803, she was living in Devizes, with a Mrs Carpenter and her daughters. Phillis herself was not the “housekeeper” (in this sense, meaning being in charge of her own household). Over the years, her aunt Eyre in particular encouraged her to establish a place of her own. She wrote on this subject to Mr Broderip in November 1806. She’d had the opportunity to meet with him to discuss this, and she wrote “I think if he [Captain Baily] comes here the beginning of the new year, which has ever been his custom Mrs Carpenter & myself had better to talk to him about the wishes of my friends and then I will let you know what he says.” [xxiv] Late in 1807, Mrs Carpenter passed away.[xxv] Early the next year, her correspondence with Mr Broderip touches on setting up her own household. She quoted her uncle Thomas “if you do move from Devizes why not come & live amongst us, we can get you a nice snug small House.” She also asked if Captain Baily had mentioned her sister’s plate and linen: “the Linen he has the whole of; he once offered to send it to me when I was going to keep House before.”[xxvi] By March 1807, she was established in her own household, which made her feel proud. She was paying rent, so it seems it was not the house that the Bailys had earlier bought at Devizes. Captain Baily came and stay with her at times.[xxvii] In July 1808, she commented that “Captain Baily has been staying here sometime he seemed very happy and Comfortable and said he should come again soon. I think on these occasions he should join in the Housekeeping.”[xxviii]
In Jan 1806, she wrote to Mr Broderip to ask his opinion on her buying a second-hand carriage. She would like to ask her uncle Thomas Michell to buy it for her, if Mr Broderip were to approve, “as I am not likely to be a Housekeeper yet.” She put forward the case that it would save her having to move luggage, which she must do when travelling by coach, and it would offer more protection to her than a hack – pointing out she lacks protection because Captain Baily is not living with her. At this point, she felt she could not ask her husband his opinion. “… to speak to Captain Baily on the Subject or any family business is impossible for me or any of this family after the rage he put himself in when we last spoke on family concerns.” Her intention was to buy this chaise out of my Income left to her by her sister, therefore the purchase could not be any consequence to Captain Baily. [xxix] Her uncle Thomas did purchase a carriage for her around April 1807, for a hundred and ten guineas. [xxx]
What next for Phillis?
The letters between 1804 and 1809 indicate the most tumultuous years for her. The matter of being paid what she was entitled to was sorted out, but that was not the end of the financial difficulties. Over the years, there seemed to be some reconciliation between husband and wife, though they did not formally live together. He remained at Whiddon, and she lived in different places over the course of her life. Several financial arrangements were made over the next two decades, for example regarding paying both their debts, how to share the cost of Edward’s university education, and more.
After her daughter Mary married Reverend John Turner, in 1811, Phillis went to live with them, until their family grew too big. After that, Phillis settled in Bath.
She died on the 28 December 1832, in Bath, but is buried at Chitterne All Saints with her mother’s family.
ENDNOTES
[i] “Petition of Edward Seymour Baily of the parish of Chagford in the County of Devon Esqr & Phillis his Wife for and on behalf of themselves and their Infant Child,” HL-PO-JO-10-3-20; Parliament Archive.
[ii] Letter from Phillis Baily to Edmund Broderip, 3 Sep 1804; Foster of Wells, DD/FS/41/6/11, Somerset Heritage Centre.
[iii] Letter from Phillis Baily to Edmund Broderip , 27 Jan 1804, Foster of Wells, DD/FS/41/6/14, , Somerset Heritage Centre.
[iv] Letter from Phillis Baily to Edmund Broderip, 3 Sep 1804; Foster of Wells, DD/FS/41/6/11, Somerset Heritage Centre.
[v] Letter from Phillis Baily to Edmund Broderip , 1 May 1804; Foster of Wells, DD/FS/41/6/22, Somerset Heritage Centre.
[vi] Letter from Mr Broderip to Captain Edward Baily, Letter 1804 Sep 13; Foster of Wells, DD/FS/41/6/21 ; Somerset Heritage Centre.
[vii] Letter from Phillis Baily to Mr Broderip, 24 Jul 1808; Foster of Wells, DD\FS/41/6/132, Somerset Heritage Centre.
[viii] Meaning the £160 she received yearly from her sister’s Will, separate from what she should have received according to the marriage settlement.
[ix] Letter from Phillis Baily to Mr Broderip 19 Feb 1809; Foster of Wells, DD/FS 41/9/11, Somerset Heritage Centre.
[x] Letter from Phillis Baily to Mr Broderip 11 Jun 1809; Foster of Wells, DD\FS/41/6/26, Somerset Heritage Centre.
[xi] He was incorrect about the yearly sum settled on Phillis – it was £160, not £180.
When you work as a Probate Genealogist, you have to pay special attention to evidence. When you are trying to prove who is entitlted to an estate, there is a financial risk involved. Therefore, we have to prove every link as best we can. I see many family trees on sites like Ancestry.com where the information is obviously incorrect, and others where it is hard to tell why the owner of the tree added someone. Sites like Ancestry.com provide “hints” for linking sources and family members. I think some people accept the hints without questioning them. I confess I have been guilty of that myself. Then what happens is that others copy information from others – again without questioning the veracity.
The other important thing to note is that we shouldn’t just look on Ancestry.com. Look further afield, to other genealogical sites, birth, death and marriage indexes, national and state archives, and more. Also, purchase certificates and other documents. They can be a mine of information.
With this post, I wanted to show how I am working backwards from my 3x great-grandmother Mary Jane Turner (nee Baily), to try to prove each step of the Rooke line.
The Rooke Line
Mary Jane Baily was born the 28 Feb 1793[i]. Census records consistently state that she was born in Hungerford Berkshire.[ii] If so, it was likely at the home of her great-uncle, Thomas Michell, whose home, Standen House, was situated there. Curiously, Mary was not baptised until more than four years later, on the 27 April 1797, in Salisbury, Wiltshire[iii]. According to the transcription of her baptismal record, her parents were Edward Seymour Baily and Phillis. Of course, no maiden name was given for Phillis.
At the time that I found Mary’s baptism, I did not know when or where her parents had married, and when I began my research, indexes like Ancestry.com were not yet available to so easily find such records. Fortunately for me, Mary died in Scotland (on the 18th September 1876 at Strathpeffer, Fodderty county), her death certificate includes her mother’s maiden name, Rooke.[iv]
From here, I was able to look for, and find, Mary Jane’s parents’ marriage.
Edward Seymour Baily and Phillis Rooke, were married by license on the 9 October 1790 in the parish of St Cuthbert, Wells, Somerset[v]. Phillis was then under 21 years old, and was married with the permission of her mother, Phillis Rooke, widow, as her father was not then living. From her the marriage bonds, we glean that Phillis Rooke (the younger) was 20 years old, and hence was born circa 1770. [vi]
This family happens to appear in the Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal,[vii] from which we can derive the information that Phillis was the daughter of George Rooke, H.E.I.C.S. (short for The Honourable East India Company Service). A very short biographical account for George Rooke appears in the List of the Officers of the Bengal Army. He began as a Country Cadet in 1765, was made and Ensign on the 13 November 1765, Lieutenant on the 28 May 1767, and Captain on the 26 June 1771. He resigned on the 17 January 1774. He apparently came to India in a private capacity, and was furloughed in January of 1774, but was permitted to return to India in October 1777, on the York via Bombay “without prejudice” to his rank as Lieutenant. A note in parentheses, with a question mark, adds that he died on the journey out.[viii]
The biographical piece also gives the information that George married Phillis, the widow of Samuel Bartholomew Case, and that George and Phillis had a daughter, also christened Phillis, in Calcutta on the 16th October 1770. It is unclear if this is the date of her birth or her christening.
Phillis, formerly Case, nee Michell, had gone to India with her first husband, Samuel Bartholomew Case. Phillis and Samuel had married on the 15 December 1765, at Salisbury St Edmund[ix], when Phillis was only 15 years old (born 1750),[x] and Samuel was about 21 (born 1744)[xi]. Mr Case had gone out to India in 1761 as a writer or factor for the East India Company, but his health suffered, and he was obliged to return England to recover in 1764[xii]. Two days before his marriage to Phillis, his health presumably recovered, he was given permission to return to India to take up the same rank and position he had left.[xiii] Unfortunately, the heat in India proved fatal to Mr Case, according to letters written to the Court announcing that “no less than 13 of your covenanted servants” had died that hot season in 1767.[xiv]
The widow Case married George Rooke on the 25 November 1769 in Calcutta[xv]. The couple returned to England with their daughter Phillis, probably around 1774 or 1775, and I believe their second daughter Ann was born in England. Both girls were baptised at Chitterne All Saints in Wiltshire, where Phillis the elder’s family came from, on the 21 September 1775[xvi]. The baptismal record notes that Phillis had been previously baptised in Bengal, but no such note is made about Ann.
From the little biography mentioned about George Rooke, it would appear that George returned to India, where he died either on the journey there or on a return journey to England.
An abstract of the title to the Kent lands passed down from Sir George Rooke, and eventually ending up in the hands of George Rooke of the East India Company, contains some information about the Rooke lineage.[xvii] It includes the date of death for the younger George Rooke in question. In brief:
Sir George Rooke, knight, left a Will dated 8 Jan 1707, in which he left a jointure to his (third) wife during her lifetime and the residue to his son George Rooke and his son’s male heirs
If his son had no male heirs, then to his nephew George Ley, in tail male
Sir George’s son George died in 1739, before Sir George’s wife, and left no issue
Sir George’s nephew George Ley had also died, but left two sons – John the eldest died a minor without issue, and the youngest, William Ley, became entitled to the estate in the year 1740, and took on the surname Rooke as directed by Sir George Rooke’s Will.
William Ley Rooke died in 1754 leaving George Rooke, his only son
George died 25 Feb 1779, intestate – without a Will
When George Rooke died, he had two infant daughters – Phillis and Ann
Finding George Rooke’s Burial
According to the Kent Land title abstract, George Rooke died on the 25 February 1779. Among correspondence relating to the sale of the Kent properties is a letter which states that George was buried in the churchyard at St Andrew, Holborn[xviii]. The burial register for that church has a burial for George Rooke, Esquire, of Saint George Hanover Square, buried on the 2 October 1779.[xix]
Note the difference of many months between the date of his death given in the Kent deeds and his burial. The biographical notes in the List of Officers in the Bengal Army indicated that he died at sea. This may explain the long delay between death and burial. However, certainly in modern times, if someone dies at sea, their body is committed to the ocean. Therefore, I feel this discrepancy may need further investigation.
George’s baptism
From the Kent land title abstract, we know that George’s father was William Rooke, previously William Ley, who died in 1754. The Will of a William Rooke was proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in 1754. He wrote the Will on the 1st of July, 1752, and described himself as a “mariner” from the parish of Enfield, in the county of Middlesex.[xx] He named three children as his heirs, George, Elizabeth and Anna Talbot Rooke, along with his wife Ann. This would seem to be the likely father of George.
Note that the Kent land record doesn’t tell us the year George was born; his marriage and burial records say nothing about his age, so we are guessing about the likely year of birth. We can guess it was before 1752, when his father wrote his Will.
Ancestry.com provided me with a hint pointing to the baptism of a George Rooke, son of William and Ann Rooke, which took place in July 1748 at St George the Martyr, Southwark.[xxi] Many other family trees have accepted this hint, and because Ancestry.com doesn’t really push you to explain why you accept a record as correct, I cannot say why others have accepted this. Perhaps they know more than I do about the family. But I wanted to look into it some more before accepting it.
The baptismal entry available on Ancestry.com and Find My Past shows that the parents resided in the “Borough,” and that the father was “Lieutenanton his Majesty’s Ship the Chester”. [xxii]
The website Three Decks provides the histories of naval officers. The career history of William Ley Rooke indicates that he likely began his naval service around 1743, and that between April 1747 and May 1750, he was a First Lieutenant on the HMS Chester. [xxiii] Putting this information together with the baptismal register gives me more confidence that the Southwark baptism is likely to be the correct one.
William’s marriage – which Ann is George’s mother?
Many family trees on Ancestry.com have the marriage partner of William Rooke as Ann Simmonds. I’m not sure if this is because it is the hint that Ancestry.com has thrown forward, or whether someone doing their family history years ago for the LDS church chose it, or because the groom William Rooke is described as being from Enfield, Middlesex, which does fit the profile of this family – William Rooke describing himself in his Will as being from Enfield.
However, the marriage between William Rooke of Enfield and Ann Simmonds took place in 1749, which is after the baptism of William’s son George. If George was born before the marriage of his parents, wouldn’t it be more likely than not that his baptism would have been in his mother’s name?
Furthermore, I believe that William and Ann had a child born before George: a daughter Elizabeth, who is mentioned in William’s Will.
Among the papers relating to the sale of the Kent lands is correspondence mentioning a Mrs Bissell. She was questioned about her knowledge of the Rooke family history. Her reply was that her father had been in the navy and had died when she was very young, and he had no fixed place of residence.[xxiv] Also, Ann Rooke, the sister of Phillis Rooke, had left an annuity to Mrs Elizabeth Bissell in her Will. Mrs Bissell died around the same time that the younger Phillis did. In order to settle Phillis Bailey’s estate, the burial record of Mrs Bissell was required[xxv]. Elizabeth Bissell was buried on the 29 January 1833 at Woolborough, Devonshire. Her age is recorded as 90 years old[xxvi]. This would make her year of birth around 1744, give or take. An Elizabeth Rooke-Bissell connection has also been found. An Elizabeth Rooke married Gwyllim Bissell on the 22 October 1764 at St George Hanover Square, London.[xxvii]
Although I have not yet found a baptism for Elizabeth to confirm her birth-year, if she was born before her brother, then the marriage of William Rooke to Ann Simmonds looks even more unlikely.
However, I have not yet found any other possible marriage for William Rooke to an Ann circa 1740 -1748 on any of the main genealogy databases. I do have a working theory that her maiden name was “Talbot”, given that one of their daughters was Anna Talbot Rooke. But I have yet to prove that.
I also have not found the death or burial for Ann Rooke. It does not appear that she left a Will. She is not buried with her husband in Devonshire.
George’s siblings
As mentioned above, George had an older sister Elizabeth, who was born perhaps around 1744 or 1745. A baptism for her was not found in the parish register of St George the Martyr, where George was baptised, nor was she found on the baptism indexes for Enfield, Middlesex. I searched the Enfield St Andrew’s bishops’ transcripts on Family Search from 1740 to 1745 without finding her baptism.
She does not appear in any indexed records so far at Ancestry.com, Find My Past, or Family Search.
George had two sisters born after him, but both died in childhood.
First was Frances Rooke, baptised in Enfield, Middlesex on the 8 September 1850, who died the next years, and then Anna Talbot Rooke, also baptised at Enfield, on the 14th Apr 1752, who died a few months later on the 15 July 1752. Anna was mentioned in her father’s Will, written only two weeks before she died.
Next generation back: William Ley, later known as William Rooke or William Ley Rooke
From the Kent Land deeds, we have the information that this Rooke family were related to Sir George Rooke, the admiral, who died in 1709. As his was a family of renown, there are existing family trees online through which people have linked William Rooke.
It goes like this:
Most family trees I’ve seen (for example on Ancestry.com) show William’s birth year as 1717. I’m not sure where that comes from. I have so far not found a baptism or any other evidence to back this up.
I found a burial on Find a Grave for a William Ley Rooke, buried at St Michael’s Blackawton, Devonshire, who died 19 July 1754[xxviii]. Unfortunately, no age was given on his headstone (no image is included on Find A Grave). I found the burial register on Family Search, which also does not provide his age (nor his usual residence)[xxix]. William’s Will was probated in September 1754, so this burial fits in terms of the date, but not necessarily the location.
There are some Court of Chancery records held at the National Archives relating to William Ley and his brother John (who, it seems, died young), and I will try to obtain them in due course to see if they are of any use in pinpointing his age, year of birth and place of birth. So, watch this space….
[i] “England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975.” Database. FamilySearch. http://FamilySearch.org : 6 April 2020. Index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City.
[ii] Census 1851 England. Chagford, Devon. HO107/ 1885/ 540, p 11, www.ancestry.com.au accessed 12 Jul 2020; Census 1861 England, St Mary church Babbacombe, Devon. RG 9/Piece: 1410/116; p 31, www.ancestry.com.au accessed 12 Jul 2020; Census 1871 England, Penge, Surrey RG10/ 849/151, p 77, www.ancestry.com.au accessed 12 Jul 2020.
[iii] “England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975.” Database. FamilySearch. http://FamilySearch.org : 6 April 2020. Index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City.
[iv] Death Certificate for Mary Jane Turner, District of Fodderty, 18 Sep 1876, no. 40, General Register Office, Sctoland. Certified copy in author’s possession.
[v] Marriage record between Edward Seymour Baily and Phillis Rooke, 9 October 1792, St Cuthberts, Wells Somerset, D\P\w.st.c/2/1/9, Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; accessed at www.ancestry.com. A scan of the document is in the author’s possession.
[vi] Marriage licence Edward Seymour Baily and Phillis Rooke, Somerset, England, Marriage Registers, Bonds and Allegations, 1754-1914, accessed at www.ancestry.com. A scan of the document is in the author’s possession.
[vii] The Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval, Melville Henry Massue. The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal Being A Complete Table of All the Descendents Now Living of Edward III, King of England. London, England: T.C. & E. C. Jack, 1905-1911.
[viii] Hodson, Vernon Charles Paget, The List of the Officers of the Bengal Army: Alphabetically Arranged and Annotated with Biographical and Genealogical Notices, Vol 3 (L-R); London England: Constable, 1927; p. 688.
[ix] Marriage record between Samuel Bartholomew Case and Phillis Michell, 15 Dec 1765, Salisbury St Edmund; Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre; Chippenham, Wiltshire, England; Wiltshire Parish Registers; Reference Number: 1901/3. Accessed at www.Ancestry.com
[x] If she was born the same year she was baptised, 1750 at Graffham, Sussex, “England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975.” Database. FamilySearch. http://FamilySearch.org : 6 April 2020.
[xi] Again, if he was born the same year he was baptised, which was in 1744 at Salisbury, Kent, “England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975.” Database. FamilySearch. http://FamilySearch.org : 6 April 2020.
[xii] Bhargava, K.D. Letter to Court 26 Nov 1764, p. 275, Indian Records Series (Fort William India House Correspondence) Vol 4., The National Archives of India.
[xiii] Bhargava, K.D. Letter to Court 13 Dec 1765, p. 111, Indian Records Series (Fort William India House Correspondence) Vol 4., The National Archives of India.
[xiv] Long, James, Selections from Unpublished Records of Government for the Years 1748-1767 Inclusive Relating Mainly to the Social Condition of Bengal, with a Map of Calcutta in 1784, Volume 1; Bengal, India: Office of Superintendent of Government Printing, 1869.
[xv] India, Select Marriages, 1792-1948, www.ancestry.com, retrieved 12 Jul 2020.
[xvi] Baptism of Phillis Rooke and Ann Rooke, 21 Sep 1775 at Chitterne All Saints, Wiltshire, Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre; Chippenham, Wiltshire, England; Wiltshire Parish Registers; Reference Number: 1109/1, retrieved from www.ancestry.com, 12 Jul 2020.
[xvii] “Abstract of title (1708-96) of Edward Seymour Baily, wife Phillis and Ann Rooke to estates in Ivychurch, Brookland and Ashford, Kent,” DD\FS/40/15, Somerset Heritage Centre. Photographs of document in author’s possession.
[xviii] Letter from Edmund Broderip dated 21 September 1801, DS\FS/41/1/37, Somerset Heritage Centre. Photographs of document in author’s possession.
[xix] Burial record of George Rooke, Esq., 2 Oct 1779, St Andrew, Holborn, London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; Reference Number: P69/AND2/A/010/MS06673/012, retrieved from www.ancestry.com 12 Jul 2020.
[xx] Will of William Rooke, 1754, The National Archives; Kew, England; Prerogative Court of Canterbury and Related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers; PROB 11/ 811.
[xxi] Baptism record of George Rooke, July 1848 [day of baptism is cut off in tight binding], St George the Martyr, Southwark, London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; Reference Number: P92/GEO/144, retrieved from www.ancestry.com 12 Jul 2020.
[xxiv] Letter from Thomas Michell to Edmund Broderip, 3 Oct 1801, DS\FS/41/1/46, Somerset Heritage Centre. Photographs of document in author’s possession.
[xxv] Letter from Rev. John Turner, 2 Feb 1833, DD\FS/40/4/40-66Somerset Heritage Centre.
[xxvi] Burial record of Elizabeth Bissell, 29 Jan 1833, Woolborough, Devonshire, “England, Devon Bishop’s Transcripts, 1558-1887.” Database with images. FamilySearch. https://FamilySearch.org : 22 June 2020. Devon Record Office, Exeter.
[xxvii] Marriage record of Gwyllim Bissell and Elizabeth Rooke, 22 Oct 1764 St George Hanover Square, Middlesex, City of Westminster Archives Centre, Westminster Marriage collection accessed on www.findmypast.com 12 Jul 2020.
Some Heirs and Graces 