GENERATION -2:
Surname : BODENHAM
For Antecedent(s) For Descendant(s)
see Page Ref. No(s) listed below:-
Parent(s):- Children:-
Husband’s Name: John BODENHAM William BODENHAM (P. R. No. BOD -1/1)
(His P. R. No: BOD -3/ 1) b. 27 Nov. 1782 at Gloucester, St. Nicholas.
b. 18 Nov. 1759 d. 15 Mar. 1809? At Gloucester St. Nicholas.
at Minsterworth
d. 25 Dec.1789 Thomas BODENHAM
at Gloucester, St. Nicholas b. 8 Jun. 1787 at Gloucester, St. Nicholas.
possibly married 3 July 1776 d. Jan. 1789 at Gloucester, St. Nicholas?
at Newent, Glos.?
Thomas BODENHAM
b. 19 Jun. 1789 at Gloucester, St. Nicholas.
Wife 1 Mary (HOOK?) d. 3 June 1806? At Gloucester St. Nicholas
(Her P. R. No: ?)
b. ?
at ? John JONES
d. ? b. 18 Aug. 1795 at Gloucester, St. Nicholas
at ? d.
Mary JONES
(Who, I believe, then m., 13 March 1793 b. 27 Nov. 1796 at Gloucester, St. Nicholas
at St. Nicholas Church, Gloucester, d.
Husband 2 William JONES
(His P. R. No. ?) Joseph JONES
b. ? b. 26 June, 1799, at Gloucester, St. Nicholas
at ? d.
d. ?
at ? Charles JONES
b. 2 June 1805, at Gloucester, Nicholas
d.
Thomas JONES
b. 2 June 1805, art Gloucester, St. Nicholas
d.
NOTES.
The conjecture is that this residual member of the BODENHAM family of Minsterworth, being connected with the River Severn and its commercial uses, was drawn to Gloucester due to the growing impact on the Severn by the Industrial Revolution, well suiting his ‘Waterman’ activities. A contributing factor was probably the death in 1770 by drowning of his cousin John.. After 1800, there are no more BODENHAM records in Minsterworth. However, believing that this person moved to Gloucester and proving it are two very different things. It was quite normal for a family to be connected to a parish for many generations, and whilst therein they are relatively easy to put together. If they then move before 1837, ie the advent of compulsory registration of births, marriages and deaths, then where they went is much more difficult to prove.
The BODENHAM surname, in its many different spellings, is still relatively unusual, so there is a better than average chance of finding them in whatever new location they choose. The Mormons have now been able to publish much of their research, so comparatively few events have still to surface. Therefore the opportunity has arrived to try to add credence to earlier ideas. Nothing yet has appeared which changes my ideas that this BODENHAM member & subsequent contingent did indeed translate from Minsterworth to the Forest of Dean via Gloucester, with a healthy pinch of South Wales thrown in for good measure. The other residual members seem to have surfaced in Arlingham
I have presumed on this page that father John BODENHAM either was already, or soon became, a ‘Waterman’, to take advantage of a better life in the City of Gloucester. It would appear that neither ‘Thomas’ lived long. Son ‘William’ would appear to have become a ‘Waterman’ also, because he is marrying, in Cardiff, Ann JONES and then is shown as having 2 sons, both named William, one with Ann, and the other with a lady named ‘Jane’!
The William in my direct lineage, supposedly born ‘Gloucester’, seems therefore to have been actually christened in Cardiff, in South Wales, a typical port visited by boats passing through Gloucester on the River Severn. However, the father William’ is called a ‘Mariner’, so some sort of confirmation is thereby achieved. The question is, which of those two subsequent children called ‘William’ is the correct one?? It would appear that the second child, the illegitimate one, was the survivor, and therefore becomes the subsequent progenitor on BOD -1/1.
There are two other recorded events which might suggest further marriage(s) of mother ‘Mary’ BODENHAM, in (a) 1793 to a William JONES (!) and/or 1804 to a William COLLINGBURN. Both events took place at Gloucester St. Nicholas, where the previous christenings had also occurred. St Nicholas Church in Gloucester is in Westgate Street very close to the Severn.
The idea of the second marriage to William Jones seems to be very likely, so that assumption has been made, whereas the third to William Collingburn is ignored. (She should have called herself ‘Mary JONES’, I think, not Mary BODENHAM).
This Page Ref No. BOD -2/1