Bodenham Family Genealogy

General

Genealogy is very much like a detective case. The researcher has to begin with evidence, obtained from those relatives who can supply verbal details, and any documents that might be in their/your possession, such as certificates of births, marriages and deaths. It is also very relative to the research that the religion of the person being researched is known, and any nicknames they might have possessed. For example, my granny ‘GREEN‘ was christened ‘Hannah’, but was always known as ‘Annie’ (A family friend was christened ‘Edith May’, but was always known as ‘Jimmy’!). Unless this is appreciated, family anecdotes can be very misleading. It is absolutely essential to question the elderly living relatives before they pass on, taking years-worth of research investigation of family history with then. Memories are unique. Time and time again I regret not ever questioning my father whilst he was alive more closely. I had always thought that an unusual surname such as ‘BODENHAM’ would inevitably result in all persons of that surname being related. I could, I thought, start with the earliest and arrive at me. What a misconception! In any case, genealogy is one thing, but family history distinctly different in that it is essential therein to include material other than the bare events to make it interesting. Certificates and records by themselves give little away, except the odd raised eyebrow.

Geography

‘BODENHAM’ as a surname seems to originate in the area of the border between England and Wales, the River Severn basin. This general area can be viewed on an old map of Gloucestershire, (which can be enlarged). The Family History of ‘BODENHAM’, as it applies to our particular branch of the surname, seems very much associated with Gloucestershire (pronounced ‘Glostershire’), i.e. the southern end of the then border with Wales, approximately. The name Gloucester originates from Roman times when their fortress called ‘Glevum’ (Castra) defended the point where the River Severn ceased being tidal, and needed to be defended against the ‘Welsh Hordes’ (nothing has changed, going by the disgraceful scenes when Gloucester Rugby Club plays any Welsh side. Petty national pride is at stake).

So, the major geographical feature of Gloucestershire is the River Severn. As stated, it is a tidal estuary up to Gloucester, and a semi-navigable freshwater thereafter. The tidal estuary is subject to a very strong inward tidal flow, increased dramatically at certain phases of the moon into a tidal ‘bore’, which rushes upstream sometimes, and regularly invading the adjoining fields for short periods. The Severn flows from northeast to southwest, and bisects the higher ground on both sides. To the southeast lie the limestone Cotswold Hills, and on the northwest side lies the ‘Royal’ Forest of Dean, wherein lie deposits of coal and iron. The ancient forests cloak the hills, which over the millennia, have given rise to the coal. Coal and iron ore also bless the hills and valleys of South Wales itself, which affects my particular branch of the Family History, as will be explained.

Family History

So, having learned the hard way that I should have become interested very much sooner, I discovered that there was little to go on. I recalled hearing from my father’s sister Catherine Jane that they had lived in Cinderford (i.e. the Forest of Dean, in Gloucestershire), but, on my dad’s birth certificate arose the conflicting information that he was born in Abertillery in South Wales. Much later it became apparent that the nineteenth century family occupation for my branch was coal mining (or iron), and that the connection between the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire and South Wales was that when employment in mining in either location was difficult, the out-of-work would head for the other location to be able to survive.

At this point in time I would recommend the reading of the autobiography, ‘A child in the Forest’, by Winifred Foley. It graphically depicts life in the Forest for a mining family in the early part of the 20th century, but which must have been at least as much applicable during the 19th. Life was hard, and emigration fairly common. The fact that Elizabeth ‘BROWN‘ (nee ‘BODENHAM’) chose that path is obvious, as was their destination, the coal fields south of Chicago. Here was a mining employment opportunity in a burgeoning new country, therefore probably more reliable and no doubt better paid. However, it took much courage to up-stakes in the 19th century and head for the unknown in probably a sailing ship, taking weeks.

In fact, I was extremely fortunate because my own mother, who outlived my father quite considerably, was a hoarder of information (I have inherited the bug). She even kept the ‘in memorium’ card for my father’s first wife. How many second-wives would have done that? (However, she did not let on (if she actually knew) that my father, always known to everybody including me as ‘Bertie’ had had a ‘shotgun’ first wedding at the local Registry Office, getting married in August and son Arthur John being born in November…). Sorry to say, both wife and baby died, so Bertie was a widower when he married mum (‘Bessie’, or ‘Bet’ GREEN). And I don’t have that stepbrother.

I, as a very young lad, had met grandfather Enoch BODENHAM. He lived, when I knew him, fairly close to has married daughter Catherine Jane RIDOUT near Bournemouth on the south coast. However,Bertie was not his favourite son…Bertie had received a disjointed education, being the son of a peripatetic minister, and had subsequently ‘gone of the rails’ in the eyes of his father. Enoch had started his adult career as a coal miner (what else) but sought to improve matters and eventually had progressed up the social scale to the lofty position of (self-styled?) Nonconformist Minister… What a hard pill to swallow having a youngest son who smoked, drank beer, and frequented those dens of iniquity called pubs! I suspect that when Bertie pre-empted marriage by a few months to end in the ignominy of a last minute Registry Office wedding, it seemed to his father the last straw. Bertie was, in effect, disowned.

However, on the other side of the coin, Enoch the minister had been married a grand total of five times, the last of which was to a lady 42 years his junior…. (but was behind the door when beauty was handed out). In his defense, Enoch only had children by his first wife, and the remainder were essentially housekeepers, but Bertie’s opinion of Enoch was that he was the biggest hypocrite he knew! Edith HAAS (nee BROWN) sent me a copy of a letter from Enoch to has USA cousins during the War in which Enoch comes across in true bible-thumping style (just as I remembered him) and no mention is made of Bertie! Such Christianity! In fact, Enoch affected the lives of the women he married for at least 100 years. The last one Olive, was still alive after 1982 and Enoch’s first marriage took place in 1882.

Why, might you ask, did Enoch become a Minister? I think it was the family influence of his mother, Hannah BODENHAM (nee HARRIS) in particular. She turns out to have been a very devout Baptist. She, plus husband Daniel BODENHAM, and other members of the family, worshipped (to a lesser degree) and were eventually buried in the churchyard of Cinderford Baptist Chapel. The most devout of them was Hannah, according to the chapel records. I had contacted the chapel to discover this fact. It was about then that I was fortunate enough to find out that Enoch had a younger brother Frederick James, who had married Edith Annie PREDDY from a neighbouring mining family, and that they had conceived one female child, Ada Annie BODENHAM (who lived to the ripe old age of 100). Unfortunately, Edith Annie (the mother) died soon after giving birth (a very common occurrence) and although Frederick James had remarried, the second wife would not raise the little baby, and even tore up the picture of his first wife. So, Ada Annie as a baby/toddler was raised by Daniel and Hannah, her grandparents. What a turn up for the books! She knew Daniel in particular in her young life very well, He was in effect, at the time, her father figure. So, she was happy to tell me what she knew of my own great grandfather! She supplied the original picture of Daniel, and told me that Hannah totally refused to have her own picture taken. I don’t know whether from embarrassment or religious conviction.

At this point it is worth mentioning that as Baptists, members are sometimes not christened per se, but affirm, or confirm, their faith, in early (sometimes) adulthood. By being baptised, which seeming delay in appearing in a record needs to be recognised by the researcher and not confused with christening which in the Anglican faith more closely follows the actual birth, usually by only a week or two. At this first recorded ‘event’ therefore, the recipient of the ceremony might be at least 17 years old and was frequently much older. However, fortunately, the actual record often states the age of the person being baptised.

So, having got back in time to the mid-1800’s, where to go from there? I had by then joined (at its inception) the Gloucestershire Family History Society, and began visiting the Gloucester Record Office. I had also spent hours in the Public Record Office in London (PRO), where the researcher can peruse the indexes (but not the actual certificates) without ordering and paying for them, for Births, Marriages and Deaths post-1837 (when records began to be ‘compulsorily’ recorded for the whole country). Why do I question its completeness? Because in those days illegitimacy was considered to be the depths of depravity, so, when one such event was ‘forgotten’, rather than having to own up to the dishonour (we cannot, for example, find any birth certificate for Margaret’s mother, Edith May DAVIS, because it seems to have occurred too soon for propriety (November to February was a bit too quick). So, human nature was the driving force well before the advent of any ‘pill’.

Eventually, research in Gloucester turned up the Marriage of Daniel’s parents, William and Harriet (nee CULL). This was not straightforward because although Cinderford has two parish churches, the bulk of the Forest of Dean is what is known as an ‘Extra Parochial Area’, i.e. not in a parish, per se (in fact, most of the Forest holds the reputation of not just being outside a parish, but outside the law also. I hope by now you have taken the time to read that autobiography I was talking about earlier). There was nobody alive to ask, so the only thing possible had been to start poring through the adjacent parish church records to find out which one, if any, had been chosen by the happy couple in which to become legal. Very fortunately at the beginning of the search, in Abenhall not far away (but beginning with ‘A’), the record was discovered. A copy of it is available (unfortunately in white lettering on black), but it can just be made out. William’s surname is spelt ‘BODNAM’ (I think), but don’t think that this is anything unusual. Before 1900, the vast majority of the population were illiterate, being unable to write or spell. So, the vicar/enumerator could only write down what he heard, spoken in some thick local accent and dialect. For example ‘are you going’ sounds like ‘Bist thee a-gwain’ in broad ‘Gloucester’ (pronounced ‘brawd Glawster’), which is why ‘BODENHAM’ is pronounced ‘BODNUM’ or ‘BODNAM’ (even sometimes ‘BODMAN’), and why the Mormons from America think they are all different and do not assemble all the possibilities together, but list them separately, creating several different locations where an ancestor/event might be recorded.

Talking of the ‘Mormons’, they provide an absolutely invaluable service to genealogists. I understand that Members of the Mormon Faith, ‘the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ to give its correct title, contribute 10% of their income to their church. Their church, therefore, is not poor. Over many years it has sent emissaries to virtually all foreign countries in an effort to find records of all who might be, or become, their ancestors, for religious purposes. Everything that they could find, with permission, of course, was photographed and recorded, not only for themselves, but the information is slowly being made available to all, at little or no cost. Apart from the one limitation already mentioned above of how surname spellings can be assembled collectively, there are others. Errors have crept in, such as misreading of an entry, subsequently mis-typing the information. Indeed, how accurate was the original information anyway? Ideally, anything found should be checked back to what was originally entered before treating it as ‘gospel’ (that check doesn’t often happen!). However, there are occasions where the actual researcher of a given surname would have recognised what was being written better than a general interpreter who would not know the background.

Getting back to specifics, the PRO indexes were able to reveal Daniel BODENHAM’s marriage to Hannah HARRIS, upon which certificate appears the name of his father, William BODENHAM, forgeman (living, or he would have been specifically pronounced ‘deceased’ in 1853).

Census returns

Apart from registration, a further window on successive decades, the National Census, is taken every 10 years, and its information made public after it is 100 years old. The practice started in 1801, but the first ones were very poor, only the 1841 census being ‘complete’. The first census giving much more complete information was held in 1851, which has been released, as have those for 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901. The 1911 census has now also been released and is available to consult on line, but at at price.

In all these human interpretations of an original record the above remarks about accuracy are very relevant. Mistakes are sometimes very evident, for example, the 1881 census return which includes Daniel BODENHAM has been interpreted as ‘BODONHAM’, which is unfortunate because that particular spelling is not recognised by the 1881 census search engine as a form of ‘BODENHAM’. If I had not already known where they lived I might have thought they did not exist.

The other thought which comes to mind is the subject of reported ages. Frequently the obviously correct person quotes a seemingly spurious age for no obvious reason. I think these differences can often be attributed to:-

a) bad arithmetic

b) unwillingness to own up to being older by those wishing to remain ‘ever-young’

c) both parties coming to the door and, in the hearing of the other afraid to admit to a deliberate previous lie

d) one party coming to the door having to state other occupant’s ages without knowing exactly

e) subsequent misreading of the entry by the interpreter

‘Bodenhams’

In the 1841 census the family unit of William/Harriett/Daniel/Caroline and William appears as expected. In the 1851 census that complete family unit has vanished. The members are scattered far and wide:- William is a lodger in Lydney, so is his son William. Caroline is a ‘visitor’ in another house, and Daniel is living, as a ‘nephew’, with what appears to be at first glance his aunt Harriett and uncle George MORSE near Cinderford. Why? Further research revealed that in 1846 a ‘spinster’ Harriett CULL married a bachelor George MORSE in Cinderford…. Furthermore, not long after the census in 1851, in Lydney, a William BODENHAM ‘forgeman’ and ‘bachelor’, married Elizabeth DAVIES!! (now, persons of these names are not THAT common, and, as Daniel BODENHAM is living in one of the two households, I think it has got to be his own mother Harriett who has married George MORSE, Daniel calling him ‘Uncle’; thereby proving that both of ‘Daniel’s’ parents committed bigamy! In those days there was no divorce for the ordinary man, so I believe both had the Banns read at their appropriate churches and sat tight with bated breath hoping that none of the congregation would denounce them. The more I think of it, the more I believe it was a very common practical measure for estranged persons, and probably a good reason for introducing divorces soon thereafter.

The next thought that occurs is, “Why did the family split up?” (nobody to ask). I also asked myself, am I sure that I have not made a mistake? That compulsory registration I spoke of started in 1837. William’s 3 children were all born before that date. However, sex with no contraception in those days produced children about every 2 years. Perhaps there were others who did not live long enough to be included in any census? It was just possible also that any next birth had been recorded and that it might be found at the PRO. Examination of the indexes showed that there was indeed a possible event that had been recorded in 1838, so with fingers crossed, I ordered the certificate. I had to put down the names of the parents as I understood them so that they could be checked prior to certificate dispatch, and that if I had given conflicting details no certificate would be forthcoming and my money returned…BINGO! I had hit the nail on the head from conjecture, and the certificate arrived. It is available but here is what it says:-

10th Aug. 1838 girl, at Littledean, Woodside, Forest of Dean to William Bodenham and Harriett Bodenham (formerly CULL), labourer, x the mark of Harriett Bodenham, Mother, Littledean, Woodside, Forest, 13th August 1838

So, the guess was correct. William and Harriett did have that fourth child, which did not survive, and their marriage and life together is therefore confirmed. So, why did they separate? My guess (unable to be confirmed) is that Harriett perhaps suffered from postnatal depression and decided she had had enough. Perhaps there were additional factors such as a philandering husband, but split up they did, and remarry they also did, bigamously.

From this point in time, intending to get further back, the period to and before 1800, becomes very difficult indeed. This is what I think happened… The only lead I had was the certificate recording the second marriage of William BODENHAM to Elizabeth DAVIES. It had to show the name and occupation of his father. It said that he was also a ‘William’ and that he was a ‘waterman’ (in all the census records, William (the bigamist) says he is born in ‘Gloucester’, and that means the ‘City of’ rather than the County).

I decided to peruse the Mormon records for ‘BODENHAM’ candidates in Gloucester City. The net result was… very few. There were sporadic entries, but nothing like enough to string together on their own. Only 3 entries seemed relevant; in the City parish of St. Nicholas, where a John BODENHAM and his wife Mary were shown as having 3 sons christened, ‘William’, and Thomas (twice) (indicating that the first one had not lived long). Also, in Minsterworth parish records, was a ‘John BODENHAM’, of suitable age to be that father.

In the Gloucestershire census for 1851, the more elderly listed therein could be as old as, say, 90, i.e. born in the second half of the 1700’s. I interrogated the CDRom, and came up with a family surnamed ‘FIELD‘ wherein whose house in Gloucester lived an old maiden aunt (i.e. a ‘BODENHAM’ by birth and not marriage) aged 80, called Elizabeth BODENHAM, who is reported therein to have been born in Minsterworth. I believe she is therefore the younger sister of the John BODENHAM who was father of William BODENHAM, the ‘waterman’. This is the only concrete shred of real evidence I have of the transition of the BODENHAM family remnants from Minsterworth to Gloucester. The rest is circumstantial. So, until proved wrong…

Thus, the Minsterworth parish records for BODENHAM are assumed to be relevant to us, and, in conjunction with the early Wills, the surname can be traced back to the middle of the 1500’s, i.e. the reign of Elizabeth I, or even as far as Henry VIII, depending upon the ages of the earliest known persons.

More Skeletons in the Closet?

Recently, another odd circumstance has struck me, as follows. Before the days of family planning, contraception being unknown, fertile marriages produced children as regular as clockwork, approximately every 18 months to 2 years apart. The marriage of John BODENHAM to Mary started that way, but produced only 3 offspring before stopping suddenly. This indicates the demise (or desertion!) of one or other partner. Suppose John died…(which he did in 1789). Did his wife Mary remarry? There is a marriage of a Mary BODENHAM to a William JONES in Gloucester, in the same parish where the family were living soon after the birth of the last child, the second ‘Thomas’. Then, there is the christening in Cardiff (a seaport in South Wales, by now being visited by shipping from Gloucester) of a son William, to a ‘William BODENHAM and Ann JONES’. There is also a record of their marriage, but, there is also a record of the birth of a second son called William, to William BODENHAM and Jane. Confusion therefore reigns. Which one is the correct one? Is it a case of ‘you know what sailors are’? The date is about right to be the required candidate, whichever it is. The similarity of maiden surname of the one mother to the new surname of Mary Bodenham who had married William JONES in 1793, seems to be suggesting that after John BODENHAM had died, his wife Mary remarried to JONES, young William was raised in the new JONES household as a stepson. The marriage in Cardiff could well indicate a connection to a stepsister or cousin. As for the other candidate, ‘Jane’, I have no idea, but just a few suspicions… There is another convenient ‘William’ in the census who is the correct age, and a ‘waterman’, from Arlingham… is that the other one?

Since writing the first version of this treatise, I have turned by attention towards the possibility of mutually connecting all known ‘Bodenhams’. To start with, I have concentrated on Gloucestershire, and the further I go, the more I am coming to realise that there must be a common thread somewhere. The surname is sufficiently unusual for this to be so.

One of the puzzling things for me was to discover why all known Minsterworth Bodenhams vanished from the parish in the late 18th century. Examination of old wills has provided an answer, combined with the implications of possible local ‘disgrace’.

Wills

Having (rightly or wrongly) acquired BODENHAM relations in Minsterworth stretching back into the 1500’s, all of whom seem mutually related, it was obviously time to obtain copies of the appropriate Family Wills. They have proved interesting and informative, helping to put fresh on the bare bones, and even extend knowledge back to before the parish records started. Sadly, they give no specific ages of those named, so estimates have to be made. In trying to read the Wills, sense has to be made of the legal jargon as well as the modes of speech in use at the time, and the actual writing itself. Lawyers demanded fees which increased in proportion to the number of words used, resulting in unnecessary, excessive, absolute and completely irrelevant verbosity. Their clients who were illiterate knew no better,and had to accept what the legal profession did without question. I have great difficulty in reading some of the documents (copies available at Gloucester Record Office). The earliest BODENHAM’s were certainly not poor, as evidenced by the significant sums of money mentioned, and the fact that, in the age of serfdom, property was owned.

Although there were quite a few wills from Minsterworth, others, too, were available. I had originally constructed sheet BOD-3/3 using only Minsterworth events, but a nagging idea persisted that after the death of James first wife Sarah, in 1775, and the fact that he was buried in 1797 left an awfully long unknown interval. Examination of three wills for Arlingham/Harescombe might partly have explained this, because all three are said to be ‘brothers’, each mentioning at least one of the others (William and Samuel) and I realised that all of these names indicated the residual offspring on BOD -4/2. In other words, the disappearance of the surname from Minsterworth was immediately clear. Apart from the known transfer from Minsterworth to Gloucester previously outlined, the rest of the family headed for either or both, Arlingham or Harescombe. It all fits. Moreover, the catalyst for the move could well be the fact that another brother from the family (John) was drowned in 1770 on Minsterworth Ham in ‘a most extraordinary flood’ (a tsunami??). I believe they got cold feet and headed for higher ground! However, James obviously still fancied eventually being laid to rest with his first wife back in Minsterworth. I also discovered that when a John Bodenham was the current Churchwarden, he had got a local girl pregnant and had to get married to her after the child was born. In fact she seems to have been his second wife, making a total family of some 15 children, unless there is another explanation of the events. So this state of affairs may also have helped to trigger the move of the family away from Minsterworth.

The search continues…..

Other BODENHAM’s, the ‘Aristocracy’ (so far not related, etc.)

There are records existing of a ‘Landed Gentry’ lineage called BODENHAM the direct line of which seems to have died out about 1887. They had a large mansion called ‘Rotherwas’ situated just south of the city of Hereford, on the River Wye, some 30 miles northwest of the City of Gloucester, in the parish of Dinedor. It was eventually demolished, and the lands surrounding the mansion have become an industrial ‘Trading Estate’. Other than old farm houses, only one of the original buildings remains. It is held by the Trust called ‘English Heritage’, and can be visited by obtaining the key to the building, the Family Chapel, from the local petrol (‘gas’) station. It contains the burials of the family members with their tombstones and inscriptions. A copy of the English Heritage description, etc. follows this ‘Introduction’. I find it interesting, and a valuable piece of background reading. Are we connected to them? I have found no evidence to suggest this so far, but have an open mind.

This Bodenham family had a ‘Crest’, described as:-

‘Azure a fesse between 3 chess rooks or’ (blue, a horizontal band, between 3 gold-coloured ‘chessboard-type rooks, or castles’).

On the version I have seen, 2 of the castles are above the horizontal band, and one is below it. There is no obvious motto.

When the mansion was demolished the oak carved paneling was sold off, I believe.

In London, in Jermyn Street, is situated a long established firm of perfumer’s to the Queen, i.e. with a Royal Warrant, with the trade name Floris of London. The original family name of the business became BODENHAM when a marriage took place in the 1800’s, but the Company remains FLORIS, I once visited the shop and spoke to one of the managers, a Peter Bodenham (now deceased I believe), who showed me a carved oak BODENHAM family crest (as described above) which had originated at Rotherwas, which he said he had obtained when stationed near Hereford in the War.

Another reference to the surname turned up at Buckland Abbey, near Plymouth, once upon a time the home of Sir Francis Drake, renowned defeater of the Spanish Armada in 1588. They have on display a document (his Will) upon which appears the signature of Jonas BODENHAM, the Purser on Drake’s Ship, the Golden Hind. Not only was he the purser, but also Drake’s relative by marriage, according to a book on Drake in the maritime reference library of the City of Plymouth. They have another book wherein another intrepid BODENHAM is recorded… probably in reality a pirate! (like Drake!). Efforts by me to track down the origin and demise of ‘Jonas’ failed. I wonder whether it was his real name? It is most unusual, and his reputed parents are not credited in the parish where they got married (St. Budeaux, Plymouth, 1560) with any son of that name. The only record there is of a son called ‘Zacharye’ in May 1564 (did he prefer a nickname like ‘Jonas’? – perhaps he was ‘christened’ thus by fellow sailors?).

I am also in touch with another BODENHAM researcher who claims connection to the aristocracy as a family tradition within his ancestry. Proof would be very much harder to establish, I expect. So far, connecting him to me is proving a bit tricky. If it exists, there may well have been a similar tradition within my branch of the family too, but due to the fact that William (the bigamist)’s father William died so young (in 1809, aged about 27, when son aged about 2) and William the son therefore being brought up buy his mother, all knowledge about such matters would have died with the father.

Conclusion

This is not intended as a definitive work. Family History never is. Life goes on. Research never finishes no matter how much has been undertaken. Always, new avenues are discovered which might produce another factor, and need to be examined. Therefore, readers, if you have persevered with the above rigmarole as far as this, and you know more, or wish to add or change your related family to their appropriate position, please feel free to do so, It is a Family History, not just a history of the family as I currently understand it. I hope as time goes by that you will add all the important facts that you know, or have knowledge of, and the developments which affect you. It is easily accomplished by sending posts, and I will be very pleased to hear from you.

John Bodenham, Plymouth, Devon

Epilogue

Father sadly passed away in 2018 and I haven’t had the time to look into our family genealogy for several years (nor indeed this website). It was quite by chance that during Lockdown 1 of Covid-19 I heard about “The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland“. They were running a limited period of free access to their data on the internet (which I decided to take a look at). Of course I looked up Bodenham and as a result thought they might be interested in the research my father had carried out over the years. Following an email enquiry (of which they were inundated with emails at the time) informing them of this website I received a response to say they would get back to me in due course – but I never really expected a reply.

We are currently in Lockdown 3 and out of the blue I have received a detailed response. I will need to check the precise details myself but Dr Peter McClure (co-editor, Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland) states that “there is no reason to think that your family is not descended from the medieval gentry-cum-merchant family that once lived in Dewchurch and in Gloucester.”

I have copied here their revised entry for Bodenham which makes for very interesting reading, which in essence now takes our family tree back to c1200-1300.

Draft entry from the unpublished 2nd edition of The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, ed. Patrick Hanks, Richard Coates, and Peter McClure (Oxford University Press).

Bodenham

Frequencies: GB 1881: 238, GB 2011: 554; Ireland 2008: 6. main GB location, 18812: Herefs; also Shrops, Worcs, and Warwicks main Irish location, 1847-64:-

English, Locative name: from Bodenham (Herefs), recorded as Bodeham in 1086, Bodenham in 1249. The place-name is from the Old English Personal name Boda (in the genitive case Old English Bodan) + hamm ‘land in a river-bend, hemmed-in land’.

Early Bearers: Hugh de Bodeham, 1180 in Pipe Rolls (Herefs); Laurence de Bodenham, about 1277 in TNA (Dublin, Ireland; Robert de Bodenham, 1300 in TNA (Hereford, Herefs); Robert de Bodenham, 1327 in Subsidy Rolls (Wormington in Much Dewchurch, Gloucs); Walter Bodenham of Little Wormington, merchant of Gloucester, 1377 in TNA; Johannes Bodenham, 1377 in Poll Tax (Woodstock, Oxon); Johanne Bodenham, 1379 in Poll Tax (Walterstone and Chanstone, Heresfs); Willelmo Bodenham, 1379 in Poll Tax (Bredwardine, Heresfs); William Bodenham, burgess of Gloucester, 1380 in TNA; Johannes Bodenham, 1381 in Poll Tax (Southwark, Surrey); Roger de Bodenham, 1396 in Heresfs Record Office (Dewchurch, Heresfs); John Bodenham, 1578 in IGI (Hereford, Heresfs); Anna Bodenham, 1597 in IGI (Fugglestone Saint Peter, Wilts); Thomas Boddenham, 1597 in IGI (eastham, Worcs); Thomas Bodenham, 1635 in IGI (Eastham, Cheshire); Joice Bodenham, 1701 in IGI (Dowles, Shrops); William Bodenham, 1814 in IGI (Wellesbourne, Warwicks); Benjamin Bodenham, 1835 in IGI (Kingston, Heresfs).

Other info: For an account of the family history see https://www.bodenhamgenealogy.co.uk/. References: Heresfs Place-Names, pp 44-5; Watts, Dictionary, p. 67.

It will certainly be worth subscribing online to The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland in order to follow this up (or purchasing the 2nd edition of the book when it comes out). Once I have had a chance to look into this in more detail I should be able to formally add this exciting addition to our family tree! Dad would have been thrilled with this development!

Andrew Bodenham

Top of Page