Thomas Rhodes born either 1785/1788 in Nottingham or Nottinghamshire (Hucknall?)

[Rhodeplay]

I was hoping someone may be able to help me. My 4th grandfather was Thomas Rhodes who spent most of his life in the Forest of dean in Gloucestershire - he was a stone mason. Thomas married twice once to Mary Frowen (1810) and upon her death to a Mary Danfield (1847). The 1851 census indicates Thomas was born in Nottingham or maybe Nottinghamshire. The census indicates that he was born abt 1785. However, the burial records of 1861 suggest he was aged 73 at the time of his death making his year of birth 1788. His second marriage certificate to Mary Cook (she was a widow and her maiden name was Danfield) indicates that his father was William, occupation farmer - there is no mention of William being deceased at the time of the marriage.

I have noted that some researchers have suggested he came from Hucknall Torkard (of Lord Byron fame) and there does appear to be parish records indicating the birth of a Thomas Rhodes - father William mother Mary. The problem I have is trying if at all possible to link them. Also if the Hucknall Rhodes's are indeed my ancestors how can I trace them back even further? 

I also note that some have suggested Thomas was the founder of the baptist church in Cinderford, however Thomas born in Nottinghamshire was married twice and then buried all at the Newland parish church. His grandson also Thomas (1837-1873) son in law to William Morgan was one of the builders of Cinderford Baptist Church. So i think this is were there may have been confusion. Thomas of Nottinghamshire had 2 sons with Mary Frowen, Thomas and Henry. Mary Frowen already had a son (base born) called William who later adopted the name Frowen - Rhodes. Any help would be appreciated.

[jim1]

Unfortunately you've got to the point we all get to where there's a dearth of information.
I can see only 2 Thomas' with fathers William born around that time in Notts. The one you have & another b.1792 Headon which is much further north of Nottingaham than Hucknall which is only about 7 mls. away.
A will would have been ideal but I can't see one for William so the Thomas born 1788 Hucknall is probably him so you may have to list as a probable.
You could take a look at his 1st. marriage & see if it gives any previous Parish or any Rhodes witnesses.

[Rhodeplay]

Jim1

Many thanks for your reply. I dont have the actual 1st marriage certificate but I do have an extract of the parish records; unfortunately no parental names are shown, Thomas is described as a Bachelor and Mary Frowen a Spinster, witnesses are Thomas Frown, relative of Mary and a Thomas Bond. To date I have not found any connections between Bond and my tree. I have no knowledge of any wills but I have seen a reference to a William Rhodes being a voter so I assume he must have been a land owner. Also Thomas's second marriage certificate does indicate William to be a Farmer and not just an agricultural labourer. Of course Thomas may have wished to exagerate his fathers status. Anyway interesting to know that there were only 2 Thomas Rhodes born around that time in the Nottingham area. The birth of Thomas 1792 would have only just made him 18 upon his first marriage, which in my view is less likely than Thomas born in 1788, which also ties in with the burial records. Again many thanks for your assistance. 

[jim1]

There wouldn't have been a marriage cert. for his 1st. marriage as they didn't arrive until July 1837.
There may be a will for William but proved at one of the Peculiar Courts but not knowing where he lived you wouldn't know which one.
A voter didn't have to be a landowner, he might have only had a right to vote in local elections which had a much broader electorate.
I would work on the assumption you have the right one but keep him as a probable.
I would do some more research into Hucknall & see if there are any land leases, Burgess Rolls etc. involving this family.

[Rhodeplay]

Jim 1

Once again thanks for your help and useful information. As you say seems likely that Thomas born 1788 is a a strong probable, just need to keep digging little by little to see if I can get more evidence.