Thomas Drake, Shipwright, married Frances Poad (bap. 15 Jul 1764), daughter of John Poad and Honor Joll, in Stoke Damerel on 25 May 1784. There's a record which appears to be John Poad giving his permission for his daughter to marry, presumably as she was then still a minor (under 21).
Thomas and Frances Drake appear to have had 11 children:
- Thomas Drake bap. 2 Jan 1785
- Frances Drake bap. 14 Oct 1787
- George Drake bap. 7 Apr 1790
- Elizabeth Drake bap. 29 Jan 1792
- John Poad Drake bap. 20 Jul 1794 [1]
- Francis William Drake bap. 6 Mar 1796
- James Drake bap. 10 Dec 1797. (Buried at 2 y 8 m on 19 Jul 1800.)
- Hannah Drake b. 1799, bap. 3 Feb 1800 *
- James Drake bap. 28 Dec 1801 *
- Charles Drake b. 10 Oct 1802, bap. 15 Dec 1812
- Mary Drake b. 20 Apr 1810, bap. 15 Dec 1812
"
Thomas Drake was for some time an official in the navy yard at Plymouth, and showed great independence of character, injuring his prospects by refusing to connive at malpractices, and consequently dying in obscurity in Jersey 20 May 1835." [
Source] This explains why, in 1841, we find Frances Drake (75) Ind [presumably of Independent Means], living at 31
Hill Street, St Helier, Jersey, with youngest daughter, Mary Drake (30) Tailoress and two of Mary's illegitimate children: Edward Drake (9) and Mary Mary (5).
Frances Drake is said to have died in 1848, presumably in Jersey.
The entry in the
Dictionary of National Biography, however, calls that into question, saying that "Thomas Drake was fourth in descent from one John Drake (1564–1640), a farmer,
who has been wrongly identified with a cousin of the admiral."
This is the burial of that John Drake, who may or may not have been a page to Sir Francis (I'm reading that those duties were probably carried out by the cousin he was confused with). But as there always are with famous people though, there are so many hopeful, but plain wrong records cited, it's now impossible to completely separate the facts from the fiction.
What I can
categorically say is that this isn't the Thomas Drake, bap. 1751, cited on one website, when it was even clearly stated on the baptism that the child had died within days. Still, when you're wishfully attempting to claim descent from the infamous Sir Francis, why allow such minor inconvenience (or pesky
genealogical standards) get in the way? So what,
if any, link is there between this Drake family and the famous Devon-born slaver, pirate / privateer, bowls player and trouncer of the Armada? Still absolutely no idea, but I can't disprove one [yet] either. What I did discover is that Drake is a surprisingly common name around Devon. Reckon he had a bike!