The descent from Edward I to Hugh Brooke (abt. 1416 - bef. 1453) (Brooke-65) (through Joan Baybrooke (abt. 1392 - 1442) (Baybrooke-2)) is unambiguous, and has been approved by the Magna Carta project.
Similarly, the descent from John Brooke(-abt 1522) (Brooke-2406) to Mary (Towse) Battiscombe (-1628) (Towse-81) is unambiguous, and supported by sources (even if not all the dates are clear).
However, the descent from Hugh to John is unclear, with conflicting sources.
A- John Brooke (and his brother William) are the sons of Hugh Brooke and Petronell
· The Visitation of the County of Somerset in the Year 1623 pg 15(https://books.google.com/books?id=paXRXTR6SXAC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=%22The+Visitation+of+the+County+of+Somerset+in+the+Year+1623%22+Hugh+Brooke&source=bl&ots=Z3GBV6ibhm&sig=ACfU3U1ePSMXl7Pg3EYn7b0vrnMDPeDULw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDlu2V1LHqAhXrl3IEHf79AsQQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Visitation%20of%20the%20County%20of%20Somerset%20in%20the%20Year%201623%22%20Hugh%20Brooke&f=false)
B – John Brooke (and his brother William) are sons of Thomas (son of Hugh Brooke) and Anne Spert (Spert -1)(daughter of Thomas Spert)
· Tudor Place (http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/BROOKE1.htm#John%20BROOKE3)
· Brook,OP SOMERSET AND DEVON, BARONS OF COBHAM IN KENT. BY W. H. HAMILTON ROGERS, F.S.A (https://sanhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/10HamiltonRogers-1.pdf)
However, there are several things that support interpretation A
First, while there is not a lot of data about Anne Spert, but there is quite a lot of information about her father, Thomas Spert (Spert-2), for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Spert . He died in 1541, leaving two children, Anne and Richard, by his third wife. Richard was not yet of age (the Wikipedia article says that his will, written 1541 leaves “ his pasturage in Blackwall to his widow until his son Richard reached the age of majority”). Therefore Anne was probably born after 1510, and there is no way she could be the mother of John Brook who died, with at least 3 grown children, in 1522.
Therefore, if Anne Spert married a Thomas Brooke ( as stated in the visitation of Gloustershire), it can not be THIS Thomas Brooke.
But this still leaves open the question of whether there was a “Thomas” between Hugh, and the brothers John and William.
W.H. Hamilton Rogers quotes Dr J. P. Norris, in his 1882 "account of the church of St. Mary Redcliffe" (of which he had been vicar): "Thomas Canynges, the last surviving grandson of the wealthy and munifi- cent William Canynges, inherited an estate at Wells from his mother, and sold his grandfather's house in Redcliffe Street. In 1500 it seems to have become the residence of Thomas Brook, the father of John Brook, whose gravestone, inlaid with brass, is in Redcliffe church."
The question is how much credibility we should apply to Norris’s “seems to have”? Does that just mean that he is unsure of who was living in the Caynynges house? Or does it mean he is unsure whether the-Thomas-Brook-who-lived-in-the-Catnynges-house was the father of the-John-Brook-who-is-buried-in-Redcliffe?
Or is the Somerset Visitation more credible?
For what it is worth, the description of John Brook’s gravestone refers to the arms of Braybroke and Brook, but does not mention the arms of Spert .
Wikitree currently has it both ways:
Hugh Brooke (Brooke-65) is shown with 4 sons
· David Brooks (1446)
· John Brook (1448 – 1522)
· Thomas Brooks (1450 – after 1500)
· William Brook (1454)
And then Thomas Brooks (Brooks-749) is shown with a son
· John Brooke (-1522)
Which is correct?