no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Thomas (Hook) Hooke (1648 - 1698)

Thomas Hooke formerly Hook
Born in Englandmap
Son of [father unknown] and [mother unknown]
[sibling(s) unknown]
Husband of — married 1688 in Prince George's County, Marylandmap
[children unknown]
Died at about age 50 in Prince George's County, Marylandmap
Profile last modified | Created 8 Jul 2017
This page has been accessed 407 times.



Thomas Hooke married Annapole Beall about 1688 when she was 16. She was b. Bef 1672, and d. Aft 1702, in Prince George's County, Maryland, US. [1]

  1. James Hook, b. Abt 1688, Calvert County, Maryland d. 3 Jul 1738, Prince George's County, Maryland - (Aged 50) [2]
  2. John Hook (mentioned in the will) under the age of 21 ("in their minority")
  3. Thomas Hook (mentioned in the will) under the age of 21 ("in their minority")

It seems that once the Hooke's moved to America they spelt the name as "Hook".

On the 23rd September, 1697, just 8 months before he died, Thomas Hook of Prince George County, made his will. Sons John and Thomas and wife mentioned but not named, to have charge of 2 children during minority.
26 May 1698 - Will probated in Prince Georges County, Maryland. Wife, Annaple, signs administration bond. [2]

Thomas Hooke is mentioned in the website family tree: Early Colonial Settlers of Southern Maryland [2] It states that Thomas Hooke died on the 26th May, 1698 in Prince George's County, Maryland, US. [3]

Research Notes

So far this "unreliable" source from Maryland US and the secondary source of FamilySearch book, Item Number 272541-humphrey-hooke-of-bristol-and-his-family-and-descendants-in-england-and-america-during-the-seventeenth-century, are the only sources found for his death. 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


  1. Maryland Family Tree: (
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 website family tree: Early Colonial Settlers of Southern Maryland
  3. "Death Entry" Thomas Hooke ( Title No. 384134 by Todd, Frederick William, 1842-1902, by Hook, Charles Ruffin, Hook : Family History Library; Publisher Digital FamilySearch International (Accessed 3 Mar 2020)


  • Source: S-1913150136 Repository: #R-1913150514 Title: Ancestry Family Trees Publication: Online publication - Provo, UT, USA: Original data: Family Tree files submitted by Ancestry members. Note: This information comes from 1 or more individual Ancestry Family Tree files. This source citation points you to a current version of those files. Note: The owners of these tree files may have removed or changed information since this source citation was created. Page: Ancestry Family Trees Note: Data: Text:

More Genealogy Tools

Sponsored Search

Is Thomas your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon contact private message the profile manager, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by

No known carriers of Thomas's ancestors' DNA have taken a DNA test.

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.

Sponsored by Ancestry ®

Family History Search.


Enter a grandparent's name. Just one grandparent can lead you to many discoveries.

Comments: 4

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
This profile has no reliable sources that support Thomas being the son of Humphrey Hooke & Florence Smyth.

His birth date is before the couple were married & the wills of both ‘parents’ are included in ‘source’ number 3 on this profile “Humphrey Hooke of Bristol etc.” by F. Todd. Neither of these wills (Humphrey, or Florence) mention a son. Humphrey mentions 3 daughters - Florence, Mary, & Martha. (See pages 199-202) It is evident from the will that he does not have a male heir at the time of his death. Humphrey is basically selling off land to pay his debts & anything left over goes to his daughters & their heirs; but if they have no heirs, it goes to his brother Sir Thomas Hooke & his heirs. (N.B. emigration would not preclude a son from being heir apparent, & cutting off a son would be a legal matter.)

It is stated on the profile of Florence (Smyth) Hooke that Thomas is mentioned in her will, but this is not the case! She only mentions Mary & Martha & her 4 Dymer grandchildren - the children of her daughter Florence (See page 202)

Humphrey Hooke died in somewhat strained financial circumstances (as can be seen in his will) hence why King’s Weston was sold to Robert Southwell after his death, & various legal wrangles between Humphrey’s wife, daughters, & other interested parties, occurred in relation to his lands. In none of these proceedings is the existence of a son mentioned.

Thomas Hook seems to have been attached to these parents on the basis of a surname alone (a surname prevalent in the British Isles.) There appears to be no evidence for this conjecture & he should probably be detached.

posted by L Felix
I didn't attach Humphrey to this profile, but I am removing it
posted by Robert Moore II
Hook-1001 and Hooke-10 appear to represent the same person because: Same wife, same death details. Birth date differs by 3 years, possible typo.
posted by Paul Toplis
Hooke-17 and Hooke-10 appear to represent the same person because: same person
posted by [Living McQueen]

H  >  Hook  |  H  >  Hooke  >  Thomas (Hook) Hooke

Categories: Prince George's County, Maryland