People search
(married name will be ignored if broad check is ticked;
a broad check includes a search for nicknames, married names and other alternative names)Where were they from?
Search for places, see all people in the tree with events in that place, and (where added) see places marked on a map with photos, links and other information about the location.

John Williams VOGWELL
Set As Default Person -
Name John Williams VOGWELL Relationship 
with Teresa Ann GOATHAM Born 21 Dec 1899 Devonport, Devon, England
- From 1911 census where shown as aged 11; name shown as James in the 1901 census (aged 1) but mother's name wrong - I think 1901 ennumerator was careless
This is the only birth of a James or John in 1899 / 1900:
GRO ref: Vogwill, John Williams q1 1900 Devonport RD 5b 309
Actual date from naval papers (Discovery catalogue entry)
Gender Male Died Yes, date unknown
Siblings3 brothers and 5 sisters Patriarch & Matriarch
William VOGWELL, b. Est 1720, d. Nov 1789, Whitchurch, Devon, England
(Age ~ 69 years) (4 x Great Grandfather) 
Grace WILLIAMS, b. Abt 1864, Brighton, Sussex, England
, d. Dec Q 1947, Liskeard Reg Dist, Cornwall, England
(Age ~ 83 years) (Mother) 
Person ID I13649 All Last Modified 10 Apr 2014
Father William Henry VOGWILL, b. Abt 1864, Linkinhorne, Cornwall, England
, d. Dec Q 1927, Liskeard Reg Dist, Cornwall, England
(Age ~ 63 years) Mother Grace WILLIAMS, b. Abt 1864, Brighton, Sussex, England
, d. Dec Q 1947, Liskeard Reg Dist, Cornwall, England
(Age ~ 83 years) Married 25 Oct 1888 St. Andrew’s Church, Calstock, Cornwall, England
- From Cornwall OPC database
Shows William Henry VOGWILL, aged 24, resident Gunnislake, bachelor, a miner, father George, also a miner
Grace WILLIAMS, aged 24, of Harrowbeer [now Harrowbarrow], spinster, father John, a navy pensioner
Married by banns, both signed, witnesses were George VOGWILL and Jane Parken HOWE
Family ID F5691 Family Group Page | Family Chart
- From 1911 census where shown as aged 11; name shown as James in the 1901 census (aged 1) but mother's name wrong - I think 1901 ennumerator was careless


