David Broke
English judge and Member of Parliament
David Brook (c. 1498–1560) (also Brooke or Broke) was an English judge and Member of Parliament.
Life
He was of a West country family living at Glastonbury, Somerset. His father, John Brook, was also a lawyer and serjeant-at-law; he died in 1525, and was buried in the church of St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol, having been principal seneschal of the neighbouring monastery. David was appointed reader at the Inner Temple in the autumn of 1534, and again in Lent term 1540, when he was also treasurer, and in 1541 he became governor. He was recorder of Bristol (1541–1549) and M.P. for the city (1542–1544).
On 3 February 1547, the first week of Edward VI's reign, he received the coif, the degree of serjeant-at-law having been bestowed on him as one of the last acts of Henry VIII. On 25 November 1551 he was appointed king's serjeant, and when, two years later (1 September 1553), Sir Henry Bradshaw was removed, he succeeded him as lord chief baron of the exchequer. On 2 October, the day after Queen Mary's coronation, Brook and others, according to Henry Machyn, were dubbed knights of the carpet.
Notices of his judgments continue to occur in James Dyer's reports until Hilary term 1557–58.
The public source identifies “David Broke” as english judge and Member of Parliament. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around David, Broke and English.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “David Broke”, the useful work is to connect “english judge and Member of Parliament” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 2, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5231773. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1498, 1560, 1525 and 1534.
Official terminology may obscure informal participation, dissent or communities documented only indirectly. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “David Broke”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow David Broke primary sources, David Broke archive and David research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “David Broke”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “David Broke” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.