Re: Links: Brown, Brundige, & Purdy's
-
In reply to:
Re: Links: Brown, Brundige, & Purdy's
Alec Purdy 8/02/10
Thanks for the reply Alec.I had sent you a personal email after our last correspondence - perhaps you did not receive it.I still have a number of issues with your placements.Here are some of the points I raised and some new ones.
1) According to Bolton, there is a Peter Brown on the 1683 list of inhabitants of Rye.I assume this means that he must have been at least 21 years old at the time - thus born by 1662.I know of no other Peter Brown in Rye at that time and tend to think that he must have been "Peter 3 Brown" or Peter Brown Sr. who was married to Rebecca Disbrow.
2) Peter Disbrow, father of Rebecca Disbrow, was married at Stamford in 1657.In the lists that I have seen of his children, Rebecca is listed third (I don't know how the order was arrived at).But this would possibly suggest that Rebecca was born by about 1662 - which is in line with "Peter 3 Brown" having been born by 1662.
3) If "Peter 3 Brown" or Peter Sr. was born by 1662, it seems unlikely (although not impossible) that he was still having children in 1732 (the birth of Nathaniel).
4) In the 1731/32 will of Peter Brown, his sons are all under age 21 and his daughters are called Brown - so none of them had married yet.While the will does name daughters Sarah and Hannah, they cannot be the ones who married Francis Purdy (before 1714 - and likely before 1707) and Ebenezer Mead (in 1717), respectively.Thus, there had to be two sets of daughters by that name who were daughters of two different Peter Browns.Sarah (Brown) Purdy and Hannah (Brown) Mead would have been the daughters of "Peter 3 Brown" or Peter Sr. who was married to Rebecca Disbrow.
5) As his children are all under age (males) or unmarried (females) in 1731/32, the Peter Brown of that will is not likely to be "Peter 3 Brown" who married Rebecca Disbrow.
6) The deed in which Martha (Butler) Brown is called a widow is from 1736.So she could not have been the wife of the Peter Brown who died after 1764 (when a deed was recorded).
I suggest that "Peter 3 Brown" or Peter Brown Sr. was born by 1662 and married Rebecca Disbrow.The 1714 deed in which he gives land to Francis and Sarah (Brown) Purdy almost reads like a will:
"...granted & given premises wth. all ye privilidges & appurtenances to ye same belonging or in any wise appertaining unto my aforesd. Son & daughter Ffrancis & Sarah Purdy, their heirs, & assigns fforever and to their only proper use benefit & behoofe forever, only reserveing to my wife Rebeccah Brown, her thirds out of the above granted premises if it so please ye Lord yt. she revives me yt. then she shall & may enjoy the same according to law or as the gives or allowes a widow in such cases ffurthermore I ye above mentioned Peter Browne do ffreely ffully and absolutely give & grant, unto my said Sonn Ffrancis & my sd. daughter Sarah, all & evey. part of moveable estate which was mine & they have now in possestion and after my decease my said Son or daughter or either of them to have & enjoy all my moveable estate *** the lord shall be pleased then to Bless me wth. all only reserved the **** please god yt. my aforesd. wife, Rebeccah Brown, survives me & **** be my widow that yn. she shall have & enjoy a third part **** moveable estate..."
So it is possible that this Peter Brown died shortly after this deed was made.I do not know who the father of this Peter Brown would have been.It is possible that he was the son of Peter 1 Brown and Elizabeth and born between say 1650-1655.No records have been found for the births of any of their sons.If he was the son of Hackaliah Brown, then Hackaliah would have had to have been born by 1640.And this raises problems because Mary Hoyt's father is said to have been born about 1625.Also, Hackaliah Brown Jr. is said to have been born about 1695 - meaning a 33 year span of births if Peter was born about 1662.
I further suggest that Peter Brown Jr. (the one you call "Peter 4 Brown") was the one to have married Martha Butler as his only wife.He would likely have been born about 1685-1690 and married by 1711.[They had a son Peter who was the one who died after 1764 - his wife unknown.]Again, I don't know who the father of this Peter Brown Jr. was.It is certainly possible that he was the son of Peter Brown Sr. and Rebecca Disbrow (both of their fathers were also named Peter - so it is within reason that they would name a son Peter).It is also possible that he was a son of Hackaliah Brown and Mary Hoyt.
Much of the Brown family data has been taken from Spencer Mead and his data has been consistently proven unreliable.[See this link on Francis Brown: http://www.ctgenweb.org/county/cofairfield/pages/stamford/fbrown_background.htm.]http://www.ctgenweb.org/county/cofairfield/pages/stamford/fbrown_background.htm.]An early TAG article by Donald Jacobus also questioned the reliability of Mead's book.
There is a definite lack of data for this area, making conclusive family placements very difficult.
Finally, as to the issue of Martha Williams marrying a Peter Brown, I still question this.In extensive searches, I have been unable to find anything linking a Martha Williams to Thomas Merritt.I do find that John MARSHALL of Greenwich died in 1715 and named his son-in-law Thomas Merritt of Rye (it doesn't give his daughter's name).A Williams will naming a daughter Martha Brown does not seem like enough to conclude that she married a PETER Brown.Are there any other records besides the will?
Karen