Apparent confusion in identity between two early immigrants, James Brown/e.

+4 votes
261 views

Likely more than one man has been confused in the profile of James Browne, Browne-499. By this I mean that the man who married twice (first to Judith ____; then, Sarah Cutting) and only later for a short time resided Newbury, Massachusetts, is unlikely also the early settler of Newbury, said by some to have been Sarah (Brown) Noyes' brother. The more likely scenario is that these were two different men, both James Brown/e.

 

Although often confused in print, the earliest historical accounts of the two men indicate they settled in different towns (one at Charlestown, the other Newbury), had different social standing and conflicting associations during the Antinomian Controversy. It does not seem likely that the Newbury settler, often referred to as Mr. James Noyes, said to have walked 40 miles in May 1637 to help defeat the antinomians, would so support the agitators six months later as to be ordered disarmed, as was the case for the Charlestown settler.

Sarah (Brown) Noyes’ husband, Rev. James Noyes, well identified himself during the controversy as a supporter of and aid to Revs. Cotton and Wilson. Here again it seems unlikely that the James Brown ordered disarmed during the political conflict had close Noyes family connections during the Antinomian Controversy.  On this point, it is notable that among the many sons born to the Charlestown settler, none were given the names Joseph, Thomas or Moses, all thought to have been associated with the birth family of Sarah (Brown) Noyes.

In today's light, Sarah Cutting's husband, whose origins and parentage are unknown, can be considered the James Brown/e made free 1633/4, of Charlestown, who was ordered disarmed in 1637.

WikiTree profile: James Browne
in Genealogy Help by GeneJ X G2G6 Mach 5 (51.4k points)
See Cutting-51 for parentage of Sarah Browne formerly Cutting.

1 Answer

+1 vote
 
Best answer
To complicate matters, every John Browne had a son nemaed John Browne, some of whom married women with the same first name!

It's manageable, it will just take careful paying attention to primary documentation.
by Michael Lewis G2G6 (8.7k points)
selected by GeneJ X
Hi Michael Lewis,
 
I'm with you. There must have been a rule requiring Browns to name a son
John. The Millers in Pennsylvania seemed to have adopted the very same
rule.
 
With some helpful editorial input/questions by another WikiTree member, Robin Kabrich, and a long time Noyes farmily historian, I did prepare a statement that includes extended references. The post above is the summary extracted from that material. 
 
Thanks for the smile.--GeneJ
 
I think every family has one of those - the same name through the generations. In mine, it's the Pikes, the Johns and the Roberts. I have no less than 10 Robert Pikes in my direct line, and I lost track of the number of John Pikes! It  does make research interesting at times!

Related questions

+4 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
2 answers
66 views asked Mar 3, 2020 in Genealogy Help by T B G2G2 (2.9k points)
0 votes
0 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
1 answer
184 views asked Dec 17, 2017 in The Tree House by Barry Smith G2G6 Pilot (210k points)
+5 votes
0 answers
106 views asked Nov 28, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Anne B G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
+4 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
0 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...