Introduction.

       The genealogy of the Browne family of present concern has already been extensively documented in two Booklets written in the 1980s by the family's unofficial archivist - Reggie Browne (1897-1991), copies of which are held by various family members. The basic structure of the family's genealogy, and a great deal of its actual detail, is thus already available in those two excellent books - to which reference will often be made here while seeking to complement that material.

       The family's confirmed history spans a period from about 1680 (the estimated year of birth of its first certain member) to the present day - that is, over three centuries. Many noteworthy characters appear in the family during the 19th and 20th centuries as they progressed in society and are well described in Reggie's books. The present account will, initially, focus more on events and personnel of the previous two centuries, especially in this first instance as they pertain to the question of the origin of the family. This subject comprises the material of the first section below (already written and thus readily uploaded onto this site) and can serve as a general introduction to what is intended to be a more detailed account to be compiled subsequently - although some of that detail may, over time, be integrated into this introductory section as well.

       From the middle of the 18th century until the middle of the 20th, a family of the name Browne, who resided mainly in London, produced a number of successful and worthy citizens before spreading their several branches mainly into the home counties. As mentioned, a later member of the family, ‘Reggie Browne’, researched the background of his family and published two comprehensive booklets on them - ‘The Brownes of London (1986)’ and ‘Hunting The Dorset Hare (1984)’.

The following is an abridged version of the earlier parts of these which seeks to fill in certain gaps and address various anomalies. More detail on the family will follow later.

       The earliest certain ancestor of the family was one Robert Browne who was shown in a family Bible entry to have died on June 12th, 1738 at the home of his son Benjamin on Heddon Street in St James, Westminster (just off present day Regent Street). He was buried on the 18th of that month in the churchyard of St James’, Paddington. This is all we know about him for certain. We know nothing with total confidence about his origins or any earlier members of the Browne or Brown family (the spelling varied but settled on Browne by the late 18th century). Knowing the age of his son Benjamin at his marriage, however (as discussed further below), and hence his year of birth, we may in addition reasonably estimate two other ‘probabilities’ at least about Robert: 1. He was likely born around 1680 (plus or minus 5 years, say) and   2. He would likely marry therefore about 1700-10, although to whom is unknown. Absolutely nothing else is known about him for certain. As Reggie says in his Introductory remarks: "Unless he arrived from Outer Space, one feels that it should be possible to trace his origins. From discussions with older members of the family and various documents, Reggie informs us that 'Family tradition points directly to Dorset'; I have never heard or read of any other area in connection with the family's descent". The present account seeks to further establish this family tradition but does so in terms of a different route and outcome than pursued by Reggie, or by those who preceded him in this quest. But it will also hold this view in moderate 'check' in the event that later clues may lead us in another direction.

       Certain suggestions about Robert and family may also require revision. There is, for example, no evidence that he was necessarily ‘aged’ at his death - at say 80 years or more - rather than the 60 or so to be suggested here, or that his wife was necessarily named Elizabeth, or any other particular name. Both may, or may not, have been the case. The wife of his son Benjamin was an Elizabeth and thus giving this name to their first daughter, as they did, provides no confidence that he was thereby also commemorating his mother’s name, as much as his wife’s, although he may have. One basis for suggesting that this was the name of Robert’s wife - the burial in 1712 of an Elizabeth Brown in Shaftesbury, Dorset (one suggested place of the family's origin) - is also unsupported, as discussed later. There was (until recently) also no evidence that his son Benjamin had any siblings - as a brother Robert or sister Elizabeth, say (another suggestion) - although again it is possible. [Note: a later discovery by Sir Peter Leslie (a present day descendent) of a page of details regarding Robert and early family - found in the binding of an old family Prayer Book - amazingly supports some of the foregoing in that it gives Robert’s year of birth as 1680 (as here estimated) and in Shaftesbury, his marriage in either 1700 or 1708 (the last number being indefinite), his wife as an Elizabeth nee Browne and his children as Benjamin and Elizabeth with, in each case, exact birth dates. For the daughter Elizabeth, this was shown as 1713, thus negating the idea of a mother Elizabeth dying in Shaftesbury in 1712. The reliability of these findings is also discussed later.]

       Thus, we do not know for certain where Robert Browne was born [although possibly in Shaftesbury], nor to whom - probably around 1680. It may equally have been in London [depending on the veracity of those entries found in the Prayer Book lining] but may have been virtually anywhere in the country; the surname Brown(e) showing no regional bias. If it was outside London, we also don’t know when he arrived in the capitol. It may have been before, or after, his son Benjamin was born - as his place of birth is also uncertain [although he too was said - in the family Bible - to be born in Shaftesbury - on Sept 15th, 1711]. Finally, we don’t know what, if any, was Robert’s occupation or social status. Was he styled an Esq or Gent, for example, or neither? One weak additional clue we may have about him pertains to the presence of a Robert Browne as a rate-paying resident in the 1720s/30s (and possibly his wife until 1744) of a house situated in the same area as would later become Benjamin’s ‘centre of gravity’ in Westminster. Certainly there were no other Robert Brownes paying rates in St James then, despite this being such a common name. The area concerned is near the junction of Swallow Street and Piccadilly - close to St James church. This Robert Browne lived for several years on Piccadilly just east of this junction and may have been of Gent status therefore (as were many in the area). He may have been Benjamin’s father, therefore, as discussed further below, but this too must remain speculation.

       The certain information we do have about Robert's death and burial, as described above, arises from two sources: an old family Bible (re-copied into the equally old Prayer Book) and a confirming entry in the burial register for St James’s, Paddington. [Note: The entries re-copied into the visible pages of the Prayer Book were not those found more recently hidden in the lining/binding of same.] Other members of Benjamin’s family were also buried in that churchyard - both before and after Robert - and thus his details must have been passed down, along with those of the others, and entered into the later family Bible a generation or more later (now estimated to be around 1820). The relevant church was thus identified, by which means such documentary evidence on Robert (and the others) was happily confirmed by checking the actual registers. Whilst the parish churches of Westminster all had burial grounds at or near their own churches at that time, they also used 2 or 3 suburban churchyards, including St James’s, Paddington, which had fewer burials and more spacious grounds. In the 1730s and’40s, the choice of burial venue for a given parish seemed almost arbitrary. Many of the residents of St James, Piccadilly for example, were still buried in their own burial grounds then (either at the church or nearby), while others were buried in Paddington. Of these aspects, Reggie appears to have been unaware, thinking that his ancestors were only buried in Paddington because burials had ceased in St James. The choice was in fact almost aritrary and appeared to depend on just how busy a church was on any particular day. Even a parish’s own Vicar was as often buried outside Westminster as at his own church - despite many of his own parishioners being themselves buried in such churches' local grounds.

       There were, however, certain parish residents who did not have this choice. They were members of the few dissenting churches then in London’s West end which typically had no burial grounds of their own then. For them, Paddington was a much more probable burial site. This could well have been the case with Robert Browne - as we shall see - for it was certainly a factor in respect of the burials of members of his own son’s family - both before and after his own burial.

       We know much more about Robert’s son Benjamin Browne and some of this pre-dates what is known about Robert. He appears to have been born in 1709, although just where has long been uncertain. Nor do we know where he grew up or was educated - or to what extent. Our earliest certain information about him comes from his application for a marriage licence granted in London on Feb 2nd, 1733, the day of his marriage. Such licences were often applied for in rural parishes by the gentry to avoid having to post banns on three consecutive Sundays in the village church and have one’s business known by all and sundry. But in London, it was much more common for people from all walks of life to do so, with hundreds being issue every day by the London offices of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other ecclesiastic authorities - as the Bishop of London. Applications to the Archbishop are now held in the archives at Lambeth Palace. Two separate documents had to be completed and signed - invariably by the groom-to-be. One was called an 'Allegation' in which the groom 'alleges' that he intends to marry a particular girl and knows of no impediment to same, etc and 'prayes a Licence to solemnize the said intended marriage..' while the other was a 'Bond' (or Obligation) by which he is honour (and legally) bound to proceed with his intention, etc. A photocopy of Benjamin's signed Allegation appears first below:

       While the date appears to show '1782', it is in fact 'Feb 1732'. The year only changed (to 1733) on March 25 (Lady Day) at that time but in present usage, it was in effect 1733. As with the Allegation, the Bond too generally survives (unlike the licence itself which was handed in at the church and usually destroyed after a few months). As the Bond generally contains less useful information than the Allegation, those at Lambeth Palace are held in a separate basement archive and are normally not readily available. However, I prevailed upon the archivist to allow me to examine it as well ('just in case') and a copy of this is now also shown here:

       From the first document, we learn that Benjamin was then a Bachelor, residing in St George Hanover Square and aged 23 while his bride to be was one Elizabeth Bertrand (a Huguenot name) , aged 22, then residing in St Anne’s, Soho. They were to marry in St James church, Piccadilly, rather than in either of their own parish churches. This choice appears to have been theirs rather than one dictated by the licensing office - although this was not, as may seem, based on factors of social desirability associated with the latter church, but on geographical factors - as discussed later. (The details of the date and place of this marriage were eventually entered into the family Bible along with that concerning Benjamin, his father and children as mention below; this was likely confirmed by checking the St James register by later interested descendents.) The Bond, on the other hand, does not give the couples' ages nor Elizabeth's abode but, most usefully, did show Benjamin's occupation - namely, that of   'Cook' (as noted in its opening statement) - something not shown in the Allegation. Requesting the Bond thus proved very important on this occasion. On reading some of the legalese in the Bond more recently, I note that Benjamin was also Bound by the stipulation that: '..neither of them be of any better Estate or Degree, than to the Judge at the granting of the License is suggested...'. Benjamin could not therefore legally claim to be, say, a 'Gent' or an 'Esq', rather than a 'Cook' (or whatever).

Benjamin or Benjmain ?

       Finally, one must remark on the unusual spelling that Benjamin used for his name. His forename in the Allegation signature was thought when first seen some years ago to read 'Benj man' but on this occasion and after a closer scrutiny it is apparent that what was thought to be just a mark on the paper above and between the 'a' and 'n' of '...man' was in fact an inserted letter 'i' - as though the name was not written initially as really intended and then 'corrected' by means of that insertion. This view was confirmed when the signature on the second document was re-examined also - for it clearly shows his name as written as 'Binj main' - both written and pronounced as a two (not three) syllable word. When considered in the light of the general quality of the writing - with its slightly ornate (if atypical) capital letters 'B' and the quite adequate flow of the surname Browne (including that final 'e'), one must conclude that the writer wasn't at all illiterate or without some formal education in language and writing. But how to account for the spelling 'Benj main', therefore? (Or even 'Binj main' - with an 'i' replacing the letter 'e' ?) The two signatures are reproduced and enlarged below for a clearer impression:

       Well, this (possible French origin) is but one (of several) theories. Maybe early Scots pronounced it 'Binj main' (ie the latter syllable as '..mayne'), although I greatly doubt this. Alternatively, was Benjamin simply suffering a little from dyslexia - getting those 'i's and 'a's all mixed up? But it is intriguing that he was apparently 'determined' to spell the latter part of his first name as 'main' - even adding that 'missing' 'i' - after signing the first document without it - as well as dropping the middle letter 'a' on both occasions. Finally, one may note also that whilst the Clerk writing out the Allegation text (for the Surrogate, who later signed these) wrote the small case letter 'r' in the form:

,    Benjamin used the form:  

      It might be interesting to learn where, if anywhere, the unusual style of Benjamin's capital 'B's, coupled with his form of 'r', was taught around 1720?? And where did the name Benjmain and/or Benjamain mostly occur then. Was it France?   Dorset?   Norfolk?   Scotland?   London? Could Rotterdam be another possibility? (One should probably check out typical Huguenot writing/signatures in their extensive archives. Note: I did notice that the form of 'r's used by the Cleric for the register entry for Elizabeth Bertrand was the same as that used by Benjamin; but 'r's are notoriously variable even within countries.)

      Finally, it was noted on the IGI that there were countless Bruns, Brunes, Brounes, Le Bruns and a few Brownes in France throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. On one Internet site ('Huguenot Information'), the Huguenots were described as "...French Protestants of the Presbyterian kind who followed the teachings of John Calvin..". After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), most emigrated to Holland (and subsequently to South Africa) but many came to England, a few to Scotland and quite a number to Ulster, "..and since they too were Calvanists, for the most part they joined the Presbyterian Church and soon became part of the Scottish communities there". While the economies of England and Ulster could apparently absorb them with little rancour, that of Scotland could not but "..nevetheless, there was a small colony (of Huguenots) in Edinburgh". Did some come to London subsequently?? Interestingly, there were even a few Huguenots who settled in Taunton - as Woodcarvers. Did any settle in Shaftesbury? Have we come full circle?

[Stop Press! The foregoing ideas on the unusual spelling by Benjamin of his first name were first formulated in about March 2002 and written up here about a year later. More recently, I re-ordered certain documents to copy and place on this website (including that entry for Elizabeth) and took the opportunity at the record office to examine further the baptismal registers for the Threadneedle church - L'Eglise de Londre. The name Benjamin therein was relatively rare, compared to such as Daniel, Philippe and Nicolas, say. Over one 10 year period, I initially found only 4 cases. Three were spelt as Benjamin and the other as Beniamin (seen also in earlier English registers)- ie by the English-domiciled registrar. But as I was rolling the film up, I spotted something that arrested my attention: a 'Philippe Blanchet' was baptised '10th Aoust 1707, le fils de 'Bejamain Blanchet' et Marye sa femme...'! Could this possibly be significant?

I later found that M. Blanchet and wife had several more children baptised between 1700 and 1720, including a 'Catherine, fille de Beniamin Blanchet' and also two Benjamins - spelt now in that more typical way - as was his own forename on those occasions. It would thus appear that the spelling used in 1707, was likely not necessarily as dictated by M. Blanchet himself but rather that understood by the Cleric then officiating. In any case, it at least indicates that this spelling was one adopted by a Huguenot official in England in 1707. My idea about the diminished first 'n' (before a soft 'j') seems exemplified by its actual absence on this occasion, although the middle syllable does now occur. One will clearly have to seek further evidence on this matter. I later noted that the IGI also had this entry listed - thus:

In the same register, one of the few Benjamins noted was, surprisingly, combined with the only Le Brun I could find - in an Eglise de Londre baptism dated Oct 9th 1692 for: 'Benjamin Le Brun' - born to Pierre and Marie Le Brun. Most of those using the Threadneedle church lived in Spitalfields. On the next visit to an appropriate record office, one will try to remember to examine capital 'B's. Those written by the official who wrote 'Bejamain' were not at all of the form used by Benjamin; However, that official tended use very few capitals. This is seen in the copy here of the actual entry noted:

The writer concerned finished off the final 'n' of certain words, as in the above 'Bejamain', with that 'curved understroke' - as noted for example whenever he wrote the French word 'Juin' (ie June) - viz:

[I have since checked an Internet search engine (Google) for the names Benjamin, Benjamain and Benjmain. The single word Benjamin produces an amazing 5,820,000 entries! 'Benjmain' produces a still large 1,260 entries but many if not most of these appear to be a small percentage of typing errors of that massive volume of 'Benjamins' - where the middle 'a' and 'm' have been accidentally transposed during fast typing of mainly American genealogies; for the name is generally spelt as Benjamin elsewhere in the very same documents). Finally, and probably more significantly and validly, the name Benjamain occurs just 480 times and, as implied above, a vast majority of those are on French websites. It was noticeable that in France they even spell non-French Benjamins in that form - as: the 'Lycee Benjamain Franklin', and refer to our composer as 'Benjamain Britten'. I thus saw a Benjamain Peshet in charge of exports for a firm headed by one Jean Verdier and a Rugby player called Benjamain Nicolas. We should recall that they would however still tend to pronounce the name without pronouncing the last syllable as we pronounce the English word 'main'. Finally, in a marathon race in Mulhouse, France in 2001 reported in 'Le Journal Alsace', one Benjmain Hartmann came in 21st. His name was shown twice in this form on different occasions (unlike the many American examples of this due to typing errors) and so equates exactly with the spelling given by our 'Benjmain' Browne - albeit in 1733, long before typewriters. But another example of this spelling in France did turn out to be that more usual typing error. While Benjamain was once more usual in France than Benjamin, the latter form has largely replaced it today.

      A large proportion of the French (and other) immigrants into England during the 18th century and earlier applied for Naturalization or 'Denizenation' papers and these have been indexed by the Huguenot Society. Thus, there is an entry for 'Nicolas Bertran' for 1709. The following were also noted: 1701/2 - 'James Browne, son of James Brown (sic) by Ann his wife, born at Bergerac, Guinne, France'; 1703/4 - 'George Brown, son of George Brown by Sarah his wife, born Stockholm, Sweden'; 1709 - Jacob Brun (no other details)'; 1711 - Anne T. Browne (no other details). In a book on pre-1700 Nationalization records, there were 14 Brown(e)s listed although only one Robert: 1610 - 'Robert Browne, Gentleman of Your Majesty's Cellar, born in Scotland and his children which at any tyme hereafter shall be borne within the Kingdom of England or Scotland'. (Did he have a grandson Robert?) And later - in the 19th century - there were 31 Brown(e)s listed, including a Benjamin Brown from Russia - now living in Edinburgh and naturalised 19th May 1896. Several others were from Russia, as well as Germany. One would like to know what percentage of 17th and 18th century immigrants are covered by these Huguenot publications. Also, what percentage of Huguenot baptisms in London are covered in the Mormon's IGI? [Later concluded that they covered virtually 100% of these. But information will also be sought on the extent that Huguenots could marry in their own churches prior to ca 1740, say, (certainly, the Huguenots of Spitalfields used the new Anglican parish church of Christchurch, Spitalfields for marriages and burials but rarely for baptisms in the early 1700s) and whether the latter in London were more often of the conforming rather than non-conforming branch of that Protestant church. Did Benjamin (rather than Elizabeth) decide in which branch he preferred to have his children baptised and if this was the non-conforming, Presbyterian one and there was none of same convenient in Westminster, might he have utilised an English or Scottish church of that persuasion as the next best thing? Or, even, was he already a member of one or the other - - whether in London, Ulster or Edinburgh, say? (See further on this in the section on 'Benjamin's Church' below.)

The More Traditional View.

      Initially, of course, we had but a single item of evidence indicating that Benjamin's place of origin was not such as France or even Scotland, say, but...Shaftesbury in Dorset. This was the entry written in the family Bible in which Benjamin’s stated date of birth was shown as 'September 15th, 17l1' - with "at Shaftesbury in Dorsetshire" inserted above this original entry. This seems to have been written by about 1820 - most likely by Benjamin's grandson George Howe Browne - when apparently copying information from what was described as Benjamin's own Bible. It appeared to be the ultimate and sole basis of the original focus of enquiries into the family's possible Dorset origins. [We now have the additional clue found in the Prayer Book lining showing Benjamin's father Robert as having been born in Shaftesbury also - in 1680.] (The marriage in Berkshire of Benjamin's son Philip to a daughter of a family formerly seated in north-west Dorset would appear to have been a coincidence only.) The absence of any detail concerning the origin of Benjamin's parents from the Bible source may however require explanation. It was stated in the College of Arms memorandum of 1822 (discussed more fully elsewhere) that details of Benjamin's date and place of birth derived ultimately from his own, even older Bible. This belief (by the future Rear Admirals Browne) was no doubt based on the written statement to this effect which appears at the top of the right side page in the later Browne family Bible where, written in a copperplate style, it says: "Copied from Benjamin Browne's Bible". A photocopy of the upper portion of this page is shown here:

The above heading rather neatly balanced what appears at the top of the left side page, in a different and apparently earlier hand: "Copied from the Bertrand Bible" (photocopy of this not presently avilable). It was as though the later writer was trying to reproduce and match the sense of a known past or 'background', as already depicted (possibly as early as ca 1790s) on the Bertrand side of the family. But while details of the parentage and earlier family of Benjamin's wife Elizabeth Bertrand are clearly shown there, the equivalents for Benjamin's own Browne family are lacking. Surely such information would have been included if it truly came from his own earlier Bible ? Or was it just omitted? Another oddity is the fact that Benjamin is depicted as 'the son of Elizabeth and Robert Browne..', with the mother's name shown first. I've never come across this before and wasn't aware that feminism had taken root by the early 19th century. What can it signify?

      And, if Benjamin stated, as he did, that he was 23 at the beginning of 1733 (and thus born in 1709), why would his own Bible show him as born in 1711, and towards the end of that year as well? If the year of birth said to be from his Bible is wrong, can we accept that the place of birth, said to be copied from that same Bible, is any more valid? If, as was apparently believed when those copies were being made (ca 1815-20?), Benjamin died in 1788, did they subtract his understood age then of 77 - and thereby conclude that he must have been born in 1711 - and only then enter that into the Bible or, did they already believe that he was born in 1711 and by subtracting that year from 1788, the year it was wrongly believed he died, conclude only then that he must have been 77? We can't be sure. What we do know is that he actually died in 1787, not 1788, and that he said he was 23 in very early 1733. I believe therefore that they subtracted the wrong age from the wrong year of death and concluded the wrong year of birth. Three wrongs don't make a right; That is, could at least cast some doubt on the veracity of 'Shaftesbury' as his birth place.

      The Shaftesbury focus was later given some impetus by the finding that a Robert Brown did have issue in Shaftesbury in the early 1700s, although awkwardly not a Benjamin. But several of his issue who were buried there were also not shown as having been baptised there prior and thus, like Benjamin, may have been baptised elsewhere - or at a local dissenting church (if any was established there by that time) and possibly recorded before that register was 'maliciously destroyed' around 1820 (as has been reported). [It now appears that non-conforming churches in Dorset rarely had registers before ca 1750 however; Bridport being the one exception.] On the other hand, a nearby town such as Salisbury also shows a Robert Brown having issue (as per Anglicam parish registers) at that same period (again no Benjamin), as no doubt would many similar-sized towns throughout Britain - the name Robert Brown(e) being just too common. So, what to think?

      [We may now add that the other possible basis of the Shaftesbury origin, even the source(?) of that sole item of evidence as mentioned, could be that written (possibly earlier) and recently found in the lining of the family's Prayer Book. This, as mentioned above, states that Benjamin's father at least, Robert Browne, was himself born in Shaftesbury - on a very specific date: the 27th of September, 1680; also that he married an Elizabeth Browne on the 11th of June 1700 (or 1708 - the last numeral being ambiguously written), although where is not stated. Their two children are shown as: Benjamin Browne - born 15th September 1711 (who 'had issue vide following page') and Elizabeth Browne - born 11th August 1713 - 'died unmarried'. Oddly, their places of birth were not shown in this version. Nor was there any 'following page' found in the lining as stated although the always visible Prayer Book pages did have the same copied entries of Benjamin's date and place of birth and that of his issue exactly as entered in the family Bible and probably again written by George Howe Browne, while that found in the lining was in a different hand - not yet identified, nor the period when it was so entered. One wonders if an assumption was made that 'therefore, Benjamin too was likely born in Shaftesbury?? But if this was the source, why wouldn't the copier of same (?GHB) into the family Bible not include these details about Robert and his wife - Benjamin's parents - these (the family's progenitors) normally being the most sought-after detail of family records to be recorded in such a Bible. Was it felt (ca ?1800) that showing an earlier birth for Robert provided greater scope for a connection with the landed Brownes of Dorset? But felt by whom and why?]

       Knowing the date of Benjamin's marriage licence and his reported age on that day, we thus obtained a good estimate of his year of birth at least - ie mid 1709. Similarly, we have established from her baptismal record that his wife Elizabeth was born in December 1710 in Spitalfields, east London. The entry is as follows:

Elizabeth's entry is on a later page headed:                   'Le 10 DeSsembre 1710'

which is followed by 3 or 4 entries and then under:               'Le 17 Ditto'        we find, after another Elizabeth baptised that same day:

              'Elizabet fille de Nicolas Bertran & de Marie sa femme - par Nicolas Bertran son grandpere & Elizabet Le Bailly'.

The next entries are dated  'Le 20 Ditto'. A copy of this entry is shown below:

       For some reason, Elizabeth's year of birth is shown in the Browne's Bible as 1711 - after being changed from 1710. That in the Prayer Book was then apparently accepted as 1711 as well and copied there as such. [Some further detail about the Bertand family of Spitalfields will be placed about here later.]

Where Benjamin Lived in London.

       The inclusion in the licence application documents of Benjamin’s place of abode in 1733 was most fortunate in that it allowed one to identify and examine the appropriate parish rates books in the event he was residing there as a rate payer - that is, in the parish of St George Hanover Square - and if so, for how long. Such rates were paid by the occupants of property, whether owner or tenant, but not by such as servants residing in their employer’s residence. Fortunately, Benjamin Brown(e) was so listed - as paying rates for a modest rented house - on the north side of Brook Street of that parish, just two doors west of its corner with New Bond Street, and as doing so for several years before his marriage. Originally, this area of St George Hanover Square was, like St James, Piccadilly and St Anne's, Soho, a part of the much larger parish of St Martin-in-the Fields. The latter two parishes were created out of St Martin's around 1685, while St George's was created rather later - in 1725. Brook Street itself (and its houses) was built in 1722 - the first year for which its rates records become available - in the records for St Martin's parish (Conduit ward).

       These show that by 1723 and 1724, rates were paid for the first 3 houses on the north side of Brook Street, immediately west of New Bond Street, by a Lewis Pew, John Dogan and Richard Barrel, respectively. By early 1725, document F459A, still for St Martin's, shows the same three names - although the rates book were for some reason not signed until a year later (1726). In their next record F5580, John Dogan's name again appears but was later crossed out and that of  'Benj. Brown' written above it. This also seems to have been done retrospectively - possibly by the new (St George) collectors, who collected from April, 1725 when we find Benjamin Brown(e) first paying rates under the new jurisdiction (St George's film C1 - Westminster Record Office). Rateable Values for those first 3 houses were now shown as: Lewis Pew (£20), Benj Brown (£15) and James Moseley (£15). Around the corner, on New Bond Street, Lady Shaftesbury's house was then rated at £60. Films C2, C3, and C4 showed similar details - for succeeding quarters. Rates were paid quarterly until 1726 and then six-monthly - at the rate of about 10% of the rateable values - per annum. In November 1725, a Richard Bellwood replaced James Moseley in the third house while Lewis Pew in the first (corner) house appealed the level of his valuation, which was reduced to £15. The records for the years 1726 to 1736 (in St George's films C48 to C79) show the 6-monthly rates paid continuously by these same three neighbouring households, although sometimes in arrears.

       The property lived in then by Benjamin Browne is still there today, as a small office, although it may or may not be the original building. In his day, it would have access at the rear to the inevitable mews/stables which served mostly the larger homes nearby - including those just around the corner on Bond Street - one of which was the London residence of Lady Jane (nee Ewer), widow of the 3rd Lord Shaftesbury (an important Dorset family). One could have gone conveniently from the rear of such a property to the same entrance in Benjamin’s much smaller home (possibly owned by those of the former) and vice versa. It may also be significant with respect to the identity of Benjamin that his immediate neighbour Richard Bellwood and he would eventually both be employed at the same establishment - as discussed below.

       A possible scenario can be imagined in which Benjamin trained as a Cook in such an aristocrat’s house (of which there were dozens then in that immediate area, interspersed with even more smaller dwellings) from the early 1720s, say, and then obtained and rented his own small residence (owned by his employers) once mature enough (he was likely 16 in the spring of 1725) - at a modest rent. Young men, I have read, anticipated adulthood much earlier in those times - earlier even than those of Dickens. I have read also that many such families lived in London for only part of the year (‘the season’) and preferred not to take on ‘live-in’ servants. During the winter, it is obvious that rates on many of these smaller homes were often not paid and arrears grew for several months. Benjamin paid rates on Brook Street for about 10 years - from 1725 to 1736 - marrying during this period and very likely having the first 2 or 3 of his eventual 10 children while still residing there. His rates were sometimes in arrears (1726, 1727 and 1732/33) when the record showed the word 'poor' added beside his entry details. Of the 21 occasions when his name was shown in these rates records, it was spelt as 'Brown' 17 times and as 'Browne' 3 times (seemingly by one collector - around 1730). We may recall that in 1733 Benjamin himself spelt it with the final 'e' - on his marriage license documents.

       We have no clue as to how Benjamin and Elizabeth met or their marriage was arranged, if it was, through any parental influence, as was generally the case then. They did live in neighbouring parishes - on either side of what is today Regent Street (then Swallow Street). Elizabeth Bertrand was probably in service in the small Huguenot community of St Ann’s, Soho although, of all her family who resided in that same community back in Spitalfields, she is the only one who appears to have left it for this more westerly, less artisan section of same and to have married outside her own community (if indeed 'Benjmain' Browne was outside it). She was still at home in Spitalfields when she was admitted (ie as a young adult) into the main Huguenot church nearby - on Threadneedle Street - at the age of 15 - in early 1726. This was the main centre of the ‘conforming’ section of the French church in this country. She likely entered service soon after this - by 1727/28, say - and somehow met Benjamin, within two or three years. Was it through some common church connection? Or…(common employer?) Or…(parental connections) Or...(common ethnic origins)??

       Reggie Browne, not knowing of Benjamin’s early status - as a Cook - but only his later one of eventually being ‘a Gent’ who voted as such in a much later poll, and knowing also that some of his children had, like Benjamin himself, also married at St James, Piccadilly, drew the not unreasonable picture of him as a young ‘gentleman about town’ - associated with the latter church so favoured by the Tories and gentry of the day and thus most likely to derive from some landed family of means. Certainly a generation later, his sons at least would be fulfilling this conception with more certainty. With the passing of George II in 1760, and the associated demise of his loyal supportive Whigs (so often of Scots and Huguenot descent then) and his replacement by his grandson George III, with his high church Tory acolytes, St James Church did then increasingly host many of the gentry’s marriages and baptisms. Quite understandably, Reggie projected this image back a generation to their father Benjamin - knowing only that (1) he had married there himself, (2) had his eldest son Robert at least, baptised there and (3) later voted in Westminster - as a ‘Gent’. It all appeared to be of a piece. And if Benjamin was of this station, it could well imply certain things about his own father Robert in turn. And yet, and yet… So much in genealogy is not as first appears…

       We may discover more about Benjamin by tracing his rate-paying record in the Westminster rate books and seeking the christening records of his other children - ie after first son Robert - which, again, Reggie seems to have over-looked, or been unaware of. First, we may note that, as at their marriage, Benjamin and Elizabeth travelled past his own parish church (St George’s Hanover Square) all the way to Piccadilly, in a different parish, to have their first son baptised in 1734. Why was this? Reggie, who wasn’t aware of just where they then lived, would reasonably assume that they lived in or near St James at that time. The old family Bible confirms that Benjamin and Elizabeth had nine more children over the next 18 years. And yet, no others were shown to have been baptised at St James Piccadilly, nor indeed at St George’s Hanover Square. The next child - Benjamin Jnr - might also have been baptised in St George’s - as they still resided in that parish that year (on Brook Street) - but again no baptism is recorded for him there. Nor, this time, at St James either. Why?

       By June 1734, the rateable value of Benjamin's house (and those of his neighbours) on Brook Street had been reduced to £12 and his six-monthly 'taxes' to 6 shillings. This continued unchanged until June 1736. The next record - for December 1736 (C79) - shows Benjamin's name again entered but then crossed out and replaced by that of one James Masfield who continued thus, along with Lewis Pew and Richard Bellwood, for several more years. Meanwhile, a similar three-house rates record can be detailed for houses on the west side of Heddon Street, about a half mile south-east of Brook Street, but now in the parish of St James, Piccadilly. In 1735 and 1736, three consecutive properties there, all with valuations of £18 and annual taxes of £1, were occupied by a John Riddle, Michael Boson and Henry Stanton (D424 and D40). In 1736, the names shown were John Riddle, James Wallis (one quarter only, then house 'Empty') and Henry Stanton (D433 and D 439). By April 1737, the names were John Riddle, Benjamin Brown (paid for last quarter (Jan to Mar) only, the house having been empty the previous 3 quarters) and Robert Barrel (described as 'poor', owing £1 and having replaced Henry Stanton) (D41 and D440). It thus appears that Benjamin and his growing family moved from the smaller house on Brook Street to a slightly larger one on Heddon Street around Christmas 1736. The lack of any gap or overlap points strongly to the two homes having been those of the same Benjamin Browne and family - their residence in the latter succeeding that in the former seemlessly. (Awkwardly, there was another Benjamin Brown in St George Hanover Square around that period - who had issue baptised in that local church (not 'our' Benjamin) - but only one of that name is ever shown in the rates records. Much of the population lived in even smaller houses or rooms paid for by the local parish and paid no rates.) While Benjamin’s new home did now fall (just) within St James parish, yet his subsequent children were still not to be baptised in that new local parish church (nor back at St George). The family then resided for about 6 or 7 years on Heddon Street (1737-1743) - during which time, as mentioned, Benjamin’s father died - apparently whilst staying there - possibly during some illness. We don't know if his mother was still alive then.

       Around 1743 or '44 they moved again - eventually to Vine Street by 1745 (D47) - even closer to St James church, and remained there for about 10 years - until 1755. [Note: Some of the St James rates records were audited and signed up to a year after the periods they covered and weren't always shown twice yearly; it is not always possible to pin-point a leaving or starting date with accuracy. Thus, I was unable to confirm any rates-paying record for Benjamin during 1743 or 1744; one theory was that he may have moved in temporarily with his widowed mother (on Piccadilly?) although rates there were still shown under the name of Robert Browne; Possibly this was Benjamin's brother, or did the collector not know Robert Snr had died?] Again, none of the children were baptised in that now even closer Anglican parish church of St James, Piccadilly, nor were those who died in infancy ever buried in its churchyard. Rather, like their grandfather Robert and indeed their mother, they were all buried in Paddington - even though burials were still taking place in Westminster then - including some at the burial grounds for St James, Piccadilly - their parish of residence. Rates formerly paid under the name Robert Browne on Piccadilly ceased being so (possibly by his widow?) at about the same time as Benjamin moved (c 1745) into his slightly larger house on nearby Vine Street. Had she moved in with them? We can’t say. Nor do we know when she died, nor where buried; there being too many female Brown(e) burials registered over the relevant period, including many Elizabeths.

Benjamin's Church.

       The reason Benjamin and Elizabeth married in St James, Piccadilly in 1733 was because it was the closest church to his own church - barely 50 yards away - in which marriages were not then allowed or registered. And their first child (only) was then baptised at St James - in 1734 - only because this was the last year in which baptisms too were not (yet) performed in his own nearby church. But all nine of his subsequent children appear to have been baptised in the family’s own church - between 1735 and 1750 - where such services were, from 1735 or so, now allowed, and thus not at St James, nor in any other local parish church (as St George’s where it appears they still resided between 1734 and 1737. Finally, all burials for the family were also necessarily at Paddington (or somewhere comparable) as their church also had no burial ground - only the established churches providing this facility then. Benjamin’s long-attended church turned out to be…the ‘Scots Church’ on Great Swallow Street - just two doors from Piccadilly - with St James' located just across the street. This was a Presbyterian, non-conformist church serving mostly London-based Scots at the time.

       Benjamin’s moves from Brook Street to Heddon Street and then on to Vine Street thus served in effect to place his family increasingly closer to his own church - and only coincidentally nearer St James, Picaddilly as well. His home on Vine Street was in fact just a few yards east from his own (Scots) church during the important period of the late 1740s-early 1750s. [For a separate, fuller account on this church, please see Appendix One by Clicking here:    To Appendix One: 'On Benjamin's Church' and then returning to the next section below.]

The Children Born To Benjamin and Elizabeth.

       Benjamin and Elizabeth would eventually have 10 children born to them before her early demise in 1751. Their birth dates are shown in the family Bible (still extant), again as apparently copied from the earlier one of Benjamin's - seemingly around 1820 by George Howe Browne. (See photocopy of part of these entries above.) Thus, just over a year after their marriage, their first child Robert Browne, named after Benjamin's father presumably, was born - on May 3rd 1734, while they still resided on Brook Street (as far as one can tell), and then baptised May 20th that year, as shown in the church register of St James, Piccadilly, although not in the family Bible. Oddly, the Bible showed him as born on Heddon Street even though the family was not to live there for another 3 years. Significantly, the St James' register did not show places (ie streets) of birth. The next two children were also born (as per the Bible record) before the move to Heddon Street: ie Benjamin (Jnr) on May 30th, 1735, and Elizabeth on Oct 24th, 1736 (named after their parents) and, appropriately, they at least were not shown as born on that street, nor indeed on any particular street. But, unlike for Robert, no baptism details appear for either of them at St James, Piccadilly - nor elsewhere as far as can be determined.

       This Elizabeth (the 1st of three they would have) lived just over a year - dying on Jan 8th 1738, by which time the family had moved to Heddon Street. She was, as shown in the Bible copy, buried in the churchyard at St James, Paddington - the first of the family to be buried there (the Scots church having no burial grounds of its own then). Her place of abode then was however still not shown in the Bible. Their fourth child, Nicholas (named after Elizabeth's father), was born (apparently at Heddon Street but again this was not stated) on May 3rd, 1738, but he also soon died, barely a month old, on the 22nd of that month. No baptism is apparent for him either. His place of burial was not shown in the Bible but was most likely Paddington. Less than a month later, Benjamin's father Robert Browne Snr died at Heddon Street - on June 12th and his burial was shown to be in what had clearly now become the family's chosen burial site - Paddington churchyard - on June 18th, 1738. Oddly, he was described by Reggie Browne as having being 'of St George Hanover Square' - the parish we associated earlier with his son Benjamin - although dying at Heddon Street, according to the Bible. He left no Will or Administration.

       Thus, by the end of 1738, the family on Heddon Street now consisted of Benjamin and Elizabeth and their two sons Robert and Benjamin, then aged 4 and 3. (We are still uncertain if his mother was still alive and if so, where she lived. Interestingly, an Elizabth Brown of St George Hanover Square was buried in Paddington on July 2nd, 1735. Also, on March 18th, 1737, a Katherine Brown of St James (where Benjamin then resided) was buried there also.) Then, on May 28th of the next year (1739), a 4th son - George Browne - was born to them - his birth shown in the Bible to have been 'on Heddon Street'. It is not apparent after whom he was named - possibly the sovereign? Significantly, he would become the progenitor of the one ultimately surviving line of Brownes. It was shortly after George's birth that Benjamin Snr, now with three young sons, must have left his current employer (where he may have trained as a Cook) and, on June 8th, 1739, began his career at St James Palace on the Royal Household kitchen staff (as discussed further below). Almost two years later, a 5th (but 4th surviving) son then joined the family - when Philip Browne was born - also in the Heddon Street home - on April 5th, 1741. After whom he may have been named is unknown but intriguing. He would be destined for the Navy. But just three months later, the second oldest son, Benjamin, died on July 7th, 1741 aged just 6 years, and was buried with the others in Paddington.

       The family was now back to the two parents and 3 surviving sons. They were joined two years later by a daughter - another Elizabeth - born June 20th, 1743 but she too soon succumbed, aged just 2 1/2, on December 22nd, 1745 - buried at Paddington. We're not certain where the family resided during 1743-44 and thus where this 2nd Elizabeth was actually born. Significantly, the Bible is also silent on the matter. A daughter was then born who did survive: Katherine Browne was the first shown to be born 'at Vine Street' - on January 22nd, 1747. There was a Catherine in Elizabeth's family after whom she may have been named. A second Nicholas appeared next - born July 9th, 1749. Oddly, his place of birth (presumably Vine Street) is not shown in the Bible. He was however also destined to die young - on May 2nd, 1753, before his 4th birthday. And finally, they were more successful with a third daughter named Elizabeth - shown born at Vine Street on March 20th, 1751 - who would survive and one day marry. But sadly, her mother Elizabeth was not so fortunate. She died within the month - on April 17th that year and soon joined her four deceased offspring at Paddington - on 24th April, 1751. Young Nicholas 2 would soon follow her there - on May 2nd, 1753 - aged not quite four.

       As mentioned, except for eldest son Robert, baptised in St James church in May 1734, there was no reference in family sources to any baptisms regarding any of the other 9 children. It was eventually discovered through the Mormon church's Index that the Scots church began performing baptisms from about 1735 only. But the original recording of these appears to have been made into a temporary book of some kind until a more formal register was finally instigated - in 1750. Thus we find that the last born (in 1751) of the 10 children, Elizabeth 3, was baptised at the Presbyterian 'Scots' church on nearby Swallow Street, with the entry now made directly into the new book reading:

       "1751 - April 30 - Elizabeth, daughter of Benjamin Browne and Elizabeth his wife was born on Vine Street in the parish of St James, Westminster on the 20th of March 1751 and was baptised this day".

       Immediately after this entry the following was also now entered (as copied from some earlier record) into the formal new register:

       "Her brother George was born the 28th May 1739 in Heddon Street in the same parish and baptised on the 1st of June following".

       "His brother Philip was born the 5th of April 1741 in Heddon Street and baptised on the 28th April 1741".

       "His sister Katherine was born the 22nd Jan 1747 in Vine Street and baptised the 4th Feb following".

       "Her brother Nicholas was born the 9th July 1749 in the same place and baptised the 27th following".

       We might reasonably assume Benjamin requested that these particulars be so entered into the new register although similar retrospective details were in fact so recorded for many other parents - ie for children born and baptised between 1737 and 1750. It was likely a general procedure adopted for those relatively few couples who were still having issue after some 10 to 15 years of marriage. It would appear that it was not thought necessary to enter details concerning those other 4 children born to Benjamin and Elizabeth (or those born to the others) who had died in the interim ie - Benjamin, Nicholas 1 and Elizabeths 1 and 2. This is in contrast to the survivors who, conceivably, may wish to consult such retrospective entries in future (as might their descendents in time). But we may assume that baptisms and the other details of date and place of birth were also entered originally in the same temporary format for those who only subsequently died young. It was through the discovery in the Mormon Index of the above 5 baptisms of the then survivors that the identity of Benjamin's church was in fact first revealed. A copy of the title page of the new Register is shown below along with that showing the baptismal entries for Elizabeth and her earlier born, still surviving siblings. The quality of the latter is unfortunately not very clear.

       Thus, Benjamin, now a widower of about 42, was left initially with 6 of their original 10 children - 4 boys and 2 girls - although he would soon lose Nicholas 2 as well; the remaining 5 would eventually all marry and have issue except Katherine (who remained a spinster). But we might pause for a moment and consider life in the Browne household during, say, all of 1752. The eldest, Robert, was then 18 and very likely out to work already - in some private office, say, if not yet within government service as he would be shortly. George, 13 and Philip, 11, were probably both still at school. But Katherine was just 5, Nicholas not yet 3 and baby Elizabeth only 1. Who would care for these 3 youngest and very dependent children over the next few years - to ca 1765, say ? Did Benjamin hire a nanny/housekeeper or did one of Elizabeth's relatives step in to help? We can't be sure. The two eldest boys would have been educated through the 1740s while the family resided on Heddon and then Vine Streets. There were schools run by Huguenots in neighbouring Soho then and they may well have attended one such (as had one of the sons of the Pitt family - of 'Diamond Pitt fame'). In any case, they obviously received adequate training in the language, arithmetic and bookkeeping skills needed to obtain such as clerical employment somewhere in London - with its many administrative and commercial opportunities.

       Meanwhile, younger brother Philip would shortly be 'put to sea' aged about 12 (ca 1753) - this being another route towards advancement in society in those times (ie via a career in the Navy). As with his two older brothers' educations, this too would have entailed some significant expenditure on the part of Benjamin during the late 1740s/early 1750s - this constituting the crucial factor dividing society into the 'haves' and the 'have nots' of the day - with most by far remaining in that latter category. Arranging a 'good' marriage for at least one of his daughters (Elizabeth) would be another priority (and cost?) for Benjamin, as well as playing a role in that same regard (presumably) with respect to all 3 sons. But in this latter case, we have little or no details or confirmation. A marriage for Katherine, while 4 years older than Elizabeth, was for some reason not first (or ever) so arranged; she would remain single and be 'placed' as a kind of companion in a middle class home near Richmond while younger sister Elizabeth would go on to marry an Esq. Katherine's placement would likely be in the late 1760s and, as with Elizabeth's eventual marriage, may have been through the auspices of her elder brothers Robert or George, by then acquiring influence and contacts in their own right, rather than through her father Benjamin alone. The family's fortunes may not have been quite adequate enough when Katherine (the elder girl) came of age.

Benjamin's Career.

       Fortunately, the eventual expenses of these events coincided with advances in Benjamin’s employment prospects and income. In 1739, he left some earlier employer - quite possibly near Brook Street - and began a long career as a Cook in Royal service - at St James Palace - then the main residence of George II. Many loyal Scots and Huguenots - of Whig leanings - were so employed during that reign. Benjamin had married in 1733 and had probably not long completed his basic apprenticeship as a Cook and would now be looking for an improvement in salary and prospects - to match his new responsibilities. Possibly his previous employer had some connections at Court since entry into that service was much sought after and not easily effected. It offered relative security and a career structure of fairly predictable advancement through the ‘Child, Groom, Yeoman and Master’ categories, the latter two, once achieved, consistent with a styling of ‘Gent’ and ‘Esq’, respectively, the former of which Benjamin did indeed eventually attain. The first clue about (a) Benjamin Browne’s possible role in the Household kitchen occurred when Sir Peter Leslie noted the name Benjamin Browne as a Cook in one of the Annual Registers (of those in public positions in the government or Royal service) of about 1750. It seemed to signify nothing too promising at the time - there being many of this fairly common name in many walks of life and Benjamin’s understood position as a Gent wasn't thought particularly consistent with such employment. If he did work at something, this was quite unknown. But this snippet was luckily tucked away in memory and happily later recalled when his actual status as exactly that - a Cook - was eventually discovered (in his marriage licence Bond). His later employment in Royal service then sought and confirmed in the records of same at the public record office (LS 13/263). His appointment there was effected on June 8th, 1739 when he presented to the Clerk of the Board of Greencloth a Warrant authorising same as given him by the Lord Steward, the Duke of Dorset (Lionel Sackville):

       It would appear that the Lord Steward was the final arbiter as to whether one received the vital Warrant for such employment (and for all subsequent promotions). We may assume that he would be prevailed upon to consider various potential appointees brought to him by friends and colleagues who would assure him of their Whigish bona fides (just as the King was assured of his). The Dukes of Dorset, Devonshire and Chesterfield of the day held this role under George II. (We should mention here that the Duke of Dorset had absolutely no connctions with the county of Dorset; rather, he was of a long established Kent family.) As mentioned, Benjamin’s next door neighbour on Brook Street, Richard Bellwood, was also employed at the Palace - from 1749 - by which time Benjamin had probably acquired some minor influence himself and may have suggested this former neighbour of his. He was, initially, a 'Salsaryman' and soon moved to the Buttery department. These positions likely included various perks, especially at the higher grades, and would be much sought after. The same records (LS 13/) show Benjamin's gradual advancement through the various levels of seniority in the Kitchen. This occurred over a 20 year period - from 1739 to 1759 - when his salary rose from £30 to £55 per annum.

      By the late 1740s, Benjamin had risen to the position of Senior Groom Cook and with it came the styling of 'Gent' or Gentleman and a gradual increase in salary. It was believed that this in turn gave him the right to vote but it appears that this was a right, in Westminster at least, held by all males over 25 who paid 'lot and scot' - ie who paid rates. Less than 10% of voters were in fact of Gent or Esq status. Benjamin voted in the election of 1749 for the Whig candidate Granville Leveson-Gower (Lord Viscount Trentham), son of the 1st Lord Gower. He won on a re-count against Sir George Vandeput, Bt, the Tory. Whigs were in the ascendancy then and for the next decade.

      The anticipated advancement to the position of Master Cook by the late 1750s (with its much greater increase in salary (to £130) and perks than occurred with any of the previous steps up that ladder of royal service; it was likely a management and buying role) was at about the time he had moved to a larger house (with higher rates) - just beyond the western end of Piccadilly (near Knightsbridge). He was thus on the verge of exceeding his Gent status and consolidating that of being an Esq (which styling he had in fact briefly adopted) when George II inconsiderately died, his Tory-minded grandson succeeded and Benjamin and 99 others (presumably all placed in posts by virtue of someone of Whig influence) lost their jobs. In the ambiguous terminolgy of the times, it was thus decreed that: "Whereas We have judged it expedient for Our Service to discharge several of the servants of our late Grandfather of Glorious memory..deeming them proper objects of Our Royal Bounty...". Rates were soon left unpaid on his new, but still rented, property and he would have now to live on a more modest ‘pension’ of that Royal Bounty - of £50 per annum. It is a touch ironic that although never a ‘Tory gentleman about town’ in his early days - attending St James church, etc - his Scots church associations probably proved the more useful in obtaining employment at the Palace, at least in those early years. [One might even suggest that some colleague in his youth (ca 1730, say) had said to him “If you want to get on here in London (especially in Royal service), ‘marry a Huguenot (or even be one) and join the Scots church’ - which of course is what he did, though quite possibly not with that purpose in mind.]

       By about 1756, his three surviving sons were off his hands (see later) and he and possibly his two young daughters moved to Knightsbridge, then in the parish of St Margaret's, Westminster (Absey Division) where he paid rates on a larger rented house on the north side of that (effectively) western extension of Picaddilly. After the first 25 houses there, valued at only £7 to £9, there was a group of 10 or so more substantial homes rated at £26 and taxed at about 12 shillings per quarter. Benjamin paid his first quarter's rates for one of these houses during 1757 (E401). He was listed as 'Benjamin Brown, Esq' and lived next to an Alexander Strahan, Esq and Henry Manley, Esq - the latter's rates then being in arrears by £2.5.6. Between 1758 and 1761, Benjamin's payments also began slipping into arrears (E405; E409; E413; E417) until, by 1762, he owed £7.10.0 which was later recorded as 'lost', Benjamin as 'gone' and the house as 'E' (for Empty). Interestingly, Strahan and Manley were also in arrears - for 2 or 3 quarters - and these too increased later. Quarterly rates had gone down to below 9 shillings and times may have been difficult. Rates of bankruptcy apparently went up in markedly in mid-1762 (?Whigs out of favour).

       Thus, around the summer of 1762, Benjamin (possibly with Katherine, 15 and Elizabeth, 11) appears to have moved in with eldest son Robert or second son George - both then married and living in Manchester Buildings, near Westminster Bridge. One or other frequently signed for receipt of Benjamin’s regular pension payments during the 1760s/70s. They had, very significantly, obtained posts as junior clerks in the Pell's Office of the nearby Treasury during the 1750s. Robert had married about the time his father moved to Knightsbridge, styling himself not a Clerk but a Gentleman (who did something 'in the Treasury'); this would no doubt be perceived by a future father-in-law as fully consistent with Robert's father being an Esq - living in Knightsbridge. A good marriage settlement should now be possible. Undoubtedly, both sons would seek to ‘get on’ in the new order of things and, quickly adopting a more Tory orientation, and attending St James church, little or nothing seems ever to have been heard again of their non-conformist, Scots Church background. Despite his apparent humble beginnings, we may assume however that it was Benjamin who saw to it that his sons obtained the best education he could provide them and, probably through his Palace contacts, guided them into their early positions - eventually as trainees/clerks at the Treasury. These crucial first steps in the Browne family’s later fortunes would have been taken over a relatively short period - around 1750-55 when they lived on Vine Street near their church - and were due, I would suggest, not to his sons somehow ‘lifting themselves up by their own bootstraps’, as it were (bright as they may have been with their British-Huguenot 'hybrid vigour'), but by the continuing efforts of their ambitious, self-made father - Benjamin Browne - over this particularly important period. From the moment he could refer to himself as a 'Gent' (ca 1748), so the aspirations and possibilites for his sons would likely take a quantum leap. They were fortunate.

      For some unknown reason, Benjamin ended up living on the south bank of the river - at Rotherhithe - where he died in 1787, aged 78+, although was buried near his wife Elizabeth back at Paddington. Possibly he had maintained contact with those landing provisions in Rotherhithe and had a role as a middleman providing same to the Palace through his continued contacts there. There was a contemporary Huguenot family with connections both with the Palace and with Rotherhithe whose details are presently misplaced; they will be placed here once re-found. I do have some details about a 'Benjamin Browne, Gent' living and owning two small houses on Newman Street, off Holborn in the 1770s and later south of the river - in both cases near a senior Colonial Office administrator John Larpent, Esq, but this Benjamin's identity needs further confirmation.

       Benjamin's eldest son Robert Browne would appear to have been exceptionally talented in his role in the Treasury. He was continually promoted and, by 1769, had moved to Abingdon Buildings on New Palace Yard. His rates there that year, paid by 'Robert Browne, Esq' were £45 on which he paid £1.11.10 per quarter (reduced the following year to £38 and £1.2.11). He was now 36 and had thus matched and exceeded the level and status of his father. [More on Robert here to come] His younger brother George Browne had also taken the first steps on an equally successful career in the Fire Insurance business in Covent Garden, while youngest son Philip Browne would become a Naval hero. [to be continued]...

       We must ask ourselves why it was that Benjamin joined the non-conformist Scots Church - and from what date? Were his parents members? Reference has been made to a Robert Browne residing very near this church in the 1730s and possibly earlier. Was he a Scot? Robert Brown(e) is a common name in Scotland, although the forename Benjamin isn't - being much more common in such as Dorset and East Anglia. And who was Benjamin named after? If he was a first or second son, this could be the name of Robert’s father, but he may have been a later-born son of course. The fact that detail said to be copied concerning the places (ie streets) of birth of his children (in addition to their dates) are restricted to those 5 younger surviving children for whom such information was exactly as given in the retrospective Scots church entries, leaves us with certain questions. The streets of birth are not shown in the family Bible for those 5 who died young - just as they are not shown in the Scots church Register. Surely Benjamin's original Bible entries would not have so exactly differentiated on this one basis. The birth dates were available for all (from somewhere) but the abodes only for those shown in the Scots church register. Why? Was there truly an earlier Bible with key information in it - although oddly nothing about his father Robert's origins or paremts - or references to the places of birth of children who only happened later to die ?

Hunting The Dorset Hare.

      If Shaftesbury wasn't really the place of origin, was it nevertheless somewhere else in Dorset? Those who have read Reggie’s booklets on the family will be aware that there was a long-established family of landed gentry in Dorset of the name Browne - the last of whom died in 1833 without known heirs. This was not long after the time that Benjamin’s sons and grandsons, etc were becoming successfully established in the Covent Garden area of London and elsewhere, and beginning to ask questions about their own origins. Two of these later members of the family appear to have become intrigued by the possibility that they too may have had illustrious ancestors. It certainly wouldn’t in those times harm their advancement prospects in the Services, say, if this were the case, or simply facilitate more successful marriages and comfortable social retirements. Could they, therefore, be related to the landed Brownes of Dorset, for example? Possibly, there were a few unsubstantiated hints about the family’s background - but nothing too definite to go on? This is the big mystery.

       To this end, contacts were made around 1820 (by one of the the future Rear Admirals Browne - descendents of Benjamin as detailed later) with the College of Arms who instructed their ‘local’ genealogist in Dorset who, unsurprisingly, soon managed to locate a Robert Brown having issue in the early 1700s in a Dorset town - ie Shaftesbury - not too far from one of the Dorset Browne’s last seats in that county (at Blandford St Mary), although as mentioned a Benjamin Brown(e) was not so found. However, had he looked in the registers for other comparably sized towns - as Salisbury, Winchester or Dorchester, say, he would quite possibly have found similar results. The names Robert or William or John Brown(e) were just too common. When the Shaftesbury registers were looked at further, on a later occasion, it was noted also that (in addition to many Browns) an Elizabeth Brown was buried there in this period - thought possibly to be the aforesaid Robert’s wife. However, that register invariably described those so buried as ‘wife of…whomever)’ if married, but not so described if unmarried - as this Elizabeth appears to have been. We might consider if she may instead have been the alleged daughter of Robert but at that young age, she would also have been so described. There was no such elaboration in the case of this particular Elizabeth Brown - whether as daughter or wife; she was very likely an unmarried spinster therefore. She may have been a sister, of course.

       The nearby seat of the landed Brownes had ceased but not that long before. Attempts were made to relate these two not very contemporary Robert Brown(e)s - of Shaftesbury and Blandford - the latter having apparently died at the age of 82 or 83, which figure was somehow confounded with the supposed age at death of Benjamin’s father Robert in London. These attempts by the College to link the London family to that of Dorset were ultimately left in abeyance it seems - as noted in papers left there at the time (as subsequently examined by Peter Leslie and myself; see Appendix Two as described below). [It is possible that the Dorset genealogists may have been directed specifically to Shaftesbury if, as seems likely, this place of birth had already been entered into the family Bible (ca 1815-20, say) - ie prior to the overtures made by the future Rear Admirals - as by George Howe Browne - based on information arising…where?? Had he yet read Hutchins account of the gentry of Dorset in his recently published Directory of the County? That, and its timing, are very relevant questions. We now have additionally the entry in the Prayer Book lining (of uncertain date or provenence) which indicates that Benjamin’s father Robert was himself said to have been born in Shaftesbury - and on a specified date in 1680 - and to have married an Elizabeth Browne, again on a specific date. I don't believe the Shaftebury registers (there were 3 or 4 active churches there at the time) confirm either event but this will now need further examination. [Result here:.......] But why would such information be later 'hidden' in the lining of a family book? There was also the suggestion that the London Robert may have married a cousin Elizabeth Browne. The Dorset genealogists pointed out that a daughter of the Frampton-Blandford Browne union of this same name had died in 1721 at St Clement Danes in London (although probably as a spinster?).

[Note: I made a second visit to the College of Arms and my subsequent report on same (in which these matters are more fully addressed) is reproduced in Appendix Two. This may be read next if wished - by Clicking on:    Report on 2nd Visit to the College of Arms - Oct 8th, 1996. or continuing below with a briefer account of similar material - to where one is returned in any case.

       The last Robert Browne of Frampton to marry had, as described in the Appendix on this topic, rather too coincidentally already married his cousin - not an Elizabeth but a Frances Browne, daughter of the last Robert Browne of Blandford (d 1710). But (as mentioned), also conveniently, they had a daughter Elizabeth, born about 1700, who was indeed buried at St Clement Danes in 1721. But neither of her parents had a sibling or cousin who had a son Robert (ie 'our Robert) - to be such an Elizabeth's 'cousin'. She appears in any case not to have married or, if she did, was most unlikely to have had a son Benjamin by ca 1709 - being much too young. The burial entry in the register should describe of whom she was the daughter or wife and may be so checked. Moreover, her mother Frances Browne didn't herself die until 1740 and was also buried in St Clement's. Three of her sons lived to much later in that century and Benjamin's nearby family would surely have been aware of any such contemporary family members in London or elsewhere - if they were so closely related (as now would we). The Dorset genealogists also suggested that Robert may have been born to a Benjamin Browne of a branch of the Frampton family who resided much earlier at Godmanston, Dorset. If there was such a person (as mentioned by Hutchins in his book on Dorset apparently), there is no evidence (eg in relevant Wills of the time (which I did check) that such a man, if ever extant, survived childhood, married or had issue.

       In any case, the conclusions proffered to Benjamin’s great grandsons were apparently sufficiently vague and not entirely dismissive as to encourage them to begin to assume the Arms and Crest of the Brownes of Frampton, Dorset - seemingly not long after the death in 1833 of the last certain member of that ancient family - Francis John Browne. This was some years after their father (and Benjamin's grandson) George Howe Browne, then Secretary of the Westminster Fire Office in Covent Garden, had become (as had Francis John) a member of the Royal Society of Arts nearby. With the same surnames, it seems probable that they would at least know of each other, although whether any conversations ever touched on their respective family backgrounds is not recorded. (One of the Dorset genealogists implied that Francis John Browne would not be averse to any such investgations of a possible connection between them - but he appears not to have been aware of any.) A few years after Francis Browne died, Rear Admiral Edward Walpole Browne also pursued the possible family link at the College of Arms - possibly seeking confirmation that he could adopt their Arms as his own. As mentioned above, George Howe Browne appears to be the one who completed the earlier Browne entries in the family Bible - which then more exactly balanced those previously entered about the Bertrand side of the family. Oddly, no mention was ever made about Benjamin’s position in the Royal kitchens or his membership of the Scots church and we can't now know whether the Admirals Browne were ever aware of these aspects.

A New Perspective.

       Several generations later, Reggie Browne, delving more thoroughly into the claimed family connection with the Dorset Brownes, concluded that the Robert Browne, whom he felt was of Shaftesbury was, however, not of the extinct Godmanston/Blandford branch of that family in any case, but descended instead from another, almost forgotten branch of the original Frampton family, one centred some distance away - in Taunton, Somerset until the late 1670s. I subsequently spent several years attempting to confirm this hypothesis - entailing in particular one or two very lengthy blind alleys. Eventually, however, I concluded that a most plausible route which I eventually did manage to tease out of the myriad of facts unearthed along the way could, conceivably, support the main part of Reggie’s thesis. This side-stepped the Shaftesbury hypothesis, however, but did prove compatible with the idea of a link with the Taunton branch of that same landed family. This route will be described more fully below. See also the associated Pedigree (to come).

The Graston Theory.

       Thus, in brief, a Benjamin Brown(e) was born - to a Robert Brown(e) - and in the exact year estimated, 1709, and in a Dorset parish (Burton Bradstock) - where, significantly, the Taunton branch of the Browne family had held a small Manor house and property called ‘Graston’. The eldest son of the Taunton family, Robert Browne, was left much in debt on his father George’s death in 1679 - due to unpaid mortgages on this and other Dorset properties (as in Bridport and Benville). He would thus be required to keep a very low profile in the 1680s - due to mounting debts and looming Court cases (he was in fact said to have ‘disappeared’ for a time). It would appear that from about 1690 or so they may have been given the use of a small cottage on the Graston estate by the mortgage holders (the Strode family - former neighbours of Robert’s mother in Netherbury) whose daughter inherited and married one……Clarke). The ex-Taunton Brownes no doubt then went through a period of severe financial difficulty in which education was probably minimal for Robert’s children and grandchildren - including apparently a namesake son Robert born about 1679/80 - who would marry in Bridport in 1701 and, amongst others, have a son Benjamin baptised in nearby Shipton Gorge (a chapelry of Burton Bradstock, near Graston) in 1709. The family were probably in no mood to advertise, even to their own progeny in the earlier 1700s, their true origins and unpaid debts - including a mortgage on the Bull Inn in neighbouring Bridport. Interestingly, this area had a large non-conformist population at the time.

       In London meanwhile, the Scots church was soon to split into two conflicting factions and the one that remained on Swallow Street, as I have read, now received (and possibly sought) members from English non-conformists in the 1720s. (Did any of these have Dorset names ? This to be checked). One would then have to assume that through family connections in Dorset, a position as a trainee Cook in London was then offered to Benjamin - around 1723, say, at the usual age of 14. His parents may have tried their luck there as well. The rest is history - some of which will be shown in the main body of this account below - with rather more documented detail.

       Conceivably, some snippets of information may have come down to Benjamin’s great-grandsons - as, for example, misconstruing a birth in 'Graston' in Dorsetshire as one in 'Shaston' (the colloquial Dorset term then for Shaftesbury), say - if and when poor writing regarding same was misread in an even older family Bible. Or, they may have heard that he was once in service with ‘the Shaftesburys’ ? They may also have heard about Monmouth and the Bull Inn and confounded that with ideas of losing their estate not through debts (as they did) but as a penalty for rebelling. The foregoing theory of the family’s origins certainly appears on the face of it robust enough and would only be replaced, I would suggest, by anything better. If anyone knows of same…..? [Ironically, if anyone does, it may turn out to be myself - if the views expressed above about 'Benjmain' Browne (as a Huguenot from ?France) ever bear fruit.]

       The smaller scale map above map shows the position of Burton Bradstock and Shipton Gorge in relation to the town of Bridport (just off the north-east corner) - where the Bull Inn had been owned by the Browne family until about 1685 and where (in Bridport) a Robert Brown(e) married in 1701. His father may have been the Robert (then aged about 46) who held the manor of Graston (inherited through his mother) but lost through unredeemed mortgages by 1695. The younger Robert had issue, including Benjamin, in 1709, baptised in nearby Shipton Gorge - a Chapelry of Burton Bradstock. The map shows the position of Graston - the former Browne manor - in the lower central area; its lands in the early 18th century likely extended north towards Shipton Gorge to include, for example, the small cottage shown near the altitude mark 65 (in middle of map) which, courtesy of the mortgage holders, may have provided a most reasonable abode for the later Brownes - who would likely find the church at Shipton Gorge more convenient (and less public?) than that at Burton Bradstock. (Note dotted path directly to the church.)

       In any case, the position of Benjamin Browne in the family's history can serve as a convenient 'fulcrum point' in our subsequent discussions - as these divide naturally into two major Parts - focused respectively on Benjamin's Antecedents and Descendents. The former and the matter of his origins generally, as touched on above, entail some hypothesis and speculation; the latter, in contrast, is essentially factual and well documented. We hope eventually to cover both aspects more thoroughly.

APPENDIX ONE

      Thanks to the Mormon church's International Genealogical Index (IGI), I discovered (as touched on above) that Benjamin had several of his children baptised at the Swallow Street Presbyterian Church, also known as the 'Scots or Scotch Church', situated near where that street joins Piccadilly and thus just a stone's throw from St James parish church. Prior to this, the places of baptism of the younger 9 of his 10 children were unknown and unmentioned in family papers. While the IGI covers about 70% of the established parish church registers (of baptisms and marriages) in England, it helpfully transcribed the registers of virtually 100% of the non-conforming churches, as these had been collected together into one convenient location - at the old Public Record Office (Chancery Lane) in about 1840. These were later later transferrd to microfilm. Film RG 4/4175 is entitled 'No. 15 - Scots Church: Certificate or Statement to Accompany Register Books': "Annexed are the original Register Book(s) which have been kept at the Swallow Street Scots Church of the Presbyterian (Not Unitarian) Denomination - founded in 1709. The First Register Book began in 1750". Signed - James R Brown, D.D. 9th Nov 1840'. It also describes the church as being "...in Communion with the Established Church of Scotland". The first page of the Register states: "The Baptismal Register of Births and Baptisms in the Swallow Street Meeting, London - from Lady Day 1750 to Michaelmas 1783". The first two pages of the register are combined in the copy shown here:

The first entry is dated April 16, 1750 - for a child residing in St George, Hanover Square. Many came from a greater distance. As shown also in the main account above, Benjamin's last-born daughter Elizabeth was baptised there about a year later - on April 30th 1751. Her entry and those retrospective ones for her four surviving siblings are shown below: (Permission to photocopy and transcribe the register onto microfiche of the IGI was given to the Mormon's in the 1970s.)

      But neither marriages nor burials could be performed in non-conformist churches at the time. Benjamin and Elizabeth were thus married - in Feb 1733 - in the nearby Anglican parish church of St James, Piccadilly just across the road. One could imagine the principals and guests returning to celebrate in their own 'Meeting House' immediately after the brief ceremony there. Their first child, Robert, born in May 1734, was however baptised in that same convenient Anglican church, even though they then resided on Brook Street in the neighbouring parish of St George, Hanover Square. But none of their other children were baptised at St James, even after the family had moved into that parish itself. Instead, all appear to have been baptised in the family's own Scots church, although evidence exists only for the 5 later-born children. It seemed odd that one child only - their first - was baptised in the Anglican church and all others (apparently) in the Presbyterian one. An examination of the retrospective entries in the latter register shows that the earliest entries only began sometime after 1735 (the year after Robert's birth) although the church was in existence long before that. Whatever the reason, the lack of any baptisms there before 1735 would seem to better account for the absence of Robert's baptism there in 1734, than the possibility that his parents had not yet started to use that church. Benjamin, in particular, may well have been a member of it from his arrival in London in, say, the mid-1720s. This view was strengthened when a book on this and similar London churches was examined. 'The History and Antiquities of the Dissenting Churches and Meeting Houses in London, Westminster and Southwark', written by Walter Wilson of the Inner Temple, was published in 4 volumes in 1814. A copy is held at 'Dr William's Library', an ancient non-conformist institution tucked behind London University in Gordon Square.

     Volume 4 includes entries on two Swallow Street Presbyterian churches. As early as 1676, an 'English Presbyterian' church became established on Swallow Street - some way north of the later Scots church there. Wilson describes four Ministers who preached at this church the first two of whom had to contend with antagonistic pre-1688 authorities and antagonisms but the later two having a more reasonable time. One of the latter later took up a post as Minister at the English Presbyterian church in Rotterdam from 1699 to 1718 when he returned to lead a dissenting congregation at Haberdasher's Hall in the City. His successor at the Swallow Street church was a Mr. Stort from Harwich, Essex, a place with probable links with dissenting Flemish and Dutch Heguenot churches. He died in post about 1710 when "..his congregation dissolved and most of the surviving members united themselves with Dr Anderson's (Scots) church in the same neighbourhood".

      The second Swallow Street entry concerns this latter 'Scots Presbyterian church' which was "..established around the beginning of the 18th century (ca 1705) by Dr James Anderson, a Scotsman, and consisted of such persons of his own nation as resided in the west-end of the town (ie Westminster). Their first place of worship was in Glasshouse Street (just above Vine St) from whence they removed, in Feb 1709/10, to a larger building on Swallow Street, near Piccadilly. This had been for several years (from 1692) in the possession of a congregation of French Protestants of the Episcopal persuasion”. [Apparently some French Huguenots, albeit anti-Catholic, were more akin to the Anglican than to the Presbyterian church.] The French congregation was much reduced by 1709 and offered to sell their lease to Dr Anderson and his elders, who accepted. Their numbers received a considerable accession from the remnants of Mr Stort’s congregation in that same area (ie ca 1710).

      Dr Anderson was a native of Aberdeen where he received his Doctor of Divinity degree. He was a Calvanist and later moved to London (ca ?1700) where he soon “collected a congregation from amongst persons of the Scottish nation who resided in Westminster. Their numbers grew despite Westminster being generally "..a part of town where dissenters are very little in fashion". He soon became well known in London as 'Bishop Anderson' and as a respected historian of his own country. He also published, in 1732, a famous book on Royal Genealogies which was dedicated to Frederick, Prince of Wales and went through several editions. He married a lady of considerable fortune but lost it all in the South Sea Bubble of 1720. (His brother, Mr Adam Anderson, was 40 years a Clerk at South Sea House and compiled that valuable work 'The History of Commerce'."

      About the year 1734, the Scots congregation at Swallow St separated into two factions (on the basis of some unknown disagreement) and Dr Anderson left to set up a new church on Lisle Street near Leicester Square, taking some of his members with him. He died there in 1739 and his successor, another Scot, transferred that congregation some years later to nearby Peter St, Soho. Before the breach, the Swallow St premises had been re-built and “comprised a large oblong building with 3 galleries fitted out with great neatness”. It has, wrote Mr Wilson in 1814, “. .always been a place of considerable resort for people of the Scottish nation and the congregation is now (1814) in a flourishing state.” The other Scotch church, on Peter Street, also continued well into the 1800s. I could see only one other Scottish Presbyterian church described amongst the many Dissenting churches listed for the London area in Wilson’s voluminous work. This was one in the City called ‘Founder’s Hall’.

      Dr Anderson was succeeded at Swallow St in 1734 by another Scottish Minister - William Crookshank, MA, DD (bn 1700). He moved to London on an invitation to succeed Dr Anderson and was ordained in the Swallow St church Jan 23 1734/35. He too was a learned historian and published works on the sufferings of the church in Scotland under the Stuarts. It would appear that it was on Dr Crookshank’s initiative that baptisms were first performed at the Scotch church on Swallow St - from 1735 or so - and while not initially entered into a permanent register book, were clearly recorded somewhere and, in 1750, transcribed retrospectively into a formal register. Usefully, these entries included the place of birth of the surviving infants concerned (and of all infants after 1750). He continued in this post some 33 years but left under some controversy (unexplained) and died in 1769. [Check his Will.]

      Another publication examined at Dr William's Library was a 'List of Presbyterian and Independent Ministers in England between 1717 and 1731' - by one Thomas James (1866). This too showed that there were very few Scottish Presbyterian congregations in southern England, including London. Most (12) were in Northumberland, 2 in Durham and 1 each in Lancashire and Staffordshire. There were, on the other hand, a great many English Presbyterina and independent Chapels throughout England at that time, including many in London and, for example, 21 in Dorset - including one in Bridport and another in Shaftesbury. The Minster there, a James Green, transferred to Exeter in 1723 and would thus have been active in Shaftesbury in the preceding decade or so. The church register for that church (possibly not commenced until much later that century?) was said (by a local historian) to have been 'maliciously destroyed' early in the 19th century - the reason unknown. Unlike the Scots church then in London, it may have performed and recorded baptisms from the 1730s, say, but we can't be certain. The earliest recorded baptisms in Dorset appear to have been performed at Bridport where there was also a Presbyterian congregation, and another in Netherbury. But the Bridport Chapel baptised many children from all over Dorset and Somerset, including some from Shaftesbury (although no Brown(e)s), from about 1730. Shaftesbury's Chapel may well have not started until later that century therefore. Very few Presbyterian churches in the country had registers before the 1740s or '50s.

Comment.

      There was no shortage of Presbyterian and Independent churches in London and Westminster from the early 1700s. Except for Dr Anderson’s Scottish church on Swallow St (and its later off-shoot), and the one in the City, these were all described as ‘English Presbyterian’ churches. Normally, one would have to assume therefore that any Presbyterian arriving in London from the English provinces in the early 1700s, would have any number of such English churches of that persuasion to join. Those (from elsewhere) who purposely joined the Scots church instead would therefore very likely be of Scottish nationality, one must assume. Certainly, a check of the surnames of those having children baptised there in the 1730s/40s/50s showed these to be predominantly Scottish - both from the highlands and lowlands/borders. There were, however, some names of more ambivalent status - as Miller, Taylor, Smith and Brown - who could have been of either origin. [We should now check to see if any names may have a Huguenot relevance.]

      The qualification ‘normally’ seems justified in the foregoing however because of the existence until 1710 of that English Presbyterian church on Swallow St itself - from which a number of such dissenters transferred to the nearby ‘Scots’ church, then recently established by Dr Anderson. One would have to assume therefore that this church continued to accept such worshippers over the next few years and quite possibly into the 1720s. There may not have been an English Presbyterian church so conveniently located nearby (nor possible a Huguenot one of their original 'Presbyterian' (non-conformist) orientation?]. Our task of trying to establish an origin for Benjamin Browne or his father Robert is thus to this extent compromised. For without that earlier English church’s ‘remnants’ in 1710, we might more reasonably conclude that Robert and his son Benjamin may well have been of Scots descent. But because of these factors, an English one seems equally probable. Or might it have even been French? Yet more evenly-balanced theories.

Click here to Return to section on 'The Children of Benjamin and Elizabeth'

APPENDIX TWO

      On ‘phoning the College, I was put onto the ‘Officer of the Day’ - a junior Herald, Mr Dickenson - and asked him if it was possible to examine a specific Manuscript - viz that of former Garter King of Arms Sir Charles Young - MS 910. I explained that I had examined it on a previous occasion about 3 years prior - in the company of Sir Peter Leslie - but in rather cramped facilities and probably too briefly - under the oversight of Mr Gwynne-Jones (now Garter). As I knew the exact MS number and it could thus be retrieved with little effort, it was thought to be in order to so re-examine it and I could now do so in a special ‘Students’ Room’ next to that of the Archivist - a Mr Yorke (who would see to its delivery and return). I could examine it for as long as I wished - for the set fee of £10. If there were any other ‘notes’ pertaining to this matter in the College’s archives, these could only be searched (and probably examined) by a Herald (or an Assistant) under the more usual arrangements, as the College’s ethics require - and at considerably more cost.

      I wished to re-examine these ‘notes’ (as Reggie referred to them) in order to confirm or not my impression that I had, on the previous occasion, noted therein some reference to the estimated age at which Benjamin’s father Robert had died in June 1738. Reggie had stated in his booklet that “..the Bible and other documents tell us [amongst other things] that Robert died at a great age, believed 83..”. As I had examined the Bible and found no reference there to this fact, it must have come to Reggie from these unspecified ‘other documents’. But, according to Peter Leslie, when he asked Reggie about this some years ago, he couldn’t recall or specify just where this information came from. It was quite central to Reggie’s case that Robert was the son of George Browne of the Frampton family - born in May 1655 in Netherbury, Dorset. The subtraction 1738 minus 83 resulted in exactly this year of birth.

      Apparently, those 'other documents' were in fact these 'notes' held at the College of Arms. But the age of death I believe I had seen when we examined these, albeit fleetingly, was in fact 82. If this was the same as seen by Reggie (who examined these papers in the l960s, I believe) but later forgotten, he may well have later adjusted his figure by this single digit in order to better fit the calculation he was making - to support a particular origin for Robert. It turned out that my vague impression was correct; I had seen the age ‘82’ mentioned in MS 910. I had also noted a reference there to the belief that Robert had died at “an advanced age”. However, these two opinions were not conjoined but occurred in quite different contexts. This is shown below where I reproduce much of the contents (often paraphrased or abstracted) of the relevant MS that pertains to the Browne family.

      Manuscript 910 is a bound volume entitled ‘Miscellaneous Pedigrees’ and is one of over a thousand such volumes in Sir Charles Young’s collection. It comprises various letters, notes and hand-drawn pedigrees of a number of families in no particular order. Many letters were dated in the year 1841 but those concerning the Brownes were written between 1820 and 1822. They fall in the middle of the volume and are numbered as pages 111 to 139. While Reggie described them as ‘notes’ left by Admiral Philip Browne (then still a Captain) with Sir Charles Young, they in fact comprise about 8 letters and one ‘Memorandum’. Whether any actual notes exist elsewhwere in the College seems unknown.

      The memorandum is undated. But in it, amongst other items, is a description of the issue of Philip Browne’s father, also Captain Philip Browne (Snr), in which the younger Philip, the 4th-born son, is described (seemingly by himself) as “..living 1821”. It would appear that the younger Captain Philip Browne began his investigations concerning his family’s origins by examining and quoting evidence from the family Bible during 1820 (when he was aged about 48). For the earliest letter appears to be one from a William Vaux, Curate at St James church, Shaftesbury, dated 27 Nov 1820; he reports that he (and others) had searched the Registers of all 4 local parishes, emphasising the great fatigue in doing so; their finding were listed on a separate sheet. This showed the same three baptisms and/or burials of children born to a Robert Brown there between 1690 and the early 1700s as noted by Reggie (and myself later). With no other evidence, we may conclude that Philip had previously written to the Shaftesbury cleric requesting this search on the basis of what he had noted in his family’s Bible. What we don’t know is when that Bible entry was written, by whom and on what prior evidence. I now feel it was likely written by George Howe Browne between about 1800 and 1820.

      The next day, another letter from Shaftesbury was sent to Philip - from a Mr Bowles (whose writing is almost illegible). It refers to “...the remarkable coincidence of a Robert Browne of Frampton marrying a Frances Browne of Blandford St Mary and they having a daughter Elizabeth who died in 1721 in St Clement Danes, London”. But just what aspect of this information comprised the coincidence (and with respect to what) is not made clear. It would seem that those in Shaftesbury had been told that the wife of Philip’s grandfather Robert was an a cousin - Elizabeth. But otherwise...?

      After his initial overtures in 1820 and 1821, Philip composed a Memorandum in which he attempted to set out in a somewhat impersonal, objective way the facts as he understood them about his family. This was apparently done in 1821 or '22 - possibly over several months as new facts emerged. He probably presented the final version to the College of Arms (who may have requested same) and they, in turn, instigated further enquiries in Dorset. For the next letter was dated 1 Feb 1822 and sent from one Edward Boswell of Dorchester to a General Garth [of where not stated; both seemed to be Dorset antiquarians/genealogists] possibly employed as and when needed in Dorset by the College. Some of what they had to go on may thus have derived from the Memorandum - if its contents were passed on to them. It (now a part of the present MS) is thus reproduced (in part) below - viz:

      “Memorandum of the family of Captain Philip Browne (Jnr) taken from the Bible of Benjamin Browne, his Grandfather....(who was)...the son of Robert and Elizabeth Browne (and was) born at Shaftesbury, Dorset Sept 15 1711 and (who) married Elizabeth Bertrand and had issue…[there follows a listing of their 10 children with their exact dates of birth and years of death, but no place names]. The above Benjamin Browne was the youngest of three children; the others were named Robert and Elizabeth and (they) died unmarried between the years 1730 and 1750 at their father’s [presumably in London?]. The first-named Robert and Elizabeth Browne [Benjamin’s parents] are descended from the family of that name who resided at Godmanston and Blandford St Mary in Dorset [this was of course unverified] and...were dispossessed at the time of the Monmouth Rebellion.” [We would very much like to know who told Capt Philip these views and on what evidence. It seems quite possible that a similar story was told to Benjamin by his father (and then passes on) as an explanation as to why the family had fallen on hard times ca 1690-1710, even if this was not really the case; see elsewhere where that Rebellion was however quite possibly on the periphery of their possible troubles then.]

      “There does not appear any other Memoranda (concerning) the gt-grandfather Robert Browne excepting his having died in Hendon Street (sic) in St James at his son’s house in June 1738, at a very advanced age”. [From where did this item derive? It is not in the family Bible. Philip clearly uses the term ‘memorandum’ in the sense of a statement of historical information - as he understood it. We might reasonably enquire how it was that there was no other information on this key link to the family's past.] “It is probable [continues the Memorandum] that the Registers of Blandford St Mary or Godmanston may show who his father was, who was most likely born about 1630-40...and the Register may also show who was the wife of this Robert, it having been said that her name was ..... Browne, a cousin of his...”. [Note: above the blank space the name ‘Frances’ appears to have been added later; this proves inconsistent with the information that her name was in fact Elizabeth. But leaving this blank may have allowed of the slight possibility that he descended directly from that Blandford-Frampton union where the cousin concerned was a Frances Browne. In two other places, notes were also later added - querying the spellings of names; the original writer’s ‘a’s often appearing as ‘e’s.]

      “The name of Philip was heretofore used by the family - the present Philip Browne...recollecting that he was destined for the church - it being said that an ancestor of his was in that profession and held a living in that part of Dorsetshire from whence the family came - but, his (elder) brother Richard dying early, who was in the Navy, Philip succeeded him in that (ie Naval) profession.”

      “The late Capt Philip Browne, R.N. married on 14 May 1768 Miss Catherine Dalby of Hurst Lodge, Berks and had issue:

                        Thomas Leveson Browne   -   d. 1801 Artillery
                        Richard Howe Browne   -   d. 1787 Navy
                        Robert Browne   -   d. an infant
                        Philip Browne   -   living 1821 “

[Did Philip not enter the Navy until 1787 therefore, when aged 15?]

      “The Arms borne by the late Capt Philip Browne were those of his grandfather [ie Robert Browne d 1738] which are described below and the Seal (?unfashion) in which those of his father are quartered with the Arms of Dalby and Holloway:

      [Here is drawn the Frampton Browne’s Arms beside which is a red wax-impressed Seal showing a shield with 2 diagonal quarters depicting these same Arms and the 2 others with the differing Arms. Note: Capt Philip (Snr)’s Seal on his Will (dtd 1772) in fact shows what appears to be warrior’s helmetted head - with no shield or Arms.]

      “A remarkable coincidence attends the marriage of the late Capt Browne - it having arisen from a former acquaintance between the families of Dalby and Browne when residing in Dorset - the late Capt’s wife’s mother being a Miss Kent - a daughter & coheir of the late Charles Kent of West Hall, Dorset - descended from the Chafes and Molines of that place.” [This is the second 'remarkable coincidence' depicted in these papers and again the degree to which it is 'remarkable' is not very apparent. There is no evidence that the Dalbys ever resided in Dorset nor that they or the Kents had any contact with the progenitors of the Brownes of London.]

      Following receipt of this Memorandum seemingly, the letter from Edward Boswell to General Garth was sent from Dorchester on 1 Feb 1822 in which the latter is informed that “I have sent you the pedigrees of the family of Browne of Godmanston & Blandford St Mary and for those of Frampton & Forston”. There is then reference to the marriage of Frances of Blandford to Robert of Frampton and to the inclusion in the list of issue of an earlier Robert Browne of Godmanston and his wife Bridget of a Benjamin Browne (bn 1631) - as shown by Hutchins, but with no mention of any marriage, issue or date of death. He also notes that the Blandford Register shows a Thomas Browne and wife Martha having a son William in 1619 who are “left out of the pedigree - as no doubt were many others, for very good reasons - Browne Willis (who had inherited) having sold the Blandford estate.” [This seems a little naive in that the Blandford branch of the landed Brownes only settled there ca 1665. There was no Thomas & Martha in the landed Browne family. But there were unrelated 'Brown(e)s everywhere. What they didn't report on nor discover seemingly was the fact that Robert Browne of Blandford did have a son Robert Browne Jnr - who would have provided a most convenient potential link to the London Brownes but his baptism and subsequent burial in infancy were clearly recorded but at the back of the Blandford register, which had also been 'reversed' (as often done in those times to save space).]

      There is then a ‘Chronological abstract’ of various Browne entries from Hutchins and Coker’s Survey and ‘other authorities’ - from ca 1380. Three of these were:

                        1488 - William Browne presented to the living of Godmanston
                        1506 - Nicholas Browne was instituted to the living of Frampton 20 Jan
                        1543 - Philip Browne was instituted to the living of Frampton 28 May.”

      On Feb 15 1822, Philip wrote to Mr Bowles who replied on the 22nd of that month saying “I have communicated the contents of your letter [of the 15th] to General Garth. He intends searching the Blandford Register later this week and will reply soon after. It is the General’s opinion (and I agree) that Mr Francis John Browne would be pleased with your enquiries. [This re-states a comment in another letter by Mr Bowles of 6 Feb 1822 (to Capt Browne) saying that “..if Mr Browne of Frampton should ever hear of your enquiries into his family with an idea of endeavouring to find a common ancestor with yourself, he would not think it otherwise than a laudable enquiry. [This view apparently based on many years acquaintance with Francis Browne but Bowles writing is very difficult to read.]

      Next, in March 1822, Mr Boswell wrote again to General Garth but in a more sceptical tone - saying, for example, that “it is most extraordinary that the name Benjamin does not once occur in any of the Registers examined and it is only to be found in the pedigree sent to you by my friend Mr Bowles [seemingly from Hutchins] in which he is described as the 4th son of (an earlier) Robert Browne and his wife - now shown as Katherine (nee Savage); he is shown as ‘born 1631 and d.s.p. (died sans prole)’ [ie without leaving progeny]. This name and such information could not have got onto such a pedigree without some authority. The Registers show the baptisms of [this couple’s] first two sons Richard and Robert at Sydling St Nicholas [in 1622 & ‘27] and two later sons - Alexander and George in 1629 and 1633 at Godmanston. There seems to be a hiatus, therefore, between 1629 and 1633 in the Godmanston Register. It requires further careful study...[If his birth can be confirmed]...then one must seek evidence of his subsequent marriage and you can then connect this with your [suggested] continuation...[which]...supposes that this Benjamin had a son Robert who married a relation [a cousin] Elizabeth Browne and that this Robert died in London at his father’s.” (sic) [This is a slip; he actually died at his son’s.]

      It continues: "Benjamin [Snr] - Robert’s supposed father - would have been 54 at the time of Monmouth’s Rebellion. If Robert was born when Benjamin was about 25 - as you suppose - that is, in 1656 [ie 1631 plus 25] and died in 1738, he would have been 82 years old [at his death]. Benjamin, who was born in 1711, being 27 before his father died. These are probable circumstances.”

      Another letter was written by Edw Boswell in March 1822 (the exact day again not shown) - this time to Capt Philip Browne, R.N. at Hurst Grove, Wokingham, Berks. In this, he explains that the Registers of Godmanston and Sydling do not show the baptism of a Benjamin Browne in 1631 - even though Hutchins does show this - as well as that of a daughter Frances in 1646. He said that Hutchins claimed as sources “entries at the Herald’s Office and 1other authorities”. [I seem to recall that Hutchin’s father or grandfather was the Rector at Sydling and may have had access to some register before it deteriorated?] He also suggested to Philip that he may find it useful to engage the services of a Mr Hewlitt of London who is most capable in searching the records in the Public Record Office. [Where are these records of the Herald's Office today?]

      Sadly, there were no comments or suggestions in MS 910 by Sir Charles Young himself on the matters of concern, nor any final conclusions. If there were further developments - either in the 1820s or later (?1840s), when Adm Edward Walpole Browne apparently became more involved, records of any authorization granted by the College to use the Frampton Arms would be held by them in some relevant file. It is interesting to note that young Capt Philip Browne quotes his father’s use of the Frampton Arms (ie prior to his death in 1779) which he describes as those of this father’s grandfather’ - ie of Robert Browne (d 1738) - even though he stated that nothing except his date and place of death, at an advanced age, was known about him.

      It can now be seen that his estimated age at death of 82 (correctly recalled, it now appears), was one that followed from General Garth’s reasoning concerning an estimated birth not in Netherbury (to George Browne of the Taunton branch) but in 1656 - and to a Benjamin Browne of the Godmanston branch (possibly born in 1631) when that man was an estimated 25. If his age then was estimated instead to be 24, the outcome would of course be the same in the two cases. The General’s reasoning was quite reasonable, given the possibility of this earlier Benjamin’s existence (with a father named Robert); his age in 1738 would simply follow as a fact. The description by Philip Browne that his gt grandfather was previously somewhere described as being of ‘an advanced age’ in 1738, was a quite independent feature (arising where?). The two were seemingly then combined by Reggie when composing his treatise - probably from memory when he couldn’t locate all his initial facts.

      The other interesting finding concerns the description of Benjamin being the youngest of three [?surviving] children born to Robert and Elizabeth. That the other two had such common names as Robert and Elizabeth and were both unmarried provides one with little useful additional material. One of the Roberts born in Shaftesbury to Robert Snr (seemingly the 2nd one - possibly born in 1701 and baptised in the Shaftesbury Presbyterian church whose registers were ‘maliciously destroyed in the early 1800s) was buried on 6th Jan 1702/3. (However, later information casts doubt on the existence of such registers before about 1750.) The first Robert, whose baptism is also lacking, was buried in 1690 and likely born but a few months before. It would thus appear to have been a 3rd Robert who, for some reason, was baptised in the parish church - on the 16th of Jan 1702/3 - and thus likely born only a few days after the 2nd Robert had died. It would be this 3rd Robert, some 7 years older than Benjamin, who apparent1y died unmarried later that century.

      If Robert Snr’s wife was indeed an Elizabeth, it follows that this Shaftesbury couple would be expected to name a daughter thus - and presumably early in the marriage - ie ca 1690-95. They also had two daughters - Ann and Catherine - baptised in 1696 and 1699, respectively. Ann was later buried but Catherine appears to have survived. An Elizabeth Brown was buried in Shaftesbury in 1712 but, atypically, she was not described as the daughter or wife of...(anyone) - ie she was likely an adult spinster and unrelated to Robert (unless his sister). Some years later - in 1717 - an Elizabeth, daughter of (a) Robert Browne, was buried in Shaftesbury. It may have been another Robert Browne (as father). Thus, it makes some sense to suggest that Benjamin did indeed have at least two older siblings, as named. On July 2 1735, (when Benjamin still lived in St George Han Sq), an Elizabeth Brown of that parish was buried in St James, Paddington (the church used by Benjamin and family). And not long after they’d moved into St James, a Catherine Brown of St James was buried at Paddington on 18 Mar 1736. I haven’t noted a Robert Brown(e) dying there in the 1730-50s (except he of 1738). But, these names are so common, finding such entries probably proves nothing - unless one of these left a Will in which some clue about identities might usefully appear.

Click here to Return to the Briefer Discussion on this same topic in the Main Account.

Return to Genealogy Homepage