Anne Brownell

Anne Bourne

• Birth: est 1615 England (based on age 21 at marriage)
• Death: Oct. 24, 1666 Portsmouth Newport County Rhode Island, USA
• parents: unknown - NOT Richard Bourne, Grocer of London and his wife Judith Hill
• Husband: Thomas Brownell
• Not the same as Anne Bourne

Family

Ann Bourne married Thomas Brownell, son of Robert Brownell and Mary Wilson, on 20 March 1636/37 at St. Paul's Wharf, St. Bennet, London, England.3,1,4 Thomas Brownell b. 5 Jun 1608, d. 24 Sep 1664. As of 20 March 1636/37,her married name was Brownell.3,1

Their children:

1. William Brownell+ b. circa 1648-53, d. 1715
2. George Brownell3 b. circa __ ___ 1646/8, d. 20 Apr 1718
3. Mary Brownell3 b. c Apr 1639, d. 12 Jan 1739/40
4. Sarah Brownell3 b. c 1641, d. 6 Sep 1676
5. Martha Brownell3 b. 1 May 1643, d. 15 Feb 1744/45
6. Robert Brownell3 b. c 1652, d. 12 Jul 1728
7. Anne Brownell+3 b. c 1654, d. 2 Apr 1747
8. Thomas Brownell+3 b. c 1656, d. 18 May 1732
9. Susanna Brownell3 b. bt 1656 - 1665, d. a Feb 1734. Unmarried.

Thomas Brownell’s division of estate dated 16 Sep 1665, of Portsmouth, mentions widow Ann Brownell who is appointed executrix, sons George Eldest, Robert second, William third, Thomas fourth, all under 21; daughters Marie Hazard eldest, Sarah Freeborne second, Martha Brownell third unmarried, Ann Brownell fourth unmarried, and Susannah Brownell fifth unmarried. [1, 2, 3]

http://trees.wmgs.org/getperson.php?personID=I8155&tree=Schirado

• 1.Frederick C. Pierce, (1888, Rockford, IL).
• 2.Joseph Savage, (Little Brown, Boston, 1860).
• 3. Abstracts of various RI towns, Nellie M. C. Beaman.

Disputed Origins

Seen as daughter of Deacon Thomas Bourne of Marshfield and “Elizabeth Martha Rouse.” This conflicts with known daughter Ann Smith who married Nehemiah Smith.

Other Possible Parents are: Anne has been tentatively identified as the daughter of Richard Bourne and Judith (Cowper) Hill, born in London and baptized at St. Michael Cornhill on 15 February 1606. Disproved - the Anne bp 1606 was living unmarried in England in 1657, named “Anne Bourne” in her mother’s will. So cannot have been the Anne Bourne living in Portsmouth RI. See “Will of Judith Hill, Widow of Fulham, Middlesex, 20 January 1654”)

Other Possible Parents are: William Bourne, of Grensted 1586 – 1634 and Ursula Daye 1589 – . But there is also a listing for Anne Bourne - (1624 - 1636); in other words, two living daughters named Anne by the same mother? Unusual.

Notes

From Find A Grave Memorial# 24314253

There is extensive information about Thomas and his wife Anne Bourne at this web site.
http://brownellfamily.rootsweb.ancestry.com/

Husband - Thomas /Brownell/

Thomas and Anne had 9 children ---------

• 1-Mary /BROWNELL/ sp - Robert /HAZARD
• 2-Martha /BROWNELL/ sp - Jeremiah /Wait/ sp - Charles /DYER/ - 04 Dec 1673
• 3-George /BROWNELL/ sp - Susannah /Pearce/ - 04 Dec 1673
• 4-Ann /BROWNELL/ sp - Benjamin /Davol/ - 1668 sp - Joseph /Wilbor/ Sr. - 04 May 1683
• 5-William /Brownell/ sp - SARAH /SMITEN/ - 1673
• 6-Thomas /BROWNELL/ Jr. sp - Mary /Pearce/ - 04 May 1678
• 7-Robert /BROWNELL/ sp - MARY /LAND/ - 1675
• 8-Susanna /Brownell/
• 9-Sarah /Brownell/ sp - Gideon /Freeborn/

Family links:

Spouse:

 Thomas Brownell (1608 - 1664)*

Children:

 Sarah Brownell Freeborn (1641 - 1676)*

 George Brownell (1646 - 1718)*

 Thomas Brownell (1650 - 1732)*

 Robert Brownell (1652 - 1728)*

 Ann Brownell Wilbore (1662 - 1747)*

*Calculated relationship

Inscription: Note: According to grussell2005 - Stone is no longer visable. Since Thomas and Anne both died before Aquidneck Island had a stone carver, it isn't likely that their graves were ever marked with an inscribed stone (not to say that one could have been emplaced at a later date). More importantly, no inventory of Portsmouth historical cemeteries (dating back over 100 years) cite a listing for Thomas and Anne, hence my statement below. This is not to say that they are not buried in PO005, just to say there is no evidence one way or another. The original land holdings of Thomas do encompass the cemetery, but I don't believe that allows any positive conclusions other than they are probably buried somewhere on the property.

Note: my 7th Great Grandmother by marriage to Thomas Brownell (brownell) eb

Burial: George Brownell Lot Portsmouth Newport County Rhode Island, USA

Thomas and Ann came to Braintree, Massachusetts on the ship Whale in 1638. They started their family in Portsmouth, Newport, Rhode Island. They had several children. Thomas was the first Brownell to come to America and there are many files about his and Ann's descendants on the Internet and in print.

Thomas died from a horse accident while ridding. Ann tried to remarry to a William Long but was prohibited by the Court of Tryalls of Newport.

Jared Bourn brother or cousin of Ann settled in Portsmouth in 1665. I would imagine the two families were in contact with each other. Ann's husband death may be one of the reasons that Jared Bourn made the move from Roxbury to help support the family.

Note from Richard Bourne: I took a closer look at the listings in the LDS IGI files and found something very interesting. It seems that Ann Bourne is listed with two sets of parents. Richard Bourne and Judith Cowper (and) William Bourne and Ursula Daye. All I really know now is Ann was related to both. The files seem to reflect that Richard Bourne and Judith Cowper have more evidence that they are the parents. If you know of any evidence that points strongly toward one parent set or the other please send it to me. I am going to reflect in my data base that the parents are Richard Bourne and Judith Cowper and that the possibility exists that William Bourne and Ursula Daye could be Ann's Parents. (See other listing of Ann "Anne" Bourne in this data base)

Immigration: 1638, Braintree, Massachusetts.

ii. SARAH, b. ca. 1641; d. 6 September 1676 at Portsmouth, RI; m. 1 June 1658 GIDEON(2) FREEBORN, son of William(1) and Mary Freeborn, b. ca. 1634, d. 28 February 1720/1721 at Portsmouth, RI, and had six children.

iii. MARTHA, b. 1 May 1643; died 15 February 1744/1745; m. after 16 Sept1665, JEREMIAH(2) WAIT, son of Thomas(1) and Ellen Wait, b. ca. 1648 at Portsmouth, RI, d. 26 December 1675; m. 2) after 8 March 1690 CHARLES(2) DYER, son of William(1) and Mary Dyer(the Quaker hung in Boston in 1660) b. ca. 1650 at Newport, RI, d. 15 May 1709 at Newport, RI. There were no children from either marriage.

iv. GEORGE (our line), b. ca. 1647/1648; d. 20 April 1718 at Portsmouth, RI; m. 4 December 1673 SUSANNA PEARCE, dau. of Richard(1) and Susanna (Wright) Pearce, b. ca. 1652, d. 24 December 1743 at Portsmouth, RI, and had eight children.

v. ROBERT, b. ca. 1652; d. 12 July 1728 at Little Compton, RI; m. ca. 1675 at Portsmouth, RI, MARY LADD, daughter of Joseph(1) and Joanna Ladd, b. at Portsmouth, RI, d. after July 1728, and had six children.

vi. WILLIAM, b. ca. 1653; d. 1715 at Dartmouth, MA; m. 1672 at Portsmouth, RI, SARAH SMITON, dau. of William(1) and Sarah (Lloyd) Smiton, b. 1654 at Portsmouth, RI, d. 1716 at Dartmouth, MA, and had eleven children.

vii. ANNE, b. ca. 1654; d. 2 April 1747 at Little Compton, RI; m. 4 May 1683 at Little Compton, RI, JOSEPH(2) WILBUR, son of William(1) and Martha Wilbur, b. 1656 at Portsmouth, RI, d. 4 May 1729 at Little Compton, RI, and had ten children.

viii. THOMAS, b. ca. 1656; d. 18 May 1732 at Little Compton; m. 1678 at Portsmouth, RI, MARY PEARCE, dau. of Richard(1) and Susanna (Wright) Pearce, b. 6 May 1654 at Portsmouth, RI, d. 4 May 1736 at Little Compton, RI, and had six children.

ix. SUSANNA, b. between 1656 and 1665; died after February 1734, never married.

• All children except Mary are believed to have been born in Portsmouth, RI.*

Today one can fly from London to Boston in about eight hours; in the 17th century, that same trip meant a hazardous and, at best, unpleasant voyage of at least six weeks on a small wooden ship.

The vessels used in the 17th century were small, particularly when compared to ships today. A few ships were from 300 to 500 tons, but the majority were between 150 and 200 tons. The Mayflower was an average size ship for that time. She was 180 tons, 90 feet long and about 20 feet wide. She carried 102 passengers and a crew of 47.

Compare that to today's cruise ships, which range in size from 12,000 to 95,000 tons, are 450 to 950 feet long, and carry up to 3,000 passengers. Today a ship, such as the QEII, can make the voyage from England to the United States in three and one-half days.

When a passenger left London he could not say within many weeks how long he was to be on board the ship taking him to America. The ships were slow sailers, although they could go as fast as eight miles an hour when there was a fair wind and a smooth sea. But never was this rate kept up for even twenty-four hours.

Often four or five miles was all there was to show for a whole day. There were even times when they were further from their destination at the end of twenty-four hours than at the beginning. The length of the voyage could vary from 47 to 138 days. Sometimes ships that left London at the same time might arrive in America as much as eight or nine weeks apart.

Conditions on board were far from ideal, even for those times. Most ships were over-crowded with passengers, and private cabins were available only to the ship's captain and a very few, if any, important passengers. All the others slept on the floor on the deck below the main deck.

There was very little light or air. Often water would pour in through cracks and joints, drenching the passengers and their belongings. There were no bathrooms on board. If you wanted to wash, you had to wash in salty water from the sea. Most likely you would wear the same clothes for the entire voyage.

Meals usually consisted of salt horse (salted beef, pork or fish) and hardtack (a hard, dry biscuit). There were dried peas and beans, cheese and butter. Weather permitting, food was cooked over charcoal fires in metal boxes called braziers. But it was often too dangerous to have a fire and so the food was eaten cold. Food became infested with bugs, the biscuits got too hard to eat, the cheese got moldy, butter turned bad and even the beer began to go sour by the end of the voyage.

A large amount of water was taken on board, but after standing in barrels for a while, it was neither pleasant or safe to drink. Everyone, even the children, drank beer instead.

Storms were a great danger, and the Atlantic had many, especially in the fall and winter. The tossing and rolling of these small ships in even a minor storm caused most of the passengers, many of whom had never been on a ship before, to become seasick. A major storm could easily capsize ships of this size or cause them to break apart.

Sickness, other than seasickness, was also a major problem. Even a minor illness could quickly spread among passengers and crew alike. Serious illnesses, often called ship's fever, killed many passengers. On some voyages as many as half the passengers died before they reached their final destination.

The prospect of this long, dangerous and unpleasant voyage was not made more tolerable by the conditions passengers faced upon arrival in America. There were no hotels in which to stay, no restaurants in which to eat, nor often even relatives or friends to greet them.

New England, although not an unknown territory even when the Pilgrims settled there in 1620, was not a particularly hospitable area. The winters were hard, disease often ran rampant, and the area was populated with sometimes hostile Indians. Those who survived the voyage were faced with the very difficult task of building a new life, literally from scratch.

When Thomas and Anne Brownell came to America in 1638 they were a part of the "Great Migration" of English people to the New World. During the 1620's only about 1,800 immigrants arrived in New England. But from 1630 to 1640 over 21,000 left their homes in England and made the voyage to New England. By the end of the 17th century, approximately 39,000 Englishmen had emigrated there. (A far greater number of English emigrants, 341,000, settled in the Southern colonies and the West Indies in the 1600's.)

Why did the Brownells and thousands of their countrymen embark on a long, hazardous and unpleasant voyage to begin a new life in America? What propelled them to give up "civilization," to leave their homes, families and all that was familiar to them for the prospect of an arduous life in New England?

To understand the reasons behind this migration, we must look at the political, social, economic and religious forces that converged in the early 1600's, providing the motivation for thousands to leave their homeland.

The religious wars brought about by the Reformation were ending, although religious differences continued to grow. After more than a hundred years of intermittent warfare, the net result was that the ruler of each country or state would decide the religious affiliation of his or her subjects-if the king was Catholic, so too would be his subjects; if Protestant, his subjects were forced to worship in the particular form he espoused, whether it be Lutheran, Calvinist, Presbyterian, or any other non-Catholic sect. Rather than international wars over religion, the stage was set for internal fighting that sometimes, as in the case of England, resulted in civil war. The Reformation in England had not changed much in terms of the religious practices of the people. King Henry VIII had merely placed himself in the role of the head of the church rather than the Pope in Rome. The religious hierarchy and the form of worship remained the same except that English was substituted for Latin in the Liturgy.

In the latter half of the 16th century, during the reign of Elizabeth I, there was a sentiment among many Englishmen that reform had not gone far enough. These people, primarily members of the middle and lower classes, wanted to "purify" the Church of England by doing away with all vestiges of Catholicism and returning to a simple and pure form of worship. Furthermore, they wanted to eliminate the clerical hierarchy as God's appointed representatives on earth with the privilege of interpreting the word of God.

The Puritan concept of worship included no dogma, no ceremony, no statuary and no formal Book of Prayer. It disdained the vestments of the clergy and their ritualistic services, and completely rejected the use of symbolism in the form of Mass, Communion, Baptism, the Enthronement of Bishops, and the Solemnization of Marriages.

The Puritans objected to being compelled to support the Church through tithes, levies, and taxes. They preferred to worship solemnly in humble surroundings and in direct communication with God. They resented the Church's claim to infallibility and both the Church and state's rejection of the right of any man to worship in accordance with his own conscience.

These precepts put the Puritans on a collision course with the King and government. The Anglican, or Established, Church of England had the advantage of forming a vast network of communication that reached into every corner and every home of the country. Through the Church ran the authority of the law, the fear of the hereafter and the knowledge that the priests employed by it would take note of any "nonconformity" on the part of the people.

Attendance at church services was compulsory and ensured that the surveillance was total. The parish rolls prevented the citizens from dispersing and so evading taxes, military service and their "duty" to their masters. For those who failed to conform, the penalties were severe.

As the Puritan movement grew stronger in numbers and determination, so to did the opposition and repression of the King, the government and the Church. Under the Stuart Kings, James I and Charles I, the Puritans despaired of making any real change in the Church and feared for their freedom and their lives if they continued in their non-conformity. As religious tensions in England grew, the New World was seen as a place of refuge where dissenters could worship as they pleased.

Religious differences and the resulting political difficulties were not, however, the sole reason for emigration to America and may, in fact, have been a minor reason. In the early 17th century, the economic and social lives of Englishmen were undergoing dramatic changes. England's economy had for centuries been based on agriculture. Ownership of land was not only a road to wealth, but was the basis of one's social and political position. The land hunger of both the gentry (land owners) and the tenant farmers could not be satisfied on a small island governed by those in favor of maintaining feudal rights. The gentry wanted more land while tenant farmers wanted to own the land they worked and to be free of the feudal restraints that still bound them.

By the beginning of the 17th century, land was becoming increasingly scarce while the population was growing. England was, in fact, overpopulated. At the same time, the woolen industry went into a severe depression, partly a result of the tremendous inflation caused by the great influx into Europe of gold and silver from the New World. Prices on all goods were rising very fast. The poor, laboring classes suffered most from this condition.

Thousands were thrown out of work and onto the poor-relief rolls of the parishes. Rural laborers were also forced into idleness by government policies which enclosed the previously open fields of England in order to create land suitable, not for farming, but for raising sheep to support the woolen industry.

Beggars were found in every town. In London the unemployed slept in the streets. The problem was further compounded when Charles I brought his armies home from Europe, swelling the already high numbers of unemployed, and forced England's householders to provide the troops with board and lodging.

Thus the New World and its opportunities began to seem more appealing to the poor, the unemployed, and the younger sons of the gentry. Seemingly limitless tracts of land and the potential for trade and commerce offered possibilities for producing new wealth.

Finally, the English government encouraged emigration. In addition to being a release-valve for her excess population, colonies could become markets for her woolen goods. The English sorely needed precious metals and hoped to find gold and silver in North America as the Spanish had done in South America.

England wanted to become self-sufficient in terms of raw materials such as ship timber, tar and cordage (ropes for ship's riggings) and for products such as olive oil, currants and wine. If English colonies could produce these goods, England would no longer have to purchase them from the Baltic and Mediterranean countries.

While the English government did not support colonization financially, it was quick to encourage private individuals and groups to establish colonies in the New World. Charters for new colonies were somewhat easily obtained and often contained concessions that were not available to Englishmen at home. In a time when emigration without royal permission was illegal, the Crown eagerly granted such permission to groups like the Puritans and for almost 150 years thereafter, allowed these colonies to grow and develop without a great deal of interference.

Which of these reasons brought Thomas and Anne Brownell to America? We will never know the true answer, but can guess it was a combination of several. As a cloth worker in London, the depression in the cloth industry must have affected Thomas and his chances for economic advancement. As the son of a farmer, the large amount of available land in America must have been attractive. And because of the areas in which the Brownells chose to settle we can surmise that they were of a liberal, non-conformist viewpoint. All these factors together most likely brought the Brownells to the momentous decision to emigrate to the New World.

Note from Richard Bourne: I took a closer look at the listings in the LDS IGI files and found something very interesting. It seems that Ann Bourne is listed with two sets of parents. Richard Bourne and Judith Cowper (and) William Bourne and Ursula Daye. All I really know now is Ann was related to both. The files seem to reflect that Richard Bourne and Judith Cowper have more evidence that they are the parents. If you know of any evidence that points strongly toward one parent set or the other please send it to me. I am going to reflect in my data base that the parents are Richard Bourne and Judith Cowper and that the possibility exists that William Bourne and Ursula Daye could be Ann's Parents. (See other listing of Ann "Anne" Bourne in this data base)

• Neal, "Families of Sequoyah County OK & Others", May 31, 2003, unverified.

-------------------------------------------------
Birth: Feb. 16, 1607 Essex, England Death: Oct. 24, 1666 Portsmouth Newport County Rhode Island, USA

Ann is the daughter of Thomas Bourne and Elizabeth Martha Rouse.

There is extensive information about Thomas and his wife Anne Bourne at this web site. http://brownellfamily.rootsweb.ancestry.com/

Husband - Thomas /Brownell/

Thomas and Anne had 9 children ---------

1-Mary /BROWNELL/ sp - Robert /HAZARD 2-Martha /BROWNELL/ sp - Jeremiah /Wait/ sp - Charles /DYER/ - 04 Dec 1673 3-George /BROWNELL/ sp - Susannah /Pearce/ - 04 Dec 1673 4-Ann /BROWNELL/ sp - Benjamin /Davol/ - 1668 sp - Joseph /Wilbor/ Sr. - 04 May 1683 5-William /Brownell/ sp - SARAH /SMITEN/ - 1673 6-Thomas /BROWNELL/ Jr. sp - Mary /Pearce/ - 04 May 1678 7-Robert /BROWNELL/ sp - MARY /LAND/ - 1675 8-Susanna /Brownell/ 9-Sarah /Brownell/ sp - Gideon /Freeborn/

Family links:

Spouse:

 Thomas Brownell (1608 - 1664)*

Children:

 Sarah Brownell Freeborn (1641 - 1676)*

 George Brownell (1646 - 1718)*

 Ann Brownell Wilbore (1662 - 1747)*

*Calculated relationship

Inscription: Note: According to grussell2005 - Stone is no longer visable. Since Thomas and Anne both died before Aquidneck Island had a stone carver, it isn't likely that their graves were ever marked with an inscribed stone (not to say that one could have been emplaced at a later date). More importantly, no inventory of Portsmouth historical cemeteries (dating back over 100 years) cite a listing for Thomas and Anne, hence my statement below. This is not to say that they are not buried in PO005, just to say there is no evidence one way or another. The original land holdings of Thomas do encompass the cemetery, but I don't believe that allows any positive conclusions other than they are probably buried somewhere on the property.

Note: my 7th Great Grandmother by marriage to Thomas Brownell (brownell) eb

Burial: George Brownell Lot Portsmouth Newport County Rhode Island, USA

Maintained by: EBdeebee Originally Created by: Rebecca Record added: Feb 01, 2008 Find A Grave Memorial# 24314253

References

• Sarah George Zakzrewski, "Sarah Zakrzewski Family Tree."
• GED4WEB, online http://thor.genserv.net/sub/strub/fam_309.htm#9
• Children of Thomas and Anne Brownell, online http://brownellfamily.rootsweb.com/facts.html
• Benjamin Franklin Wilbour, Little Compton Families.
• http://www.citereh.com/p12.htm#i462
• http://www.gulbangi.com/5families-o/p503.htm#i12562