I also have Sarah and William Jr. as children of William & Mary Browne, but no sources.I've got them flagged under my "need to verify" information.
Want to muddy the waters further?Of course we do!I saw a reference last night regarding the will of Mary Browne Landrum, part which allegedly reads "to son, Patrick, land given my husband, James Landrum, by my father,William Brown and mother-in-law, Elizabeth Brown ...."This would mean Elizabeth wasn't her mother, but just her father's wife.(Note that I haven't seen the text of this will, just this reference.And I view it with a bit of caution since the person who referenced it stated emphatically that Samuel Landrum b. 1702 who married Hannah Hawkins was Mary's GRANDson.Since Mary married James Landrum in 1696, it's a pretty neat trick to have a grandchild a mere six years later.)Another look at the deed from William Browne to James Landrum adds a little credence to this, as William wrote, "William Browne together with Elizabeth [or Mary; I'll take your word for it as I've not seen the original myself] my wife of Essex Co., for hearty love and affection do bear unto James Landrum and Mary his Wife, my beloved Daughter..."MY daughter, not OUR daughter.Hmmm.But if Elizabeth wasn't Mary Landrum's mother, then why was William giving Mary "being ½ part of what sd Thomas Page left at his decease to his Daughter, ye Wife of Vallentin Allen"?
More mud to the waters -- something else I've seen reference to is evidently in Essex County Court Order Book 19, pp. 334-336, a lawsuit in 1754 brought by William Browne (a descendant of James Landrum's father-in-law) and Richard Johnson (a descendant of Christian Allen) against James Pitts.It's been stated the lawsuit brought out: A) Thomas Page had only one issue, a daughter Mary who married Valentine Allen B) Valentine and Mary Allen died intestate C) The Allens had two daughters who reached maturity - Elizabeth and Christian D) William Browne (grandfather of one of the plaintiffs) married Elizabeth, and Richard Dison married Christian E) the land was divided between Browne & Dison in 1689 F) Dison had issue, but Christian outlived her husband and children and later married Richard Johnson, father of the other plaintiff
Again, I've not seen this for myself (man, I've got to order some film!) but this throws a monkey-wrench into Valentine and Mary having a daughter named Mary.So perhaps Elizabeth's name WAS Mary Elizabeth or Elizabeth Mary.If the points in this lawsuit are correct, it also proves that William Browne & Mary Allen did have a son who had this plaintiff William.
Well, like I said, I've got to order some film so I can try to decipher some of this myself.
(By the way, I've also seen the Tucker book you mentioned, and there was quite a bit of erroneous information!The author seems to have combined several families.But I can see how she was confused, since those families evidently were following that law graven in stone back then that declared all sons must be named William or Thomas, and all daughters named Elizabeth or Mary!)