_Sir G. Browne, Bart._ (Vol. vii., p. 528.).--The particulars given by
NEWBURY, while introducing his Query, are extremely vague and inaccurate.
In the first place, the individual he styles _Sir_ George Browne, _Bart._,
was in reality simple George Browne, _Esq._, of Caversham, Oxon, and
Wickham, Kent. This gentleman, who would have been a valuable acquisition
to any nascent colony, married Elizabeth (_not_ Eleanor), second daughter
of Sir Richard Blount, of Maple Durham, and had by her nineteen children,
pretty evenly divided as to sex: for I read that of the daughters, three at
least died young; other three became nuns and one married ---- Yates, Esq.,
a Berkshire gentleman. Of the sons, three, as NEWBURY relates, fell
gloriously fighting for Charles, their sovereign. Neither of these latter
were married: indeed, the only sons who ventured at all into the bonds of
wedlock were George, the heir, and John, a younger brother. George married
Mary Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Francis Englefield, Knt., a Popish
recusant, and left two daughters, his co-heiresses. John, his brother,
created a baronet May 19th, 1665, married Mrs. Bradley, a widow, and had
issue three sons and three daughters. The sons, Anthony, John, and George,
inherited the baronetcy in succession, the two former dying bachelors: the
third son, Sir George, married his sister-in-law, Gertrude Morley, and left
three sons, the first of whom, Sir John, succeeded his father; and with him
the baronetcy became dormant, if not indeed extinct.