| Sources |
- [S107] A Grinnell Family, geneals@earthlink.net.
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Grinnell family histories have built upon early work that claimed that American Grinnell lines were connected to French nobility.
This may have been due to the temptation to read coincidence as fact. As is the case with other surnames, the late Victorian period in America saw the emergence of newly created families of wealth with their preoccupation of seeking family links to European royalty. The consequence of this was that in genealogical research questionable data was often accepted as fact when it seemed to support that goal.
The American Grinnell family line may have carried such a burden with its reported connection to the Grenelle family, Lords of Pimont in Burgundy, France.
While the Grinnell family surname is now traced back to England, the progenitors could well have been French. The surname spelling, the time and the setting could have made it possible. The late sixteenth century was a period of religious unrest in France. Many became disillusioned with the ruling establishment, both civil and religious. The Catholic church and the bishopric were the power structure, reaching down to all levels of government. Thousands rebelled, forsaking the Catholic religion of their ancestors and becoming Protestants, or Huguenots as they were called in France. This act of heresy was vigorously prosecuted by the Catholic majority, ultimately causing the new Protestants to leave France for Holland and England, as many other Huguenots had done since the horrible massacres of the late sixteenth century.
So, was our Grinnell family a part of this? There is no proof.
Matthew Grinnell was born ca. 1590, probably in or near Colchester, Essex County, England. He is known to have married on 27 August 1615 "Rose ffrench" in St. Leonard's Church (Anglican) in Lexden, a short distance west of Colchester.
Matthew, Rose and their children came to America around 1631 or '32 following the birth of their son, Thomas. They arrived first in Massachusetts. Matthew was then about 40 years old.
Establishing a homestead was difficult enough, but life was compounded by religious strife in New England. This seeming contradiction requires explanation, for, after all, hadn't the Pilgrims fled to America seeking a place of "religious freedom?"
It is an undoubted fact that in those years Rhode Island was a haven for dissenters from the religious views of the day, especially those of Puritan Massachusetts. During these years, a small band of men, driven from Massachusetts by religious persecution and intolerance, had established a new colony on the island of Aquidnexk, later to become Rhode Island. The Rhode Island colony of Roger Williams and associates permitted "free thought," meaning the liberty of a person to choose not to affiliate himself with a religious congregation, and thus to escape the strict controls which, at that time the Puritans of Massachusetts exercised over all aspects of life. A free-thinker believed that a man's religion was nobody's business but his own. This was in sharp contrast to the Puritan view that everyman's religion was a vital community concern, and anyone not controlled by a religious congregation was a threat to the community. There was no special liberal denomination originating in Rhode Island. All the usual denominations of the day were represented there, all living in relative harmony, but the man who chose to have no religion at all was rare. As a result, the concept attracted persons of an independent turn of mind, often in politics as well as religion.
Landing first in the vicinity of Portsmouth, the majority of the settlers proceeded to the southwesterly part of the island, and there founded the tiny colony of Newport on the simple tenets of public rights to fishery and tolerance for doctrine. The small communities rapidly attracted newcomers, among whom was Matthew, who was "admitted" to the settlement of Newport as a freeman on 6 August 1638.
Clearing a homestead was not easy in Newport. The site was a thickly wooded swamp, with tall trees growing on the surrounding hills. These had to be cut away leaving a thick growth of underbrush. Indians were hired to help clear the land and burn the slash. In addition, much sand and gravel had to be laboriously hauled in to fill the swamp.
The life was hard, and Matthew died between 1638 and 1642, when he was about 50, leaving the widow and children. This is known, as Rose signed a prenuptial agreement with her second husband, Anthony Paine in 1643.
Matthew and Rose's children were:
Rose Grinnel bpt. 21 May 1616, St. Leonard's,
Lexden. No further record; she
may have died young, or married
early and remained in England.
Matthew Grinnell bpt. 18 July 1619, St. Leonard's,
Lexden. Died young, buried 26
May 1620.
Mary Grinnell bpt. 15 May 1622, St. Leonard's,
London. She came to America with
her parents, and married John
Manchester
Matthew Grinnell born after 1620. Came to America
with his parents, and married Mary
(?); resided in East Greenwich RI.
Thomas Grinnell bpt. 30 Jan 1630 in St. Botolph's
Church, Colchester. Came to America
with parents but no further record.
Daniel Grinnell born ca. 1636, probably in MA; died
1703. He married Mary Wodell.
Rose married (2nd) 10 November 1643 Anthony Paine, a widower with three children. Anthony died in 1649. Rose, widowed first at about 35 with four small children, was now widowed again at age 45 with seven children, and with only a tiny farm for sustenance. Within a year she married (3rd) James Weeden. All this is not surprising and not uncommon, considering the living difficulties at the time.
|
RNT Family History
Abt 1590 - 1642 (52 years)