Re: Why is Jane (Allen) Bulkeley not shown in her father's 1635 London pedigree?

On Feb 10, 4:12 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<e58b3104-a6bc-4a1e-bf18-3ff33d21e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,



 "mholl...@xxxxxxx" <mholl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:26 pm, JBrand <starbuc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug's books (and many other sources) give the following details about
the parents of Jane Allen, first wife of Rev. Peter Bulkeley:

MARY FAIRCLOUGH [m. (1) William Hasilden] ... married (2nd) at
Goldington, Bedfordshire 30 July 1582 THOMAS ALLEN, Gent., of
Goldington, Bedfordshire, and Little Waltham, Essex,  ... He was born
about 1557.  They had one daughter, Jane, etc.etc.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wHZcIRMhSEMC&pg=PA3&dq=fairclough+ma...

Yet the 1635 London Visitation shows Thomas Allen and wife Mary
"ffarclo" with five children--no Jane among them--Giles, William,
Richard, Ursula, and "Jone," [not Jane], wife of John Staple of
Hatfield Peverell, essex.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xDIEAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=...

This shows that visitations need to be taken with a grain of salt.  Of
course, Jane (Allen) Bulkeley was dead by 1635.  Also, the Rev. Peter
was a nonconformist, so perhaps the Allens were reluctant to point
that out.

Jacobus' Bulkley genealogy offers sufficient proof.  Thomas Allen did
have daughters Joan *and* Jane (though these names were *sometimes* used
interchangeably in this generation), and mentions his son-in-law Peter
Bulkley in his 1635 will, as well as his other daughter 'Joane Stable
wife of John Stable'.  Thomas Allen of London may well have omitted
mention for some political or personal reason, or because he was only
naming living sisters.  For consistency MCA should have named the other
daughters and sons, plainly listed by Jacobus.

Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:  http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/

Nat,

Was his name really Jacobus? or was he James.

Regards,

John
.