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

John Watson wrote:
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.

Jacobus is the Latinized version of James.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why is Jane (Allen) Bulkeley not shown in her fathers 1635 London pedigree?
    ... the parents of Jane Allen, first wife of Rev. Peter Bulkeley: ... Goldington, Bedfordshire, and Little Waltham, Essex,  ... ... Yet the 1635 London Visitation shows Thomas Allen and wife Mary ... Also, the Rev. Peter ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Ancestry of Fitzwilliam family of Milton
    ... As I indicated in my post earlier this week, the second surviving wife ... of Sir Edward Greville, of Milcote-on-Avon, Warwickshire, ... I checked the PCC wills of both Sir Thomas Dynham and of Dame Jane ... Elynour, Roger, Edward. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: What Is This Problem With Mary Jane?
    ... you're not a lonely fat kid anymore and he's not that Peter ... A beautiful wife, which should feed into the geek fantasy of ... wife opens it up for her to ask pretty much anyone in the Marvel ... Also the Geek Fantasy might be BAGGING the hot chick, ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)
  • Re: Men are too frightened to give women the compliments they need
    ... Peter J Ross wrote: ... Why do you feel sorry for Mark's wife? ... so-called rape apologist like me beats you in the honesty department ... respect your response if you were just a simple troll. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Fw: Jane Peytons second husband
    ... The actual record indicates that Jane Peyton's second husband was Edward Ryngeley, ... the Peyton family dated 10 September 2005. ... Cristyan his wife, and John Huntley & Alice his wife v. Jane, late the ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)