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

[JBrand]

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+mary+allen&lr=#PPA3,M1

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=visitation&lr=#PPA10,M1

[m***@mac.com]

Post by JBrand
Doug's books (and many other sources) give the following details about
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.

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article

Post by m***@mac.com

Post by JBrand
Doug's books (and many other sources) give the following details about
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/

[John Watson]

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article

Post by JBrand
Doug's books (and many other sources) give the following details about
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

[Renia]

Post by John Watson

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article

Post by m***@mac.com

Post by JBrand
Doug's books (and many other sources) give the following details about
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.

[Nathaniel Taylor]

Post by Renia

Post by John Watson

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
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.

Sigh.

"Donald Lines Jacobus (1887-1970) of New Haven, Connecticut was widely
regarded as the dean of American genealogy during his lifetime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Lines_Jacobus

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

[[e-mail]]

Post by m***@mac.com

Post by JBrand
Doug's books (and many other sources) give the following details about
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.

Peter Bulkeley & Jane Allen have another notable descendant
that may not have been mentioned.

The first few generations are in Genealogics:
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00453492&tree=LEO


Their son Thomas Bulkeley, 1617-1658,
married to Sarah Jones
|
|
Joseph Bulkeley, 1648-1719
married to Martha Beers
|
|
Peter Bulkeley, 1684-1752,
married to Hannah Ward

https://books.google.com/books?id=2k87AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=25+Oct+1709+Hannah+Ward&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_nP_lpJjZAhVL34MKHUf9DnEQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=25%20Oct%201709%20Hannah%20Ward&f=false
|
|
James Bulkeley, 1729-1803
married to Elizabeth Whitehead

https://books.google.com/books?id=2k87AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA240&dq=elizabeth+whitehead+born+at+Fairfield+about+1738&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkyuDBo5jZAhWr6IMKHf6KBmYQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20whitehead%20born%20at%20Fairfield%20about%201738&f=false
|
|
Eleazar Bulkeley, 1763-1843,
married to Mary Ogden

https://books.google.com/books?id=2k87AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA563&dq=Mary+Ogden+born+at+Fairfield+2+May+1770&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNwtHto5jZAhUj3YMKHSwFAQ8Q6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=Mary%20Ogden%20born%20at%20Fairfield%202%20May%201770&f=false
|
|
Andrew Bulkeley, 1789-1867,
married to Sally Dimon

https://books.google.com/books?id=DNA4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1947&dq=11+Aug+1815+Sally+Dimon&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNpM3BpZjZAhVB7IMKHVcCCcsQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=11%20Aug%201815%20Sally%20Dimon&f=false
|
|
Edwin Bulkeley, born 1817,
married to Helen Perry, who was also a
descendant of Peter Bulkeley & Hannah Ward
|
|
Grace Bulkeley, 1863-1931
married to Frederick William Moss
|
|
Alice Bulkeley Moss, 1892-
married to Melville Douglas Truesdale

https://books.google.com/books?id=H5wYAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA398&lpg=PA398&dq=alice+moss+melville+truesdale&source=bl&ots=OYJc4VtRY4&sig=_Di2yAOELUWQus_EQ-r_dGJMRY0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicyf76ppjZAhVh4oMKHfSFAfkQ6AEIVDAO#v=onepage&q=alice%20moss%20melville%20truesdale&f=false

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83201402/

|
|
Alice C. Truesdale, 1920–2007,
married to Robert Swan Mueller Jr.

https://www.geni.com/people/Alice-Mueller/6000000026589013924

https://paw.princeton.edu/memorial/robert-swan-mueller-jr-%E2%80%9938

|
|
Robert Swann Mueller III,
born New York City, 1944
Director of the FBI, 2001-2013



Leslie

[a***@comcast.net]

His Christian name was Donald. His surname was Jacobus.

Jared L. Olar

----- Original Message -----

From: John Watson

To: gen-***@rootsweb.com

Sent: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:44:03 +0000 (UTC)

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

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
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



-------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message