|
|
Elizabeth Allen
b.Bef 1618
Facts and Events
References
- Eben Putnam, Note on Robert Tucker of Milton, Henry of Dartmouth and John of Hingahm, in The Genealogical magazine
1:89.
link His mention of Deacon Henry Allen as brother-in-law suggests that Elizabeth, wife of Robert Tucker and who survived him, was a sister of Henry Allen, and if so it is probable, as indicated by what we learn or fail to find stated, that they were married in New England and perhaps in 1638. Against this theory are the following facts: George Allen, of Weymouth, the father of Henry, did not have, so far as we know, a child named Elizabeth, nor a daughter old enough to have been the mother of Tucker's child born in 1638. Again Henry Allen was twice married, first to Anne, widow of Willian Tift, second to Judith, his wife at the time Tucker made his will, and who survived him. Either wife may have been a sister of Tucker's wife, or even a sister to Tucker himself. Also there may have been even a more remote connection, for the bonds of relationship were so far stretched in early days that the husband of a sister of a brother- or sister-in-law has been known to be styled "brother-in-law" by said sister- or brother-in-law's brother-or sister-in-law.” [Note this was published in 1903 and the standards of proof have only gotten more rigorous since then].
[Note: according to Great Migration Continues, p. 1:28, Henry is not the son of George Allen (George's son Henry b. abt 1631 and went to Connecticut), so lack of a daughter Elizabeth is irrelevant. It is not about proof, it is about this being a working theory, and evidence, not speculation is needed to refute it.]
- ↑ The maiden name Allen is based on the fact that Robert Tucker named "my Loveing Brother in Law Deacon Henry Allin of Boston" as overseer of his will. The exact relationship is not known. (Henry Allen m. (1) Ann (____) Teffe the widow of William Teffe of Boston, m. (2)Judith Beers who seems to be mother of all his children.) There are other ways Henry Allen could be brother-in-law, but it seems most likely that Robert would choose a close relative to work with his widow, one of the co-executors, suggesting he is mostly likely his wife's brother. Robert Tucker was in Weymouth, later removing to Gloucester and Milton. Henry Allen was in Weymouth, before settling in Boston.. Until further evidence is presented to show it is untrue or there is another alternative, the maiden name of Allen is used, with this caveat, as the most likely case.
[The statement above is contrary to modern evidenced based genealogy and modern peer reviewed publication standards. In any sketch presented by The Great Migration Project for example the maiden name would have been presented as unknown. The caveat would be presented in the notes and would have included all possibilities. I had previously pointed out that it is possible that Robert Tucker was brother to Ann the first wife of Henry Allen. In other word Henry Allen’s first wife could have been Ann Tucker making Henry Allen brother-in-law to Robert Tucker. This statement was removed from the above statement and only one possibility was presented. This shows a clear bias by the author that is not consistent with evidenced based genealogy. There is no way to know that one possibility is more likely than another. It was very common for a brother-in-law to act as an executor of an estate and he need not be a blood relative of Elizabeth. Moreover, the statement above that further evidence needs to be presented to show and unfounded assertion is untrue is contrary to logic and the modern scientific method. It is up to the person posing the hypothesis to prove the hypothesis and no peer reviewed journal would allow such a statement. Therefore the maiden name has been removed. It is up to the person making this hypothesis to disprove all alternate explanations not the other way around.]
[This is a working database of collaborators trying to merge their research. The standards needed (especially given there is no policy requiring sources, even) is hardly that of peer-reviewed journals, rather a more inclusive standard which allows working hypotheses to be communicated and shared. Among other problems with the idea of "proven" is: who is qualified to say what is proven. Even if somebody is judged to have adequate expertise, it requires all known evidence be available, and so the most important thing for the community to do when face with uncertainty, is to collect all the actual evidence that can be found, not to assume their limited scope is all that is known. That is what evidence-based genealogy is about. The use of Allen is somebody's working theory and has been identified as such and has some actual evidence to justify it and should be respected by being refuted with evidence, not speculation. Until then it is not wrong, because it does not claim to be "proven" (and indeed, many, if not most, of the conclusions accepted as proven are not, since they are based on records inherently subject to human error in both writing and reading, and based on unspoken assumptions like the same name in the same location must be the same person). This particular case is not some source-less, basis-less assertion, it has a documented basis that people can read, and someday perhaps, refute and correct with evidence. It is not known if Robert Tucker even had a sister, and all the "could-be" speculative scenarios are not evidence. One advantage of this website is forcing everybody's scenario into one single tree where inconsistencies will cause visible problems as the effects of input data radiates outward and interacts with other postings. This cannot be done if everybody is forced to use Unknown all the time, and are not allowed to link to possible relationships. Unknown does not let us test likely conclusions.]
|
|
