Should Samuel Allen be PGM?

Question

I accept that Samuel Allen was likely not Matthew Allen’s brother. But reliable sources show he was a resident of Windsor Connecticut by 1640, and some of his children were born in Windsor before 1640. Can he be PGM labeled?

Answer 1

Yes. According to page 40 of ''The Great Migration'', vol. 1, Samuel Allen of Windsor was documented in Windsor in 1638/9, so he should be PGM. He's also in the Great Migration Directory.

But I don't see any basis for connecting him to the father connecting to his profile, nor for giving him the birthplace that appears on that profile.

Comments

I have to agree. The old Samuel Allen genealogy doesn't even pretend to know a name for his father. It does suggest he came from Braintree England, but if he is not Brother to Matthew and Thomas, he is probably not from Braintree either.

---

Thanks! I fixed the profile. If you can, can you add "The Great Migration" as a source? I do not have access to that book at this time. Next to look into his wife....

---

Citation added.

---

Thanks again. I have fixed up his wife Ann's profile and added her PGM box (she is mentioned in the source for her second husband). A message has been sent to her profile manager to have her LNAB changed to unknown.

---

I am not sure that Ann qualifies as a PGM. I don't see documentation that she was in New England by 1640, and being married to a PGM doesn't necessarily make her a PGM.

I've not studied the records for her children. Her profile does indicate that her oldest son with Samuel Allen was born in Windsor, Connecticut, in 1634, but that can't be correct, since Windsor wasn't settled until several years after that. (Also, Samuel wasn't documented in New England until 1638/9.)

---

Hmmm...I took off Ann's PGM. I will look more at the records for her children etc and try to get a clearer picture and see what you think.

BTW Just got back from the Center Street Cemetery in Enfield CT Where many many descendants of Samuel and Ann can be found! Seems that the Allen's and Pease's were very close and erected a monument with Samuel Allen and His direct descendants on one side and John Pease and His direct descendants on the other.

---

Sounds like a productive cemetery trip, William.

That's the kind of information we can seldom glean from sources like findagrave that photograph grave markers in isolation.

Answer 2

Well, many others have gone down this rabbit hole before me! There really are no records proving Ann Allen's existence before the death of her first husband Samuel Allen. You can only extrapolate from her age and the ages of her children and that is probably what the old family genealogies did. PGM box will stay off of Ann. We should probably keep an eye out (project protect?) for her and her first husband (Allen-1644) so they are not merged or confused with the Samuel Allen (Allen-20) and Anna from Braintree.

Comments

Now that Samuel Allen has no connected parents, he's a candidate for project protection by PGM.

Ann could be managed and protected by Connecticut or Massachusetts (Massachusetts looks like a better choice), but first it would be good to confirm that all interested parties agree that her LNAB should be changed to Unknown.

---

Sent messages to Profile managers. Added Jacobus updated  genealogy of Samuel Allen as source.