You are here: Desborough > Surnames > Allen > Rachell Allen (1652 - )

Desborough People
Rachell Allen

 

Notes about the page layout and content are at the end. Change the display type here:

Display


   10238 1.0 Rachell Allenfemale

Birth: before 1652, at Dingley, NorthamptonshireEst. from marriage

Pedigree
   10237
Married: John Atkins  at Desborough 28 Apr 1670 (marriage source reads: John Atkins of Desborough and Rachell Allen of Dingley)Parish Reg
b. 30 Mar 1643, at Desborough (source reads: John s John & Bridget Atkins)  bur. 09 Nov 1672, at St Giles, Desborough (source reads: John Atkins husbandman)

   102392.1 Sarah Atkinsfemale
Baptism: 30 Oct 1672 at Desborough (source reads 'Sarah the daughter of John Atkins and Rachell his Wife')Parish Reg
Burial: 02 Feb 1672/73, aged 13wk, at St Giles, Desborough (source reads 'Sarah the daughter of Rachel Atkins buried an infant about 13 weeks old: whose father was buried November 9')Parish Reg

 


Notes

The numbers at the right of the page are unique reference numbers.

The source follows each piece of information. If the source is underlined a full citation will be shown when you hover over it. Click on any link to switch to that person's details page.

Estimated dates of birth (treat with caution - they could be decades out!)
:- where there is a marriage or children recorded, the date is estimated at 16-18 years before the earliest date;
:- where there is only a burial known, if the person or their spouse is described as "old", the birth is estimated at 50 years earlier; if they are described as "very old", the birth is estimated at 60 years earlier; if neither, the birth is estimated at 18 years earlier.

Estimated dates of death are given as a visual aid to point up whether or not they survived their spouse.

Before 1752 the calendar year started on 25th March; dates where the year appears as, eg: "1650/51" show the year as it would have been given at the time (in this example 1650), and the year by the modern calendar (1651). Jan-Mar dates before 1752 which don't show this "double-dating" are from secondary sources which haven't made clear which dating system has been used.


Source Codes

top of page