BUNKER-L Archives

Archiver > BUNKER > 2002-09 > 1032819604


From: "K. McGee" <>
Subject: RE: Jane Godfrey Bunker [Swain/Swaine]
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:20:04 -0700
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020921115406.0328e600@mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <LPBBLFDIJBOHFIGHEMICOEMBCLAA.betterichs@earthlink.net>


Bette,
Sorry for taking so long to answer -- I've gone to the Quaker list asking
about the Quaker side to this and so far have gotten more confused and more
unsure about the materials I thought were good with good sources. So until
I feel more confident about what I'm being told, please consider the
marriage of Jane to her second husband Richard Swaine (b. 1595) as one
normal to the time, particularly as I understand, but have not proved that
Jane's husband died as a result of drowning. In the estate materials she
is shown with 5 children under 21 - a big task back then. Dates too could
have been corrupted due to Old Style as opposed to New Style dating.

At 03:14 PM 9/21/2002 -0700, Bette Richards wrote:
><snip>
>With this marriage date it would be a good assumption that he was born in
>1575. If he is the same one that married Jane Godfrey Bunker in 1658 or
>later, he would have been over 80 years old. This may have been Richard
>Swain's father who was also named Richard. Another Richard (see below) was
>born in 1601 and he allegedly married Jane Godfrey Bunker. A birthdate of
>1601 makes more sense for Jane's husband but then George Bunker was born in
>1621. There could have been still another generation of Swains here.
>
> >Married: 15 SEP 1658 in Hampton, Rockingham Co, NH
>
>This is interesting. I wonder if this (15 Sep 1658) is the date and place
>that Richard married Jane Godfrey Bunker as George Bunker died 26 May 1658.
>Quick marriage especially as Jane was not a poor widow needing someone to
>support her children. And it does not appear that Richard Swain needed to
>marry her for her money either.
>
> >Children
> > Richard Swaine b: 13 JAN 1659/60 in Hampton,, NH
>
>I would hope this is 1660 or this child was conceived before George died.
**I'm not sure what dating style this was -- do you?
<snip>

Any way, there have been very good responses on this mail list and they've
been interesting on the Quaker mail list as well. We'll see what shakes
out <G> as a friend reminded me.

Thanks for all your help and your good ideas,
K. McGee


This thread: