Jane Drake (Hermins) - RE: Jane (Hermins) [Locke] Drake her maiden name is unknown no Hermins

Managers of Jane Drake,

I am contacting you about this profile:

Jane (Hermins) [Locke] Drake
Jane Drake

RE: Jane (Hermins) [Locke] Drake her maiden name is unknown no Hermins

Please remove her maiden name and parents. These data are a complete fabrication without any basis.

After reviewing primary sources it has become evident that Jane’s maiden name is unknown. The maiden name Hermins is actually the maiden name of her son’s wife’s mother, Judith (Hermins) Locke mother of Judith Locke who married William Berry and somehow got confused with Jane’s maiden name. This error has been copied all over the Internet along with her parents who are actually unknown. In fact no source gives her maiden name. As one example here is what Noyes, Libby and Davis have to say:

Noyes, Sybil, Charles Thornton Libby and Walter Goodwin David, Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire, (Baltimore: Gen. Publ. Co., 1990), 90.

"WILLIAM was at Strawberry Bank bef. 1636; in 1645 his land adj. Turpin and Cummings; of Str. Bk. 10 July 1648, he sold to Anthony Ellins. Land at Sandy Beach was gr. him 31 Jan. 1648, and 40 a. more in 1652, over which his ch. and grch. scattered, undiv. until 1719. Selectman 1646, const, for lower part of Str. Bk. 1650, gr.j. 1650. Lists 41, 321, 323, 324, 330c. Adm. gr. 28 June 1654 to wid. Jane, who dep. in 1686, ag. 67, that she and her husb. liv. here bef. Mr. (Francis) Williams came. She m. 2d Nathaniel Drake (5). Ch: John, b. 1637. Joseph. Elizabeth, m. ab. 1652 John Locke. Mary, m. John Foss (1). James. Rachel, m. John Marden. William. Most of the grdaus. are unkn. Sarah, who m- Samuel Dowse (2) 1 Mar. 1688-9, was evid. one, likelier (7)."

I have looked for any reference to a maiden name in the books listed in the source section as well as on American Ancestors, FamilySearch, The American Genealogist, deeds, Savage, Pope, Local histories, etc. and there is nothing citing this maiden name.

I've also been reviewing these records with Jeanie Roberts who has also conducted a search and she also cannot identify any source that mentions a maiden name of Jane. We checked the following:

1. familysearch.org - nothing
2. ancestry BMD for England - nothing
3. Freereg - British site for BMD - nothing
4. New Hampshire State and Provincial Records - nothing
5. Rockingham County Land deeds - nothing
6. Hampton's Lane Memorial Library Genealogy database - nothing
7. Local history books for Rye and Porthsmouth - nothing
8. Noyes, Libby, Davis, Genalogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire - nothing
9. Savage, Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England - nothing

The absurdity of this research reaches its peak when one sees the fabricated genealogy of her supposed grandmother Ann Sackville
Anne Locke

So we had to go there and add a fake royal lineage? My research partner Jeanie Roberts double checked this lineage. She writes:

"There are three women named Ann Sackville found in Burke's Peerage. Ann Sackville, daughter of Richard, married Gregory Fienes, Lord Darce, she died in 1595. Second is Ann Sackville daughter of Sir Thomas Sackville, 1st Earl Dorset. She married Sir Thomas Glemham and was still alive in 1626. Lastly there was Ann Sackville b. c. 1586 who died 25 September 1664. She married Edward Seymour and then Edward Lewis, she was the daughter of Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl Dorset. One website I saw said that Ann Sackville Locke was the half sister of Ann d/o Thomas Sackville. If that were the case then Thomas Sackville would have to have been married twice, but he wasn't, he married Cecily Baker and no other. Ergo, no half sister Ann."

"Another candidate thrown into the mix is Jane Spencer, daughter of Sir John Spencer of Althorpe. She married three times, her last husband was Robert Sackville, son of Thomas. They married in 1592, he died in 1609. Anne Spencer Stanley Compton Sackville died in 1618. One online tree has her married to Thomas Sackville, but that was not the case."

"No Anne Sackville, Locke or otherwise, was buried in Westminster Abbey."

The claim to a royal lineage is just poor sportsmanship.

In order to not confuse researchers I think it is important to remove any erroneous data like these from the pre-1700 the GENI database. Please add any comments and discussion to this thread.

I understand that the contributors here just copied this tree from some other tree and had no idea about these errors. But they really should be removed. I am also contacting the profile managers at Wikitree to have the same edits made there.

I will also open a discussion on this profile.

Sincerely,

Roland Baker