There is considerable confusion about the origins and ancestry of Jane, Hugh Jameson's second wife, and what little has been written about this does not always seem to add up.
What we do know for sure is that her name was in fact "Jane." There are surviving independent contemporaneous documents clearly identifying her as "Jane" or "Jane Jameson," none of which are challenged or disputed as otherwise. There are also numerous records establishing she had several (at least six are identified) children with Hugh Jameson. This then can be seen as settling those issues, without question. The problem is there seems to be no clear hard evidence supporting the various theories as to exactly who she was or her ancestry and what few clues there are about this, all have serious complications.
Nearly everything we know on this subject, comes apparently either from the 1880 book - "The History of the Town of Antrim" or from E.O.Jameson's 1900 book - "The Jamesons in America." It is worth noting that what has been written elsewhere on her, appears to have come either directly or as a result of these two books.
Some references say Jane Jameson was a Barr and some say she was a McHenry, some say both. The problem is there doesn't seem to be any real documented evidence why anyone would say either, or anything else for that matter. Perhaps this was family legend or some other form of word to mouth folklore. As it happens there is an obscure 1894 published Stuart genealogy which offhandedly and with apparent uncertainty suggests the Jean Barr who married Hugh Jameson may have been a sister to a Gabriel Barr. However this publication does not further identify that sister nor are there any known sisters unaccounted for by that name or any other. It is difficult to know if this Stuart genealogy is the source of any or all the Jameson/Barr connections or not. It might be worth noting here that this and both of the reference books mentioned above, were published about the same time (150 years after the fact), by people who probably knew each other.
E.O. Jameson specifically says that Hugh Jameson's second wife was named Jane Barr and that it is probable, almost to a certainty, that she was the widow of John Barr (1669-1751) and that her maiden name may have been "Jane McHenry of Scotch origin.". In fact, John Barr himself provides fuel for this possibility by identifying and providing for his surviving wife, "Jennat" in his 1748 will. E.O. Jameson leaves no clues as to how he came to these conclusions.
It should be noted here that practically all old materials on this subject and all studies of this Barr and related families, never mentions the name "Jane," but always "Jean," even in the case of John Barr's first wife who is clearly identified as John Barr's wife "Jane" on her 1737 tombstone. Whereas our Jane Jameson is clearly identified as such in the 1790 transfer of the Jameson homestead in Dunbarton, NH. Nevertheless she is identified as "Jean Jameson" in the above named 1894 Stuart genealogy. However confusing this may seem to us now, it is generally thought the name Jean and Jane, perhaps Janet and even Jennat, are derivatives of each other in Scottish culture of that time.
However, the unsettling untidiness about E.O.'s assertion that John Barr's wife Jennat becomes Hugh Jameson's wife Jane, is the extremely awkward fit of any acceptable time line to the combination of these marriages and the birth of her children with Hugh. In order to have had these children with Hugh Jameson when she did, of which this part seems a proven cornerstone, she had to have been born after 1720 (and the more "after" the better). If she was indeed the "Jennat" listed in John Barr's will, she would have had to have been no older than 28 years (and probably even younger) at the time that his will was written in 1748 and when John Barr was nearly 80 years old. She also was likely to have been younger then all of John Barr's children with his first wife. Although possible, this seems highly unlikely. Furthermore, the way this Jennat is identified in John Barr's will suggests she may have been previously established, perhaps married, making this age time line even more unlikely.
E.O.Jameson's speculates in his book that Jane was born about 1720. If accurate, this would make her age between 40 and 51 years old during the birth of the children (from 1760-1771). That would seem a little old, particularly in that day and age, to have children. He also says she was much younger than Hugh and "not over thirty-five years of age" at the time of her marriage to Hugh in the mid 1750's, which seems odd given that his own assertions as to her birth, would only have made them about seven years or so, apart. It would seem more likely that she was born later than 1720, which would have made her younger at the time her children were born, younger with respect to her age with Hugh and her marriage with the elderly John Barr even less likely.
Another and separate issue is where E.O. Jameson insists Jane's maiden name was Jane McHenry. There is some evidence that could be seen to support this. Hugh Jameson arrived in New Hampshire in the Fall of 1746, joining other Jameson's already here, including Thomas Jameson, presumed to be his brother. Two years later, in 1748, Thomas Jameson bought a 60 acre parcel of land in Londonderry, New Hampshire. Bordering this land on the north was land owned by Daniel Macheney (McHenry). This is thought to be the likely family of any possible Jane McHenry. Hugh was likely living with his brother Thomas and as such would undoubtedly been familiar with the neighboring McHenry family. It can therefore be reasonably assumed the Jane who marries Hugh, if a McHenry, was probably Daniel McHenry's widow or daughter, perhaps sister.
There is also an alternate possibility that this Jane Jameson was not in fact a "McHenry, but rather a Mckenney (McKinney), mistakenly identified, or thought to be, a McHenry. What make this possibility/theory so interesting and compelling, is that some descendants of this Hugh and Janet Jameson are DNA (Ancestry autosomal) matches with the Jamesons of Maine, specifically descendants of either Margaret and or Sarah Jameson, both of whom married McKenney husbands. There does not seem to be any other DNA matches, atDNA or YDNA, with these two McK?nney or Jameson families.
If Jane Jameson married Hugh as the recent widow of Daniel Mchenry it is quite possible her maiden name had been Barr, but then she could not have been the second wife, Jennat, of John Barr. More likely perhaps, she was a daughter or sister or a niece of Daniel. If so, she would have then more likely fit a time line consistent with her children with Hugh Jameson. If she had been a daughter of Daniel Mchenry she also would be more likely to have fit the time line with Hugh Jameson, but far less likely to have had anything to do with the Barr family. A more telling clue that Jane Jameson was a Mchenry, particularly Daniel McHenry's daughter, is that she and Hugh Jameson named their second son "Daniel" which is strictly in keeping with Scottish traditions of the time and consistent with the names of the rest of their children. Incidentally, the name Daniel was not a common name among the early settlers in this part of New England, at that time, nor is it a name found anywhere amongst the Jameson or Barr families, Furthermore, none of the common, reoccurring names in the Barr family, John, Samuel, or Gabriel, appear subsequently, anywhere in the Jameson family, be it Hugh's generation or later.
The claims by E.O. Jameson about Jane being a Barr may be a genuine effort by him to find a Jane, any Jane, within the Barr family to satisfy the mention of Jean Barr as being Hugh Jameson's wife in the 1894 Stuart genealogy. The problem is this really doesn't make for a good fit.
We may never know the exact particulars of Jane Jameson's ancestry. It is however safe to say her name was in fact Jane and that she and Hugh Jameson had six children. It can also be assumed she was the likely daughter of a father named Daniel and that Daniel Mchenry of Londonderry, New Hampshire of the mid 1700's would be the most likely possibility. It can also be said that a connection with the Barr family of that same location and time cannot be dismissed.
A Problem with Jane (McHenry) Barr?