Who is Francis COCKE’s wife?

[mckha489]

I see

ffrancis Corke and Sarah ...................   .....   ...................
married the 21 daye of Julie

It has been transcribed on FindMyPast as her surname is Mower, but the another source (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/200253868.pdf. no 84 of the references)  says that Francis CORKE COCKE of Norwich was a son-in-law of Peter Gleane (1564-1633)

I only have 2 daughters for Peter Gleane so far. Mary (1585-1631 who married (1607) William PETUS and Elizabeth who married (1611 and living a LANE in 1633)  Henry LANE.   The dates of their marriages etc do not allow them to be also married to Francis CORKE at the time of the events related in the document above (1627).
There are no CORKE's COCKEs mentioned in Peter Glean's will. 

I am actually wondering if the article is wrong and Francis CORKE COCKE  was not Peter's son-in-law at all.  This marriage is the only one I can find for Francis CORKE COCKEbut who is his wife?

Thank you.

for those with FindMyPast access, this is the full page. https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS%2FNORFOLK%2FPD_7-1%2F00771&parentid=GBPRS%2FNORFOLK%2FMAR%2F004236930%2F1

Added - I can talk myself into thinking it says "mower was glean".    But as Peter Glean was married in 1584 and had children Mary 1585, Thomas 1586, Leonard 1587.  Then there is a gap.  which would allow Sarah, if she was his,  to  have been born say 1588 so at 13 very young to be marrying for a second time. 

[horselydown86]

ffrances Cocke and Sarah mower wer wea?e
married...

Regarding the ?, this letter isn't an r of the same form as the others in the extract (which have flat bottoms).

However there was a form of r common in the earlier C16th which looks like this.

I think the second word is weare and it's just a clerical error that he wrote both wer and weare.

Does he spell it weare in other marriages?

With luck the surname Cocke will be the more useful avenue for progress.

ADDED:

MOWER could be MOORE in other contexts.

[horselydown86]

...another source (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/200253868.pdf. no 84 of the references)  says that Francis CORKE of Norwich was a son-in-law of Peter Gleane (1564-1633)

Just looked at this and find that it says Cocke.

[mckha489]

Larger clip

[mckha489]

THe second word of the three I am querying looks like the “were” of other entries

Added, and yes you are correct, is Cocke, I had a brain fade then obviously!

[mckha489]

I have found Francis COCKE’s will. 1629, Ancestry.

His wife was Sarah, and there are quite a number of children, siblings and god children named.
The only reference to the Gleans is I think this one. Fortie Shillings to my Lady Gleane for a mourning ring.

[horselydown86]

THe second word of the three I am querying looks like the “were” of other entries

Yes, except for the one where the bride is Christian Perrie.  In that one the r of wer looks like the other type.

With the poor resolution it's hard to be certain, but I think the r's in from and Corbett are also of that other type.

Unless weare means something new to me (dialect?), I don't see a reason to change my opinion from above.

Agree with Lady Gleane.

[mckha489]

Thank you HD.