You and Richardson Allen use the same argument to suggest that the Saltford George Allen did not come to the Colonies. But Star Chamber proceedings would be an excellent reason to be here, rather than in Saltford. That body was where the King used the rack,thumb screws and the pole axe to deal with dissenters; a very nasty place.
Richardson dug up the court documents. 15 Saltford landowners - dissenters - refused to appoint a tax collector to levy the Church Tax. That made the Crown and the local sheriff upset. The local magistrate for several years ordered the dissenters to collect/pay the Church Tax, but they persisted in doing nothing. Finally, the matter was sent to the Star Chamber.
An attorney represented the group at the several hearings. It is not suggested that the landowners ever appeared in person. The Star Chamber order said pay up, or else. The or else would be taken to suggest the rack, or a few executions.
If that George Allen was in Sandwich, MA at the time, he would have no interest in returning to Saltford to "litigate" with the executioner.
The Saltford Allen was clearly a dissenter, and the Sandwich Allens were dissenters, also. That has suggestive value.
Secondly, Samuel Allen, c. 1605. This Samuel was having children in the Colonies by 1632. A late Samuel, by Katherine, would be far too young. There was no little Samuel with George and Katherine on the boat. And no record of Katherine having a son, Samuel.
There is nothing to suggest that Goerge's son, Samuel, was young when George died. Samuel and Henry got land in the will. The "least" children got little. It would be quite uncommon to will land to a youngster, but very common to do so for adult sons.
Samuel of Braintree is a known quantity, and happens to fit everything as George's oldest son.