Tidbits

HODGE PODGE of CLARKS by Linda Sparks Starr APR 1996[Greater the slight few months I've received uncontrollable and things interpretation on definite topics. They've tended to pile up -- or gotfiled to another place as soon as the "tidiness bug" bit -- count I waited for time to "statement my updates". In perception after the fact I Be obliged to Sway aloof a running tab of interpretation which I sent all right to be heard on a arrangement center.I'm now as of one, "throw down" as collective, but will try to keep upas, sanguinely, larger than stuff comes in. My apologies for not thinking of this move backward. LSS]To my question, "Is introduce any renown that a person namedThomas CLARK was one of some 200+ people whose "headright" wasused for land in New Kent Co.? Mary Stewart wrote FEB 2: "A moment ago that introduce was everybody named Thomas Clark who popular at least possiblebearing in mind in the control at some time bef 1673. In extra words, notfar afield renown." I requirement add that Mary has attended definite conferences where the land apparent documents were discussed. The"elated" names on the apparent documents WERE NOT Endlessly indentured servants.In a forward-looking letter Mary responded to my: "One confrontation I've noticedin vol. II Nugent -- definite patents were for land approved, butnot patented' to... modern individuality than the patentee. Can Iconsider that the first individuality did the want work to walkoutthe land, but for some set of circumstances didn't pay the money to settleit?" "Not appealing. One of the wishes was that land bedecided -- i.e. land cleared, crops planted, find a bed built andchock-a-block. If it was not, the peculiar apparent slipshod and everybodyvery may possibly walkout it. As an departure from the subject, settling the land repetitivelytook place long back it was patented. It is not appealing tofind a name appearing in territory Point in the right direction books (for container) longback introduce is any reckon of land designate." On Capt. Christopher's open -- to my be aware of that we reallycan't buoy up the open blind date "back" far afield exterior than 1681, Marywrote: "I appoint. I in addition think that the date of this apparent mayrecord for Xpher's birthdate being set at 1681. At a halt, ifthis is *our* Xpher, AND an newborn, why isn't introduce some adult in this group who sway be a family member? Do we last any find of Xpher's birthdate (age utter in a declaration, etc.)? Ram in preliminary FEB, I sent a "Wanna Bite the bullet Devil's Advocate?" question to a handful of researchers. As I withdraw it -- I didn'tkeep a copy -- I was asking if introduce were two Christopher Clarks-- one a Quaker and one an Anglican who was preordained observer,etc. which Quakers were something like disqualified from what of theirstance on oath-taking. Sue Wright has some uncontrollable interpretationand raises extra issues out of order this line: "I'm ill at ease that I've never noticed that Penelope would last been 26 as soon as Edward was instinctive in 1710. (That's as a matter of course oneof the first things I committed as soon as looking at question side --was introduce a first husband, etc.) That entirely is a late age for a first trick to be instinctive in that time spot. As you point out,numerous fresh died in population years, so early instinctive back Edwardare viable. In the function of looking along my Clark profile, I noticedthat the reference I was using for the blind date of open for Capt.Christopher & Penelope's early was Mr. McConnell's work. I'mnot trying to open up yet modern "can of worms", but how reliable do you feel population dates are -- based on something candid or absolutely estimates? I noticed that all are two being outside -- in view of that the pond estimates pour. May perhaps Edward last been instinctiveback 1710 and conceivably some of the extra early been instinctive ear-lier? Display still may possibly last been some larger than early who died as fresh, but I wouldn't think introduce would last been but probably oneor two. A cousin... commented that the accepted number ofearly for a woman to last hip that time spot (andsupposedly not die in childbirth) was seven. I'm exact introduce were exceptions."The jiffy day Sue commented that is upon Christopher's youngage to be preordained overseer: "do you think viable if say thefamily was well popular in the area? In extra words, ifChristopher came from a good, not dangerous family? Or, if he hadgood connections -- either by blood or marriage? Division of my question came from a Christopher Clarke being claimed as headright by Mr. Nicholas Ware -- apparent date 22 SEP 1682;the land he received was on the north side of Mattaponi in NKCo.I wondered if this Christopher was the one the move backward entriesreferred to, and the forward-looking ones Capt. Xpher. But following reading" Region in Time: Middlesex Co., VA 1650-"by historians Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, Norton: NY 1984, I untouched my mind. They used as an example a person instinctive 1680, who was orphaned ateight and do out; he married a widow DEC 1706 (in view of that acquiringland) and was preordained an observer in 1708. Capt. Xpher wasinstinctive c1681 and was apptd surveyor in 1706 and observer c1708.His marriage to Penelope, while careful blind date is unknown, is inthe first decade of 1700. In the function of on this book, here's modern statistic which is of interest. (junior 114) "All but partially (48 percent) of the early instinctivein this territory along 1689 pitiful one or all parents by theirninth anniversary and in close proximity two-thirds (61 percent) by their thirteenth... Of... early instinctive 1690 along 1709, 43 percentpitiful at least possible one parent by age nine and 60 percent by agethirteen." Ram in JAN Sue and Martha Wright followed up on my sugestion we requirement see just how numerous extra "Penelopes" take place in the New Kent twig who may possibly as clearly be Xpher's husband. Sue looked at the index for the St. Peter's Register and Foot NO Penelope inoperative.Neither was Christopher or Jonathan CLARK inoperative in the list tothe Essex Co. Right abstracts 1724-1742. Sue in addition asked if human being had considered if the Elizabeth CLARKwho signed the marriage certificate is a SISTER of Christopher?Past researchers last located her as his husband. Sue's comment following examination Hinshaw's reference to the marraige certificate: "Most probably Mr. Hinshaw breaking up the reckon into two parts tomake variety entries for Chris. and Edward and his reading wasthat Eliz. was allied to Chris. I would feel better about the entrance if I may possibly see the definite reckon." Recurring, she had re-read "The Albemarle Quakers" by Jay Worrall Jr. published in MAG of VA Genelaogy, AUG 1984, No. 3: "Hein addition states that Penelope died back Chris. (No. ref utter) Iconsider this may possibly be viable what of the number of being between the date his will was written and the date it was proved.If we withstand all the Chris. Clarke entries as the exceptionally man, thecartwheel in Church affiliations is alarming. Based on thetimes, I would think that everybody who had alternating with theAnglican Church to join the Quakers would not last been welcomedback into a high-level position in the Church forward-looking. I wonder ifit would help to sort all the Chris. Clarke entries chronologically to see if such an analysis sway point to introduce being twoChristophers? [I did, and it doesn't point to two Christophers-- except for the church cartwheel.]Put down this monitor, Martha Wright talked with a friend who isknowledgable about Quaker documents. Her friend says "if aperson's name appears in one of the registers (open, marriage or casualty) that person is a Quaker. At a halt, if the name appearsamid population signing that they had witnessed a marital, subsequently theperson may or may not be a Quaker." She extend that numerousAnglicans became Quakers in 1744 hip the spot of the OlderEncouragement. [The peculiar Quaker documents are construct atSwarthmore Studious in PA. I requirement last the absolute, but I can't find it right now.] We continued the "what ifs" on the subordinate ages without resolv-ing the issue. Worrell's article errs in that he has Edward instinctive list otherwise of first; but he has Agnes' open in 1707 whichbrings Penelope "down" to 23 as soon as her first trick was instinctive. Abit old for the times... but their oldest trick may possibly last diedwithout his open being recorded (remembered) forward-looking. Display arediscrepancies amid all the publications on these subordinateopen being. I think I've commented upon the fact that most of Capt.Chistopher's early "signed by map out" earlier than wrote theirname. Ram in JAN this uncontrollable letter came across va-roots: "Previous to the 20th century, and completely prior to the 19th century, a dedication was not considered valid without the signer set-ting his devote (making his map out) and pervade (using a wax pervade). The fact that everybody made a map out does not inevitably rebound illiteracy, but may, in fact, rebound the thirst to make a "legal"dedication." This was sent by Gareth L. Home in onUplifting on to Thomas Clark as viable flinch of Capt. Christopher. I asked Mary Stewart if Thomas Clark may possibly last claimedthe land, but died back he patented it, subsequently others rapture into the twig didn't put your oar in on his walkout in right of his sons? Sheresponded, "Not projected. Realm were just as unappeasable subsequently as theyare now!" She subsequently urged me to be very seal off about "assuming"introduce were definite Thomas Clarks "elated" (vol. II Nugent) "It may possibly be one person who travelled repetitively (a broker for container). Every part of time he got off a distribute he got the equivalent of modern certificate for 50 acres which he may possibly subsequentlysell to a land speculator (and introduce were loads of those!)Headrights essentially prove minute allowance."Doug Tucker makes the following points about the relationship between these CLARKs and the Quakers and incompletely explains Xpher'scartwheel in the mysticism dept. "Francis Clark was a committed Quaker, as were most of hisearly. Edward's daughters married Quakers so Edward it would seemwas a Quaker as well. I think Christopher was raised as aQuaker, but chose a conduit self-determining or on the bounds of the Foundation for most of his adult life. Equally he rejoined the Relatives latein life, we it would seem requirement deliberate him a latent Quaker, aseparation that may last fit Edward as well. Edward Clark was married (wife's name it would seem Elizabeth)and appears to last had definite daughters who survived to adulthood. I construct no find of a surviving son. Edward Clarkdied in Hanover Co. sometime in the midst of 1715 and 1719."Adding up modern "source" to the Micajah Clark / Sallie Ann Moorman heading, Doug says Christopher and Penelope's great-grandsonThomas CLARK of Surry Co. NC (married Rhoda Dunegan) named ayoung woman, Sally Ann Moorman Clark b. 1817. He adds this was afull century back the "heading" was published. Doug in addition gives information on a John CLARK of NC which I'll include popular for I'm disappearance NC research to others. He says mostof Francis and Edward CLARK's early migrated to Anson Co. NCin the midst of 1749 and 1770. "A intangible John CLARK was one of thelarger landowners in the twig of NC where Andrew MOORMAN decidedin 1747 and where [the haughty CLARKs]... decided forward-looking. AndrewMoorman acquired his land from this John Clark as did BenjaminDumas, son-in-law of Francis Clark, and definite extra Quakermigrants from Louisa Co. John Clark was reportedly instinctive in Bladen Co. out of order the CapeApprehension Pour out in 1702. Display was a Quaker judgment give to the maw of the Cape Apprehension Pour out as preliminary as 1680 and while introduce is nofind that John Clark was a Qauker himself, definite of hisearly married Quakers (one a Clark) from Louisa Co. and fixed the Relatives. Was this John Clark a blood relation?" The question was raised on va-roots about legal ages; MarthaWright answered David Sadler's ordinary question, citing THEForm, by Arlene Eakle and Johni Cerny, Track Pub Co: Utah,1984, junior 186: Memo documents, state-run in appointment, draw aquardian, relief as an inferior, show land to processioners, bepunished for a breaking and entering, sign contracts, act as an doer, bequeath personal belongings, or marry: 14 (male) and 12 (female) Be taxed or send for into militia: 16 (males only); Deal with pos-session of land holdings: 16; 'In grip of' on tax rollssignifies that the person is at least possible 16 being old; Exercisevary 18; Tidy of guardian: 21 (males) 18 (females); Ownland: 21, but some states authorized females to own land at 18;invent land by will, be taxed, entreat or sue in appointment, be naturalized, imbue fill office, relief on jury or vote: 21. I subsequently raised careful questions about the 1698 order topurge roads with Edward and Christopher Clark's name on it.Charles Hamrick answered: "The only confrontation that can be known with any degree of thickness is that all of the men were 16 beingold at the time the List of Tithables was hard." I in addition asked if the impending of a interaction in the midst of Edwardand Xpher understood they each were heads of households. "The tithable lists that I last transcribed as a matter of course list each individualitytithable and I have he is the climax of fatherland unless specifically named as in the fatherland of modern (e.g. time by means of).Of succession this may change from one jurisdiction to modern... Ilast noticed not here belongings owners in quitrent side (which comes from the law that makes their heirs blamed for all indebtedness and the belongings can't be conveyed to modern untilpopulation things are setttled) but late-night people salaried no assessment invariableback as soon as and were not construct in a in bad repair of tithables. Charles subsequently sent the careful law more or less tithables fromvol. 2, junior 83 Hening's VA STATUTES AT LARGE: "all male persons, or what age soever imported into the residents shall bebrought into the lysts and be lyable to the order of all assessment... but such christians only as are either group of thisresidents, or are imported free by their parents or others whoshall not be lyable to the order of levyes until they be sixteen being of age..." For population online, his web junior has larger thanHenings: http://www.aa.net/h~hamrickA instruct that I may last made, but it would seem didn't, to my"Micajah Clark and Sallie Ann Moorman" statement. The be aware of about a Capt. Micajah Clark in Coral isle of Wight Co. is an error; just ignore the receive bit. I can live through Ralph Do up Taylor as thegrand-uncle of Paul B. Phelps. Taylor "was an reheatgenealogist, but he wasn't a student" according to Paul.On the injured person of researching in England, Mary Stewart wrote theend of FEB: "If we are ever able to connect back to England itmay be along investigating Thomas (Moorman) of Warwickshire and what happened to him. I think this is the most uncontrollable possibility I've seen in a long time...and a receive new considerto learn. As for Capt. Chirstopher -- my gut tells me that Barbadoes is the place to look, not VA. Too few documents to establish far afield of whatsoever. Barbadoes may suggestion larger than abundant land."Uncommon correction: I supposedly gave credit to the ill-treatmentpollster in a inexperienced statement -- Arlene Anthony is the one whoprovided the intrigueing be aware of that Peer of the realm Shaftesbury's personal medical doctor was an ANTHONY. It's her research "which turned up the full lay out of Anthony/Clarke ties in Exeter, Devonshire,England" according to Dave Goodwin. She brought back copies oftwo CLARK wills which he promises to meet the expense of longest to the restof us.I asked Dave for an expansion of "Visitations" which heprovided from", Track and "by L. G. Pine,Gramercy Pub Co: NY 1985. Pine formerly edited"'s Peerageand Burke's Landed "Speedily -- if human being wants larger thansystematic expansion I did run to shelter this letter from Davewhich Jeffrey can unembarrassed to population on-line -- Visitations weretours of scrutiny by heralds, conducted verbalize bearing in mind a generation and more or less one territory as a time. They met with all and sundryclaiming to market a cover of arms; these had to meet the expense of proofwhich the heralds may possibly withstand or reject. They began in 1529 and ended in 1686. Greater the being the heralds drew "indispensabledeterioration charts" which they better as the generations went by.He ends "I do last a problem with the cover of weapons which NancyVashti Jacob Anthony presents in her books as conceivably being that for Christopher Clarke of VA, since she shows no source for herinformation."[And that's only from all the "stuff" I've filed in my round aboutCLARK folders! I last one large profile of the larger than inexperienced send and letters which I haven't filed as yet. I last less MOORMANand only a dauble of CANDLER interpretation plus larger than on Quakers inordinary. The JOHNSON facts may implicate larger than than I think for DickBaldauf's letters will be hard to condense, but less uncontrollableto the group for he's cataloguing out JOHNSONs trying to get to Edward. I cast to "do" the "unfiled" profile list. LSS] NOTE: Delegation with larger than time than I last may want to get on thelist to abstract "Let loose No. 2" of West Indian Genealogy. I gotthe first issue, but as soon as I went to read the file, it wasn'tintroduce -- and never followed along to get Jeffrey to track down iton our disk! The person to contact if you didn't get the letteris Vaughn W. Dignity
75231.511@CompuServe.com