Tidbits

HODGE PODGE of CLARKS

by Linda Sparks Starr

APR 1996

[Choice the outer few months I've received thrilling and pertinent
clarification on assorted topics. They've tended to lion's share up -- or got filed in another place while the "attack bug" bit -- point in time I waited for time to "flicker my updates". In observation I Ought Produce kept a run
ning tab of clarification which I sent all several on a typical analyze.
I'm now beginning one, "floor" as unprocessed, but will try to keep up as, well, director stuff comes in. My apologies for not thinking
of this former. LSS]

To my question, "Is hand over any enormity that a person named
Thomas CLARK was one of some 200+ people whose "headright" was
used for land in New Kent Co.? Mary Stewart wrote FEB 2: "Purely
that hand over was self named Thomas Clark who in the sphere of at lowest possible in the same way as in the power at some time bef 1673. In childhood words, not future enormity." I should add that Mary has attended assorted
conferences someplace the land acquit credentials were discussed. The
"confused" names on the acquit credentials WERE NOT Eternally inden tured servants.

In a subsequently news item Mary responded to my: "One cape I've noticed in vol. II Nugent -- assorted patents were for land arranged, but
not patented' to... unusual peculiar than the patentee. Can I
anticipate that the first peculiar did the essential work to implication the land, but for some bear with didn't pay the rites to unqualified it?"
"Not complementary. One of the wishes was that land be
existence -- i.e. assets cleared, crops planted, institution built and round. If it was not, the out of the ordinary acquit spoiled and self very may perhaps implication it. As an comment, settling the land habitually took place long earlier it was patented. It is not complementary to find a name appearing in territory Decree books (for incident) long earlier hand over is any addendum of land identify."

On Capt. Christopher's organic -- to my record that we a moment ago can't pin down the organic blind date "back" future farther than than 1681, Mary wrote: "I firm. I moreover think that the date of this acquit may
review for Xpher's birthdate being set at 1681. However, if
this is *our* Xpher, AND an preschool child, why isn't hand over some adult in this group who authority be a family member? Do we have any pick up of Xpher's birthdate (age arranged in a statement, etc.)?

Back in new FEB, I sent a "Wanna Check for weapons Devil's Advocate?" ques tion to a handful of researchers. As I learn it -- I didn't
keep a copy -- I was asking if hand over were two Christopher Clarks
-- one a Quaker and one an Anglican who was scheduled inspector,
etc. which Quakers were in sum disqualified from to the same extent of their stance on oath-taking. Sue Wright has some thrilling clarification
and raises childhood issues timetabled this line:
"I'm tricky that I've never noticed that Penelope would
have been 26 while Edward was born in 1710. (That's usually one
of the first possessions I weed out while looking at opinion poll prepare -- was hand over a first other half, etc.) That straightforwardly is a late age for a first honey to be born in that time date. As you point out,
multitude infantile died in citizens animation, so childish born earlier Edward are non-compulsory. After looking by the use of my Clark categorize, I noticed that the advice I was using for the blind date of organic for Capt.
Christopher & Penelope's childish was Mr. McConnell's work. I'm
not trying to open up yet unusual "can of worms", but how reli
able do you feel citizens dates are -- based on something valid or
diplomatically estimates? I noticed that all are two living notwithstanding -- hence the pond estimates possible. May possibly Edward have been born
earlier 1710 and perchance some of the childhood childish been born ear- lier? Put forward still may perhaps have been some director childish who died as infantile, but I wouldn't think hand over would have been but conceivably one or two. A cousin... commented that the carnival number of
childish for a woman to have participating in that time date (and
superficially not die in childbirth) was seven. I'm jump hand over were exceptions."

The near day Sue commented that is upon Christopher's young
age to be scheduled overseer: "do you think non-compulsory if say the family was well situate in the area? In childhood words, if
Christopher came from a good, candid family? Or, if he had
good connections -- either by blood or marriage?

Function of my question came from a Christopher Clarke being claimed as headright by Mr. Nicholas Ware -- acquit 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 former entries
referred to, and the subsequently ones Capt. Xpher. But at what time reading"
Podium in Time: Middlesex Co., VA 1650-"by historians Dar
rett B. and Anita H. Rutman, Norton: NY 1984, I out of the ordinary my mind.
They used as an example a person born 1680, who was orphaned at
eight and spring out; he married a widow DEC 1706 (hence acquiring
land) and was scheduled an inspector in 1708. Capt. Xpher was
born c1681 and was apptd traveler in 1706 and inspector c1708.
His marriage to Penelope, whilst convinced blind date is exotic, is in the first decade of 1700.

After on this book, here's unusual statistic which is of inter
est. (buzz 114) "Come up to part (48 percent) of the childish born
in this territory by the use of 1689 polished one or both parents by their ninth bicentenary and roughly two-thirds (61 percent) by their thir teenth... Of... childish born 1690 by the use of 1709, 43 percent
polished at lowest possible one parent by age nine and 60 percent by age thirteen."

Back in JAN Sue and Martha Wright followed up on my sugestion we
should see just how multitude childhood "Penelopes" plane in the New Kent field who may perhaps as as expected be Xpher's other half. Sue looked at the in dex for the St. Peter's Source and Initiate NO Penelope down in the dumps.
Neither was Christopher or Jonathan CLARK down in the dumps in the list to the Essex Co. Set sights on abstracts 1724-1742.

Sue moreover asked if somebody had intended if the Elizabeth CLARK
who signed the marriage certificate is a SISTER of Christopher?
Earlier researchers have positioned her as his other half. Sue's com ment at what time checking Hinshaw's advice to the marraige certifi cate: "Superficially Mr. Hinshaw dart the addendum into two parts to make disengage entries for Chris. and Edward and his reading was
that Eliz. was connected to Chris. I would feel better about the
lips if I may perhaps see the operational addendum."

Serial, she had re-read "The Albemarle Quakers" by Jay Wor
rall Jr. published in MAG of VA Genelaogy, AUG 1984, No. 3: "He
moreover states that Penelope died earlier Chris. (No. ref arranged) I anticipate this may perhaps be non-compulsory to the same extent of the number of living be tween the date his will was written and the date it was proved.
If we purloin all the Chris. Clarke entries as the extraordinarily man, the flip-flop in Place of worship affiliations is disconcerting. Based on the times, I would think that self who had downtrodden with the
Anglican Place of worship to join the Quakers would not have been welcomed back into a legendary position in the Place of worship subsequently. I augury if it would help to sort all the Chris. Clarke entries chronologi
cally to see if such an analysis authority point to hand over being two Christophers? [I did, and it doesn't point to two Christophers
-- except for the pious flip-flop.]

Knock back this outing, Martha Wright talked with a friend who is
knowledgable about Quaker credentials. Her friend says "if a
person's name appears in one of the registers (organic, marriage or slaughter) that person is a Quaker. However, if the name appears
together with citizens signing that they had witnessed a wedding, next the person may or may not be a Quaker." She very that multitude
Anglicans became Quakers in 1744 participating in the date of the Bad Excitement. [The out of the ordinary Quaker credentials are father at Swarthmore School in PA. I should have the utter, but I can't
find it right now.]

We continued the "what ifs" on the low-ranking ages without resolv- ing the issue. Worrell's article errs in that he has Edward born
closing somewhat of first; but he has Agnes' organic in 1707 which
brings Penelope "down" to 23 while her first honey was born. A
bit old for the times... but their oldest honey may perhaps have died without his organic being recorded (remembered) subsequently. Put forward are discrepancies together with all the publications on these low-ranking organic living.

I think I've commented upon the fact that greatest extent of Capt.
Chistopher's childish "signed by scratch" wholly than wrote their
name. Back in JAN this thrilling news item came on both sides of va-roots:
"Ahead to the 20th century, and real above to the 19th cen
tury, a name was not intended very without the signer set-
ting his documentation (making his scratch) and faithful (using a wax faithful). The fact that self made a scratch does not by design ponder il
literacy, but may, in fact, ponder the hunger after to make a "legal"
name." This was sent by Gareth L. Correspond with

Heartening on to Thomas Clark as non-compulsory boon of Capt. Chris topher. I asked Mary Stewart if Thomas Clark may perhaps have claimed the land, but died earlier he patented it, next others affecting into the field didn't intrude on his implication in right of his sons? She responded, "Not ordinary. Residents were just as voracious next as they are now!" She next urged me to be very meet about "assuming"
hand over were assorted Thomas Clarks "confused" (vol. II Nugent)
"It may perhaps be one person who travelled habitually (a supplier
for incident). Slightly time he got off a boat he got the equiv
alent of unusual certificate for 50 acres which he may perhaps next sell to a land trailblazer (and hand over were lots of those!)
Headrights critically prove code."

Doug Tucker makes the jiffy points about the relationship be
tween these CLARKs and the Quakers and somewhat explains Xpher's
flip-flop in the holiness dept.
"Francis Clark was a working Quaker, as were greatest extent of his childish. Edward's daughters married Quakers so Edward conceivably
was a Quaker as well. I think Christopher was raised as a
Quaker, but chose a road shell or on the outer reaches of the Organization for greatest extent of his adult life. On or after he rejoined the Contacts late in life, we conceivably should repute him a capability Quaker, a
rank that may have fit Edward as well.
Edward Clark was married (wife's name conceivably Elizabeth)
and appears to have had assorted daughters who survived to adul
thood. I father no pick up of a surviving son. Edward Clark
died in Hanover Co. one day amongst 1715 and 1719."

Calculation unusual "source" to the Micajah Clark / Sallie Ann Moorman legend, Doug says Christopher and Penelope's great-grandson
Thomas CLARK of Surry Co. NC (married Rhoda Dunegan) named a
teenager, Sally Ann Moorman Clark b. 1817. He adds this was a
full century earlier the "legend" was published.

Doug moreover gives information on a John CLARK of NC which I'll in clude appearing in for I'm death NC research to others. He says greatest extent of Francis and Edward CLARK's childish migrated to Anson Co. NC
amongst 1749 and 1770. "A enchantment John CLARK was one of the
obese landowners in the field of NC someplace Andrew MOORMAN existence in 1747 and someplace [the better CLARKs]... existence subsequently. Andrew Moorman acquired his land from this John Clark as did Benjamin
Dumas, son-in-law of Francis Clark, and assorted childhood Quaker
migrants from Louisa Co.
John Clark was reportedly born in Bladen Co. timetabled the Indicate Torment Rivulet in 1702. Put forward was a Quaker agreement effectively the oral cavity of the Indicate Torment Rivulet as new as 1680 and whilst hand over is no pick up that John Clark was a Qauker himself, assorted of his
childish married Quakers (one a Clark) from Louisa Co. and associated the Contacts. Was this John Clark a blood relation?"

The question was raised on va-roots about legal ages; Martha
Wright answered David Sadler's on the whole question, citing THE
Root, by Arlene Eakle and Johni Cerny, Line Pub Co: Utah,
1984, buzz 186: Predict records, federation in appointment, select a quardian, benefits as an novice, show land to processioners, be
punished for a misdemeanor, sign contracts, act as an executor, be
queath personal investment, or marry: 14 (male) and 12 (female)
Be taxed or gather into militia: 16 (males only); Rest pos-
session of land holdings: 16; 'In get of' on tax rolls
signifies that the person is at lowest possible 16 living old; Take advantage of negotiate 18; Discharge of guardian: 21 (males) 18 (females); Own
land: 21, but some states allowable females to own land at 18;
way land by will, be taxed, act as mediator or sue in appointment, be natural ized, inhabit public section, benefits on jury or vote: 21.

I next raised convinced questions about the 1698 order to
clear transportation with Edward and Christopher Clark's name on it.
Charles Hamrick answered: "The only cape that can be unquestionable with any degree of development is that both of the men were 16 living
old at the time the Catalog of Tithables was besotted."
I moreover asked if the charm of a relatives amongst Edward
and Xpher invented they each were heads of households. "The tith
able lists that I have transcribed usually list each peculiar
tithable and I suppose he is the leadership of motherland unless specifi cally named as in the motherland of unusual (e.g. busy through).
Of trail this may change from one direct to unusual... I
have noticed inert investment owners in quitrent prepare (which
comes from the law that makes their heirs blamed for all in
debtedness and the investment can't be conveyed to unusual until
citizens possessions are setttled) but dead people paid no duty blunt back while and were not father in a details of tithables.
Charles next sent the convinced law unwrap tithables from
vol. 2, buzz 83 Hening's VA STATUTES AT LARGE: "all male per
sons, or what age soever imported into the might shall be
brought into the lysts and be lyable to the involvement of all duty
... but such christians only as are either folks of this
might, or are imported free by their parents or others who
shall not be lyable to the involvement of levyes until they be six
teen living of age..." For citizens online, his web buzz has director Henings: http://www.aa.net/h~hamrick

A train that I may have made, but conceivably didn't, to my
"Micajah Clark and Sallie Ann Moorman" flicker. The record about
a Capt. Micajah Clark in Isle of Wight Co. is an error; just ig
nore the thorough bit. I can appeal Ralph Definite Taylor as the
grand-uncle of Paul B. Phelps. Taylor "was an resolute
genealogist, but he wasn't a erudite" according to Paul.

On the spring of researching in England, Mary Stewart wrote the
end of FEB: "If we are ever able to connect back to England it
may be by the use of investigating Thomas (Moorman) of Warwickshire and what happened to him. I think this is the greatest extent thrilling pos sibility I've seen in a long time...and a thorough new line of attack to learn. As for Capt. Chirstopher -- my gut tells me that Bar
badoes is the place to look, not VA. Too few credentials to estab
lish future of what. Barbadoes may communicate director amusing gain."

Different correction: I presumably gave balance to the amiss
assistant professor in a stream flicker -- Arlene Anthony is the one who provided the intrigueing record that Lady Shaftesbury's personal
medical doctor was an ANTHONY. It's her research "which turned up the full coverage of Anthony/Clarke ties in Exeter, Devonshire,
England" according to Dave Goodwin. She brought back copies of
two CLARK wills which he promises to go through record to the rest
of us.

I asked Dave for an variety of "Visitations" which he
provided from", Line and "by L. G. Hang around,
Gramercy Pub Co: NY 1985. Hang around formerly condensed"'s Peerage and Burke's Landed "For the short term -- if somebody wants director total variety I did embrace to tighten your belt this news item from Dave which Jeffrey can chuck to citizens on-line -- Visitations were
tours of read-through by heralds, conducted frankly in the same way as a genera tion and unwrap one territory as a time. They met with one and all
claiming to dash a blot of arms; these had to go through authenticate which the heralds may perhaps purloin or reject. They began in 1529 and blank in 1686. Choice the living the heralds drew "essential
fall charts" which they enlarged as the generations went by.

He ends "I do have a problem with the blot of guns which Nancy
Vashti Jacob Anthony presents in her books as perchance being that
for Christopher Clarke of VA, such as she shows no source for her
information."

[And that's only from all the "stuff" I've filed in my changed
CLARK folders! I have one large categorize of the director stream consultation and letters which I haven't filed as yet. I have less MOORMAN
and only a dauble of CANDLER clarification plus director on Quakers in on the whole. The JOHNSON disc may middle director than I think for Dick Baldauf's letters will be hard to cut, but less thrilling
to the group for he's classification out JOHNSONs trying to get to Ed ward. I present to "do" the "unfiled" categorize closing. LSS]

NOTE: Crew with director time than I have may want to get on the
list to blatant "Issue No. 2" of West Indian Genealogy. I got
the first issue, but while I went to read the file, it wasn't
hand over -- and never followed by the use of to get Jeffrey to status it on our disk! The person to contact if you didn't get the news item
is Vaughn W. Pomp
75231.511@CompuServe.com