Dr. Richard Parker - Redux
Fred Olen Ray
Dr. Richard Parker in question is, indeed, the one of Charles City /
Henrico, not Nansemond, and here's where this opinion springs from --
If Rowland Parker's summary of his father James' family is (more or
less) correct, then his brother Richard would have only been 13 years
old when he came to Virginia as a Headright of John Carter in 1643 and
settled in Nansemond -- quite a feat for a youngster, and as a College
educated Doctor as well...
Capt. Francis Morgan brings the Charles City version Richard Parker to
Virginia in 1652, along with some others who keep reappearing in
connection with Parker for years to come. (This Parker brings in his
own HRs later -- one of them being Elianor Creed -- an indentured
servent who does time in Parker's house in lieu of jail back in
England for adultery). And he's also recorded as a Doctror as having
been working on a cure for a man's leg ailment (for two years, no
less)!
Another Richard Parker (but might still be the 1643 version) marries
Judith Burton Hunt (widow Hunt -- her husband dies at age 77!) and her
estate records show that her 2nd husband Richard Parker was a pewterer
by trade. Her estate record is reproduced on-line for interested
parties.
None of the other Parkers are ever (corrections welcome) referred to
anything even resembling a Doctor, except the Charles City version --
who is referred to, more than a few times, by this title.
While there is a distinct difference between a Doctor of Physicke and
a Churgeon (sic?), we must also remember that Rowland Parker was
somewhere about 10 years old when his brother Richard migrated to
Virginia and his summary of him was written while Rowland was serving
in the military (according to his own record) -- perhaps even another
10 years or more later. It's very possible that the confusion is on
the part of the writer, not the Doctor.
Fred Olen Ray
Reedpcgen
(1) Parker was a common surname, and there are numerous Parker entries in the
early Colonial Virginia patents and claims for headrights, (2) numerous
headrights were never listed by name (the claims were left blank), (3) though
some descendants of Richard Parker of Charles City County/Henrico County have
claimed the headright of 1643 must apply to the Richard of Nansemond, that is a
rather tenuous conclusion, based mainly on the name being the same, and (4) we
have to remember the third Richard Parker in Isle of Wight County who was not
the Richard Parker of Nansemond or Charles City County.
Headrights are tricky things, as shown partly in an article I wrote in TAG on
the Corderoy/Iremonger families, and in articles by Cameron Allen specifically
on the subject.
Paul
Fred Olen Ray
> Headrights are tricky things, as shown partly in an article I wrote in TAG on
> the Corderoy/Iremonger families, and in articles by Cameron Allen specifically
> on the subject.
>
> Paul
Tricky, indeed. I've got a lot to learn regarding these sort of
things, but having perused Waunita Powell's book THREE RICHARD PARKERS
OF VIRGINIA, I am convinced she has it sorted out correctly -- almost
TOO thoroughly for a casual browse.
She devotes an ample amount of space to the Headright system and its
abuses. From what I gather -- you couldn't claim your HR property for
a few years AFTER importing your immigrant (something about having to
prove that they were going to remain in Virginia and make a go of it)
-- which would put the Nansemond Parker in Virginia perhaps even
earlier than 1643.
The Surry Co. Parker was almost definately a pewterer as I believe he
takes on an apprentice to just such a profession, in addition to
Judith Hunt Parker's estate inventory.
Should you get an opportunity I would recommend Waunita's book -- it's
really more than anyone needs to know about these subjects. :-)
Fred Olen Ray
Reedpcgen
>RICHARD PARKERS OF VIRGINIA, I
>am convinced she has it sorted out
>correctly -- almost TOO thoroughly for a
>
We actually have her book and some of her earlier drafts, when she was a
complete amature in this endeavor. It is clear from those records that she is
extraordinarily prejudiced (in my take of her statements) TOWARDS wanting to
declare Richard Parker to the the ChasCity Co. man.
I am not a descendant, and have absolutely NO interest in which identification
is correct. As a Colonial Virginia specialist (the last 20 years), I saw quite
a number of mistatements in her conclusions, given the original documentation I
looked at and compared it with.
Would you happen to be a descendant of the ChasCity Co. Richard Parker?
Paul
Fred Olen Ray
between a "Doctor of Physicke" as Rowland Parker describes his
brother, and a Chirurgeon -- as Richard Parker was described in
several documents -- well, let's say I was wondering at what point
historically the two became similar (as we know them today). A bit of
research (shown below) seeems to indicate that some people in the
Colonies were sometimes legally licensed to practice both physicke and
chirurgery, perhaps out of sheer neccessity.
Cheers - Fred
http://www.hampton.lib.nh.us/hampton/history/dow/tabular/dowtab_1.htm
Dr. John Groth, licensed by General Court Apr., 1679, to practice
physic and chirurgery in Hampton.
Married Martha JENCKES (d. after 1719), daughter of Joseph JENCKES and
Martha BROWN. Martha, widow of James, on Oct. 8, 1719 deeded land in
Coweset to her son minor John, naming her brother Joseph JENCKES of
Providence, "Studiant in Physick and Chirurgery," as trustee. She
married second Peleg COOK. Son of James and Martha ANDREW: John.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/doctors1.html
'Whereas the Court have taken notice of the great blessing of God on
the good endevers of Captayne John Cranston at Newport, both in
phissicke and chirurgery, to the great comfort of such as have had
occation to improve his skill and practice, &c. The Court doe
therefore unanimously enacte and declare that the said Captayne John
Cranston is lycenced and commistioned to adminester phissicke, and
practice chirurgery throughout this whole Collony, and is by this
Court styled and recorded Doctor of physsick and chirrurgery, by the
athority of this the Generall Assembly of this Collony.'
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~walkersj/Stone.htm
May 17, 1662; Daniel Stone, land now of Daniel Stone which he
purchased of Rowland Beven. N.E. of Thomas Clarke. (SD 4:273). North
St. between Sun Court and Fleet. December 29, 1662; Dr. Stonne,
allowed 14. for administering physick and chirurgery to Goodman Fauor
at Rumney Marsh. (TR 7:12). October 26, 1668; Dr. Daniel Stone, fined
for entertaining John Hunt and his wife. (TR 7:44). January 29, 1671;
Dr. Daniel Stone, to be paid 20 shillings for next 12 months for
taking care of the poor of the town as to physicke and chirurgery and
to be rate free. (TR 7:64). 1674; appears on tax list under Greenwood
1. 1676; appears on tax list sheet 3. 1681; appears on tax list under
Clarke 2.
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your post. The information you found is fascinating!
You've provided good evidence in your post below that Richard Parker
of Charles City and Henrico Counties, Virginia, a known chirurgeon,
could also have been a Doctor of Physicke. I suspected the terms
chirurgeon and doctor of physicke might have overlapped each other.
You have confirmed that hunch. Excellent sleuthing, Fred!
Rowland Parker of Cornwall stated in 1673 that his brother Richard
Parker lived on the uplands on the James River. I assume the term
"uplands" would refer to Henrico County? Right? It seems doubtful
that Nansemond County is intended. As I recall, Nansemond County has
no uplands.
Can you tell us when Richard Parker the chirurgeon moved from Charles
City to Henrico County, Virginia? Was it before 1673? And did he
live on the James River? These are important questions as Rowland
Parker of Cornwall gave very specific information about his brother in
Virginia.
Next, do you know if Richard Parker of Charles City and Henrico County
was ever called "Mr." or "Dr." in the records?
Lastly, I note that Rowland Parker of Cornwall stated his brother
Richard Parker married a London woman. Is there any evidence that the
wife of Richard Parker of Charles City and Henrico Counties came from
London? If you can prove that, I think you'll have proved your case.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
ole...@aol.com (Fred Olen Ray) wrote in message news:<60b89c75.03062...@posting.google.com>...
Reedpcgen
>The information you found is fascinating!
>You've provided good evidence in your post below that Richard Parker
>of Charles City and Henrico Counties, Virginia, a known chirurgeon,
>could also have been a Doctor of Physicke
We have discussed before the difference between beeing a member of the College
of Physicians and a barber/surgeon. Richard Parker of Charles City County is
numerous times called surgeon, and only once that I am aware of referred to as
"Dr" (in list of accounts after the death of Mr. Cocke, which would hardly
quaify as an official court record, given the many times he was not called
"Dr."-and never called Physician).
>Rowland Parker of Cornwall stated in 1673 that his brother Richard
>Parker lived on the uplands on the James River. I assume the term
>"uplands" would refer to Henrico County?
The uplands might have referred to the rise above the falls in Henrico County.
The question one might ask is, did he mean "uplands" as in elevated ground, or
"up" as in further up from the river?
There was a patent of land in Henrico County which would be the land in
question in what was Henrico County.
One question that should be addressed, does delivering a warrant constitute
proof that one was sheriff of the county?
It is rather a red herring to claim that lack of the RIchard Parker being
called physician in Nansemond County records is important, as thiose records do
not survive, and we are left with patents for Nansemond County and the court
records of the state for the short period they survive.
It almost sounds, Doug, as if you have already corresponded privately and are
asking questions to which you know the answers.
Hadn't you already planned some time ago on including this in your book,
identifying the RIchard Parker of Charles City County as the immigrant in
quetsion?
Paul
Reedpcgen
about his brother RIchard Parker (which information I posted verbatim some time
ago),
do we have good evidence that the children of Richard Parker of Charles City
County had the six children referred to in 1673 (the Nansemond County Richard
is KNOWN to have had three sons and at least two daughters)?
Also, though Richard Parker of Charles City County delivered a warrant on
behalf of the court, he was not called "Sheriff" in that record, may have been
a constable or just a man going to that other county to whom the business was
entrusted,
and in fact was in court for debt on more than one occasion. Would such a man,
called surgeon, be appointed, in Charles CIty, a county fife with old gentry,
be appointed sheriff of Charles City County by 1673?
And what of the brother George who had also come to Virginia by 1673 and was
not stated to be deceased?
The only good evidence which does point to Richard Parker of Henrico (formerly
Charles City) County is that brothe of Rowland is stated to have resided in the
uplands of Virginia by 1673, and we have record of the patent off the James
RIver above the falls. That is what should be emphasized by those arguing tha
identification.
Paul
Fred Olen Ray
writing his account from more of what he was told than of what he
actually knew. After all his account was written many years after,
whichever Parker you ascribe to, migrated – He doesn't even know the
name of his brother's wife (although he does name spouses for his
other siblings), which would seem to indicate to me that neither
brother did much visiting upon the other once they parted.
It is likewise easy to see how Richard Parker of Charles City could
become something more in Rowland's description.
TYLERS QUARTERLY Vol 4 Pg. 164
Duties of Sheriff--Sheriff to collect all taxes, serve as County
Treasurer, Attending Court, serve all processes, responsible for all
prisoners. Also to deliver persons or "body" to the Court
"Pg. 232 April 3, 1660 (This deposition shows him to be in his 31st
Year). I Richard Parker age 31 or thereabout exae'd & sworn saith
that
having brought a Warrant from Capt. Edward Hill for contemtion of Wm.
Hunt to appear before him. The Dep't del'vd the said warrant to said
Hunt in presence of Thomas Davis and another man and sd Hunt instead
of obedience to the warrant answered that he had something other to do
then to wait on com'rs warrants,saying further that he admired Capt.
Hill being made so sensible of the business would grant his warrant to
that purpose, but said the Capt. is a young comm'r and I suppose he
will grant his warrant for anything. Whereupon the Dep't told the
said Hunt the danger of contempting ye warrant to which he replied
that the Dep't (Deponet is Richard Parker:) went about a business of
such difficulties that if he had an order of Court for yer serv't then
in question ye said Hunt would not deliver him. And further saith
not.
?Jur in Cor Apr. 3, 1660 RichParker
Test: Howell Pryse Cl. (sn'd his name joining)
Tho. Davis aged 22 years or thereabout, exam'd and Sworn saith that
being so with Mr. Parker when he read and delivered a warrant to Wm.
Hunt for his appearance before Capt. Edw. Hill about a serv't which he
detained. The Dep't heard the said Hunt answer that he had no time to
wait on Comm'rs warrants (or to that effect) whereupon Mr. Parker
telling him the danger of contempt. The said Hunt replyed, he cared
not and added, if ye had an order of Court for the serv't I would not
deliver him and further saith not.
Jur. of Court Apr. 3, 1660 Tho. Davis
Test: Howell Pryse. Cl."
Same goes for "Doctor of Physicke", as it's likely that Parker may
have administered both physicke and chirurgery – I can't imagine it
taking two years of treatment to cure a guys leg by either shaving it
or digging at it with a knife (I could be wrong, however). That's not
to say that Parker was any good at it either, but at least the
complaint lodged does show that he was administering ongoing treatment
of a medical nature.
Charles City Court records 1655-65 pg. 49
June 27, 1656 Wm. Fisher binds himself to Richard Parker Churegeon for
the term of Two Years and 10 mos. from the date to learn the art and
profession of said Parker.
Pg. 50 It is ordered that Richard Parker perform and perfect cure of
legge of John Matthews for which he hath already served two years.
The same can't be said of his Nansemond counterpart – who, while its
been pointed out that just because there's no existing evidence that
the Nansemond Parker was a doctor of any sort, doesn't mean he wasn't,
this Richard Parker did have one thing the Charles City version
didn't, and that's an existing will.
And while checking about for info on colonial Chirurgery I happened to
see different items, such as trunks of medications, books, etc. being
willed onward to the appropriate heirs, the same cannot be said of the
Nansemond Parker. No where in his will is there any indication that he
possessed any doctoring residue to pass on.
As I'm sure all Virginia researchers are aware (but news to me),
Nansemond (now a part of Suffolk) lies in the Chowan River Dismal
Swamp basin, incorporated in the flat Coastal Plains region of
Virginia, of which there are no uplands, as outlined pretty clearly by
the State of Virginia –
"The Chowan portion flows 130 miles from east to west, crossing both
the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, while the Dismal Swamp lies entirely
within the Coastal Plain. The Piedmont portion is characterized by
rolling hills, steeper slopes and somewhat more pronounced stream
valleys. The Coastal Plain, in contrast, is nearly flat with a
descending series of terraces.
All or portions of the following 14 counties and three cities lie
within the basin: Counties - Greensville, Lunenburg, Southampton,
Sussex, Brunswick, Charlotte, Dinwiddie, Isle of Wight, Mecklenburg,
Nansemond, Nottoway, Prince Edward, and Surry; Cities - Chesapeake,
Franklin, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach."
A pdf of this entire document can be downloaded at:
www.deq.state.va.us/pdf/305b/chowan.pdf
Cheers - Fred
Reedpcgen
possible that Rowland Parker may have made things out to be a bit more than
they actually were, I think it also VERY important to be as accurate as one can
be concerning the facts.
A sheriff was not, at that very early period, the ONLY person who could deliver
warrants by order of a county commission - so I have been told by a lawyer who
is a Colonial Virginia researcher.
In this case we have 31 year-old Richard Parker swearing to the court that he
delivered a warrant by order the commission.
The response was, " The Dep't heard the said Hunt answer that he had no time to
wait on Comm'rs warrants (or to that effect) whereupon Mr. Parker
telling him the danger of contempt. The said Hunt replyed, he cared
not and added, if ye had an order of Court for the serv't I would not
deliver him and further saith not."
Do you not think that if Richard Parker were himself sheriff (not styled so in
that record, or otherwise acting in that capacity in records of the county that
year) that Hunt should dismiss it so glibly, or that there was no threat of his
person being immediately apprehended if Parker were the sheriff?
Charles City County then was home to the Cockes, Randolphs, and all manner of
Virginia's best gentry. WHat manner of man do you think they would choose for
sheriff? A surgeon who was jailed for debt? This is not a man of the highest
gentry status in that county.
Again, I feel the best argument for Richard Parker of CCC being the man in
question is Rowland's description that he resided in the uplands of Virginia.
The area of Brook Road (where a patent to a RIchard Paerker was granted), which
runs out of RIchmond, was where Gabriel Prosser's planned rebellion was to
occur 1799-1800. There is now a highway and golfcourse in the immediate
vicinity. I've done extremely detailed research on the Prosser, Wilkinson,
Moseley and other families who held thousands of acres there, so am familiar
with the terrain.
But let us please not overstate evidence for being more than it is. Though the
identification is very likely, I do not think, for some reasons stated in the
past, that it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. The claim concerning the
Richard Parker of Nansemond by his descendant being a docutor and fathering six
children should (read: must) also be addressed in any published account so that
people are aware of it.
There were a number of surgeons who practiced in Charles CIty County at that
same time. A Doctor of Physic may have been an exaggeration, and Rowland may
not have thought anyone would know any better in 1673, but that is what we have
to work with.
Paul
Fred Olen Ray
behind a will. As I search for it among my things I can't seem to
locate it -- I might also have confused it with the will of his son,
Richard 2nd, which is on file.
FRED
Reedpcgen
>behind a will.
No early records survive for Colonial Nansemond County, other than the land
patents (state level) and the court records of the state published by
McIlwaine. It is remarkable when anything can be done on Nasemond County
families in that period, even gentry. If part of the family had not moved into
neighboring counties there would be little chance of tracing back to the
immigrant.
Paul
Fred Olen Ray
I, for one, do not believe that delivering a warrant makes a man a
sheriff -- and have not (deliberately) meant to imply so. It does, to
me, show that the man was involved in some way in the legal process
that might have been misconstrued by his brother Rowland -- perhaps
through Richard Parker's inflation of his own importance -- we'll
probably never really know.
One of his brushes with the courts seems to be over the Perkins kids'
estate, and it implies that he might even be in threat of custody, yet
in their own statements the children portray everything as being
square up with Parker, and their association with him continues onward
unabated.
As for debts -- I believe it's Richard Cocke that owed Parker a debt
and honors him with the only address of "Dr." he ever got, although it
seems to me that he is addressed as "Mr. Parker" repeatedly in some of
the records pertaining to the Perkins kids. Don't know if that's just
court lingo of its day or significant.
I also noted that Richard 2nd was involved in racing horses, which I
thought was a sport reserved for some of the higher ups in the
community - though have not studied up on this.
As for the fellow in the 1800's who related his belief of descent from
the Nansemond Parker based on a family tradition(I don't have this in
front of me - but believe his claim might fall close to the initial
publishing of Rowland's notes -- which, I think, were first unveiled
in the late 1800's -- but I could be way off on that -- will have to
look), I would like to direct you to the official "Parker of
Browsholme Hall" website in which the family itself, or at least its
representative, proceeds to mercilessly meld all three Richard Parkers
together into one extraordinary man who lived in Surrey, Nansemond and
Charles City, and finally settles on pewterer Parker (surely the
easiest to dismiss from these proceedings) as their ancestor (or at
least they ascribe to his wife being the widow, Judith Hunt). If the
Parker Family believes this is all true then everyone here can go to
bed happy -- anybody sleepy?
"Richard Parker (1630 –1677 the ‘emigrant') emigrated to the Colony
of Virginia, arriving in Nasemond County in 1647 it is said due to a
price being put on his head by Oliver Cromwell, for his support of
Charles I and the royalist army. Richard married Elizabeth Bailey
formerly of London, England in 1649 and had three sons Thomas, Richard
and Frances by that union; also three daughters who apparently died
young. Following Elizabeth's death he remarried Judith Hunt in 1668 in
the Isle of Wight County, Virginia but I do not have any record that
they had any children. Richard died in 1677.
The private publication ‘ A History of the Parkers of Rowan County and
Stanley County Carolina' by William Ashley Hinson I (1994) contains
research into the life of the ‘emigrant'. It refers to various grants
of land in Virginia, his work as a surgeon (‘chirurogen') and the
grant of 1420 acres of land in the southern branch of the Nansemond to
his three sons."
Fred
Reedpcgen
are not handy, but I thought the list which is the sole reference to him as "Dr
Richard Parker" was in an account well after Cocke's death, and near the end of
the list at that. Whoever drew up the list may have simply meant to indicate
what Richard, and inserted "Dr" as an abbreviation to account for what it was,
rather than to have had knowldge of his medical education. It is, as we have
said, the only place out of numerous entries where he is called "Dr" and never
physician. He was frequently referred to as some form of the word surgeon.
It is also worth noting that the ages Rowland gave in his account for his
siblings are clearly partially in error. I think I'd posted something with
baptismal dates some time ago, compared to his estimation. It's difficult to
know whether RIchard Parker of CCC/Henrico County may have inflated a number of
things, or if Rowland did in his own account. It is also interesting that no
candidate for George Parker has yet surfaced in Virginia (aside from the man on
the Eastern Shore who certainly isn't this George).
Paul
Douglas Richardson
You're batting 1000 percent so far. Your evidence is very persuasive.
I appreciate the fact that you're willing to back your statements
with quotations from the original records. That's very helpful.
Would that others would do the same.
I have a few comments to make. According to Rowland Parker's
statement, his brother, Richard Parker of Cornwall, was living in 1673
in the uplands of Virginia on the James River. If what you have said
about Nansemond County being part of the Dismal Swamp Basin is true,
then it is clear that Richard Parker in Nansemond County could not
possibly be same person as the Richard Parker who lived in the
"uplands" on the James River in 1673. In confirmation of this, I
spoke today with a professional genealogist who is well versed on
colonial Virginia records. Without any prompting, he readily told me
that in this period, Henrico County would have been considered the
uplands on the James River. If so, then Richard Parker who lived in
Charles City and Henrico Counties would sure seem like he is Richard
Parker from Cornwall. As you have pointed out in your post, there
aren't any uplands at all in Nansemond County. By the way, thank you
for sharing the information about Nansemond County's geography.
I see in your post that when Richard Parker of Charles City deposed in
1660 about delivering a warrant, that another person, Thomas Davis,
testified at the same time and referred to him as "Mr." Richard
Parker. I also note that when Richard Parker obtained his patent for
land on the James River in Henrico County in 1669, he was again styled
"Mr. Richard Parker." That's good confirmation as to the social
status of this Richard Parker of Charles City and Henrico Counties.
As far as colonial immigrants go, it is a typical pattern for
immigrants to have kinsfolk with them in the colonies, often in the
same locality. I did some fact checking and realized that Richard
Parker of Cornwall was the grandson of Alice (Hayward) Buller, whose
sister, Mary (Hayward) Saint Leger, was the grandmother of Warham
Horsmanden, of Charles City County, Virginia. Please note that Warham
Hormansden lived in the same county as your Richard Parker. The fact
that the two cousins lived in the same county is good supportive
evidence I think. While this doesn't prove your case, it does add
further confirmation that you are on the right track.
Since you are doing so well, Fred, do you have any evidence that
Richard Parker of Charles City and Henrico Counties, Virginia had a
wife from London? Rowland Parker said his brother, Richard's wife,
was from London. What about it?
Also, can you tell us when Richard Parker of Charles City and Henrico
County immigrated? Does that fit with his birthdate (1630)? Also,
how does that compare with the date of immigration of Richard Parker
of Nansemond County? Do you know when the Nansemond man immigrated?
Lastly, what evidence do you have that Mr. Richard Parker, the
chirugeon in Charles City County, is the same man who later lived on
the James River in Henrico County? Can you prove the two men are the
same person? How do we know it wasn't the Nansemond man who patented
the land in Henrico County in 1669?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
ole...@aol.com (Fred Olen Ray) wrote in message news:<60b89c75.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> I'm still open to the idea that perhaps brother Rowland Parker was
> writing his account from more of what he was told than of what he
> actually knew. After all his account was written many years after,
> whichever Parker you ascribe to, migrated ? He doesn't even know the
> have administered both physicke and chirurgery ? I can't imagine it
> taking two years of treatment to cure a guys leg by either shaving it
> or digging at it with a knife (I could be wrong, however). That's not
> to say that Parker was any good at it either, but at least the
> complaint lodged does show that he was administering ongoing treatment
> of a medical nature.
>
> Charles City Court records 1655-65 pg. 49
> June 27, 1656 Wm. Fisher binds himself to Richard Parker Churegeon for
> the term of Two Years and 10 mos. from the date to learn the art and
> profession of said Parker.
>
> Pg. 50 It is ordered that Richard Parker perform and perfect cure of
> legge of John Matthews for which he hath already served two years.
>
> The same can't be said of his Nansemond counterpart ? who, while its
> been pointed out that just because there's no existing evidence that
> the Nansemond Parker was a doctor of any sort, doesn't mean he wasn't,
> this Richard Parker did have one thing the Charles City version
> didn't, and that's an existing will.
>
> And while checking about for info on colonial Chirurgery I happened to
> see different items, such as trunks of medications, books, etc. being
> willed onward to the appropriate heirs, the same cannot be said of the
> Nansemond Parker. No where in his will is there any indication that he
> possessed any doctoring residue to pass on.
>
> As I'm sure all Virginia researchers are aware (but news to me),
> Nansemond (now a part of Suffolk) lies in the Chowan River Dismal
> Swamp basin, incorporated in the flat Coastal Plains region of
> Virginia, of which there are no uplands, as outlined pretty clearly by
> the State of Virginia ?
Reedpcgen
>From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
[snip]
Doug, I find it difficult to believe that you are not already aware of all of
this, having corresponded with others about this some time ago. Is Richard
Parker not already in your current manuscript?
Paul
Reedpcgen
April 1660, which is just a bit older than the RIchard Parker of Cornwall, but
that discrepancy need only be poined out.
".. I Richard Parker age 31 or thereabout..."'
Age 31 is not the same thing as being in one's 31st year.
Also, John Holmwood was appointed to be sheriff on 27 April 1660 and to be
sworn at the next court. It's a pitty there is no direct statement for the
previous year as to an appointment of sheriff in surviving court orders.
The list from the estate of Lt. Col. Richard Cocke is Henrico County Wills and
Deeds, 1677-92, p. 108 (FHL 31,769), and I think dated 1679 (didn't write down
everything I should have) reading
"Doctor Parker ____ 00939" [tobacco]
It is clear Richard Parker was born about 1629-30. He married, 1656, Mary, the
widow of Nicholas Perkins, who claimed her headright.
Nicholas Perkins' son Nicholas would be born about 1647 (aged 17 when mentioned
in records) and the daughter Elizabeth would be born about 1643 (aged 21 when
mentioned in records). Lydia Perkins was even older.
There is an entry for the baptism of Nicholas, son of Nicholas and Mary Perkins
at St. Dunstan, Stepney, on 11 October 1649, but he was already aged 1, which
correlates to the Virginia Nicholas. This would indicate that Mary was older
than Richard Parker.
Paul
Reedpcgen
I know there's a genealogy of Nicholas Perkins, but I hadn't had time to look
at it.
Nicholas Perkins claimed Mary Perkins as a headright (in 1650?), but not the
son Nicholas? It is theorized that Elizabeth and Lydia were daughters by a
previous wife.
What evidence is there that Mary was a second wife, and what evidence do we
have that Nicholas Perkins was the man who's son Nicholas was baptized at
Stepney? Perkins is not a rare surname. This may all be explained in the
genealogy, but I haven't seen it yet.
Paul
Reedpcgen
NOT the Nicholas of Virginia.
Stepney, on the River Thames, east of the city of London, was a popular
residence of mariners, boatrights, etc., especially its chapelry of Poplar.
The original entry in the parish register reads:
"Nicholas son of Nicholas Perkins of poplar maryner & Mary uxor 3[days old]"
This Nicholas Perkins was a mariner, not a Virginia merchant/planter. And the
son was only 3 days old. I don't know why the extracted entry in the IGI
indicates he was a year old. This Nicholas Perkins, Jr., was therefore born
born 8 October 1649.
Though a "Mary Perkins" was claimed by Nicholas Perkins as a headright in 1650,
there is no proof that she was his wife (she could have been his sister, aunt,
cousin, etc.). Also, she may have been Mary "Perkins" at the time he claimed
her, but that does not mean she did not have a different surname (maiden name)
when she arrived, either in 1650 or some years earlier.
Therefore I see no evidence that Mary, wife of Nicholas Perkins, was "of
London."
So, do we have evidence that Nicholas Perkins was married to a wife other than
Mary, or do we have evidence that Mary was mother of any of his children if she
was a second wife?
You see, it is good to review this material, even if others have gone over it
carefully.
Paul
Fred Olen Ray
the Perkins (Parkyns) saga. I've seen some pretty wild stuff,
particularly on some of the Perkins family sites. One group claimed
that the Va. Perkins was the son of an Aden Parkyns of Jamestowne and
that Richard Parker went to Prison for squandering his step-fdaughters
inheritence. Another tried to link Mary Perkins to Mary Burton, but
that might be too many Burton/Parker marriages getting inter-knotted.
:-)
Since the names Constantine and Hardin pop up in the Perkins line
there is the claim that Elizabeth Hardynge (d/o of Constantine
Hardynge) was the first wife of Nicholas Perkins and mother of his
children.
Here's something to ponder:
Generation No. 1
ARTHUR1 PERKINS, He married ELIZABETH KYMBALL, daughter of NICHOLAS
KYMBALL. Child of ARTHUR PERKINS and ELIZABETH KYMBALL is:
1. NICHOLAS2 PERKINS, b. 1572, Bedfordshire, England; d. Aft. 1641,
Bedfordshire, England.
Generation No. 2
NICHOLAS2 PERKINS (ARTHUR1) was born 1572 in Bedfordshire, England,
and died Aft. 1641 in Bedfordshire, England. He married ? JANE
IRONDONGER January 13, 1612/13 in England. Child of NICHOLAS PERKINS
and ? JANE IRONDONGER is:
1. NICHOLAS3 PERKINS, b. 1624, Bedfordshire, England; d. 1656, Charles
City, Virginia.
Generation No. 3
NICHOLAS3 PERKINS (? NICHOLAS2, ARTHUR1) was born 1624 in
Bedfordshire, England, and died 1656 in Charles City, Virginia. He
married (1) ELIZABETH HARDYNGE 1640, daughter of CONSTANTINE HARDYNGE.
She died Bef. 1650 in Charles City, Virginia. He married (2) MARY
BURTON Abt 1650, daughter of JOHN BURTON and LYDIA FRY. She was born
1611, and died in Charles City, Virginia. Children of NICHOLAS PERKINS
and ELIZABETH HARDYNGE are:
1. PERKINS4.
2. LYDIA PERKINS, b. Abt 1642, England, or, Virginia; m. JOHN NOWELL.
3. ELIZABETH PERKINS, b. Abt 1643, England, or, Virginia; m. JONES.
4. NICHOLAS PERKINS, b. 1647, England or, Henrico, Virginia; d. 1712,
Henrico, Virginia.
Generation No. 4
NICHOLAS4 PERKINS (NICHOLAS3, ? NICHOLAS2, ARTHUR1) was born 1647 in
England or, Henrico, Virginia, and died 1712 in Henrico, Virginia. He
married SARAH CHILDERS in Henrico, Virginia, daughter of ABRAHAM
CHILDERS and JANE HOWARD. She was born Bet. 1644 - 1649 in Henrico
Co, VA, and died 1722 in Henrico Co, VA. Children of NICHOLAS PERKINS
and SARAH CHILDERS are:
1. NICHOLAS5 PERKINS, b. Henrico, Virginia; d. 1710; m. ELIZABETH.
2. MARY PERKINS, b. Henrico, Virginia; m. AMOS LADD.
3. SARAH PERKINS, b. Henrico, Virginia.
4. PHILEMON PERKINS, b. 1680, Henrico, Virginia; d. Abt 1769,
Goochland, Virginia.
5. CONSTANTINE PERKINS, b. 1682, Henrico, Virginia; d. December 1770,
Goochland, Virginia.
6. RICHARD PERKINS, b. Abt 1691, Henrico, Virginia; m. JANE SHELTON.
7. ABRAHAM PERKINS, b. Abt 1693, Henrico, Virginia; d. 1742.
8. ELIZABETH PERKINS, b. Abt 1695, Henrico, Virginia.
Also, Mr. Reed, could you please post your sources on the earlier
material pertaining to the mariner Perkins? I'm sure the initials you
listed represented them, but I'm not enough of an expert to know what
they mean.
Cheers - Fred
Fred Olen Ray
I have read the letter sent to the Virginia Genealogy magazine by the
son of Dr. Richard Henry Parker and was at first surprised that it was
(apparently) unsigned, although the version (in facsimile) that I saw
may have omitted the submitters name.
It was, as I had remembered, written AFTER the author had read
Rowland's family notes in an earlier article by Maj. John Parker in
the same magazine.
The first thing I thought of was how odd that the author should not
know the name of his own grandmother. He leaves it as a blank, except
that she was the daughter of Col. Henry Harrison, which I can also
find no corroboration of (help, anyone?).
Inasmuch as the "tradition' is being passed down via his mother (who
would not actually even be a Parker except by marriage) and "older
members" of his family, in particular he notes his aunt (who, God
willing, was the sister of Richard Henry Parker and not the wife), it
seems also unbelievably strange that his aunt would not know the names
of her own grandparents (the writers great-grand parents) either.
According to the tradition (sounds like something out of the old "Dark
Shadows" TV soap opera), Dr. Richard Henry Parker was the son of
Willis Parker, who was the son of Richard Parker III, and the chain of
unbroken Richards from father to son goes on for 9 generations without
a break with the exception of grandfather Willis.
Only difficulty here appears to be that Richard Parker III did NOT
have a son named Willis. Willis was the name of a son produced by
Richard's brother, Robert Parker, who married a Riddick girl
(probable, but unproved, as a relation (tho perhaps NOT daughter), of
Col. Willis Riddick -- the Colonel had a daughter named Christian and
Robert Parker's first daughter was also named thusly and one of
Parker's sons was named Willis).
Does that make the unbroken chain of Richard Parkers only 3
generations long instead of 9 (Richard 1, Richard 2, Richard 3,
Robert, Willis, Richard Henry)? Or is it really 9 because their
initial Richard Parker of Nansemond was the son of yet an earlier
string Richard Parkers and NOT the son of James Parker and Katherine
Buller as argued?
I suggest that the mystery writer was truly descended from the
Nansemond Parkers, but also suggest that when he read Rowland's notes
in the article and saw that the immigrant was to have been a Doctor,
at that point the "tradition" received a new tidbit, for while there
are plenty of existing documents noting the names of the three sons,
there are none naming any daughters and the mystery man can't name
any either, likewise, there are no documents, to my immediate
knowledge, to indicate that the Nansemond Parker was ever in any way
involved in any medical practice of any sort. So I believe that the
letter writer knew he was a Parker descendent and filled in a few
blanks with Rowland's help.
He finishes with "This tradition is so well corroborated by the
article of Maj. John Parker…", when after all is said and done the
Nansemond man barely lives up a single point of the article, UNLESS
the mystery writer, like so many before him, was co-mingling the
Nansemond man with the Charles City/Henrico version, which might very
well be the case and explain his own confusion.
Not knowing who your grandmother was, and your aunt not knowing who
her grandparents were is pretty weird considering the depth of detail
that the tradition seems to have been given.
The "tradition" in my family is that ancestor Moses Wheeler Jones was
the illegitimate son of John Paul Jones (given some credence by one of
the most respected Rev War site going --
http://theamericanrevolution.org/ipeople/jpjones.asp -- The trouble
with really cool traditions like that is actually proving it.
Cheers - Fred
Reedpcgen
>Bedfordshire, England.
But WHERE in Bedfordshire. Most parishes have had their parish register
correlated with BTs, and are in the IGI, but these names do not pop up.
Also, I glanced at the index of probate records for the Archdeaconry Court of
Bedfordshire (now in print) but likewise came up with nothing (I did not check
the PCC).
Does ANY account of this alleged ancestry give a parish in Bedfordshire? And
wasn't there a later Perkins/Harding marriage in Virginia?
(Irondonger might be an error for Ironmonger/Iremonger.)
Given that there were Constantine Perkins and Harding Perkins in later
generations, I could see how some 'helpful' person might have been led to
'theorize' a Constantine Hardynge in the ancestry and other 'hopeful'
descendants took it as fact.
I checked the original parish register of Stepney, which at that time included
the chapelry of Poplar, for the baptism of Nicholas Perkins in 1649 (Family
History Library film #595,417). There were a number of Perkins families having
children there at that time.
Best wishes,
Paul
Reedpcgen
>IRONDONGER January 13, 1612/13 in England.
Someone has submitted to the IGI that a Nicholas Perkins married Jane Iremonger
at Stanbridge, Bedfordshire on 12 January 1613. He married at age 40 for the
first time?
The Arthur/Aden Perkins marriage to Anne Kimball is supposed to be 22 July 1582
at Bunny Park, Nottinghamshire. That is an extraordinary leap of geography at
that period.
It would seem people have strung many unrelated facts together using the old
'name's the same' theorem that inertia is overcome by desire to connect.
Paul
Paul
Reedpcgen
put it into perspective and do research in other than online sources.
There were a series of Richard Parkers, who did not use the numbering system
III, etc., in their lifetimes. There is supposed to be a line of descents of
RIchard Parkers down to Richard Parker who is given as marrying Elizabeth King,
father of Richard Parker who married Mary Benton. They are given as being
parents of Kedar (b. by 1759, d. 1837, Gates Co.), Willis, etc.
The author stated that his Willis Parker was a magistrate by 1800. Was he the
WIllis Parker of South Quay, Isle of Wight/Nansemond?
The Reconstructed 1790 census of Nansemond COunty, Virginia, has Capt. Willis
Parker living in "Capt. Willis Parker's District of Militia" with 20 Black and
9 white polls. Kadar Parker had 8 white souls, on edwelling and 5 other
buildings. Willis had 9 white souls, 3 dwellings and 2 other buildings. The
1787 land tax list shows Kadah Parker with 535 acres, Willis with 640, and a
number of other Parkers with quite a bit of land in Nansemond County in
1787/88. The Clerk's Fee Book of 1774 & 1789-1800 has Willis Parker and Julia
his wife in 1791, and Willis also appearing in 1790, 1794, 1796 and 1800.
I would suggest that much more original research is needed before you make any
pronouncements about what was or was not possible among these Parkers who bore
the same names (there are a number of RIchards and Willises in each
generation).
Your post did not seem dispassionate, and did not take into account all
possible facts (much more could be done).
Would it not be a simple thing to remember an unbroken string of RIchards who
occur until Willis, which Willis was close in relationship to the source?
Also, given the prominence of the Capt. Willis Parker I mention here, if he is
the man in question, he would be of sufficuient social status to marry a
Harrison of the vicinity. And did the author state that he did not know the
name of his grandmother, or was it simply not put in the account?
One might theorize Richard Parker the immigrant's son Richard was born about
1656, living 1698 and died 1728. He is thought to be father of a Richard who
was JP of Chowan and died 1749-52, father of another Richard, but that string
of RIchards is based on records outside Nansemond County, and I suspect there
were more Richards in Nansemond County prior to the destruction of records.
The web sites I have seen do not document things as thoroughly as I would like.
If statements are made, sources should be cited.
Paul
Fred Olen Ray
Buller (b. abt 1621), sent his son, Richard to Virginia (although I'm
not sure he remained as an immigrant -- he's shown arriving along with
Culpepper), but apparently his son did not run his business interests
here -- this task falling to Essex Bevill, who was later replaced by
John Herbert.
"Deed #30. pg.50:
John HERBERT, of Bristol Parish, Prince George Co., merchant, to Henry
ANDERSON, of Bristol Parish, Henrico Co., and Prudence, his wife,
leases for life of both adjoining John ARCHER, and formerly purchased
by Mr. Richard BULLER, Old George, dec'd. Witnesses: Richard Beardon
THOMAS, gent., Joshua IRBY.
Signed: John HERBERT
Recorded: 1 August 1707"
Richard Buller Sr died in 1695 at about the age of 74 and left his
agent Herbert hanging as to the monies due him on a recent shipload of
stuff. (All of this info is derived from a legal proceeding in which
Herbert is the plaintiff and Rebecca (Finney) Buller, the defendant -
a string of witnesses give claim as well).
In the papers Henry Batte (brother of Thomas Batte), a witness, claims
to have known Buller for 40 years.
Richard Buller Jr is shown to have patented land (378 acres) in
Henrico in 1663 with Thomas Batte (Henry's brother), whose son, Thos.
Jr. was engaged in horse racing with Richard Parker 2nd at the Varina
Track:
"Reel 031772 Pg. 413 Oct. 1689: Mr. Thomas Batte: Jr. having brought
his
accon' agst Richard Parker deft fore hundred lbs of Tob. & caske & ye
sd Pltf & waged on a race agst sd Parker in which contrary to
agreement the rider of ye sd Parkers mare did cross and thwart ye pet'
in her way by which means the pltf came hind most: for proof the
Peticon' named evidences were sworn but before the summoning of a jury
both pltf & deft requesting ye court to pass their opinions therein by
which they would abode. It is therefore upon consideration of ye
matter and ye court ordered that ye next appointed race day at Varina
the said mares with ye same riders do again fairly run their former
courses for ye sd Tob. & Caske and that ye charge of this suit be
equally defrayed by pltf. & deft: als exec."
Does this prove a connection between the immigrant families? Well, no,
not exactly, but it would be interesting to know from whence Richard
Buller Sr came. Could he have been the brother of Katherine (Buller)
Parker? The age is just about right and these Bullers were definitely
tied in with the Batte family who were likewise connected to the
Parkers.
Cheers - Fred
Reedpcgen
I am going out of town now and will not be able to participate for the next
week.
Hope things go well when I am gone.
Paul
Fred Olen Ray
claim, please put it into perspective and do research in other than
online sources."
I appreciate with you putting up with my efforts Mr. Reed, I don't
mean to be an irritant. You've been very patient and helpful (even
inspirational) and I've learned a lot about research from these
proceedings, but its obvious, I'm sure, to everyone that I'm not
nearly the authority you are. I don't have a smidgeon of your
credentials, least of all, I really don't have the access to any
orginal genealogy sources, and frankly, being the amateur (enthusiast)
that I am, I could never carve out the time to researching them that
they deserve.
If you'll bear with me, I've just about exhausted my interest in this
subject.
"There were a series of Richard Parkers, who did not use the numbering
system III, etc., in their lifetimes. There is supposed to be a line
of descents of Richard Parkers down to Richard Parker who is given as
marrying Elizabeth King, father of Richard Parker who married Mary
Benton. They are given as being parents of Kedar (b. by 1759, d.
1837, Gates Co.), Willis, etc."
This family (as far as I know) IS the exact Nansemond family the
mysterious letter writer, and we here, have been discussing all along.
I was aware that Richard Parker 3rd of Nansemond's son Richard
(brother of Robert Parker who fathered the Willis I wrote of) had a
son named William (who did indeed also have a son named Willis,
brother of Kedar). I suggested Robert Parker's Willis based on the
age range indicated by the Letter writer and since he specifically
stated he was descended from the Nansemond clan I thought it best to
keep the search within that particular family group. (There is a
similarly related Peter Parker who also had a son named Willis, but
his will, recorded prior to the death of Dr. Richard Henry Parker,
does not include a son by that name, so I dismissed him).
It still makes the Letter writer's aunt confused about who her own
grandfather was, as it would now be William Parker, still not Richard
Parker, and the chain of Richards remains 3 generations deep as
suggested. And yes, the mystery writer literally leaves a blank where
his grandmother's first name would appear.
"The author stated that his Willis Parker was a magistrate by 1800.
Was he the Willis Parker of South Quay, Isle of Wight/Nansemond?"
That info is included in the original article published concerning the
various Parkers of Virginia (as well as the names of the three
Nansemond sons) so where it actually springs from (or is even
verifiable) is unknown to me. As you say, it might take more than my
meager resources to prove any truth to this statement, because I
simply can't find it.
"One might theorize Richard Parker the immigrant's son Richard was
born about 1656, living 1698 and died 1728. He is thought to be
father of a Richard who was JP of Chowan and died 1749-52, father of
another Richard…"
I think you're absolutely right about this -- only variance would be
that Willis' father was either Robert (brother of Richard the JP) or
William (Son of Richard the JP (father of Willis and Kedar)). Either
way, I still think the mystery writer is infusing his "tradition" with
bits of material gleaned from the magazine article (which I believe
states "Willis P appointed JP for Nansemond 1800", and names the three
sons, etc.) -- as well as maybe combining the various Richard Parker's
together as is the tradition. :-)
Cheers - Fred