Person:Richard Barker (16)

Watchers
Browse
m. 2 Aug 1705
  1. Richard BarkerAbt 1710 - 1751
m. 18 Mar 1741/42
  1. John Barker1742/43 -
  2. Mehitable Barker1745 - 1747
  3. Anna Barker1746 -
  4. Jonathan Barker1748 - 1748
  5. Mehitable Barker1749 -
  6. Joanna Barker1751 - 1762
Facts and Events
Name[2] Richard Barker
Gender Male
Birth[4] Abt 1710 Andover, Essex, Massachusetts, United States
Marriage 18 Mar 1741/42 Methuen, Essex, Massachusetts, United Statesto Mehitable Barker
Death[1] 28 Jul 1751 Andover, Essex, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Andover, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Andover, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Topsfield, Massachusetts: Topsfield Historical Society, 1912)
    vol. 2, p. 387.

    BARKER, Richard, jr., [died] July 28, 1751.

  2. "Barker Genealogy", in Perley, Sidney, ed. Essex Antiquarian. (Salem, Mass.: Essex Antiquarian)
    Vol. 6, p. 66.

    Richard Barker [#82], s/o [p. 62: Richard Barker [#12] and Sarah Graves], d. 28 Jul 1751, m. 18 Mar 1741-2 Mehitable Barker [#138] of Methuen.

  3.   Barker, Elizabeth Frye. Barker Genealogy: Robert of Plymouth Colony, 1628; John of Duxbury, Mass., 1628; James of Rhode Island, 1634; James of Rowley, Mass., 1638; Edward of Branford, Conn., 1640; Richard of Andover, Mass., 1643; Samuel of Delaware, 1682; Virginia Barkers, 1700. (New York: Frye Publishing Co., 1927)
    p. 269, 275.

    Children of Richard Barker and Sarah Graves: Richard, b. 6 Oct 1712, d. 7 Oct 1712; Richard b. 1722, d. 28 Jul 1751, m. 18 Mar 1742 Mehitable Barker [#145].
    [The problem with this presentation is that a birth in 1722 would leave Richard not of legal age when he married. Possible, but uncommon. The other problem is that there is no such birth record in 1722, no such death record in 1712, and the birth in 1712 is not identified as Richard, so it is not clear what the basis for this assertion is. On top of this, a birth in 1722 would make him younger than Richard, the son of Benjamin and Mehitable who was born 1720, which would make him Richard 3'd, not Richard Jr., and yet the births of his children call him Richard Jr. So this appears erroneous.]

  4. Based on the date of marriage, one would assume Richard was born before 1720 to be of legal age. Given known births 1714, 1717, and 1720, he was probably born before 1714, and indeed, one might suspect he would be the oldest son. Richard and Sarah have a child, no name specified, b. 6 Oct 1712, that could be Richard, but there is also plenty of time between their marriage in 1705 until 1712 with no births records where he could have been born as well.