Person:Sarah Clark (152)

Watchers
Browse
m. 23 Nov 1663
  1. Nathaniel Clark1664 - 1665
  2. Nathaniel Clark1665/66 - 1690
  3. Thomas Clark1667/68 - 1729
  4. John Clark1670/71 - 1705
  5. Henry Clark1673 - 1749
  6. Daniel Clark1675 -
  7. Sarah Clark1677/78 - 1741
  8. Josiah Clark1682 - 1717
  9. Elizabeth Clark1684 - 1762
  10. Judith Clark1686/87 - Bef 1763
  11. Mary Clark1689 - Bef 1690
m. 9 Jun 1697
  1. Samuel Gilman1698 -
  2. John Gilman1699 - 1722
  3. Daniel Gilman1702 - 1780
  4. Nathaniel Gilman1704 -
  5. Rev. Nicholas Gilman1707/08 - 1748
  6. Dr Josiah Gilman1709/10 - 1793
  7. Sarah Gilman1712 - 1792
  8. Trueworthy Gilman1714 -
  9. Elizabeth Gilman1717 - 1740
  10. Joanna Gilman1720 - 1750
Facts and Events
Name Sarah Clark
Gender Female
Alt Birth[3] 12 Jan 1678 Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, United States
Birth[1] 17 Jan 1677/78 Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, United States
Marriage 9 Jun 1697 Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, United Statesto Nicholas Gilman
Death[2] 25 Aug 1741 Exeter, Rockingham, New Hampshire, United States
References
  1. Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Newbury, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Salem, Mass.: The Essex Institute, 1911)
    1:106.

    Clarke, Sarah, d. Natha[niell], [born] Jan. 17, 1677.

  2. Clarke, George Kuhn. The Descendants of Nathaniel Clarke and His Wife Elizabeth Somerby of Newbury, Massachusetts: A History of Ten Generations, 1642-1902. (Boston, Massachusetts , 1902)
    29.

    Children of Nathaniel Clark and Elizabeth Somerby: 7)Sarah, b. 17 Jan 1677[-8], d. 24 Aug 1741, m. 9 Jun 1697 (int. 7 May) Nicholas Gilman of Exeter, NH.

  3. Sarah Clark Gilman, in Find A Grave.

    Sarah Clark, d/o Nathaniel Clark and Elizabeth Somerby, b. 12 Jan 1678 , d. 25 Aug 1741, m. Nicholas Gilman.
    [The discrepancy in year compared to Newbury VRsS1 is probably due to this source converting the date to new style. The discrepancy in day of month cannot be explained because there is no indication where the 12 Jan date comes from, there being no photo, hence no indication that this comes from an actual gravestone. Even if it did, presumably the recorded birth would be a more contemporary and accurate record of the birth than a gravestone made 60+ years later based on the second hand information provided by a survivor. But the use of a new style date in 1741, 12 years before the shift in calendar in 1753, suggests that, if there was a gravestone, the marker may have been placed there many years later even than that.]