Family talk:Richard Park and Sarah Unknown (1)

Not Sarah King [30 March 2014]

The reason the wife is named Sarah King is because James Cutler names his children in his will, including the wife of Richard Parks. He said he included children of his wife by a former husband. His wife was the widow of Thomas King, this Richard Park had a wife Sarah, hence by acclamation, the wife's name is Sarah King!

Except it's wrong. James Cutler married the widow of Thomas King in 1645 and so any step-child would have been born prior to 1645 and would not marry a man born in 1663. James Cutler was talking about a different Richard Parks. And since it wasn't this Richard, we don't know if James Cutler's step-daughter's name was even Sarah. And the wife of this Richard Park was Sarah Unknown.

Some sources, such as "The Park Story" by Natalie Park Schutz, published in 2001, show this Richard Park married to a Sarah King, b. Watertown 5 Sep 1662. Having just shown that Sarah King would have been born before 1645, I would be real interested in finding the birth record of Sarah in 1662. americanancestors.org shows 28 children born in Watertown in 1662, including "Sary knop of John & Sary Borne 5 (7)", i.e., 5 Sep. Yes, apparently not only did somebody not realize that Sarah King needs to be the daughter of Thomas and Mary King, they assumed Knop meant King? (Ironically, John Knapp, s/o John Knapp and Sarah Young, i.e., brother to the Sarah born in Watertown, married Richard's sister Sarah Park, suggesting this error started life as a bookeeping mistake?)

At least one source (Ancestors of Dr. Louise (Gilman) Hutchins by Richard D. Sears, p. 180: "Sarah, born 5 September 1662. She married ? Park.") appears to want to suggest Sarah Knapp is the Sarah who married Richard Park, but Bond's abstract of the father, John Knapp's, will dated 22 Jan 1695-6 says he mentions only wife Sarah, and children Henry, Isaac, John, Daniel and Abigail, i.e., no daughter Sarah, suggesting she died young.

The Park Story also shows Lt. Richard Parks m. 14 Jul 1690 Elizabeth (Hastings) Billings b. 1669. Kudos for recognizing this is a different Richard Parks than the one who married Sarah. But sloppiness remains. Savage (who didn't recognize the difference between the two Richards), says he married Elizabeth Billings, "d. prob. of John Billings". According to Concord records: John Billings m. 1661 Elizabeth Hastings and in 1669 had a daughter Elizabeth. The daughter would be a good candidate for marrying Lt. Richard Parks; the mother, not so much. (This error is found in print in a few locations, including Essex Genealogist, p. 14:169.)

There is a serious need for academic research of this family, something more than simply copying, and miscopying, any source that comes to hand. --Jrich 15:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)