Well you may not think they are plausible to be giving gifts to these small children so I guess that is your opinion. We differ in that respect. I think they are the same Robert Clarke the Surveyor. It was Robert Clarke the Surveyor who had the association with Gov. Thomas GREENE. And it was the same Robert CLARKE who married his widow Winifred, and it's the same Robert Clarke who was spokesman for the Jesuit Priest Thomas Copley. Same Robert Clarke who immigrated abt 1637 and stated in a deposition he was single and gave his age, as born abt 1610. I'm sorry you disagree, but I have not seen you prove otherwise. Stating you don't believe it, is not going to make it so. You need to come up with better reasons. -----Original Message----- From: mdstmary-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:mdstmary-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of rubyslippers Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:47 AM To: mdstmary@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MDSTMARY] Robert Clarke immigrants I don't know how to make this clearer than doing the simple math. Your hypothesis - there is one Robert with children John, Mary, Robert and Thomas: You said he had: John Clarke born abt 1642 Mary Clarke born abt 1644/45 Robert Clarke born March 1652, Thomas Clarke born 25 Dec 1654. In addition to the record about Thomas gifting to a wife, I pointed out the following: In 1647 "A" Robt Clarke gave gifts to son and daughter John and Mary witnessed by Thomas Greene. According to your approach of only one each of these Clarkes, he made these gifts to John at 5 yrs old and Mary at 3/4 yrs old (ie: from John's birth in 1642 to the year 1647 is 5 yrs) I just don't think these recorded gifts to these small children are plausible. For one thing they would not have the legal capacity to ever transfer them. -----Original Message----- From: mdstmary-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:mdstmary-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jerry L. Clark Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 9:39 PM To: mdstmary@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MDSTMARY] Robert Clarke immigrants I have not followed your conversations on this, or how this would change anything, but perhaps you have not made your point clear. I think it just a matter of understanding the time line of events. Here is will of Edward Barber, notice he says his sister was Ann Clarke and Thomas Clarke was one of the Overseers of his will. Ann Barber died shortly after this, because Thomas Clarke remarried to Julian MUDD I believe abt 1696. Thomas Clarke died 1711, Julian MUDD then remarried to Mathew Guibert. Will of Edward Barber, SMC 3/2/1693-5/21/1694. Wife: Cibbil, plantation and 200 ac. during life; to revert to son, Edward. Daughter: Mary, 1/2 of certain land. To: Unborn child, residue of sd. tract and 200 ac. near Bird's Creek. Brother: Thomas, rights in 300 ac. "Pt. of Mitcham Hills" and 200 ac. near Bird's Creek, formerly belonging to John Barecroft. Cousin: Thomas Nichols, and to Adam Clarke and heirs, rights of 200 ac. To: Children afsd. residue of land equally. Godsons: James Morris and John Branson; and Mary and Martha Williamson, daughters of Samuel Williamson, personal estate. In event of death of children afsd. without issue the children of sister Elizabeth Guibert to be co-heirs with brother Thomas afsd. and in event of death of Thomas afsd. without issue, sister Mary Nichols and Ann Clarke to be co-heirs. Wife: Cibbil (Exec.) residuary legatee. Overseers: Thomas Clarke, Thomas Barber. Wit: Samuel Williamson, Stephen Cawood, William Dutch. The reason we say Julian Mudd married Thomas CLARKE abt 1696 is because that is date of her father's will which he states his daughter is Julian CLARK, and his son in law was Thomas Clarke. There is also a later Lawsuit involving Julian Mudd CLARKE (GUIBERT) and the children of Thomas CLARKE from his 1st wife Ann BARBER. The same children are listed in lawsuit of the Thomas Clarke who died 1711. Julian Mudd CLARKE (GUIBERT) was the step mom to most of his children and with her new husband tried to take away the inheritance from the children of Thomas Clarke from 1st wife Ann BARBER. Maryland Calendar of Wills: Volume 2 VOLUME II. page 121 Mudd, Thomas,Chas. Co., 12th Oct., 1696; 11th Mch., 1696-7. To wife Ann, Hall's Place during life. To son Thomas, sd. plantation at decease of wife and land in dispute bet. testator and Maj. Boreman; also 650 A., Brierwood. To son Henry, Boreman's Reserve. To son George, 400 A., part of Cannarvan, bought of Capt. Jos. Pile. To son John, 180 A., St. Catherino's, bought of Edmond Nugent, and 250 A., residue of Cannarvan afsd. In event of death of any son or sons without issue, lands to pass in natural succession to male hrs. To dau. Julian Clarke and hrs., 120 A., Jarvis. To dau. Barbara and hrs., 200 A., Mudd's Rest. Sons Henry and George to be taken in charge by their brother-in-law, Thomas Clarke. [p.121] Wife Ann and son Thomas afsd. joint exs. Residue of estate tobe divided among wife and child., viz., Thomas, Henry, George, John, Barbara, Sarah, Jane, and Ann Mudd. Child. to be of age at 18 yrs. Overseers: Son Thomas Clarke and brother William Boarman. Test: Wm. Howell, Wm. Burman, Jno. Brookes. 7. 265. -----Original Message----- From: mdstmary-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:mdstmary-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of rubyslippers Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:19 PM To: mdstmary@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MDSTMARY] Robert Clarke immigrants I still don't see how this explains what I wrote before about the gifts from the Robert to children, the age of the married Thomas, the age of the Robert and John making sales, etc etc ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MDSTMARY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MDSTMARY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message