Parke Family Immigrants and Descendants

I would like to make this Parke family as accurate as possible.

At the present time, Nov. 2, 2010....someone has given them
three children who do not belong in this panoply.

That is: Martin Parke
Hitcham Parke
Dorothy Thompson.

I would like a curator to help remove this excess baggage.

I am perfectly willing to collaborate with anyone who has time to work on this.

To the best of my knowledge, the children below all belonged to
Robert Parke and Martha Chaplin.

I have checked and rechecked them on many websites.

Robert Parke married Martha Chaplin

They had 12 Children:

Martha 1603

Robert 1605

William 1697

Richard 1609

John 1610

Jane 1613

Thomas 1614

Elizabeth 1615

Edward 1616

Anne 1618

Samuel 1621

Joseph 1625

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On my Myers Family Tree,
the Direct line continues with Thomas Parke I

Thomas Parke I married Dorothy Thompson, daughter of John Thompson and Alice Freeman

Thomas Parke and Dorothy Thompson had 9 children:

William 1664

Martha 1646

Robert 1651

Nathaniel 1652

Dorothy about 1653

Alice 1646

John 1656

Thomas II 1648

Richard poss. 1664

If anyone is checking one Parke branch against another,
please try to eliminate those people who do not belong in that tree.

When a family with extra children is attached to my family tree,

the the errors become part of the whole picture.

Thank you for all help in merging, checking parents, and trying
to eliminate mistakes.

Ethel Johanna Myers

Hi Ethel,

As you know I've been disambiguating the PARKE / PARKS/ PARK families. I'm up to FIVE separate ones.

So I was going to ask if we should make a Project but I'm SCARED to unless we phrase it very carefully.

Something like the Parke / Dennison / Thompson / Freeman / Avery Families of Connecticut? That's not working ....

Help.

WARNING:

These three profiles have been DISCONNECTED from Sir Robert Parke II

If anyone needs them hooked up again, please provide THE CORRECT PARENTAGE within the "overview" tab and let a curator know.

Hitcham Parke
Martin Parke

I believe I can find where Dorothy Thompson belongs.

I knew I had a Parks in there somewhere... and she's one I have a few questions about too...

Martha Jane Spivey (Parks)

Trying to determine whether her husband is actually named William Henry Spivey, or if he is named Henry Speight Spivey.

Apparently, the Spivey husband went off to war for the South (they were from Arkansas), and he died in a prisoner camp, so the story goes. And she apparently died of a broken heart a few days after finding out about the news... again according to family folklore. Have no clue whatsoever about her ancestry.

BTW, before anyone thinks I've gone off my rocker before reading the profile... Martha Spivey's maiden name is Parks...

I've received this email through Geni - I wanted to pass it along for consideration.

--
Dear Jennifer, I am contacting you about this profile: Robert Parke Someone has listed Robert Parke, Sr. (1681-1707) as the father of Robert Parke, II (1580-1665) -- profile: Sir Robert Parke II As you can imagine, it is causing a bit of havoc on the tree. Seems silly that Geni would allow someone to father their dead ancestor. Any chance you can clear this up from your end? Many Thanks, Lucas Carmichael Sincerely, Lucas Carmichael

Dear Jennifer
I am glad you are highlighting the problem with Robert Parke II.

I do no know how to move those errors where the person has been placed in the wrong generation. There probably is a way, but I do not have access or knowledge of how to do that.

Thanks for pointing out the strangeness of a descendant listed as the father or ancestor of a person who is really his own ancestor.

Such a person listed should be the child or other descendant......and
here he is, leaping over the head of his dead ancestor and taking a bold new position in the tree. It could be funny.....but it is not funny to me.

Ethel

If people can provide an ON LINE SOURCE to follow for the correct genealogy, then curators can try and use their tools to correct the result of bad mergers.

I personally am overwhelmed by the amount of corrections in the tree needed, and have to beg off fixing it up without that information to refer to.

It's best listed as "source" and hyperlinked in the "about me" tab of the profiles in question.

Hello Erica,

I will start looking for more sources for the Parke family.

Ethel

I've added a few documents and have been tagging the individuals referenced in each one.

Of particular interest is a well sourced deductive reasoning of the evidence for THREE Martha Chaplins as well as clarifying that Martha Chaplin and spouse Robert Park were first cousins.

I'll tag the profiles mentioned in that article. If you look at the sources tab in these profiles, you'll see a link for a document called "Notes on the families of Martha Chaplin and Robert Parke MA 1630."

Jenna: Thanks for the authoritative addition to the information that we
have for the Parke Family.

We still need to work on correcting the errors in the tree.

Your distant cousin,

Ethel Myers Stanton

Erica: per question of 11/3/10

I think that we should stay with the present title of
"Parke Family Immigrants and Descendants"

Wives can be blended in as we go, adding new names.....but
personally, I think that too many names gets confusing and it becomes a blurred concept..

Perhaps we could create links to the families of Dennison, Avery,
Thompson, Freeman and others as they connect to the Parke Family.

Ethel Myers Stanton

You are correct as usual, Ethel. Avery, Dennison, Thompson and Freeman are large enough families, I believe, to have their own Projects. And we now have automatic "related" Projects.

I would go a step further and call it "Parke Family of New England," so we don't have to repeat the nightmare of separating them from from the unrelated Parks, the Parkes, and the Parks of Virginia (my own line).

You are correct as usual, Ethel. Avery, Dennison, Thompson and Freeman are large enough families, I believe, to have their own Projects. And we now have "related" Projects.

I would go a step further and call it something like "Parke Family of New England," so we don't have to repeat the nightmare of separating them from from unrelated Parks, Parkes, and Park of Virginia (my own line).

Erica:

I agree with you, absolutely.

Those families are all quite large.

Post deleted by Private User on Dec 7, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Hi Erica:

The deleted post was just a copy of the one above it.

Somehow, I hit a wrong key and printed before I was ready....
and also gave me two copies.

I agree with the title Parke Family of New England.
It should allow you to make similar titles for the
Park Family of Virginia and the Parks Families wherever
they are.

I sure like the way you analyze, think about, and solve these
problems.

Ethel