Sarah Ward (Clark) - Capt Christopher Clark's wife was probably Penelope "Johnson" not a Bolling.

n.b.: To help those like me who may have been initially a bit confused about this information:

Sarah's parents are Capt. Christopher Clark and Penelope Clark.

Captain Clark's first wife may need some work, based on the info Alexander provided.

Dan:
Christopher Clark first shows up,( as far as I have discovered so far) in the St Peters Church Vestry records of New Kent County in 1697 and again on the 14th of June 1698. There is also a surviving record for the New Kent Quaker Meeting house dated Feb 28th 1700 where Christopher & Elizabeth Clark sign as witnesses to a marriage of their friends Thomas Lankford and Martha West. ( Thomas Lankford's sister would later marry Francis Clark )
That would explain why he was 30 or at least almost 30 when he married Penelope Johnson in 1709. ( she was 25 years old and her parents Edward and Elizabeth lived down on Powhite Creek about a mile from Christopher Clarks places on Beaverdam Creek.

Are there any corrections needed to the information as is currently showing on Geni?

My dad who started researching in the early 1960s and later myself and Tony Quinn ( Tony descends from the Brooks family who were Clark neighbors. One line of the Brooks family are really Clarks via DNA. We think Christopher and Penelope's first son Edward Clark Born-1710 is a prime suspect as the DNA source) Anyway I digress,,,, Tony and I and my dad believe that Christopher Clark may have been born as early as 1678 and not the 1681 as is usually reported. Besides working out better as him already being a land owner and a married man in 1700 who was being assigned tasks by the Parish, there is also a re-written bible record in the Georgia State Archives from 1938 entitled Family Bible Records Series II as compiled by the Georgia DAR Chapter Pg 47-49. It is a copy with parts of the pages missing. It says: """Edward who came from (missing) on the ship ( missing) to Jamestown, had a son Christopher Clark who was born in ( missing ) 1698 { this we believe was supposed to be 1678 } who had a son Micajah who was born in 1718 { my direct line} who had a son named Christopher born in 1737. """"" To back this up there is an Edward Clark listed as being assigned tasks by the Parish before Christopher and an Edward Clark is listed as living by or with Christopher in New Kent county. Anyway, long story short, Christopher may have been born in 1678 and not 1681. As for the early wife as Elizabeth. I noted on some Johnson family info that Penelope had an older sister named Elizabeth who seems to have just falling off the books. Makes me wonder if he married one sister and then after her death the slightly younger (and healthier ) sister ???

It's curious that Penelope Johnson would be unmarried at age 25. "Married Early and Often." I presume the marriage records are for her Johnson name? Is her birth date off?

I like the supposition that Christopher Clark was slightly older than generally seen.

I too have wondered about that. There could have been a few reasons for Penelope Johnson's late marriage to Militia Capt Christopher Clark.

1. She was briefly married to somebody else with whom she did not have any children before they died. ( Ie the Bolling Name ? )
2. She was carrying a torch for Capt Christopher and refused to marry anyone else.
3. She had to care for a sick / dying relative for an extended period of time and was unable to marry or do anything else.

Penelope's older brother Thomas Johnson is believed to be born around 1680. In Jan 1706 he was assigned to help Christopher Clark in building the new horse bridge over Beaver Dam Creek. His land bordered Chris Clark's .

Penelope's slightly older sister: Elizabeth Johnson, born July 7th 1682. Baptized Aug 6 1682. ( was she the Elizabeth married to Christ Clark in 1700 ???) If Christopher was really born in 1678 he would have been 19 years old when the Church Vestry records mention him in 1697. They would not have mentioned or assigned anyone under the age of 18. And Chris would have been 21 or 22 years old when he and Elizabeth signed the wedding book of Thomas Lankford in 1700. Elizabeth would have been 17-18 years old.

{I wonder if it was the custom to wait a year before re-marrying after your wife died?} If so Elizabeth probably died around 1707 or early 1708.

Penelope was supposedly born August 4, 1684 and baptized Aug 17th 1684. She married Chris Clark in 1709. Her and Chris's first son named Edward was born in 1710. She and Chris lived by Beaver Dam Creek, then moved to Green Springs and later in life moved to their last property at the west end of Clark's Tract near Louisa. She is mentioned as being visited by some traveling Quakers after Chris's death in 1754-55..

Rachel Johnson born Dec 8 1686, baptized Jan 2nd.

Maybe more.

re: "{I wonder if it was the custom to wait a year before re-marrying after your wife died?} If so Elizabeth probably died around 1707 or early 1708."

I don't think that custom was kept at this time and place for practical reasons: a man needed a mother for his children, right away. A widowed woman ironically may have had more options for child and financial care due to her widow's thirds, and her own family, but I don't think remarrying before a year was unusual there, either.

It's a good question as to when and where this custom was kept. Victorian era certainly.

I agree that in Colonial Virginia there may well have been a different standard. I have not been able to find anything related to the subject.
In England during the 1700s one year plus one day was the standard grieving period for a spouse. At least amongst the more genteel classes.
In this case Christopher Clark did not have any surviving children and if he did, he was in the position to purchase or indenture extra help...

What a great question. If the above scenario had played out later in the 18th c, I'd be more inclined to consider the one year waiting period. Mid to late 18th c was a time when "refinement" was a big deal in America, and the niceties of waiting a year to remarry was among those. But our Penelope and Christopher are too early for that to have been a factor, even though they were most definitely of the gentry class. Wondering if there was a Quaker tradition with regard to remarriage?

Before my wife comes in and catches me on the computer, I found a couple links about Quaker marriage customs.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/QUAKER-ROOTS/2000-02/...

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~quakers/quakinfo.htm

http://www.pennsburymanor.org/so-mom-do-you-like-him-colonial-quake...

One thing though... Christopher was passing between two worlds. He was officially a member of the Church of England until later in life. He did military service and I remember family letter copies I saw back in the 1960s ( my dad had them) where some of the corresponding women folk talked about some of the men ( including Chris) were in trouble for drinking, or horse racing or other offenses. Plus they all owned slaves and indentured servants. Something that came up in a letter from a visiting Quaker about a year after Chris's death ( see the Green Springs Park web site ) It seems like most of the men would have been considered "JACK" Quakers while the women were the strict controlling authority of the local Quaker groups.

Adding another link

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~quakers/quakmarr.htm

"- Less than one year since death of previous spouse With the high mortality rate, particularly in childbirth, there were many second marriages in the early years. If a man lost his wife and had a brood of young children to raise, some perhaps still babies, waiting a year was not always practical. Even amongst the families that were deeply devoted Quakers, the majority of second marriages were performed by a Justice of the Peace. For those in their middle years that remarried in Meeting, waiting two years or more appeared to be the norm. Having seen a number of situations in which a marriage occurred as close as possible to the 2 year anniversary of the previous spouse's decease, the Discipline may have called for a 2 year wait in some areas for a time."

----

re: One thing though... Christopher was passing between two worlds. ....

Yes, I've seen a fair amount of historic persons where the wife was devout and active, and the man -- not so much. Tolerant in an era of intolerance undoubtedly meant a lot.

Plenty of early Quakers were slave holders (Barbados and Rhode Island most notably in addition to Virginia and the Carolinas).