Married Elizabeth Goslinge, widow, on July 12,1617 at Bungay, St. Mary. Both are shown as being from Holton[1]
Newer research indicates that his step-father was Rowland Clarke and his mother was Mary, but not Mary Hobart.[2]
Research Notes
As their marriage was in Suffolk and their marriage indicates that they came from Holton, Suffolk, a potential document for a christening in 1592 in SAINT MARY STOKE,IPSWICH,SUFFOLK,ENGLAND[3] which would say his father's name was Richard.
Sources
This information comes from 1 or more individual Ancestry Family Tree files. This source citation points you to a current version of those files. Note: The owners of these tree files may have removed or changed information since this source citation was created.
↑ "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JWJ7-2G9 : 11 February 2018, Thomas Clarcke, 27 Mar 1592); citing SAINT MARY STOKE,IPSWICH,SUFFOLK,ENGLAND, index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 919,619.
Acknowledgments
This person was created through the import of Hooker Family Tree.ged on 30 March 2011.
Thank you to Jerry Powers for creating WikiTree profile Clarke-3067 through the import of Powers-White-Beddo Lines_2013-03-17_01.ged on Mar 17, 2013.
Click to the Changes page for the details of edits by Jerry and others.
Is Thomas your ancestor? Please don't go away! Login to collaborate or comment, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
On jem genology it shows Rowland clarke and Mary hobart being thomas Clarke's parents not Richard here's their person I'd # on that site Mary's is I1535 and Rowlands is F517 I put Richard Clarke as father of Thomas on mine because that's what you have on here can you please tell me what parent is correct I'm mixed up because different sites are showing different info
I believe the wrong father had been listed for this profile. I removed father Clarke-44, and references in the Bio to the Portsmouth Compact (that was a different Thomas Clarke). Should be good to go.
Please check out our research on this family on Clarke-680. We are looking at two different Thomas Clarke profiles as being our lowest numbered for each individual; Clark-680 was born in 1605, and Clark-47 was born in 1599. I think you may have a mutation of sort going on here, and this may be a match to Clark-47. We would love your input and research skills, Robin, you do great work!
Clarke-3067 and Clarke-595 appear to represent the same person because: while death date is different, neither profile has definitve sources for the death, and therefore, we can merge and document the differences for research