Elizabeth (Bailey) Parker
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Elizabeth (Bailey) Parker (abt. 1630 - abt. 1667)

Elizabeth Parker formerly Bailey
Born about in London, Englandmap [uncertain]
Sister of [half]
Wife of — married [date unknown] [location unknown]
Descendants descendants
Died about at about age 37 in Nansemond, Virginia, British Colonial Americamap [uncertain]
Problems/Questions Profile managers: David Parker private message [send private message] and Monica Brown private message [send private message]
Profile last modified | Created 1 Aug 2011
This page has been accessed 2,721 times.
This profile lacks source information. Please add sources that support the facts.

Contents

Biography

Flag of England
Elizabeth (Bailey) Parker migrated from England to American Colonies.
Flag of American Colonies

Marriage

Husband: Richard Parker
Wife: Elizabeth Bailey
Child: Francis Parker
Marriage Date: 1649
Place: Suffolk, Nansemond, Virginia

Research Notes

Possible parents: Bailey-27261 and Lowne-97

Sources

  • http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/12132211/person/-46068799 (Must have subscription)
  • U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900 Author: Yates Publishing Publication: Online publication - Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 2004.Original data - This unique collection of records was extracted from a variety of sources including family group sheets and electronic databases. Originally, the information was deriv Note: APID: 1,7836::0




Is Elizabeth your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon contact private message private message a profile manager, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA
No known carriers of Elizabeth's DNA have taken a DNA test.

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.

Images: 1
Sarah Parker
Sarah Parker



Comments: 7

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
“THREE RICHARD PARKERS OF VA.” Collected by Waunita Powell 1980-90

1. Richard Parker of Browsholme--Eng. to America ca. 1652-Charles City Co. Va. & Henrico Co. Va. Md. Mary Perkins, Widow of Nicholas Perkins. 2. Richard Parker of Nansemond Co. Va. Wife unknown 3. Richard Parker of Surry Co. Va. Md. Judith Hunt

Richard Parker of Browsholme is condensed from my book on him.

This book is not as much to trace lineages as it is to prove that there were three different Richard Parkers in Va. and that Dr. Parker of Charles City Co., Va. moved to Henrico Co., Va. and not to Surry or Nansemund Co. Va.

THE THREE RICHARD PARKERS OF VA.

I have put this material together hoping to be of aid to others working on their genealogies. I hope to show enough evidence to prove the separation of these three Richard Parkers. I feel it is necessary because many Genealogies in print have mixed up these three men. Especially genealogies concerning Richard Parker of Nansemond Co., Va. I have not used tradition to prove my point. (There is some repetition to help make it clear)

1. Dr. Richard Parker was Christened Nov. 29, 1630 in Warleggon, England. He was the ninth child of James Parker, Knt., and his wife Katherine Buller. He was probably bn. in Nov. (more later) 2. Richard Parker of Surry Co., Va., is well documented. It was he that patented land on Blackwater Swamp, and it must have been his Grandson, Richard Parker the 3rd, that Mr. Byrd stayed with when surveying the Virginia-North Carolina line in 1728. Mr. Byrd spoke of Richard Parker's daughter, Sarah. It was this Richard Parker that had a stepdaughter named Sarah. This was near the town of Nottaway, now Courtland, in Southampton Co. Va. (Ref. "Southampton Co., Va." by Paramore Pg. 27-8). Richard Parker "the immigrant" of Surry Co., Va. Md. Judith Hunt, widow of Wm. Hunt. Richard Parker of Surry died 1677. This is the line of Miss Isabel Lockard. (she steered me in the right direction when she advised me there were three Richard Parkers in Va. at same time.) 3. Richard Parker of Nansemond Co., Va. must have been born ca. 1620-24. He is first found in Headrights of John Carter 1643, and the same listing with Lawrence Peeters in 1647, with variations of spellings of headright's names. This kind of dishonesty was often used. They merely changed spelling of names. When you study abstracts of land patents of John Carter and Lawrence Peeters you will find the same neighbors mentioned as are mentioned as neighbors of Richard Parker of Nansemond in his land transactions, and those of his sons. These land acquisitions were not received as soon as the headrights arrived, but often a wait of three to seven years, so as to prove the headrights would become settlers. They had to improve the land. Richard Parker of Nansemond Co. is probably in the family of Wm. and/or Thomas Parker of Dumplin Cr. and Chuckatuck.

Please, be aware of the fact that Dr. Richard Parker of Charles City Co., Va. would have been a child of 13 when Mr. Carter received his patent in 1643, and probably less than 10 years old when Mr. Carter applied for this patent, naming Richard Parker as one of the headrights. This is a good indication of the fact that these are two different men.

Elizabeth Baily was not the wife of either of these Richard Parkers. She was the daughter of Capt. Richard Baily of England.

Capt. Baily's plantation was in Accomac Co. This is the area of George Parker. (Not the brother of Dr. Richard Parker. This George Parker was much older man than Dr. Richard Parker's brother, George, who was Christened May 1. 1640) Capt. George Parker of Accomac was High Sheriff of Accomac Co. Va. 1656, and his will was probated Oct. 7, 1674. Elizabeth Baily Parker's husband was still living in 1695, after all three of these Richard Parkers had deceased. The following is a story about Elizabeth Baily, as I found it in "The Kingdom of Accawmacke" by Wise. Page 322. (Also found in Accomac Co. Records 1690-97, Pg. 161. and "17th Century Va." Pg. 181 by Bruce: " Attached to the plantation of Capt. Richard Bayly of Accomac Co. was a negro slave who, by his accomplishments in this respect contributed as much to the diversion of the neighborhood as any person in it. This fiddler is found taking a prominent part in a lively scene which occurred at the house of Rev. Thomas Teakle, to the scandal of the whole countryside. Though innocent enough in light of modern day."(also Ref. Accomack Co. Orders 1690-97 pp160a-165)

"Elizabeth Parker accompanied by Samuel Doe and his wife, went over to Mr. Teakle's house to visit his daughter while he was away. They carried the negro boy with them and after their arrival it occurred to the little company that it would be pleasant in the opportune absence of the clergyman to have a dance. The fiddle which had been left behind was sent for and the dancing began. While it was going on one James Fairfax came for the boy, but Elizabeth Parker made him abandon his purpose by informing him with some temper, that she had borrowed the fiddler of her sister, Ursula Bayly, his owner. However, she declared she would pay him. She (Elizabeth) took from her purse a Spanish piece of eight.(?). She also persuaded Fairfax to remain and take part in the dancing."

(Richard Baily Jr.'s wife was called Urcilla in W. P.6-1-1708)

"Someone present reproached Margaret Teakle for "undutifulness of Carriage" towards Mr. Teakle "by making feast in his absence", But Elizabeth urged her to disregard her father, who had strict notions."

"Mr. Teakle, though a clergyman, was a man of wealth and was engaged to marry one of Elizabeth Parker's kinsfolk: "And a proud woman she was "exclaimed the fair tempter, "and wore fringes at the bindings of her petticoat." Margaret Teakle seems to have yielded only too readily to her friends' urgent appeal and at once fetched the silk with which the fiddler might string his instrument: and as a reward gave him several yds. of ribbon as well as several yards of lace."

"The dance started on Saturday night and continued with spirit until nearly 11 O'Clock of the following Sabbath morning. The company consisted of Elizabeth Parker, Jane Hall, Margaret Teakle, James Fairfax and John Addison.

When Mr. Teakle returned home a few days afterwards and was informed of the desecration of his house by a dance on the Sabbath he was greatly scandalized and at next meeting of County Court formally presented Elizabeth and her husband." This proves her husband could not have been either of the three Richard Parkers. They were all deceased before the date of Accomack records 1690-7, in which records this occurrence recorded.

The info and source above appears on the profile of Richard Parker-1544 (1 in your list above) who married Mary, widow of Nicholas Perkins. The other 2 Richard Parkers (Parker-25194 and Parker-34153) need to be researched, sources added, wives fixed ... it seems Elizabeth Bailey should be removed.
posted by Traci Thiessen
Elizabeth Bailey married "A" Richard Parker, just need to figure out which one. What makes all the Richard's so confusing on WikiTree is the number of duplicate profiles for each one! There are some merge requests pending as some profiles were newly created this past week which caused me to revisit the profiles and attempt to clean some up.
Removed Richard Parker-1544 as husband. Created new Richard Parker-34153 profile as her husband/father of children. That profile will need development.
posted by Traci Thiessen
Bailey-3188 and Bailey-1611 appear to represent the same person because: Please review - same death date, same husbands names, very similar names. Both also have a father named Richard (who died in the same year, different locations). Trying to untangle and clean up the different Richard Parkers! Thanks
posted by PM Eyestone
This Elizabeth appears to be the wife of Parker-15214, not Parker-1544. She does not appear in sources as Parker-1544's wife and has been listed here as Parker-15214's wife. Some of her children incorrectly point to Parker-1544 as their father. Will be updating those connections as we can.
posted by PM Eyestone
Bailey-7439 and Bailey-1611 are not ready to be merged because: There are enough differences that I am not sure if these are the same person or not.
posted by Linda Perry