Sarah was born 22 Jan 1695 at Eastham[1]Source Text Sarah Rich the daughter of Richard and Anne Rich was bom in Eastham January the 22d 1695/6[2]
She married 1st 01 Nov 1720 Thomas Thacher[3] Source Text:Thomas Thatcher and Sarah Rich were married in Eastham by John Doane Justice Peace November ye 11th 1720 Recorded John Paine Town clerk. Their intentions were recorded 23 Sep 1720 at Eastham[4] Source Text :September ye 23d : 1720 Thomas Thatcher of Eastham Signified his purpose to marrie with Sarah Rich of Eastham in order to be published
Children:
Elizabeth b: 24 May 1725
Jane b: 17 Mar 1726
She married 2nd 09 Jan 1738 David Doane[5] son of John and Hannah (Bangs) Doane. She is mentioned in his will. Source Text: Mr David Doane and Mrs Sarah Thacher married Janry : 4th 1738/9 all by the Reverend Mr: John Avery of Truro Recorded Pr me : Tho : Paine Town Clerk
She married a third time 15 Sep 1760 at Truro Christian RemickSource Text: mr Christian Remick & mrs Sarah Doan married September 15th 1760 All by Barnabas Paine Jus : Peace and Recorded by me on the Towns Book Barnabas Paine Town clerk[6][2]
1st marriage - "Massachusetts, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1626-2001," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QP8K-CJ3H : 11 May 2022), Thomas Thatcher and Sarah Rich, 11 Nov 1720; citing Marriage, Orleans, Barnstable, Massachusetts Bay Colony, British Colonial America, Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, Boston; FHL microfilm 007009735.
Is Sarah your ancestor? Please don't go away! Login to collaborate or comment, or
contact
a profile manager, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com
DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Sarah by comparing test results with other carriers of her mitochondrial DNA.
However, there are no known mtDNA test-takers in her direct maternal line.
It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Sarah:
Rich-3809 and Rich-3666 appear to represent the same person because: Having searched intensively through the available records and literature in databases of NEHGS, Ancestry, and FamilySearch, I cannot find any Sarah Rich (maiden _or_ married surname) born in this time period (say, 1685-1695) save for the Sarah Rich born 22 January 1695/6 at Eastham, the proven daughter of Richard (son of Richard) & Anne (Unknown) Rich.
A Sarah Rich was born about 1676 -- location uncertain -- to the senior Richard Rich & wife Sarah (Roberts) Rich; she married Isaac Baker at Eastham in 1702, so she certainly was not born in or close to 1691. A later Sarah Rich was born at Eastham in 1712 to Thomas & Mercy (Knowles) Rich. I do not find another person by this name whose birth is recorded, and the record transcribed, in Massachusetts Bay or Plymouth Colony in the assigned period.
I am thus respectfully proposing that Rich-3809 is in fact a duplicate profile and should be merged into Rich-3666, the lower-numbered profile... but preserving all contents of Rich-3809, which to the best of my knowledge is accurate in its presentation of data. I would also suggest that the different (estimated) DOB of 1691, and the indicated residence "of Middleboro", be retained from Rich-3666 and incorporated in a Research Notes section.
If any source is then subsequently located that demonstrates the existence of another Sarah Rich, "of Middleboro", born in or near 1691, a new profile can always be created, citing that source.
James, just FYI, there is currently a discussion (in the Comments) on the profile of Sarah Rich that relates to this profile.
It is most likely that this profile should be merged into Rich-3666 (which has the lower number) -- but _retaining all the data and text from this profile_, which to the best of my knowledge is accurate (whereas Rich-3666 has very little data, and as far as I can tell, what's there is inaccurate).
I can add sources to this profile from NEHGS (americanancestors.org) if you would like; they're behind a paywall, but I can include the critical short sections of text that apply, so that profile visitors who do not have an NEHGS subscription will be able to see the exact wording. Just reply to this comment, or send me a private message, if you'd like me to do the homework.
Rich-3174 and Rich-3666 are not ready to be merged because: The issue here is whether Rich-3666 is meant to be the profile for the Sarah Rich born at Eastham (not Middleboro as the profile currently states) on 22 January 1695/6 (not 1691), who was a daughter of Richard and Anne Rich... or whether the point of the profile was to delineate the wife of Jonathan Shaw, born at Eastham in 1703. She is correctly profiled in Rich-3174 -- born at Eastham in 1712, a daughter of Thomas and Mercy Rich.
If the former is the case, the merge should not happen: instead, the date and location of birth should be corrected, as indicated above.
If the latter is the case, then the merge should proceed.
I will also message the PM of Rich-3666 and put the above question to her.
Review of the "Changes" page suggests that this profile was indeed originally intended to represent the earlier Sarah Rich, and that the link to Jonathan Shaw as husband (and Constanant Shaw as their son) was added later by another contributor.
I believe that this earlier Sarah may ultimately have had some connection to Middleboro (I now note that in the data section, she is shown as "of Middleboro" -- rather than as having necessarily been born there) by way of one of her two husbands, David Doane or Thomas Thatcher. I'm trying to relocate the source that left me with that impression.
The earlier Sarah has, in fact, a WikiTree profile with her correct data, Rich-3809. Therefore, if the intention of this profile was to represent the Sarah Rich born 1695/6 -- the only Sarah Rich I am aware of born in Massachusetts in that timeframe -- Rich-3809 should be merged into Rich-3666 (the lower-numbered profile), retaining all the information presently found in Rich-3809.
I am inclined to propose that merge but would be happiest if the PM of this profile first weighs in on the question of (pardon my phrasing) which Rich is which. :o)
A Sarah Rich was born about 1676 -- location uncertain -- to the senior Richard Rich & wife Sarah (Roberts) Rich; she married Isaac Baker at Eastham in 1702, so she certainly was not born in or close to 1691. A later Sarah Rich was born at Eastham in 1712 to Thomas & Mercy (Knowles) Rich. I do not find another person by this name whose birth is recorded, and the record transcribed, in Massachusetts Bay or Plymouth Colony in the assigned period.
I am thus respectfully proposing that Rich-3809 is in fact a duplicate profile and should be merged into Rich-3666, the lower-numbered profile... but preserving all contents of Rich-3809, which to the best of my knowledge is accurate in its presentation of data. I would also suggest that the different (estimated) DOB of 1691, and the indicated residence "of Middleboro", be retained from Rich-3666 and incorporated in a Research Notes section.
If any source is then subsequently located that demonstrates the existence of another Sarah Rich, "of Middleboro", born in or near 1691, a new profile can always be created, citing that source.
It is most likely that this profile should be merged into Rich-3666 (which has the lower number) -- but _retaining all the data and text from this profile_, which to the best of my knowledge is accurate (whereas Rich-3666 has very little data, and as far as I can tell, what's there is inaccurate).
I can add sources to this profile from NEHGS (americanancestors.org) if you would like; they're behind a paywall, but I can include the critical short sections of text that apply, so that profile visitors who do not have an NEHGS subscription will be able to see the exact wording. Just reply to this comment, or send me a private message, if you'd like me to do the homework.
If the former is the case, the merge should not happen: instead, the date and location of birth should be corrected, as indicated above.
If the latter is the case, then the merge should proceed.
I will also message the PM of Rich-3666 and put the above question to her.
I believe that this earlier Sarah may ultimately have had some connection to Middleboro (I now note that in the data section, she is shown as "of Middleboro" -- rather than as having necessarily been born there) by way of one of her two husbands, David Doane or Thomas Thatcher. I'm trying to relocate the source that left me with that impression.
I am inclined to propose that merge but would be happiest if the PM of this profile first weighs in on the question of (pardon my phrasing) which Rich is which. :o)