Sarah Peek

     Sarah Peek was baptized on 27 Dec 1758 in the Par. of Walkhampton, DEV, ENG; the entry being the very last for the year and reading Sarah Daughter of Richard & Elizabeth Peek, bap 27th Decbr.^3,5,6
     Sarah Pike married James Barter King, son of Walter King and Ann Barter, on 12 Jul 1780 at Walkhampton, DEV, ENG, by banns read 25th Jun and 2nd and 9th of July, both of this parish, both signed (as James Barter King and Sarah Pike), witnesses John King (assumed to be his step father and cousin) and Elizabeth King (assumed to be his sister), also both signed. Minister Humphry Julian.^7,8
     Sarah King died cir. Apr 1795 ?Lower Dittisham, Par. of Walkhampton, DEV, ENG.⁹ She was buried on 8 Apr 1795 at Walkhampton, DEV, ENG, entry reads: Sarah King (no age given) of this parish Wife of Mr James Barter King was buried Apr 8th 1795 Registered this same day by me Richd Hughes, Vicar.^9,10
     
     Having a Sarah Peek in the family is presumed to be the reason for the occasional surfacing of Peek as a middle name in later generations of the Rowe families.
There was some confusion over Sarah's parents. The Dartmoor Press website believes the 1761 baptism in Walkhampton to John and Margaret Peek is this Sarah. As did I, until I read the Forrester and Peekhill Manor Survey entries, particularly the former - and eventually found her 1758 baptism to Richard and Elizabeth which fits other known information very nicely.
In 1765 the survey of Forrestor shows a John, Sarah and Elizabeth as siblings, children of the lessee Richard Peek. By the 1783 survey, Richard has died, son John has taken over and Sarah and Elizabeth are shown, all with ages that fit this Sarah as shown on the Ditsham survey of 1783, but Sarah shown under the surname Peek, not her married name of King. I decided this wasn't important, as sister Elizabeth had married by then as well but was still shown as Peek.
By the 1795 survey Sarah has disappeared from the Forrestor survey (she was buried in Apr 1795, so this fits), and Elizabeth is shown as "now Helson". The Peekhill survey for the same periods however also had a John and Sarah Peek of the same relative ages, but consistenly a year younger.
There are several Richard Peeks marrying around the time of these births. I'm not sure if I want a Martha Arthur in the family, I'd never know if I was coming or going. Another option was to an Ann Gubbins, which would really muck up the works! Fortunately, I think both marriage dates don't quite fit with believed ages of the children.^11,12
     In 1765 John Peek, Sarah Peek and Elizabeth Peek were named as lives on the tenancy of Forrester, Par. of Walkhampton, DEV, ENG, held by Richard Peek.²
     Cir. 1783 George King and Sarah King were named as lives on the tenancy for Ditisham Rewe, Manor of Walkhampton, DEV, ENG, held by James Barter King. George given as 34 and Sarah as 25, assumed to be brother and wife of James.¹³
     In 1783 Sarah Peek and Elizabeth Peek were named as lives on the tenancy of Forrester, Par. of Walkhampton, DEV, ENG, held by John Peek.⁴
     In 1783 Sarah Peek and William Creber were named as lives on the tenancy for Peekhill & West Burham, Manor of Walkhampton, DEV, ENG, held by John Peek. Lessee (John Peek) 19; Sarah Peek, sister, 23; William Creber, 19.^14,6,2
     Her surname was also spelt Pike On her marriage cert, it clearly shows as Pike, not Peek, not that this is really significant given how variable spelling was.^15,7