Again, on these wills, I do not know what you mean by everything seems to match.I am not referring to any wills in the line of Charles Polke, those that I have examined in that line are not a problem (general statement here, cannot remember any problems with those), I am referring to the will of William Polk who m. Ann(Nancy) Knox Owens, the supposed parents (per the Polk genealogies) of William Polk who m. Margaret Taylor.There is no matching in this will of names William Polk or his supposed brother Charles Polke, IT, as these two were not mentioned at all, but that was explained away by the genealogy writers as these older sons must have gotten their share of William's estate as they came of age and that is why they were not mentioned.This rather convenient explanation is one reason back in the early 1990s that I became suspicious of the genealogy and began my quest to figure out what was correct.The many years of research resulted in the fact that the ancestry of Willima Polk (Margaret Taylor)could not be as written, that the only possibility that William Polk and Charles Polke, IT, could be sons of William Polk (son of Robert and Magdalen (Tasker) Porter Polk, would be via a first wife of said William, and there is no evidence whatsoever that William Polk ever had such a wife.There is more to all this than this simplified explanation, but the pieces of a scenario of the father being William (Sr) or William/Nancy(Ann) Knox Owens being the parents of either William or Charles just do not fit.The DNA was the icing on the cake, proving what the available records could not absolutely prove, that William and Charles were not sons of William Polk, nor were they siblings (except as possible per our prior discussion of having different fathers).In fact, Charles Polke's descendant DNA is far removed from others in our Polk-Pollock chart at World Families.It was thought at one point he might have Indian ancestry, but DNA experts at FTDNA dispelled that notion right away.
I did not do a lot of detailed work on the Piety family, this because it was a female line and I often skipped those in my early research simply because female lines generally are more difficult to get anywhere in the research very fast.I did a general outline with the various items I found and that was about as far as I took it.So, no, to answer your question, I do not have marriage bonds, records, etc. for Piety.I may have looked for a marriage bond/record, but apparently not found, as I have no reference to such a record.As I am sure you are aware, there is abundant material to be found on the Piety line of Austin Piety and Sarah Polke.Over the years, I have just not gotten back to do more work on Sarah Polke.I did quite a bit on her brothers years ago,a more productive endeavor.As far as proof of Austin Piety's marriage to Sarah Polke, finding an actual record of that could prove difficult - Might even be in English records, since he was a British soldier.Austin Piety did acknowledge such marriage in England after he returned there and when he was being married to another wife.
Kent, Surrey, London: - Canterbury Marriage Licences, 1781-1809, Volume 32, 1788, County: London
Austen Piety of Newington by Hythe gent wid & Sarah Judd of the s sp (27). 08 May 1788 (Aff of Austen P that many yrs ago he married Sarah Pollock sp & about 14 yrs ago 'by reason of the troubles in America they were obliged to separate' and he believed her dead).
I don't seem to have info as to Sarah (Polke) Piety's death date/place/burial, but some info (unproven) indicates she died in 1835, Nelson Co., KY.If so, she was quite old, and her husband Austin was a bigamist.The last date I can prove for Sarah still being alive was 9 Nov 1807, the probate date of the will of her brother Thomas Polke, wherein is mentioned Thomas' sister "Sarah Puty" as one of Thomas' heirs.Probably with some digging, a closer DOD for her could be established, I just have not gotten around to it.
Re your question about whether Nancy Polke, daughter of Edmund/Edmond Polke could have been the Nancy Polk of the text you mentioned, and traveled with Capt. Charles Polke - I suppose so, she did not travel to KY., by herself, went along with family, I'm sure, but with whom, I don't know.It would seem more likely to me that she would travel with her own immediate family, her parents, since she never married, being buried as Nancy Polk.What intrigues me is her sister Mary "Polly" who supposedly m. a George Reese, but who (Mary Polly) is buried in the same cemetery as her sister Nancy, and having no mention whatsoever on her tombstone of the name Reese, buried as surname "Polk."And, in addition, in the will of Edmund/Edmond Polke of 1821, he refers to his two daughters as Nancy and Polly Polke.If Mary Polly were married and had children by Reese, one would think that she would be referred to as Mary or Polly Reese.Sure causes me to think all this material about her marrying a Reese may be incorrect.Just one of those many problems that I have not gone back to work out the kinks.
All I got this time.Bill