May I ask where you found the documentation for Sarah?
I am so glad I was able to help.
The first document I found was the marriage licence, a transcript of which is available to view on FindMyPast (a family history subscription site). This provided an estimated age at marriage of 33, which suggested that she may have been (although not necessarily) married before. The fact that she married by licence suggested that she or the groom were more "well-off", as forgoing the traditional banns cost more money. Also, she signed her name, showing that she had a level of literacy; these were little clues as to her background.
As I mentioned above, neither the marriage licence nor the parish register entry mentioned her marital status, so there was no proof she was a spinster. Also - as I am sure you discovered - Plivey is a very unusual surname, and I could not find any other Plivey in the Sutton Veney area. This was further evidence that this may not have been her maiden name, unless she came from outside the area.
I then did a general search for a marriage between a Sarah and a man named Pilvey, and this is when I found the 1750 marriage between a Sarah Collier and a James Pilvey in Stepney, London. The original entry in the parish register can be viewed on Ancestry (shortened to Anc*). I couldn't tell you why she ended up so far from home; I have 18th-century male ancestors from Wiltshire who travelled all the way to London (for apprenticeships), but not female ones.
I then found James' 1750 burial record, which can also be viewed on Anc*.
Now I had a maiden name of Collier, I went back to Sutton Veney to see if there was a Sarah Collier born in the right time period, and that is when I found the daughter of Richard and Sarah. Her baptism entry (along with her siblings') can also be seen on Anc*.
Richard and Sarah's 1716 marriage licence (available to view on FindMyPast) provided Sarah's maiden name of Exton, which matched the middle name of her daughter Sarah's illegitimate son Joseph. I suppose there is a possibility that Exton was in fact the surname of the child's father, but it would be a quite a big coincidence.
The strongest proof came in the form of Richard's will (available to view on Anc*), which named Sarah as a Plivey at the time it was written in 1759. From this, we know that Sarah was still a Plivey in 1759, despite James' dying almost a decade earlier.
The Exton family seems to have been a fairly wealthy one, as evidenced by this impressive monument in the Sutton Veney churchyard:
https://www.highfieldfamily.co.uk/showmedia.php?mediaID=5&medialinkID=9I realise I have written rather a lot, but I just love researching!
Queenie
