Edith Parker
US tennis player
Edith Parker (October 18, 1876 - September 10, 1974) was an American tennis player from the start of the 20th century.
Career
In 1900, she reached the final of the women's singles of the US Women's National Championship, where she was beaten by Myrtle McAteer, but then beat her in the women's doubles final with Hallie Champlin.
At the Cincinnati Open, she reached the All-Comers singles final in 1909 (losing to Edith Hannam), the singles semifinals in 1901 (falling to Juliette Atkinson), 1904 (falling to Winona Closterman), and 1910 (losing to Rhea Fairbairn of Toronto). She also reached the singles quarterfinals in 1899 (losing to Myrtle McAteer).
In 1899 she won the singles title at the Niagara International Tennis Tournament, and reached the final the following year. In 1909 at the Western Tennis Championships she reached the singles final before falling to Carrie Neely.
Grand Slam finals
Singles (1 runner-up)
Doubles (1 title)
Personal life
On February 15, 1909, in Chicago, Illinois, Parker married Charles Neville Beard (1872-1943). Thereafter she was referred to as "Mrs. C.N. Beard" in newspapers and tennis periodicals.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Edith Parker” is uS tennis player. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Edith, Parker and tennis, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “uS tennis player” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Chronology provides the most reliable spine for this subject; interpretation should follow only after identities and dates are secure. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q526352. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1876, 1974, 1900 and 1909.
Later biographies can compress uncertainty and repeat inherited reputations, so apparently settled claims may still require comparison. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Read biographical claims against dates, named institutions and the cited references. Distinguish a subject’s later reputation from evidence produced during their lifetime.
- Establishing names and roles
- Building a first chronology
- Locating cited institutions
Personal papers, civil or court records, institutional files and the scholarship cited by the source.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Edith Parker”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Edith Parker primary sources, Edith Parker archive and Edith research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Edith Parker”?
- Which primary records establish identity, chronology and institutional ties?
- How has the subject’s reputation changed across later accounts?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Edith Parker” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.