| 10. | Deacon Samuel* Wright, Sr. was born about 29 Jun 1606 in Wrightsbridge, Essex, England; was christened about 20 Jul 1606 in St. Peters Parish Church, South Weald, Essex, England (son of John* Wright, III, Esq. and Martha* Castell); died on 17 Oct 1665 in Northampton, Hampshire Co, Massachusetts. Other Events and Attributes:
- Education: 1624, Emmanuel College, Cambridge University
- Emigration: Abt 1636, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts
- Residence: 1638, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts
- Religion: Between 1639 and 1657, First Congregational Church
- Other-Begin: 14 Nov 1639, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; jury duty
- Other-Begin: 18 Jun 1640, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; jury duty
- Other-Begin: 10 Sep 1640, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; jury duty
- Other-Begin: 14 Apr 1648, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; oath
- Possessions: 7 Nov 1648, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massacusetts; toll bridge
- Other-Begin: 30 May 1649, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; fined
- Other-Begin: 25 Jul 1653, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; employment
- Other-Begin: 1 Nov 1653, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; fine
- Other-Begin: 24 Mar 1654, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; provided bond
- Residence: 1656, Northampton, Hampshire Co, Massachusetts
- Other-Begin: 1657, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; employment
- Other-Begin: 29 Mar 1659, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; lawsuit
- Possessions: 1660, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts
- Other-Begin: Jun 1660, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; employment
- Religion: 1661, Northampton, Hampshire Co, Massachusetts
- Religion: 18 Apr 1661, Northampton, Hamden Co, Massachusetts
- Will: 27 Mar 1667, Northampton, Hampshire Co, Massachusetts
- Research Notes: 30 Jun 2012
- Research Notes: 2 Jul 2012; familial relationships
Notes:
Wright, Deacon Samuel, b. in London, England, settled in Springfield, Mass., 1641. Arms: Azure, two bars argent; in chief three leopard's heads, Or. Crest: Out of ducal coronet, Or. A dragon's head proper"
(American Armor and Blue Book by Matthews, p. 86).
These are the arms of his grandfather, Lord John Wright of Wrightsbridge, Essex.
note: he was documented in Springfield before 1641.
ss
He married Margaret (STRATTON?) (about 1625-1626 in England)(before 1627-S15)(in 1632-S8). They had children Samuel, Margaret, Hester, Lydia and Mary (not necessarily in that order) while still in England.
He was a Puritan from England, who came to America probably about 1635, but possibly as late as 1638. Not long after arriving, William Pynchon and others from the Bay area decided to settle in Agawam, what is now Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts. In SEP of 1635 , Pynchon and a few followers visited Agawam, an Indian village on the further bank of the Connecticut River. In MAY of 1636 they returned and settled there. Samuel moved there in the company of William Pynchon and his group, thus becoming one of the first settlers of Agawam. The area was called by its Indian name "Agawam" until 1640, when it was renamed Springfield.
Samuel settled on what is now Main Street, a little below where now stands the historic First Church.
The town records of early Springfield record the birth of son James, born in 1639 in Springfield, Massachusetts, and son Judah, born in 1642 in Springfield and daughter Helped, who was born and died in 1644.
He is mentioned in the town records in 1639 as having been called upon to serve as Deacon to the flock of the first Congregational Church, "?exhorting the people until such time as another could be got for the job?" How long he served at this time is unknown, but eventually an ordained minister was found.
He served jury duty on 14 November 1639 at Agawam (Springfield), Hampden County, Massachusetts. This entry reveals that he served on the Jury, hearing cases between John Woodcoke and John Cable and between William Pynchon and Thomas Merricks. His fellow jurists included a number of the other original inhabitants of the town, Henry Smyth, Jehu Burr, Henry Gregory, John Searle and Samuell Hubbard. This was the first jury noted in the court records.
He again served jury duty on 18 June 1640 at Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts. This jury heard a case between William Warriner & Henry Gregory.
5 FEB 1640-1641, Robert Ashly complained against John Woodcooke in an action of the case for a gunn that he bought of him and paid him 22s 6d for it yet the said John Woodcoke did not deliver it to him accordinge to bargaine.
Also Robert Ashly complaines against John Woodcok in an action of the case for not breaking up of certain ground for planting according to bargaine.
The Jury Henry Smyth, Henry Burt, John Leonard, John Dible, Samuell Wright, Thomas Merick:
In the first action the Jury find for the plaintife 22s 6d and in costes 4s.
The 2d action John Woodcoke doth acknowledge it his dew to brake up the said ground and doth bynd over some of the Swine that he hath now in the hands of Thomas Mirick for the performance of the said ground in case it for not don before the first of Aprill, then he doth promise to allow for the damage out of the said swine as two indifferent neighbors shall prise the said swine and so to pay as much as the workmanship of the said ground shall be valued at.
After the Jury had given in their verdict John Woodcoke denied that Robert had paid for the said gunn notwithstanding the action was [illegible] before him and he never denied it: but I offered him a new tryall by a writ of error if he would present it.
Goody Gregory hearing him denie that he was paid testified uppon oath that she heard John Woodcock say that he did not owe above as 2s 6d in the plantation she said that she replied thus to John Wookcocke that she heard Robert say that John Woodcock ought him between 30 and 40s. Then John Woodcok answered that Robert was a pratinge fellow for he had set of his gunn and now he did not owe him past 7 or 8s: Also Henry Gregory testified uppon oath that he heard him speak the same to his wife.
Goody Gregory being accused by oath of John Woodcoke and Richard Williams for swearing before God I could break her head: she did acknowledge it was her great sin and fault and saith she hath bin much humbled for it:
She is fined 12d to the pore to be paid to Henry Smyth within a month: or if she doe not she is to sit 3 houers in the stocks. (S7).
He again served jury duty on 10 September 1640 at Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts. This jury heard a case between Henry Gregory & John Woodcoke in action of the case for 'fower poundes fowerteene shillings.' (S6).
He took the Oath of Freeman on 14 April 1648 n Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts.
He was ordered to pay a fine on 30 May 1649 at Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts, along with John Herman, for the damage their team of oxen did to Henry Burt's field. They were ordered to pay 1½ bushels of marsh wheat.
He preached the sermons again for a time after their first minister resigned and returned to England in 1652. Deacon Wright, Deacon Chapin, Mr. Holyoke and Henry Burt all conducted religious services on the Sabbath. At a meeting of the town on 24 Mar 1656, Deacon Wright alone was chosen to dispense the word of God on the Sabbath at 50 shillings per month.
From a page torn out of his account book, dated 25 Jul 1653 at Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts: [torn]n accot of what I haue laid out [torn] Mill dam 25 July 1653 for Sam Wright 3 d 00 05 00, To Sam Wright for 3 d worke besides above 00 05 00."
He was fined on 1 November 1653 at Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts: "The persons underwritten being presented for breach of the Towne orders are ordered to pay: as followeth : - Samuell Wright 0.02.00.
He and a group of fifteen other families formed what is now called the Northampton Society in 1654, and moved together to a land grant about 35 miles up the Connecticut River (it was then called the Big River) and founded the town of Northampton in 1656, where his son Samuel Jr. had preceded him. Among the first groups to settle at Northampton, there were a total of about thirty families who are considered the first settlers of Northampton. Samuel Jr. was one of the town selectmen that year, in 1656. The first settlers purchased the land there from the Indians. At first, the settlement of Northampton was called Squakeag, the Indian name for the area. It was next called ?Northfield? by the English settlers because it was the northernmost settlement on the river. Finally the name Northampton was settled upon.
At Northampton, he and his son Samuel were granted a home lot of 4 1/2 acres on Main Street, between King and Market Streets. He is spoken of as one of the leaders of the town, prominent in local affairs, serving on various committees, and that his name was the first one signed to the church covenant adopted in 1661. They built small huts near each other, and ran a stockade around a number of them for a fort into which they might flee, if attacked.
He provided bond on 24 March 1655 at Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts of £4 for the preformance of the order concerning his son Samuel Wright Jr. providing for the illegitimate child he fathered on Mary Burt.
At a meeting of the town on 24 Mar 1656, Deacon Wright alone was chosen to dispense the word of God on the Sabbath at 50 shillings per month.
In a lawsuit dated 29 March 1659 at Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts he brought a suit, along with Edward Elmer, Alexander Edwards & John Stebbin, against the town of Northampton "in an action of the case concerninge their turninge out some of the freemen from beine select men to which office they were chosen."
From John Pynchon's account books in June of 1660, he employed "Deacon Wright CR June [1660] By your halfe, for Sawing of the Timber for the Corection house 03 15 00."
http://www.themorrisclan.com/GENEALOGY/WRIGHT%20Samuel%20F2248.html
---------------------
Deacon Samuel Wright, came and settled with the Winthrop colony.
Samuel was known as the monied Colonel. Deacon of the church, 1639, Springfield, Ma, also was in Northfield church 1655. had 9 children. Samuel moved to Northampton 1656.
He died in his chair.
Information on Samuel and his family from LDS lib.," Springfield Families", by Thomas B. Warren, Vol III, P-Z, page 770 and History of Northfield.
"Life and Times of Henry Burt of Springfield", Henry M. Burt and Silas W. Burt, 1893, pg 241
www.ancestry.com
THE PIONEERS OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Samuel, Springfield, propr. 1641; rem. to Northampton. Frm. April 13, 1648; deacon. Was employed by the town to conduct divine service part of the time in 1656 and 1657, in absence of a minister. Wife Mar [p.517] WRIGHT, etc., cont. garet; ch. Samuel, (a father in 1654,) James, Mary, Hannah, (m. Nov. 1645, Thomas Stebbins,) Margaret, (m. 8 (10) 1653, Thomas Bancroft,) Hester, (m. Samuel Marshfield, Lydia, (m. 1, Lawrence Bliss, 2, John Norton, 3. John Lamb, 4, George Colton,) Judah b. 10 (3) 1642, Helped b. 15 (7) 1644.
------------------------
The home lot in Northampton of about four acres extending from King street to the brook, bounded south on Main Street, where he and afterward his son Samuel lived, and which he gave by his will to his son James, remained in possession of some of the family nearly one hundred and fifty years." (Notes by Rev. Samuel G. Wright.)
His descendants own a beautiful knoll adjourning the cemetery at Northampton, called Stebbins Hill, which is in possession of the heirs of the late Noah Wright." (Stebbins Gl'y.)
http://sehaleytree.com/getperson.php?personID=I3058&tree=maintree
Name:
Several researchers are of the thought that, best guess, is that this Deacon Samuel Wright is the same as the Samuel Wright who was son of John Wright, Esq, and Martha Castell, and baptized in 1606 in Essex, England; and grandson of John Wright "of the Bridge" of Wrightsbridge, Essex County and Elizabeth Linsell. That John Wright was of the Kelvendon, Essex, England clan.
Prior publications had this Samuel as son of Nathaniel Wright and Lydia James. That parentage was "disproven," primarily because Nahaniel's son Samuel was in college at a time after this Samuel had already reached America.
However there is a strong argument that he is indeed the son of Nathaniel and Lydia. Perhaps somehow the Samuel Wright in school in 1644 is not the same as Nathaniel's Samuel?
Here is a study on the logic of his parents being Nathaniel and Lydia -- and I might add that he named one of his daughters Lydia, not Martha. Also, if Nathaniel came to America and the proposed John did not, isn't that more likely that father and son both came, rather than uncle/nephew? On the other hand, to be Nathaniel/Lydia's son, he would have had to be 14-16 when 1st confirmed daughter Mary was born, which is not likely. (Hannah is not proven, only coincidences lead to that conclusion)
It's a fascinating study. Some records must be misrecorded because once the truth is discovered, the facts will be consistent throughout.
This study was found and copied from here: http://sehaleytree.com/getperson.php?personID=I3058&tree=maintree
Important Notes:
Joseph W. Wright in his "Notices of Samuel Wright of Springfield, Mass.," published in 1850, says: "He was supposed to have been the son of Mr. Nathaniel Wright of London, a merchant interested in the Winthrop Colony (1630) who had descended from John Wright of Kelvedon, by his second son, John Wright of Wrights- bridge, Co. Essex, England. But such was not the fact, as it now appears that he was a brother and not the son of the said Nathaniel Wright of London."
Mr. Wright does not give authority for this statement, and qualifies it by saying, "As it now appears," etc. He is certainly in error as to John Wright of Wrightsbridge being the second son; his father's will shows him to have been the third. (See copy of will herein.)
The first John Wright of Wrightsbridge made his will Aug. 16, 1558, and was dead when his mother made her will in 1560. He then had a stepdaughter, five children and an unborn child; all were minors as shown by his will. He therefore died when yet in the prime of life, probably between 35 and 40 years of age, which would make his birth between 1518 and 1523. His eldest son (the second John of Wrights- bridge), born about 1545, had a son Samuel, known to have been born Dec. 17, 1571 (see St. Peter's church register), who, Mr. Wright says, was the Dea Samuel of Springfield, Mass.
In the register of St. Peter's church, South Weald, Essex, is the following: "Mr. Samuel Wright, son to Mr. John Wright of bridge was buried ye day of June 1606."
It thus appears that this Samuel, son of the second John Wright of Wrightsbridge, died at 35 years of age, was buried in England and could not have been the Dea Samuel of Springfield.
It is recorded that Dea Samuel had daughters who married in 1652, 1653 and 1654, and sons who married in 1653, 1664 and 1667. If Dea Samuel was born in 1571 he would have been from 81 to 96 years of age at the time of the marriage of these children. If married at the average of marriages-23, it would have been in 1594, and his children should have been born during the next 15 years, or before 1610; this would make his children from 42 to 57 at the time of their marriage-that six of one family should marry at such advanced age is unreasonable. This Samuel, born in 1571, could not have been the Dea Samuel of Springfield.
Data compiled by Mr. W. K. Wright, says: "Dea Samuel was the son of John Wright, the brother of Nathaniel of London; that he was born in 1614 and died in 1665."
This shows that he has confused the two Samuels. Samuel, the son of John, was b. about 1573. Samuel, son of Nathaniel, in 1614.
He is correct in the statement that Dea Samuel was b. in 1614.
Four 11 of Dea Samuel's children bore the name of four of the children of Nathaniel of London. Evidently the father named his children after his brothers and sisters. If so, Dea Samuel was the son of Nathaniel of London.
The church register of St. Helen's Bi.-Oiopgate, London, shows the wife and children of Nathaniel (except Samuel), to have been buried there, "in the holy ground of the church." Doubtless Samuel had come to America, and was the Dea Samuel of Springfield.
Nathaniel was a Nonconformist, and a charter member of Win- throp's Coloney, "active and influential in its management," the avowed object of which was "To come to America for religious freedom." That his son Samuel came to America, and was influential in the affairs of the community and of the church, as Dea Samuel was, is but natural.
The "American Armory and Blue Book," p. 86, by Mathew, has: "Wright, Dea Samuel, born in London, England, settled in Springfield, Mass; arms, * * (same as those of John of Wrightsbridge and Nathaniel of London). This is evidence that he was of the Wrightsbridge family. Careful and extended research in England and America has failed to discover any Samuel, other than this son of Nathaniel of London, who could have been the Dea Samuel of Springfield.
"Life and Time of Henry Burt of Springfield," p. 241, says: "Dea Samuel Wright * * of Springfield, and a son of Nathaniel Wright of London, Eng. *."
The genealogy of Gen'l. Geo. Bohan Wright, published in the "Old Northwest Genealogical Quarterly," of Jan., 1904, says: "The first of the family in America was Samuel, the son of Nathaniel and Lydia (James) Wright, born in London, England."
It has been suggested that Samuel, son of Nathaniel, was too young to have had a daughter married in 1652. He was born in 1614 according to the Vis. of London (1633). If he married at 18, it would have been in 1632, a daughter born the next year would have been 19 in 1652, the year his daughter Hester was married.
He had eight children; if he was married in 1632, and his youngest child was born as is recorded, in 1644, there would have been 12 years between his marriage and the birth of his youngest child, which is sufficient and proper time for the birth of his children. It is possible that there were twins in his family and that he might have been 20 or 21 at the time of his marriage.
"The third son of John and his wife Olive was named John, lived at Wrightsbridge, Essex county, and married Avis Rooke.
"Their son married for his second wife, Bennett Greene, and their son Nathaniel, a merchant in London, was assistant to the Massachusetts Bay Company, and an active member of Winthrop's Company, although he himself never came to the new world.
"He is said to have been the owner of one-eighth of the ship 'Arabella,' the admiral ship of the company.
"Nathaniel married Lydia James, and they had a son Samuel, born in 1614, who came to this country and settled in Springfield, Mass., in 1639. All that is known of his wife is that her name was Margaret. * *." (Frances Cowles, Portland, Me., Times, Nov. 2, 1913.)
It has also been suggested that Samuel, son of Nathaniel of London, was too young to have been he who preached in Springfield, Mass., in the absence of the pastor.
He was born in 1614, preached in Springfield in 1650, therefore 36 years of age at that time, 42 when he removed to Northampton, and 51 at the time of his death.
It therefore appears that all known facts harmonize in evidence that Dea Samuel of Springfield was the son, and not the half-brother, of Nathaniel Wright of London, England.
Deacon Samuel Wright of Springfield & Northampton, the earliest known ancestor in America, was formerly supposed to have been the son of Nathaniel Wright who came to America in the interest of the Winthrop Colony but later genealogists believe he was Samuel, son of John & Emfell Wright of Wrightsbridge, County Essex, England, therefore half-brother of Nathaniel Wright of London.
Christened:
The parish register of South Weald contains a baptismal notice for "Samuel, son of John Wright of the Bridge..." (meaning Wrightsbridge). This son was born either June 29th or June 30th (depending on how you read the nearly illegible Roman date script in the parish register) in the year 1606. The "John Wright of the Bridge" referred to in the register is presumed to be John Wright, barrister and his wife Martha Castell. He was christened on 20 JUN (July?) 1606.
http://www.themorrisclan.com/GENEALOGY/WRIGHT%20Samuel%20F2248.html
Education:
(from email from Michael Wright)
Dea. Samuel Wright also matriculated Emmanuel in 1624 and seems to have found no living to his liking in ministry in England and went to New England seeking religious freedom and adventure.
Emigration:
speculated to be the time he immigrated but no documentation.
Residence:
In 1638 he was granted 9x10 rods for planting.
Religion:
"He was chosen a deacon of the First church and took an active part in its affairs, as is shown by ancient records of Agawam in the hand writing of Eleazer Hollyoke, after the departure of Mr. Maxon, their minister, viz: 'Whereas yesterday being the Lord's day, Deacon Wright was chosen to dispense the word of God in this place until some other be gott for ye work.
" 'Yt Deacon Wright shall have for his labor in ye employment 50s per month for such time as he attends on ye said work.' "
In speaking of the employment of a minister it was said: "He must needs be a smart man with such men as Dea Wright and Dea Chapin in the pews."
http://sehaleytree.com/getperson.php?personID=I3058&tree=maintree
---------------------------------
Contemporaries, members of the First Congregational Church:
Abel Wright
Col. John Pynchon
Samuel Terry
John Bliss
Thomas Root
Robert Ashley
Hugh Dudley
Thomas Sewall
Obadiah Miller
Eliezer Holyoke
John Holyoke
James Osborne
Nathaniel Pritchard
Thomas Gilbert
Deacons:
Samuel Chapin
> Samuel Wright (until 1657 when he removed to Northampton and died there Oct 17 1665 when asleep in his chair)
Jonathan Burt
Benjamin Parsons
John Hitchcock
James Warriner
Rev. Pelatlah Glover from 1659 to 1692
Rev. Samuel Brewer from 1694 to 1725 and onward to 1733 when he died.
The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol 35
Other-Begin:
Jury Duty: 14 Nov 1639; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA. Served on Jury hearing cases between John Woodcoke & John Cable and between William Pynchon & Thomas Merricke. [This was the first jury noted in the court records; the other jurists were Henry Smyth, Jehew Burr, Henry Gregory, John Searle & Samuell Hubbard]
http://sehaleytree.com/getperson.php?personID=I3058&tree=maintree
Other-Begin:
Jury Duty; 18 Jun 1640; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 3. Served on jury hearing case beteen William Warriner & Henry Gregory.
Other-Begin:
10 Sep 1640; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 3. Served on jury hearing case between Henry Gregory & John Woodcoke in action of the case for 'fower poundes fowerteene shillings'
Other-Begin:
Oath of Freemanship/Allegiance; 14 Apr 1648; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 3. Samuell Wright was sworne to be Freeman
Possessions:
Nov. 7, 1648, he became one of the owners of a toll bridge and way over Ashby Meadow." (Burt's First Century of Springfield.)
Other-Begin:
Fine; 30 May 1649; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA Along with John Herman, ordered to pay 1½ bushels of marsh wheat to Henry Burt for the damage their team of oxen did to his field.
Other-Begin:
Employment; 25 Jul 1653; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA [torn]n accot of what I haue
laid out [torn] Mill dam
25 July 1653
for Sam Wright 3 d 00 05 00
To Sam Wright for 3 d worke besides above 00 05 00
http://sehaleytree.com/getperson.php?personID=I3058&tree=maintree
Other-Begin:
1 Nov 1653; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA. The persons underwritten being presented for breach of the Towne orders are ordered to pay: as followeth :- Samuell Wright 0.02.00
Other-Begin:
Provided Bond; 24 Mar 1654/55; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA Provided a bond of £4 for the preformance of the order concerning his son Samuel Wright Jr. providing for the illegitimate child he fathered on Mary Burt.
Residence:
He removed to Northampton, Mass., in 1656; was among the first settlers there,
Other-Begin:
In 1657 he and David Burt were chosen measurers; wages 12d for house and lot. 1 1/2d per acre in Manahan. 2d per acre in other divisions.
Other-Begin:
Lawsuit; 29 Mar 1659; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA. Brought suit, along with Edward Elmer, Alexander Edwards & John Stebbin, against the town of Northampton "in an action of the case concerninge their turninge out some of the freemen from beine select men tothich office they were chosen."
Possessions:
In 1660 he donated four acres for the common good of the town, and with others built the first mill, in which he sold his interest the next year to Allen Edwards.
Other-Begin:
Employment; Jun 1660; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA. From John Pynchon's Account books:
Deacon Wright CR
June [1660]
By your halfe, for Sawing of the Timber for the Corection house
03 15 00
Religion:
His name was the first one signed to the church covenant in Northampton, adopted in 1661.
He, with his wife, was admitted to the church upon its organization, June 16, 1661; he was there a deacon and an active member of society; was engaged in building mills, and made many public improvements." (Hist. Northampton)
Religion:
Apl 18, 1661, he and his wife Margaret signed the covenant, First Church in Christ, Northampton". (Hist. Northampton.)
Will:
His will was written on 10 NOV 1663.
He died "while sleeping in his chair" on 17 October 1665 at Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts.
His will was probated on 27 Mar 1667.
In his will, dated 10 NOV 1663, he gave his homestead to son James.
Probate: Samuel Wright Senior Will 10-9-1663 presented March 27, 1666. Will not signed by him but ? Clark & son Samuel testified to his declaration. Samuel (his son) has received some from me & by God's blessing is well provided for. My wife & overseers may Determine what he shall have. James & Judah all land in meadow, broken up & un broken up, being about 58 acres, they to pay my wife 10£ yearly ? she hd corn, hay & ?. Wife to him in hour during life without interuption. James, dwelling house, out houses & home lot. James & Judah have carried on the work & building the new house jointly & Judah must help till he has a comfortable to live in. James to pay Judah 15£ in work. Daughters Mary, Margaret, Hester & Lydia (all married apparently) shall have [what?] wife & overseers see meet. Son Samuel & my beloved friend Wm Clark as overseers. wife Margaret Ex. Inventory 13-9-1665 by Wm James & Wm Clarke. 344£. House, home lot, old barn & all lands 64£, ? & bible & other books 10/, wearing apparel 60/, 2 oxen & cow 13£10s, swone 4£ 10s, horse & mare & 3 colts ? & wheat, peas oats 16£. Widow Margaret Will with the consent of Wm Clark overseer Sept 12, 1680. Mary cow, Margaret ?, Hester colt, Lydia brass pot (all had recd them) Mary & Lydia mother's apparel, Son in law (Only one mentioned) Sam'l Marsh ? 30/. Grand daughter Helfrit my acct. Division of the 50 acres of meadow & 5 acres of upland between James & Judah on next page.
http://www.themorrisclan.com/GENEALOGY/WRIGHT%20Samuel%20F2248.html
---------------------
Research notes and comments on the will and birth order and estimated dates of the children. (ss)
The will has been used as an explanation of why Hannah was not his daughter, because she was not mentioned in his will. However, after close scrutiny, perhaps that's a hasty conclusion.
Samuel's will says the girls' animals were already given, says Samuel Jr. was already provided for. So, not too far afield to surmise same for Hannah's situation.
Margaret's will not really pertinent, as his will said this and this and this till Margaret dies. So, when she died, then this and this and this was carried out.
But what's really interesting on his will is this:
His will was written 1633, Hester was alive and got her colt. But she died 1664 giving birth, this was before Samuel died. Then her husband is only son-in-law mentioned - he was a widower. Samuel didn't know that when he wrote his will. The will was not signed. Was it altered to give Marshfield Hester's inheritance?? By the time Margaret dies, her will carries through - and Marshfield is included because of Samuel's provisions - but by this time, Marshfield had remarried and had a houseful of another family of kids.
This whole will seems fishy to me. Not signed, items stated already given to the girls, Samuel, Jr., already been provided for, Marshfield apparently inserted -- kinda looks like they made adjustments after the fact. No wonder Hannah's kids weren't mentioned. she had been dead 7 years by the time it was probated. :p
another interesting thing about the will is Helped, granddaughter, child of James.
at the time of father's will written was 1663, James was not yet married (married in 1654) but yet will named his daughter Helped. She couldn't have been more than 2 or 3 considering James' age. But this sounds like he was widowed from Helped's mother, and Samuel wanted to provide for her. His marriage to Jess in 1664 must be a 2nd marriage. Odd, though, he had another daughter named Helped b Jul 1668, even after the will was probated - unless the transcription of the name in the will was a similar "H" name - but still, whatever the name, must be from another marriage. Margaret's will also mentioned her, but again, hers is only followed thru from Samuel's. James is still alive, has other kids when Margaret died. There's plenty of other grandchildren who are not mentioned. Her will just isn't pertinent. It's just carrying out her husband's wishes.
Samuel Jr. the oldest son: figuring his dob.
Bond by Sr. and Thomas Stebbins was made in March 1654. So assuming the infant was newly born, would mean conception of the child was about May of 1653. Jr.'s age would likely be at that time about 17, a minor, otherwise no need for them to assure he would care for the child. (wonder what happened to the child?)
Saml Jr. married Nov 1654; so good chance he turned 18 before that that. So, prob born between Mar and Nov of 1636, making him 29 when his father died and 39 when he was killed fighting Indians in 1675.
rest pretty much the same as what you have, very little variation - I studied marriages, and children and birth order. doubt you'll want to pay too close attention to it other than a cursory look, but I'm copy/pasting my worksheet just in case. :)
Mary:
1st born 1649; last b 1660, husb. b 1624; Her father left her a cow in 1663 (age 33-35)but stated she had already received it. She had a husband and all kids by then. They were not mentioned in Samuel's will est age: 1628-1630 (same age as Jonathan; prob m age 18 or 20. died abt 53-55
Margaret
husband Bancroft b 1622; m 1653; children: first b 1655; last 1667. She was b after Mary 1628-1630; husband going to be some older; m 18 to 20 or 1833-1835 After calculating Hester, this time slot is needed for Hester, so Margaret had to be older. adjusting to: 1630-1632 meaning married at 21 or 23
Hester
has to be aft 1633 or 1635 after Margaret. m 1651, if 18 or 20, then b 1631 or 1633.
This is putting Hester older than Margaret. Adjusting Hester to marry at 17- 18, leaving room to have her in slot before Sam Jr. and adjusting Margaret accordingly.
Lydia m 1654, first child 1655; has to fit in time slot bet Samuel 1636 and James 1639; so she has to be 1637, making her marry at 17.
now for Hannah:
If she is a daughter, everything would have to fit her age, mother's age, her marriage, etc.
If Mary born 1628 and 1630 then Hannah would be 1626 to 1628.
Samuel in school 1624 - so plenty of time for Samuel to have his school and then marry. This age would have Hannah marrying at 17 or 19.
and lastly: Margaret
And lastly to consider Margaret:
children 1626 thru 1644, 18 years of childbearing. If 20 in 1626 - then b 1606, like Samuel, only 38 in 1644 for last child.
Research Notes:
Of interest is a site found of a Michael C. Wight, who intently searched for Samuel's family; his report:
Thoughts on Samuel's parents as John Wright and Martha Castell:
It is not known exactly when Samuel Wright was born. Determining when he was born would be a big step in proving who his parents were. He is probably the son of John WRIGHT and Martha CASTELL of Wrightsbridge, Essex, England. If his parents are John WRIGHT and Martha CASTELL, then Samuel was christened on (20)(30) JUNE 1606 at the St. Peters parish church of South Weald, Essex, England. However, there is no direct proof as yet that the Deacon Samuel Wright of Spingfield, Massachusetts is the son of John and Martha. It has been proven that he is not the son of Nathaniel WRIGHT and Lydia.
The parish register of South Weald contains a baptismal notice for "Samuel, son of John Wright of the Bridge..." (meaning Wrightsbridge). This son was born either June 29th or June 30th (depending on how you read the nearly illegible Roman date script in the parish register) in the year 1606. The "John Wright of the Bridge" referred to in the register is presumed to be John Wright, barrister and his wife Martha Castell. He was christened on 20 JUN (July?) 1606.
It is also said that Samuel was born 17 DEC 1591 in London, Middlesex, England, but if John and Martha are his parents, this is not correct.
He would probably have grown up on the Wright family estate known as Wrightsbridge, located a few miles west of St. Peters church, the parish church for South Weald parish, County Essex, England. South Weald Parish lies about 40 miles east of London.
He attended Emmanuel College at Cambridge University, like his father, but was more interested in the ministry focus of the college than his father and elder brother had been.
Samuel probably attended Emmanuel College in 1624, though we have yet to find proof that this is the correct Samuel.
----------------------------------------
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/e/jeffw100/DeaconSamuel.htm
(snip)
The reason I wanted to comment on your ancestry of Deacon Samuel Wright of Springfield and Northampton, MA is because for the last five years I have been doing an extensive research project on his parentage. I started by rechecking every original US and English document that has ever been used (or inferred) as a reference in any published work regarding him. What I found is that much of what we thought we knew about this matter is not verifiable and, in fact, can be shown to be untrue, or at least, unlikely.
For instance, Sgt. Samuel Wright, the Deacon's eldest son was not baptized in Kelvedon Hatch in 1632. There is no parish record at all of this event in the St. Nicholas Church register nor is there any record of such a baptism associated with the Kelvedon Hall church which was the original St. Nicholas church building. It is also highly unlikely that Samuel would have been baptized anywhere near Kelvedon Hall because it was a known Catholic church by 1605, when its benefactor, John Wright (of the Elder John Wright line), was converted by William Byrd to the Catholic faith. The very Puritan Deacon would never have personally set foot in the church at Kelvedon Hall, let alone allowed his eldest son to be baptized there!
Another issue we have resolved is whether Nathaniel and Lydia (James) Wright were the Deacon's parents. They were not. Their eldest son, Samuel, was born in 1614. He grew up in London and went into the merchant trade with his father. When the textile/wool trade business tanked in the early 1640's due to the disruption of the civil war, Samuel left that trade, and to avoid conscription into either the King's army or Parliament's army he entered Cambridge University and matriculated as a 29 year old man in 1644. He obtained a divinity degree and can be followed in certain ecclesiastical records, including his later attendance at Oxford to obtain a Doctor of Divinity degree and his problems staying in a living because of his form of worship becoming unpopular at various times in various places in the Commonwealth years. He comes particularly to light after the Restoration in 1660 as he is put out of his living and goes to Oxford for his DD as a means of avoiding problems with Charles II.
He died and is buried in the parish he was ministering to and not in Bishopgate where his mother and all of his other siblings are buried. Incidentally, his father, Nathaniel is not buried at Bishopgate either and may have died abroad. We are still checking that out to try to find out what happened to him.
Also, we have discovered that Bennett Greene was not Nathaniel Wright's mother, but his stepmother. Nathaniel was born in 1581. Lord (to be) John Wright's wife at the time (his first wife) was Elizabeth Linsell. In the 1634 Visitations, Nathaniel did list Bennett as his mother, but by his own baptismal record, the record of Elizabeth's death and the record of John Wright's marriage to Bennett, Nathaniel had to have been about 8 when Lord John married Bennett. Maybe Bennett was all he ever thought of as his mother, or maybe there were ulterior motives. There is good reason to suspect that this slight shading of the truth in his Visitations declaration was not accidental, but designed to insulate him from the King's wrath to a certain degree. In 1634 Nathaniel was likely on the Merchant/ Parliament side of the growing confrontation with King Charles I. As such he would have had need of every scrap of birthright prestige he could muster in the Visitations to try to maintain his economic position. The Greene family connection brought considerably more prestige, back into antiquity, than was offered by the Linsell family name. Between the Wright and Greene family heritage he could claim by birth on both sides of his family to be loyal to the King by tradition.
Though our research is not yet completed on the matter of the Deacon's parentage, the best alternative candidate at this time remains John, Esq., Martha (Castell) Wright of London/ Havering/ Wrightsbridge, whom others (don Wright's group) have previously proposed. John Wright, Esq., born in 1569 to Lord John Wright and Elizabeth Linsell and was Lord John Wright's eldest son. He attended Cambridge University and then studied the law after admission to Grays Inn. By all accounts John Wright Esq. was a Puritan leaning Protestant. Lord John Wright was no doubt also a Protestant sympathizing Peer in the House of Lords (peerage granted by Elizabeth I, June 20, 1590). In 1612 John Wright, Esq. was appointed a clerk to the House of Commons and was no doubt a Puritan leaning Protestant who would perhaps have been a bit at odds with his father in the House of Lords over how to deal with the refusal of King James I to share any power of governance with Parliament. There is an existent Parliamentary document protesting some actions of King James I with John Wright's signature on it in his capacity as clerk of the House of Commons. Such a prominent display of animosity with the King by a recognizable family member would no doubt have disturbed even a Protestant Peer of the House of Lords! It is not possible to tell how well Lord John Wright and his eldest son got along. Because Lord John lived to a ripe old age, the fact that John Wright, Esq. never inherited the estates of Wrightsbridge and Dagenhams could perhaps mean only that John Wright Esq. was already too well established and advanced in years to be considered a suitable heir for such a large estate, or it could mean that there was a rift between them or it could have been that John Esq. simply disdained the family estate and its landed gentry style of living. In any case, he had homes in London and Havering and seems only to have been a visitor at Wrightsbridge, never its Lord.
His sons with Martha Castell were John (1599) Nathaniel (1604) Samuel (1606) and Robert (1609). Martha died in 1610 and he did not remarry until about 1618 to Fortune (Garaway) Blount, widow of Sir Edward Blount. By Fortune he had at least one known child, James. It is the Samuel baptized on June 29 or 30 (the Roman numerals look like they could be either XXIX or XXX) 1606, in the South Weald parish church of St. Peters. Just before this baptism we see in the parish record that Samuel's uncle, Samuel Wright (bapt. 1571), son of John Wright of the Bridge (Lord John Wright) and younger brother of John Wright, Esq. died and was buried in South Weald. It is very likely that Samuel was named after this uncle who had just died.
Another tidbit we have picked up is that the Margaret Wright's maiden name was almost certainly not Stratton. We think we know who she was, but we are searching for a missing parish register. If we can find that register, we think we will not only find her marriage to the Deacon, but also the baptisms of their first five children, Samuel, Margaret, Hester, Lydia, and Mary. We believe they were married in about 1625/26 and Margaret may have actually been the eldest child. We are also quite certain that Hannah and Benjamin Wright of Springfield records were not the children of Deacon Samuel Wright and Margaret. They may have been niece and nephew or cousins. We are still looking into the extended family to see if we can identify any of the other Wrights who might have come with them to New England.
These are just some of the corrections to the Deacon's lineage that we hope to publish within the next two years. Ellen Baker of Washington State is keeping a list of folks that have an interest in this research and maintaining a file of the correspondences that we are aware of pertaining to the subject. If you cannot reach me, you can always contact her at dab@3-cities.com to get the latest update. You will notice I have copied her on this correspondence. Charlie Wright (the one who asked about your web site) is also aware of the work I am doing as well as the work done by others in recent years. He is working on his own publications as well and has recently published several very nice compilations of Walpole, NH cemetery data.
At any rate, I just wanted to let you know, if you were not already aware, of the work that is going on now, which may someday cause you to want to update your web site with more recent research than is available from publications like that of Curtis Wright!
Speaking of Curtis Wright's book, I have followed (from both sides of the Atlantic) the correspondences of Curtis Wright with a couple of English genealogist he consulted about the Deacon and Thomas Wright of Wethersfield, and another New England genealogist, Rodney P. Wright who was interested in every New England Wright family. From reading their letters sent to England (located in the SOG library in London) and then the English genealogist's responses (located in collections at the NEHGS Library in Boston), you get a real appreciation for how hard it was to access vital records, parish records or any kind of genealogical record in turn of the century England. Curtis did a very good job in his research, but there are a lot of missing references that his text begs to have. I now appreciate why that is so, and why a some of what Curtis ended up writing was just a guess that goes astray (like the Deacon's parents being most likely Nathaniel and Lydia Wright and when and where Sgt. Samuel Wright was baptized). The English genealogists were not too helpful in terms of being able to put a particular record or event into any meaningful historical context if, indeed, they could find anything at all. So, it was very difficult for Curtis to tease out all that he needed to provide proper references. There were also some typos in his text that went uncorrected because he was the preeminent authority of his day on the subject. There was no one qualified to check up on him. For instance, he reports that Rev. Henry Wright was born in 1424 in Upminster, Co. Suffolk. It was actually Co. Essex. There was no Upminster, Co. Suffolk in 1424 and Curtis almost certainly knew that. I assume, therefore, that it was just a typo that did not get fixed before publication because of the huge amount of effort that was undoubtedly required to proof galleys in those days, as well as the fact that his real focus was to provide an enormous amount of good information on the descendant families of Sir John Wright of Kelvedon Hatch and Thomas Wright of Wethersfield. We must all forgive Curtis these problems with his nearly 100 year old publication. There is much to build on in his work, but first we have to fix a few things up. We hope the be able to do that within our publication, at least insofar as the Deacon's ancestry is concerned.
I will not bother you with additional details here, unless you are interested in some aspect of what we are doing in particular. I just wanted to let you know there is much more to be learned on the subject of the Deacon Samuel Wright and who it is that is bent on learning it.
Michael C. Wright
1995 Carter Lake Drive
College Station, TX 77845
co-researcher: Ellen Baker
-----------------------------------------
also Hal W. Jennings website expounding on above:
http://jenningsweb.us/cgi-bin/igmget.cgi/n=Jennings?I1128
hal@jenningsweb.us
death records for Northampton, incl Saml.
http://search.ancestry.com/iexec?htx=View&r=an&dbid=2495&iid=40143_270308__0070-00065&fn=Samuel&ln=Wright&st=r&ssrc=&pid=7642253
-------------------------------------------
II. LIFE IN NEW ENGLAND
Made Freeman 19 Dec 1690 (NEHGS, 1849, p. 351)
Lieut. Abel Wright was found among the early settlers of Springfield, Massachusetts, in the Connecticut Valley, who spent a mature life of seventy years there, from 1655 to 1725, when he died at the advanced age of ninety-four years. Where he came from or who were his parents, I have been unable to ascertaine. There were other Wright settlers in the colonies before him in Eastern Massachusetts-- as Capt. Richard Wright at Lynn in 1630; John Wright, at Woburn in 1641; Robert Wright at Boston in 1643, according to Dr. Savage, in his Genealogical Dictionary... And at Wethersfeld, Conn., below Hartford, there was a Thomas Wright as early as 1639, who had quite a family. Also Dea. Samuel Wright was an early settler of Springfield about the same year, 1639-40, who had a family of eight children, all named; but no Abel among either of these families is given in their records.
note: Thomas Wright of Wethersfeld was from the Kevedon clan and 3rd cousin to Deacon Samuel.
http://www.our-genealogy.com/Wyman-Virdell-Taylor/ancestry-wright/john-wright3.html#JWCHLD
Note: proven in DNA that Abel Wright is not related at all to Deacon Samuel Wright.
Research Notes:
----- Original Message -----
From: hardmba@aol.com
To: erbaker35@gmail.com ; lumoto@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: thoughts on Hampden Wrights
Hi, Sherry and Ellen,
The DNA evidence that Able Wright and Deacon Samuel Wright were not of the same family line comes from the Y-DNA analysis of proven descendants of Abel Wright of Springfield, MA, of Dea. Samuel Wright of Springfield and Northampton, MA and of Thomas Wright of Wethersfield, CT. What we find by Y-DNA analysis is that the male line of Abel Wright descendants are all in the haploid group R1b1, whereas those of both Deacon Samuel Wright and Thomas Wright of Wethersfield are all haploid E1b1b1a2. These two haploids are known to have separated over 45,000 years ago in northeastern Africa so there is no way, outside of a NPE in the Abel Wright line between about 43 C.E. and 1639, that these two Wright families were related in even an anthropological sense.
Abel Wright's male line R1b1 haploid comes from a very ancient Celtic line that first arrived 10,000 years ago in England & Ireland following the end of the last ice age. They came from the Basque country of Spain at that time, following the receding ice sheets northward along the Western coastline of Europe. They crossing to the main British Isles over the land bridges that existed for centuries between the Continent and England as the ice sheets continued slowly to melt and move northward toward the present day Arctic circle. Eventually enough ice melted that the sea levels rose to submerge these land bridges and the ancient settlements that were built on them to give us the English Channel that we see today. Only recently have undersea archeologists been able to explore these submerged lands and excavate some of these long lost stone age settlements. In any case, the R1b1 haploid has been in the British Isles for so long that it is found today with equally high frequency in every part of England, Ireland, Scotland and the outlying islands of all three. This is the most ancient haploid in England that has spread out evenly all over the British Isles.
By contrast,the haploid of Dea. Samuel Wright and Thomas Wright, E1b1b1a2, is a relatively recent arrival in England. The original men who came to England with this haploid arrived in large numbers with the Roman Army in the first century C.E. They were men who had been recruited/conscripted into the Roman Army between 50 B.C and 49 C.E. from the Dardanian 'barbarian' tribes of the Balkans (specifically from an area lying north of a line between Pec and Pristinia, Kosovo). The Dardanians were a tribe of mixed Illyrian and Thracian ancestry who are first recorded by the Roman historian Justin in the second century C.E. as having been an Illyrian-Thracian tribe who recognized the supreme authority of Macedonia's King Phillip II in 357 B.C. Mercenary soldiers, like the Dardanians, served the Roman army as members of the 'auxilia' calvary cohorts attached to specific Roman Legions. Because they were not Roman citizens they could not serve in the Legions, but they could serve in the auxilia of any legion Rome felt needed extra man power or special combat skills. The Dardanians were respected by the Romans for their skill on horseback fighting over rough terrain with lance and sword. Dardanians were also experienced in establishing mining operations for lead, gold and silver ore, so were able to perform double duty for the Roman Army both in its conquests and its occupations. Our anthropological research suggests strongly that the original immigrant father to England was in the auxilia of Legio XX and had retired near Londinium from the Roman Army prior to 68 C.E., was called back up to help put down the Incenian revolt of Boadicea in 68 C.E., and then retired from military service a second time with full Roman citizenship and a small estate in or near the 'colonia' re-established near Colchester, England after the revolt was put down. Here he is most likely to have lived out the rest of his life with his sons inheriting his estate according to Roman tradition. Thus began the long climb to the status of wealthy landed gentry for this line of men.
Because the E1b1b1a2 haploid is such a recent arrival in England, it has not had time to spread evenly throughout the population of England to achieve the kind of uniformity in geographical distribution we see with haploid R1b1. It is that unique fact that makes the anthropological study of this haploid infinitely easier than trying to figure out from where in England the male line of a man with R1b1 haploid might have started. As a result of this fortunate circumstance, when we plot the location of haploid E1b1b1a2 in England among the general population of men sampled in a number of different genetic sampling studies in England (see Steven Byrd, Journal of Genetic Genealogy. 3(2):26-46, 2007), we find the highest concentration of men with present day E1b1b1a2 haploid occur around the geographical locations where the Romans built their forts and stationed their troops. Specifically the highest concentration of E1b1b1a2 haploid in England is found around Chester, England. This is not surprising because between 50 C.E. and 410 C.E. Chester was the principle base of the Roman Army's Legio XX. But before being stationed at Chester, Legio XX was stationed between 43 C.E. and 49 C.E. in Colchester and Londinium. Legio XX cadre also figured prominently in the building of Hadrian's wall. That men from the E1b1b1a2 Illyrian-Thracian ancestry of the Balkans were involved in the garrisons of each checkpoint built along Hadrian's wall is attested to by the small increase in the frequency of occurrence of their haploid among the local population of men living today near these ancient fortifications. Likewise we find small increases in the frequency of occurrence of E1b1b1a2 haploids around the four most northern so called 'Saxon shore forts' built by the Romans in the mid 4th century. This too, makes good sense because we know from Roman records these first few forts were built with troops that were re-deployed from Hadrian Wall garrisons. This is in contrast to the southern Saxon shore forts where there is hardly a trace of E1b1b1a2 haploid in their vicinity today and we know that they were built by Roman Army legions whose auxilia were not of Balkan origins. There is also almost no trace of E1b1b1a2 haploid in Ireland, where the Romans never set foot.
We know from DNA evidence that Thomas Wright and Dea. Samuel Wright were of the same English family because the Y-DNA profiles of their respective descendants are almost identical. We know from documentation that Thomas Wright was a direct male descendant of Robert Wright of Kelvedon Hatch (1522-1563) and Mary Green Manor on Bridgestreet in Brentwood (the Moat House). Even though we do not have the best documentation of the parentage and marriage of Deacon Samuel Wright in England, the Y-DNA evidence supports the proposal that he is also a Kelvedon Hatch Wright. Our research of the English records has not improved the documentation trail substantially over what has been done before on the question of the Deacon's parents, other than to firmly rule out Nathaniel and Lydia (nee James) Wright as possible parents and reconfirm John Wright and Martha Castell as his most likely parents. If we accept the current best proposal that Dea. Samuel Wright was the son of John Wright, Esq. (1569 - 1640) and Martha Castell (dau. Robert Castell, Esq. 1571 - 1610) of South Weald parish, Co. Essex, England, then, we can show from existing documents that John Wright, Esq. (1569-1640) was the grandson of Myddle John Wright (1524- 1558) who inherited the estate of Wrightsbridge, among other prosperities, from his father, John Wright of Kelvedon Hatch. By this connection we understand that Thomas Wright of Wethersfield was Deacon Samuel Wright's third cousin.
So, there is now no doubt they are of the same English family no matter how much we might want to quibble over which member of the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family was the Deacon's father. The evidence that does exist; The fact that John and Martha Castell were of the Wrightsbridge branch of the family, the fact that there is a clear baptismal record that we find in the South Weald parish register of St. Peters listing a Samuel Wright, son of "Mr Wright of the Bridge" (meaning Wrightsbridge) baptized 29 (or 30) June 1606, the fact that a substantial gentleman and Barrister would typically be referred to in public records as "Mr.", and the Emmanuel college matriculation record of 1624, a college whose focus was the training of Puritan ministers, the fact that in the MSS of Charles I there is an oath of allegiance record of one Nathaniel Wright giving oath in behalf of his brother, Samuel, who has gone to New England, and lastly, the leading role we find Dea. Samuel Wright playing in the churches of Springfield and Northampton, giving evidence by the New England records of his advanced theological training and recognized abilities to preach the sermon in the absence of the church minister in those places. All these are most consistent with Deacon Samuel Wright being the son of John Wright, Esq., of Wrightsbridge. All we lack for a traditional genealogical connection proof is a second vital statistic record by which we could verify the one we have.
If only we had just one more document: a ship passenger record, or a marriage record for Samuel and Margaret, or birth records in England or New England for their first five children. But these have not been turned up in over 150 years of research effort by a dozen genealogist of different ages . There are also no English probate records for John Wright, Esq. nor for Dea. Samuel & Margaret Wright. Although there are wills for both Dea. Samuel and Margaret Wright, they do not leave us any clues regarding their English origins nor kinships with their supposed eldest children, Hanna Wright and Benjamin Wright. (who I remain firmly convinced were not their children, though Hanna may have been the Deacon's ward for a short time before she married. We believe, now that the Y-DNA evidence we have for Thomas Wright and Dea. Samuel Wright descendants are sufficiently supportive of the currently proposed parental connection for Dea. Samuel Wright that it is no longer a matter of speculation despite the lack of that key second vital statistic record.
One thing about the Y-DNA data that gives us the courage to say we have proven his parentage is that, so far, we have only one other male participant in the Wright-DNA project who falls into the E1b1b1 haploid which is not likely to be a Kelvedon Hatch Wright descendant. Therefore, we have been persuaded that any American Wright who is positive for E1b1ba2 haploid is almost certainly a descendant of either Thomas Wright of Wetherfield, CT or Deacon Samuel Wright of Springfield & Northampton, MA. That narrows the field considerably in where and whose descendant family you can belong to and where those who do not have the documentation they would like can concentrate their research efforts to the best benefit. They are also most certainly related to well known people such as Ethan Allen, NY. Gov. Silas Wright, Wilbur and Orville Wright and Nancy Reagan, to name just a few and that always spices up the quest for the documentation to show those relationships.
In concluding this section on the Wright DNA project results for Kelvedon Hatch Wrights, I think the large number of participants (20) has helped us confirm our English origins as well as delineated some differences between various branches within the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family that can help those whose documentation is missing or sketchy focus their efforts better on certain branches of the family where they appear to belong, genetically. To view those results go to www.wright-dna.org and click on "all other haploids" under the RESULTS tab in the upper left hand corner of the home page. Scroll down the results table to the E1b1b1a2 haploid, which is also labeled "Kelvedon Hatch Wrights...."
Examine the marker values for the various and click on the top "Samuel (1665)" oldest ancestor selection. This will take you to a pdf chart of the descendant line of John Wright (d. 1551) so far as we have Y-DNA participants/representatives now. The only disagreement I have with the chart is that I do not believe Henry Wright (1424 - before 1468) was the first ancestor. I believe this is a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the entry in Morant's "History and Antiquities of the County of Essex..." (1768). The Henry Wright Morant refers to in his discussion of this family lived in the 1590s and married Anna Whitebread in White Notely (marriage record found there) and was of the Elder John Wright line, which is how the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family came into possession of White Notely Hall later in the 17th century. A number of other researchers have tried to conclude from Morant's rather vague remarks, that this Henry Wright and Anna Whitebread (dau. of Thomas) both lived nearly 100 years before they actually did. It is hard to argue with a marriage record that is clearly dated in the next century as well as birth records for them and their children. It simply was not so that Anna Whitebread married Henry Wright in 'ca. 1446. As a result, I believe the first solid record we have for the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family is that of John Wright, 1488-1551 of South Weald and Kelvedon Hatch. I would wipe Henry Wright and John Wright (1450 - 1509) off that chart and replace them with question marks. I have seen no evidence that there are any records anywhere in England for these two men as progenitors of this Wright family.
As for the Wrights of Kelvedon Hatch being Catholic, it needs to be understood that almost all Englishmen were Catholics until Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church and established the Anglican church. After that, Catholics were essentially outlawed, so one had to make choices; toe the Royal line, or go underground. The original John Wright of Kelvedon Hatch (1488 - 1551) was firmly attached to Henry VIII and so it is no doubt that, despite being raised a Catholic, he had no problems becoming an 'Anglican' Catholic when Henry VIII required it. Likewise his sons all appear to have had no problem becoming Anglicans in their own generation and appeared NOT to have taken the Catholic side during Mary's brief reign. This unity behind the Anglican Church did not last indefinitely, however. It was the next generation where all the religious and political fracturing of the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family group occurred. Out of that fracturing there emerged members of the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family who were everything from staunch Catholics (Papists) to staunch Puritan Calvinists. The period between 1550 and 1644 saw tremendous upheaval in almost every facet of English life & religion led the way. So, to study what happened to the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family in this period of time is to see an excellent reflection of what was happening all over the England of this period.
As with many of the emerging gentry families in the years of the reign of Elizabeth I, men of the Wright family were privileged enough to go to University at a time when the Universities were coming into their own as institutions of intellectual freedom and radical thinking. As a result many of them came home from their school days with even more radical ideas of what religion should be that went beyond the simplifications of the Catholic faith that Henry VIII's and Elizabeth I's Common Book of Prayer represent. These 'enlightened' Englishmen and their European counterparts (such as Luther and Calvin) brought a wave of intellectualization to religion that had not previously held much sway as a political force within either the Catholic or Anglican church. By the mid 1580' their 'Puritan' ideas had gained enough of a following among the high and mighty of England, that the influential followers of this intellectualized Protestant faith, such as Sir Walter Mildmay, Exchequer to the Queen and Sir Robert Rich, Lord of the Ongar Hundred, dared to establish colleges for the training of 'Anglican' ministers in the 'Puritan' style. One such college was Emmanuel College at Cambridge University, established in 1584 by Sir Mildmay. Dea. Samuel Wright's father, John Wright, Esq., Clerk of the House of Commons (1613 - 1639), matriculated Emmanuel College in 1585 in its second class, presumably as a prelude to entering the ministry. However, it is apparent that he was of a less ideological nature and more of a practical man. He entered the study of the law at Gray's Inn rather than continue studies to become a minister and became a quite influential London barrister, becoming the King's man in the House of commons by assuming the role of Clerk of the House of Commons in 1613 and holding that post continuously until just before his death. The Clerk was paid from the King's Exchequer and owed the King his primary allegiance, but in 1621 John Wright was arrested by the King and his papers confiscated because he was involved in a matter King James considered contrary to the interests of the Crown. John Wright was, to some degree, his own man and a man of the Commons rather than its overseer as the King intended. Later, John Wright's eldest son, John, also attended Emmanuel and went on into the law via Grays Inn. Dea. Samuel Wright also matriculated Emmanuel in 1624 and seems to have found no living to his liking in ministry in England and went to New England seeking religious freedom and adventure. Even Nathaniel and Lydia (nee James) Wright's eldest son, Samuel, attended Emmanuel College. This Samuel Wright matriculated Emmanuel as a 29 year old man in 1644 and later received a DD degree from Oxford. That is how we know he was not the Deacon Samuel Wright who was in Agawam (Springfield) in 1639.
While two branches of the Kelvedon Hatch family (from Robert Wright of Brookstreet & from Myddle John Wright of Wrightsbridge) were moving in the direction of embracing a more Puritan view of religion, the elder line of John Wright the Elder, of Kelvedon Hall whose line held the manor estate of Kelvedon Hall in Kelvedon Hatch were being wooed by noted Catholic Papists, William Byrd and Gabriel Colford. In 1605 it appears that these twp were successful in converting both John Wright, Lord of Kelvedon Hall and his sister Ann to the Catholic faith. Their Elder line of Wrights remained Catholic from 1605 onward for as long as they held the estate and manor of Kelvedon Hall (to 1922).
Not much is known about the religious inclinations of the youngest of John Wright's (1488-1551) sons, Young John Wright. We suspect that we do not know much about that branch of the family because they were devout in their attendance to the Anglican church, and thus avoided being recorded in the ecclesiastical and quarter session court records as recusants or papists as was true for those in the other three male branches of the family.
I hope this rather tedious discourse was of assistance to you in sorting out the many rumors and falsehoods that have sprung up over the last 150 years concerning the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family and Deacon Samuel Wright. They were an ambitious, industrious and prosperous bunch from the earliest of times but they have certainly left a spotty trail of evidence for their activities at many key turns in their lives. I was as stuck on Dea. Samuel Wright's parentage as all of the previous genealogist who tried to pin down an English origins for him, until we were able to put the Y-DNA evidence together. I hesitate to say such scientific evidence as Y-DNA is even better than traditional documentation, but only because it feels so incredibly good to finally unearth a key document that lays out a connection that appears nowhere else in the written record.
Our current research in England involves locating living descendants of John Wright the Elder and Young John Wright as well as more of those from Myddle John Wright and Robert Wright and persuading them to participate in the Y-DNA testing & research. We continue to look for records in England as part of that effort, and continue to hope we run across records related more directly to Dea. Samuel Wright in the process. I'll probably still be looking for Dea. Samuel Wright documents the day I die.
Always good to hear from you, Ellen. Hope you are feeling well and keeping busy. Thanks for copying me on Sherry's e-mail and I hope I was able to help some.
Best Regards,
Mike Wright
=================================
Forwarded to me by Mary Jo on Jul 2, 2012
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Abel Wright English Ancestry
From: hardmba@aol.com
Date: Thu, March 08, 2012 10:05 pm
To: maryjo@mjgen.com
Dear MaryJo,
I ran across your web page for Abel Wright (d. 1725, m. Martha Kitcheral) and noticed that you has speculated that he was a Kelvedon Hatch Wright http://mjgen.com/wright/1wright.html. I wondered if you were aware of the FTDNA Y-DNA genetic data that shows that Abel's patrilineal descendant lines are not related to the Kelvedon Hatch Wrights. Abel appears, from genetic data, to have descended from an entirely different Wright line in England as compared to the known Kelvedon Hatch Wright immigrant fathers, Deacon Samuel Wright of Springfield and Northampton, MA (1606 - 1665) and his third cousin, Thomas Wright of Wethersfield, CT (1610 - 1670). I would refer you to the web page for the Wright DNA Project at www.wright-dna.org. You will find participants who have listed Abel Wright as their proven immigrant father under the results section for "All other Haplogrps" (upper left hand corner of home page). Abel Wright (1725) is listed under participants with the I1 haplogroup genetic profile. There are six different participants who share the Y-DNA profile of the one participant who has a document trail to Lt. Abel Wright of Springfield, MA. I have worked with one of them on the Deacon Samuel Wright line. He helped us persuade a cousin of Wilbur and Orville Wright that he knew personally to have his DNA tested so that we could show that Wilbur and Orville Wright were descendants of Deacon Samuel Wright, just as their father's genealogical work in the 1890's had suggested.
At one time he, too, thought that Abel Wright was possibly related to the Kelvedon Hatch Wrights in Springfield (Dea. Samuel Wright). However, given the genetic evidence that Abel was a completely unrelated Wright of Norse lineage (Haploid I1), he has concluded that although Deacon Samuel Wright and Lt. Abel Wright undoubtedly knew each other, they were not related in any genealogical way.
The Kelvedon Hatch Wrights are of Roman era origins in England and were in England long before Norsemen, Vikings, Danes or Saxons began coming to English shores. Abel Wright's Y-DNA profile is of Norse origins so his ancestors probably came to England as "the Vikings" three or four centuries after the Kelvedon Hatch Wright Roman ancestors were already well established in England. This Roman era arrival actually started out life, not as a Roman, but as a Dardanian tribesman recruited/conscripted by the Roman Army from a "barbarian" area of the Empire's Moesia Superior Principate in the Balkans. The Dardanian homeland was situated in an area that now lies between Pec and Pristinia, Kosovo. He served his time in the Roman Army probably between 25 and 75 C.E. as a mercenary soldier fighting with the calvary auxillary cohort of Roman Legion XX. He probably served first in Gaul and then accompanied Emperor Claudius for the invasion of England in 43 C.E. He retired from the Roman Army to Londinium (Roman London) and was later called up to help put down Queen Bodiccia's rebelion in 61-62 C.E. He appears to have been among those recalled veterans from the Londinium area who survived the battles of that rebellion and afterwards were re-retired as part of the veterans contingent chared with resettlement of the Roman Colonia at Colechester. Like the rest of the veterans of the Roman Army, he was granted full Roman citizenship and an estate sufficient to support himself and his native family. nearly 1400 years later one of his descendants, named John Wright, emerges into recorded history 30 miles from the old Roman colonia at Colchester; as a church divine from Dagenham, co. Essex. This ancestor's son is the John Wright (1488 - 1551) who purchased the tenancy of the principal Kelvedon Hatch estate from the Crown in 1538 for 493 pounds and change, and there founded the Kelvedon Hatch dynasty of Wrights who held Kelvedon Hall and its associated estate until the last male heir, Edward Carrington Wright, died in 1920.
Unfortunately, we do not know as much about the pre-surname Viking ancestors of Lt. Abel Wright, but that is only because no one has taken up the chore of looking at the Viking settlement pattern on the east coast of England in order to find probable home towns from which Lt. Abel might have come, then gone there to research their local 5th century records and on to see if they can find him. We have 19 participants in our Kelvedon Hatch Wright DNA group and in addition, many outside resources, that have been brought to bear on the ancestry of Deacon Samuel Wright and his English family. I am sorry to say that Lt. Abel Wright's ancestor group has not enjoyed such extensive investigative effort. However, I would bet that if someone were to take up the chore, a very interesting history could be pieced together, if the town where he came from could ever be found. In a search for that town, I would start by studying the geographical pattern of modern day distribution of the I1 haploid in England and look at each town lying within those regions showing the highest concentrations of I1 haploid. I would then examine the records of each of those towns for any evidence of Wright families in the 1525-1625 timeframe. Those that had Wright families present would then get special attention to a detailed, on-site investigation of local records as well as anything housed in the National Archives and regional libraries, etc.
That is how we built the entire English history of the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family to where it is today.....all the way back to 43 C.E. and beyond. It is amazing to know where your male line came from at the time of Christ's crusifixion!
So, I have written to you to be sure you are advised of the interpretations of the Y-DNA data for these two family groups. I do not expect you to do anything in particular, but you might want to add a note or two to your web page about all this.
Best Regards,
Mike Wright
Died:
Died in his chair.
Massachusetts, Town Vital Collections, 1620-1980
Northampton
Death 17 Oct 1664
Samuel* married Margaret* (Stratton?) about 1630. Margaret* was born about 1606 in England; died on 24 Jul 1681 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]
|
1674 - 1722 (47 years)