- ----- 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
|
| Notes |
- "Life and Times of Henry Burt of Springfield," Henry M. Burt and Silas W. Burt, 1893, pg 236
It is no longer believed that she is daughter of Deacon Samuel because there was no mention of her or her children in either Samuel or Margaret's wills, nothing in her records indicating her parentage.
With no records, it's anybody's guess, but here's the logic both for and against:
http://www.family2remember.com/famtree/b565.htm
(snip)
In these wills (of Samuel and Margaret), the Deacon makes mention of each of his children, Samuel, Margaret, Hester, Lydia, Mary, James and Judah. Margaret, his wife, does much the same in her will mentioning also Hester's husband, Samuel Marshfield, and son James' daughter, Helped, to whom she bequeathed her bed.
What is notable about these two wills is that neither the Deacon nor Margaret mention anything about Benjamin Wright or Hannah (Wright) Stebbins of Springfield who have been often assigned by previous researchers as his eldest children. What I think is most important is that there is no mention made of any of the children of Benjamin or Hannah
(Wright) Stebbins, either. It is true that Hannah had died in 1661, prior to the Deacon (1665), and might not have been mentioned in his will (prepared 1663) for that reason. But Hannah's children were alive and husband, Thomas Stebbins, did not remarry until 7 years after the Deacon's death. So, if the Deacon was so diligent in bequeathing to each of his
other children, and since he would have known at the time of making his will in 1663 that Hannah was dead, he would have known he had to make provisions for Hannah's portion to go to her children. Therefore, I think it is certain he would have named them in his will if they were his grandchildren. On the basis that neither he nor Margaret mention these
potential grandchildren in their wills, I believe Benjamin and Hannah were not his children.
Nevertheless, Benjamin and Hannah have often been assigned as the eldest children of the Deacon, and thought I do not believe this is the case, I do believe they may have been niece and nephew to the Deacon or some other relation. Certainly I believe they were some member of the large Wright clan to which the Deacon belonged (originating from Sir John Wright of Kelvedon Hatch, Co. Essex, England).
(apparently DNA has challenged this)
To belabor this a little further, a second line of evidence focuses on Hannah in particular. The Deacon and Hannah's husband, Lt. Thomas Stebbins, were involved with each other as trusted friends (see again, Pynchon Court Records in "Families of the Pioneer Valley," Regional Publications, West Springfield, MA 2000). For instance, on 24 March
1654/55 Thomas Stebbins joined with the Deacon in providing a most personal and embarrassing bond to the Pynchon court in Springfield (in the matter of the illegitimate child the Deacon's son, Samuel Wright Jr., fathered upon his own sister-in-law, Mary Burt). This would have been a matter only very close friends would have joined together on. It has been used to indicate that Thomas was actually so close he was the son-in-law of the Deacon. So if the Deacon held the Stebbins family so close in his heart, why does he not bequeath something to these supposed grandchildren?
There does not appear to have been any falling out between the Wrights and Stebbins. As late as 1659 the Deacon (or his son, we can't tell which) are arm in arm with Thomas' brother, John Stebbins, in a lawsuit against the town of Northampton. So there is not doubt the Wrights and Stebbins were close for a very long time. The question is, with this sort of close ties between the Deacon's family and the Stebbins family, had Hannah been the Deacon's daughter, her children would have almost certainly been mentioned in the Deacon's will, as being the recipients of her portion of his estate. Yet, they are not mentioned.
______________________
note by ss:
Because Thomas Stebbins co-bonded with Samuel Sr. that Samuel Jr would care for his illegitimate child indicates some close connection. Also, Hannah named her firstborn Samuel Wright Stebbins. It seems to me to be a bit hasty to exclude her as a potential daughter because of lack of mention in the wills.
My consideration in this is that in looking closely at Margaret's will, it seems to be mostly a carry-through of Samuel's more so than her own. However, Judah was mentioned in Samuel's and not in Margaret's, and he was still living. Samuel Jr. predeceased his mother, but his children were not provided for by her. So, not inconsistent that IF Hannah had been a deceased daughter, that she or her children would be mentioned in Margaret's will.
On the other hand, Samuel's will, since he was so close to Thomas Stebbins, assuming for just a moment Hannah was indeed his daughter, is it possible that when Hannah died, 3 yrs before Samuel even wrote his will, he chose to settle with his widowered son-in-law to provide for his grandchildren at that time, thus their absence of mention in his will. It appears she died from complication of the birth of twins. That, along with leaving other small children with no mother, was a very sad situation and emotions would have been running high. Not knowing Thomas' financial situation, perhaps he could have used the help of receiving her share from Samuel's inheritance early to provide for these motherless children. Also, Thomas did get them raised before he married again, which was unusual as the men usually found another mother pretty soon. Which makes me wonder if maybe Samuel helped out all along rather than in one lump sum and considered it a tradeoff for Hannah's share. That makes even more sense.
But unfortunately, unless there were some record of transfer of funds or property to Thomas Stebbins around that time period, this could never be anything but sheer speculation.
But, nevertheless, Hannah is undoubtedly from the same family line, whether she be a cousin or a niece or a sister or a child -- her lineage would be the same, at least on her paternal side.
ss
|
1628 - 1660 (~ 34 years)
