Person talk:Mary Wright (288)

Need proof of parents [28 July 2014]

It is asserted that Mary is the daughter of Samuel Wright of Springfield by several secondary sources, but none provide evidence, or show much awareness of the non-obvious nature of such an assertion.

Samuel Wright, the son of Abel Wright and Martha Ketcherell (or Kitcherell or other variations) moved to Lebanon, Connecticut by 1702 when age 23, married there 1710, had 3 children, married a second wife there in 1727, had 5 more children there, the last in 1739. His daughter Mary was born in Connecticut on 10 May 1721. (See NEHGR, p. 35:88, Barbour records for Lebanon)

Nicholas Youngman of Concord m. 1747 in Wilmington, Mass., Mary Wright of Wilmington. She died 1802 in her 78th year, so apparently born about 1724. They named no son Samuel. (Wilmington VRs, NEHGR, p. 34:402).

How do those two halves of a life fit together? Poorly.

How does a woman born in Connecticut, presumably living in Connecticut at least until 1739, end up in Wilmington in 1747, but no other members of her family seem to be there?

It does not add confidence when David Youngman gives her birth as 10 May 1724 because the record says 10 May 1721 but the gravestone says born in 1724. It is certainly possible that Lucius Barbour misread the records and David Youngman read them right. That should be easy to check. Except that there are still too many rough edges and unanswered questions.

That David Youngman makes no mention of Connecticut, has no knowledge of the marriage in Wilmington, nor the birth of son Ebenezer in Concord suggests he did not do a very thorough job researching this family. And given that there are so many Mary Wrights who were born in 1724, it is not like this is the only possibility. If you want Springfield, there is a Mary Wright born to Benjamin and Mary Wright in Springfield, in 1724. If you want parents named Samuel and Mary, there is a Mary Wright born in Boston, in 1724 to Samuel and Mary Wright (shown to be different couples because Samuel and Mary in Boston had a son William in 1731 when Samuel of Connecticut had married his 2nd wife Anna Loomis by 1727). Remember, also, Nicholas Youngman was born in Boston. --Jrich 23:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a caveat to be perfectly clear. The two Mary Wrights mentioned here are not being advanced as possible identities of Nicholas Youngman's wife (though basic searching hasn't ruled them out entirely), only to show how simple it is to find better-looking candidates than the Mary Wright presented in various secondary sources such as the Youngman Genealogy by David Youngman. The possibility that the daughter of Samuel Wright married Nicholas Youngman is not disproven, but it looks unlikely. Any Mary Wright descended from Abel Wright (as, for example, the daughter of Benjamin Wright and Mary Miller mentioned above, would be) would pass along that story about Martha (Kitcherell) Wright as a family legend, and we don't know in which family this is a legend. Perhaps it was told in a different branch of the Wright family, and is relayed here because the author assumed Mary's branch was the same. There is a Ruth Wright who got married in Wilmington 4 years after Mary Wright, and a Samuel Wright and a Josiah Wright having children in Wilmington about the same time, all of who could be siblings or otherwise related. Their family/families need investigating as a possibility, too. A will of a father naming his daughter Mary Youngman would be hard to improve upon, if one could be found. --Jrich 19:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please remove all editing until I can make sure this is the correct Mary wright, which I'm pretty sure she is.

Thank you--Pat rayburn 02:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In short, no. That's not the way it works. You add information that proves this identification of parents is right and proves the above wrong. The discussion stays here to benefit future readers who may have the same questions. It is not your page to control. It is a community page that everybody gets to present credible evidence and analysis, and arguments need to be refuted or additional proof added that proves them baseless. We all benefit from the pooling of knowledge. --Jrich 02:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)