Person talk:Mary Unknown (6355)

Last Name [4 September 2013]

Given that more recent research seems to debunk the "Winslow" theory, the page name should stay "Unknown" until a consensus is reached. To that end, the debates have been moved here. --Amelia 00:59, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

Not A Winslow

Peter II did not marry Mary Winslow or Mary Sears (a claim made in a Worden genealogy written over 100 years ago). He did marry Mary, possibly in England because in his will he wrote, “I give to my son Samuel Worden all my estate in old England, both land and other estate that came by my wife”. In 1972 Marjorie Schunke wrote “ I have researched that question as thoroughly as an amateur can and I find no hint at all that Mary was either Sears or Winslow”In 1997 George Bolton wrote “For the sake of completeness I have recently carried out a most exhaustive search...involving consultation with the civil and diocesan record offices of the counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, Worcestershire and Hampshire [England].... I do not believe any such marriage took place at the time and place stated”. Carolyn Stubbs,a Worden descendant, is presently working with a professional genealogist in this area. The Sears family also denies a daughter of Richard named Mary. The speculation probably arose because Richard Sears was a neighbor of Peter Worden, and he left his son Silas Sears land near Yarmouth that bordered on Peter’s. Silas and Samuel Sears also witnessed Mary’s will, and Paul Sears took the inventory.

--Katsus98040 (original notes on page)

Maybe A Winslow

A search through Google Books shows many genealogy books (see three examples below) report that Kenelm Winslow II (1635-1715), grandson of Edward Winslow Sr. (8HK8-66), and nephew to Mary Magdalene Winslow, married his cousin Mercy Worden (8DDN-BS). These two could logically only be cousins if Mary Worden, wife of Peter Worden II (1609-1680), was a Winslow, aunt of Kenelm II (or a Newton, sister to Kenelm's mother, which I've never seen mentioned). A number of genealogy books also report directly that Mary Magdalene Winslow married Peter Worden. This seems to have been common thought in the 19th century; barring new information, I'm not sure why this view is being assumed to be inaccurate. Furthermore, a large number of internet genealogy sites and Family Trees assert that Mary Winslow and Peter Worden were married. This latter support is, albeit, less convincing evidence, but the sheer number of such sites must be taken into consideration unless convincing evidence that disproves this link is brought forward.

Other anecdotal evidence also supports Mary Magdalene Winslow being Peter Worden's wife, such as Peter's will stating that he had property in England given to him by his wife (i.e. when they married); this suggests that his wife's family was at least moderately wealthy, which the Winslow family seemed to have been. Additionally, the coincidence that the proposed non-Winslow Mary Worden has the same birth and death years, exactly or approximately, as Mary Magdalene Winslow.

1. “Mercy, only about a year older than Mary, married her cousin, Kenelm Winslow II" (p.50). Clayton B. Worden. Our Worden Heritage. Clayton Worden also asserts that "According to Marjorie Schunke 'The Winslow genealogy does say that a Kenelm II married his cousin Mercy Worden'" (p. 47).

2. Charles Maurice Cram also asserts that Kenelm and Mercy were cousins (pps 44-5). Charles Maurice Cram. Genealogical Outline of the Cram, Walker and Weekes Families.

3. “Mary, not Mercy, wife of Peter Worden, died at Yarmouth , May 1687. Dennis was not set off until a hundred years later. Worden Family Record by O. N. Worden, 1868, thinks she was a Sears or Winslow. She certainly was not a Sears. Freeman’s Hist. Cape Cod, II. 764, says ‘Kenelm Winslow, Jr., married his cousin, Mercy Worden’” (p. 64). The Genealogical Advertiser: A Quarterly Magazine of Family History, Volume 3 (1900).

--10:32, 4 September 2013 Uroboros

Uroboros, welcome. And thank you for adding your reasoning to the page. I have to disagree with you, though. I don't have a bone in this fight, particularly, but I think the types of evidence you cite are exactly what is being refuted in the original notes, including one of the same authors. Claims from books 100 years ago that someone married a cousin are exactly the kind of thing that lead researchers astray all the time, and that should be rejected in the absence of evidence. And even if true, it could have been something other than a first cousin. That people have looked for decades to show that the daughter of a prominent family married into another prominent family strongly suggests to me that this was made up or exaggerated originally.--Amelia 00:59, 5 September 2013 (EDT)