So, Robert Wright

[flateric999]

Well, he was born, somewhere in about 1630. in 1661  he has his first child, Abraham in Stoke Goldington. This is one of the earliest Wright births I can find in Goldington.

Now there are other births recorded to Robert and either Ann or Alice. How do we know if this Is the same couple or seperate couples?

also I Don't actually have a birthplace or .date of birth for Robert, just evidence he existed.

I have a big list to work through!

[lizdb]

Are any of the births too close for them to be the same couple?
Can you find two marriages, one to Ann and one to Alice( remembering that marriages were traditionally in the brides home parish, so may not be where Robert(s) lived and worked or where the couple(s) settled after their marriage)

Rarely with research this far back can anything be proved for definite, unless the family is well to do enough to be well documented in Wills or the like. Often it is a case of finding as much evidence as you can, and eventually if nothing rules out a particular scenario, then that scenario becomes more and more likely.

But it is very much a 'Rome wasnt built in a day' situation! And remember not all PRs are online, so a visit to the relevant record office may make your research more accurate, especially as records for that era are often patchy, and very hard to read, so not all will have made it online even if some have.

[flateric999]

part of the problem is too much information. I can find baptism references but tracing people who farmed and moved around is not easy..

this is compounded by first born son taking fathers name, use of middle names, living in several different places and marrying more than once.

Robert, for example, may have been born in one of three different counties, may have married twice at least and may not be the only Robert around at the time.

[lizdb]

That's the way it goes!
Always worth looking at actual PRs to see if it says if the person was a bachelor or widower.
But otherwise, when you get back that far, it is often a case of just accepting that you will never know. Unless you are content to rely on an awful lot of guesswork - I'm sure many so called trees that go back beyond this era are little more than that. Unless, as I said, the family are well documented in other surviving documents like Wills etc. But for most of us, whose ancestors only left the records of a christening, marriage and burial, it can be virtually impossible to piece together an accurate tree, especially if the people concerned moved around or not all parish registers have either survived or are legible.
Dont mean to be a wet blanket! There are times when families all fit together nicely, or a document turns up that confirms or rules out a particular theory, and that is why I would never ever give up!

[flateric999]

indeed so. it looks as if I am back as far as I can go reliably. Annoying as family name is recorded back to 1500's.

[johnP-bedford]

Mike, I take it that this is the Robert Wright "who departed this life December 6th 1708
in ye 80th year of his age", so born 1628, as per the Monumental Inscriptions provided here....

http://www.mkheritage.co.uk/sga/monuments/frameset-mi.html

This same site has Abraham Wright "husband of MARY WRIGHT who departed this life
October ye 2nd 1723 In ye 55 year of his age", so born 1668; is this Robert's first son you mentioned.

Talking of wills, the National Archives has will of John Wright, weaver of Stoke Goldington dated 7 Jun 1658 ref PROB 11/277/141, Suggest you pay £3.36 to download it to see if he leaves anything to who you are looking for

Regards John

[flateric999]

Mike, I take it that this is the Robert Wright "who departed this life December 6th 1708
in ye 80th year of his age", so born 1628, as per the Monumental Inscriptions provided here....

http://www.mkheritage.co.uk/sga/monuments/frameset-mi.html

This same site has Abraham Wright "husband of MARY WRIGHT who departed this life
October ye 2nd 1723 In ye 55 year of his age", so born 1668; is this Robert's first son you mentioned.

John, it all leaves me with a frustrating "gap" You know the tree yourself, and while i am fairly sure Abraham and Mary are right they are born in 1700, ish. It appears they, or at least Abraham is from Stoke Goldington, certainly there children are born there.

So if Richard is a relation, he is not Abrahams father as he would be too old. Between 1600-1700 there are a lot of similar surnames in and around the village too. The Abraham who dies in 1723 dies before the children i have listed are born, so he is another possible descendant.

My theory is Robert has children i have not yet identified. John, and an Abraham is possible. This Abraham has another child also called Abraham. He is born about 1700 and moves to Astwood after his father dies.

Unfortunately, its all guess work!!


Mike








Talking of wills, the National Archives has will of John Wright, weaver of Stoke Goldington dated 7 Jun 1658 ref PROB 11/277/141, Suggest you pay £3.36 to download it to see if he leaves anything to who you are looking for

Regards John

[flateric999]

We are left then, with the following massive assumption. Based on dates from Family search, Ancestry and bucks FHS sheets.

Robert was born around 1630. He was married to Anne or Alice who could be two different people..

They have children between 1661 and 1679. This is also feasable.

According to baptism data,

Abraham 1661 Stoke Goldington
Thomas 1662 Clifton Reynes
Robert 1664 Clifton Reynes
Elizabeth 1666 Clifton Reynes
John 1670 Clifton Reynes
Mary 1672 Clifton Reynes
Guilemus 1675 Lathbury
Mary 1676 Hardmead
Elizabeth 1679 Lathbury

Another birth of an Abraham 1697 is accredited to an  Abraham and Mary and is the right time line to fit this Abraham being born to Abraham born 1661.

Confused??

It would be a lot easier if people hadnt married so many marys and where a bit more imaginative with names.

Mike

[vivijune]

Just some feedback from me regarding the value if wills which is why I'd recommend looking at the will of the weaver. In another branch of my family (no, not our friend Harriet Flute!) I've been aided by someone who turns out to be descended from a Bitchener blacksmith born in early 1700's while I'm descended from the brother, a tailor. I'd assumed that because their descendants  were agricultural workers that the family had always been ag labs, however thanks to her we have traced wills from that core family back into the 1500's in North Crawley.  We feel satisfied that after all the research we've found the core group. Various wills show up with all kind of spelling variations on the basic name, from North Crawley and one from Turvey.

What you gain in looking is a general picture of who they were and what made them tick, assuming you feel as if you've found 'your original lot' around Stoke Goldington. Whether in our case, again with variations on spelling, it's a man dying, willing money to repair the North Crawley bells, or a man insisting a certain son gets the 'shood cart' (cart with metal rims), another man who has little to leave than his dead wife's best kerchief and a kettle, or yet another who wishes to leave his half grown son 'his best horse' but is adamant that his wife shouldn't be the one to choose it, it's all fascinating even though the translation can be challenging. As long as you have found the correct root name, place or relatively small geographic area it has it's own different kind of value.

I reread the long thread from 2013 you shared mostly with John where you successfully and painstakingly traced the Wrights to the point where you are now.

Just my thoughts on the subject of old wills from the 1500's and 1600's even if in actual fact they might be a cousin or uncle's will as it relates to your actual ancestor. Some things you might never know and no amount of digging may provide your complete tree, but the time snapshot and the proximity to where they lived side by side or a walk across the fields has its own merit.