Talk:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet

Father's name

All the sources I have seen state that Sir James Wright's father was Thomas Wright.

I assume that he is correctly identified by the ODNB as the student who matriculated in 1735 at Trinity College, Cambridge. The entry in Venn for him reads as

"James WRIGHT Adm. pens. (age 17) at TRINITY, 28 Sep., 1734. S. of Thomas, of Coventry, Warwickshire . Bapt. 18 Jan., 1716/7. Schools, Warwick [ Warwickshire ] (Mr Legiat) and Winchester [ Hampshire ]. Matric. 1735."

Wright is a common name, but here for example Thomas Wright is the husband of Mary Huband. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, it seems significant that G. E. Cokayne, writing in 1906[1], states that James Wright's parentage is unknown. This opens the way to regarding Burke as possibly wrong, likewise the ODNB, and that the Venn entry refers to another James Wright. It would be more satisfactory if we knew more about this. But I can entertain, with the references given, that "James Wright of Warwick" is the baronet's father. Some thought to NPOV needs to be given, in that case. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

James Wright of Warwick or Thomas Wright of Warwick?

My first clue to who the parents of Sir James Wright were was the mention in his will that his mother's maiden name was Huband. Before that, it was as if this well-connected, influental, politically active, wealthy gentleman had just appeared out of nowhere.

Like the editor or writer of the ODNB entry, I followed this to Burke, where, as you state entirely correctly, it says that Mary Huband, daughter of Sir John Huband, 2nd Baronet, and Rhoda (née Broughton) married Thomas Wright, Esq., of Warwick.

The problem was that I could find no primary sources or secondary sources independent of Burke to support this.

I also saw that ONDB had followed this trail and stated that his father was Thomas Wright of Coventry, and that Sir James Wright himself was baptised on 18 January 1717, probably in Coventry.

Again, I could find nothing to back this up.

Instead I found lots of primary sources pointing to Mary Huband, daughter of Sir John Huband, 2nd Baronet and Rhoda, marrying a James Wright of Warwick.

There was the Pedigree of the Huband family, the early information being copied from Dugdale, the later taken from deeds and showing the marriage of Mary Huband to James Wright, c. 1750. at the National Archives, I found another document at the National Archives speaking of James Wright of Warwick esq. and Mary his wife [...] property late of Sir John Huband, late father of Mary Wright [...] the marriage settlement of the Wrights in 1728. Not least I found the marriage record of James Wright and Mary Huband, daughter of John Huband and Rhoda, married on 20 of May 1728 at Ipsley, Worcester, England. No image of the record itself that I could find, but the transcription says that James Wright married Mary Huband on the mentioned date and year, and explicitly says that her parents were John Huband and Rhoda. (It sadly says nothing about who his parents were.) Transcription here.

Independent secondary sources also back up that Mary Huband married James Wright of Warwick.

British History Online, A History of the County of Warwick: Volume 3, Barlichway Hundred, mentions the second baronet's wife, Rhoda daughter of Sir Thomas Broughton, and her three daughters, Rhoda, Lady Delves, who subsequently married William Mabbot, Mary wife of James Wright, and Jane wife of the Earl of Northington.

It seemed therefore logical that if Sir James's mother was Mary Huband, then that his father was her husband James Wright.

For the entry you quote about the student who matriculated in 1735 at Trinity College, Cambridge, I do not see how that it is possible that it could be him. Which is unfortunate, because I would love to know something more (or something at all) about his education. I have searched for it.

In 1720, when the James Wright of the Cambridge entry was 3-4 years old, Mary Huband is clearly identified and mentioned in a petition to Parliament here: House of Lords Journal Volume 21: March 1720, 1-10

Sir J. Huband et al. Petition referred to Judges. Upon reading the Petition of Sir John Huband Baronet, an Infant of the Age of Six Years, by Dame Rhoda Huband his Mother and Guardian, and of the said Dame Rhoda Huband, and Rhoda Huband Spinster, and Mary Huband of the Age of Twenty Years, and Jane Huband of the Age of Four Years, by the said Dame Rhoda Huband their Mother and Guardian, they the said Sir John Huband, Rhoda, Mary, and Jane Huband, being all the Children of Sir John Huband, late of Ipslcy Court in the County of Warwick Baronet, deceased, the only Son and Heir of Sir John Huband, of Ipsley Court aforesaid, Baronet, deceased; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for Sale of certain Estates of the Petitioner Sir John Huband, in the Counties of Warwick and Southampton, to pay Debts and Incumbrances charged thereupon; and for making other Provisions for the Petitioner Sir John, his Mother, and Sisters; and for other Purposes therein to be mentioned

Mary Huband was twenty years old and by all appearances still unmarried.

I suppose that doesn't make it entirely impossible that she was the mother of that James Wright, but it does make it unlikely.

Furthermore, the entry does not contain any of the information we know for certain about this Sir James Wright, his mother's maiden name being Huband, his wife being Catherine Stapleton, the daughter of a baronet, Sir James Wright's own ascendancy to the baronetcy, even though the authors of those entries normally love that kind of stuff. Of course, it could be that they have simply failed to make the connection, but it does mean that objectively there is nothing to link that James Wright to this Sir James Wright except his father having same name as Burke gives the husband of Mary Huband.

In all primary sources I have been able to find, James Wright of Warwick and his wife Mary names the same three children, over and over again: James, Mary and Jane.

Mary Wright in her will, probated on 13 December 1768, mentions my Dear Daughter Mary Charleton [...] my Dear and worthy Son Sir James Wright [...] his valuable wife Catherine Lady Wright [...] and in a round-about way Jane Item to my son in law Doctor Moore for his [...] to me since the death of his dear wife.

Nichols writes: The Archbishop's first wife was the sister of the late Sir James Wright, Resident at Venice. While a genealogical account writes of Rice Charleton, M.D., of Bath, who married 11th November, 1757, Miss Wright, niece of Sir Robert Henley, Lord Keeper (Earl of Northington).

Primary sources show that this, respectively, was Jane and Mary Wright.

To my surprise, because I had struggled so previously, I easily found the baptismal records of James in 1730, Mary in 1734, and Jane in 1736. (Plus one 'extra', John in 1729), all the children of James Wright (always referred to as either with the prefix Mr. or suffix esquire) and wife Mary, all of them baptised in Warwick.

In a document from 30 & 31 May 1765 James Wright of Berkeley Square, Middlesex, only son and heir of James and Mary is plain James Wright, but by 13 December 1768 Mary Wright refers to her son as Sir James Wright.

According to The Court Companion and Kearsley James Wright was knighted on 3 July 1766.

One document which must certainly be referring to this Sir James Wright at the National Archives of 14 December 1767 refers to him as Sir James Wright at Venice.

Taken together, this rather cohesively speaks of a family unit consisting of James Wright of Warwick, his wife Mary (née Huband), and their three children Sir James Wright (married to Catherine), Mary, married name Charleton, and Jane, married name Moore.

There is so much confusion about this family, between the two Sir James Wrights, and erroneous entries and errors and mistakes in usually reliable sources that I learned the hard way to fact check every single fact when it comes to them. If you search for the first of wife of John Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, you will see that the Internet (and some published sources) have reached an almost unanimous agreement that he married the sister of the Sir James Wright of the colonies, even though Nichols plainly states who she was.

Poor Dr. Moore got a new wife from South Carolina several years after his death.

Yet, the primary sources (that I have quoted extensively due to all of the confusion) are as clear as Nichols, he married Jane Wright, the sister of this Sir James Wright, and seems to even have had a long and amiable relation with the family long after her death, he is mentioned in several documents regarding them, in his mother-in-law's will, and he even offiated at the wedding of his nephew Sir George Wright. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This all sounds like original research and more like a family history project. Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No, not all. The county history sources are secondary and generally reliable. I'd want to go over matters myself, but it seems that what is currently in the article is probably correct. The wording needs to be fixed up, to reflect NPOV. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)