Home > Uncategorized > Notes and Queries: Manning – Winship – Pierce – Wright – Wootton

Notes and Queries: Manning – Winship – Pierce – Wright – Wootton

Source: William H. Manning, “Notes and Queries: Manning–Winship–Pierce–Wright–Wootton,” New England Historical and Genealogical Register 57[1903].

[page 110]

MANNING – WINSHIP – PIERCE – WRIGHT – WOOTTON. – In compiling the MANNING genealogy, I have discovered one, and I think two, errors in Paige’s History of Cambridge, and, as several families are concerned therein, the facts seem worthy of corresponding publicity. In the family register which appears in the History, in the sketch of the MANNING family, Mr. Paige states that John MANNING [8] married Rebecca WINSHIP; and in the WINSHIP record he says of Edward WINSHIP [6] that his daughter Rebecca married first, June 6, 1728, John MANNING, and second, before Dec. 13, 1763, John WOOTTON of Lexington, a mariner, thus definitely giving the supposed parentage of John MANNING’s wife. The last-named John MANNING did marry one Rebecca WINSHIP. It is also true that Rebecca, daughter of Edward, was the wife of John WOOTTON in 1763, but otherwise the statement is erroneous, for she was Mr. WOOTTON’s wife before John MANNING’s last two children were born. At Boston is found the marriage intention, Apr. 1, 1731, of John WOOTTON and Rebecca WINSHIP, and that the “intention” was carried out is established by the birth in that town, Jan. 26, 1731-2, of Deborah, daughter of John and Rebecca WOOTTON. Mr. WOOTTON was a sea captain, and the coming and going of his vessel received due notice in the Boston newspapers of that period. He resided in Boston for a time–perhaps until he retired from active life – but finally settled in Lexing-

[page 111]

ton, where he and his wife lived until old age. Contemporaneously, John MANNING and his wife resided in Cambridge until of advanced years, and the latter remained “the widow MANNING” until the end of her life. Plainly, she was not a daughter of Edward WINSHIP. Who, then, was she? This is what I believe to be correct:

Rebecca PIERCE, daughter of James and Elizabeth (KENDALL) PIERCE, of Woburn, was born Sept. 16, 1692; married Nathaniel WINSHIP [No. 8 in Paige], and lived in Cambridge. Nathaniel died not long after the birth of his fourth child, and his widow administered on his estate. Their children were:

  1. Elizabeth, born Oct. 13, 1713.
  2. Nathaniel, born Dec. 27, 1716.
  3. Rebecca, born Dec. 7, 1717.
  4. Martha, born June 21, 1720; married, according to my belief, Nathaniel WRIGHT; lived for a time in Woburn, but removed to Lancaster, where they long resided. (See REGISTER, xxxvii, 82; and also Lancaster records.)

Widow Rebecca (PIERCE) WINSHIP married second, June 6, 1728, John MANNING, and continued to dwell in Cambridge. John died subsequent to 1752; and Rebecca, his widow, died in Cambridge in 1775, probably on March 11.


  1. Sarah, baptized Apr. 20, 1729; died unmarried.
  2. John, baptized, Dec. 12, 1731; resided in Lancaster. In middle life he became of infirm mind, and Nathaniel WRIGHT, of Lancaster, was appointed his guardian.
  3. Esther, baptized Jan. 5, 1734-5; died unmarried.

This I believe to be a true account, but if so, another error exists in Paige’s History of Cambridge, for he says that Martha, daughter of the foregoing Nathaniel and Rebecca WINSHIP, died unmarried July 8, 1746, – and the history of Lexington says the same, one evidently following the statement of the other. If they are correct, Martha did not marry Nathaniel WRIGHT. Two points may be noted here: first, the death of the said Martha has not been found on either the Cambridge or Lexington town records; second, besides saying that Martha, daughter of Nathaniel WINSHIP, died July 8, 1746, Mr. Paige states, and correctly, that another Martha (daughter of Samuel WINSHIP, 23) died Jan. 8, 1746. If one observes the similarity of these two dates, and remembers that the pen of even the most accurate writer is sometimes given to waywardness, it is easy to surmise how error came about. It may be that the one date is a mutilation of the other, and that it was fixed upon the first Martha accidentally and erroneously. There is an entry made in the town records of Cambridge, under date of Jan. 9, 1775, in these words: “Voted to desire Capt. STEDMAN and Capt. MARRETT to make inquiry of gentlemen of the law whether Natll RITE [WRIGHT] of Lancaster, who married the daughter of the widow MANNING (and he being in good circumstances) is not by law obliged to support his mother in law.” As we know positively that Nathaniel WRIGHT married some one of the name of Martha WINSHIP, I fail to see any way of explaining the above quotation except by accepting the version I have set forth. Moreover, why did John MANNING, Jr., settle in Lancaster, where none of his name had before lived, unless he was led to the step by the presence of his half-sister and her husband, Martha and Nathaniel WRIGHT; and why was Nathaniel appointed guardian to John, subsequently, unless because of the close tie between them.

If these conclusions, and not Mr. Paige’s, are wrong, I shall be thankful for evidence to that effect.

Ayer, Mass.


Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: