Additional children are found in the 1850 Census[3]
While Nathan and the children are found in 1860, Susanna is not[4]
Nathan and Susannah's headstone was erected many many years after their passing. Susannah's death date states 1885, but I believe it was more like 1855 as Susannah was not with Nathan in the 1860 census, and he was listed as widowed in the 1870 census. [5]
Many records supporting data on Ancestry.com are just "wrong"
1830 census has her listed as the Head of Household, as Susan Worley, which would mean her husband and she are living separately as here is his 1830 census record[6]
Many trees have her birth as 1792, with parents born in 1786 and 1780.
Death date for 1885 is supported by a death record of a Susan King in Philadelphia, who was born in Pennsylvania in 1805 and died in Washington, D.C. in 1885, thus making the dates on her headstone questionable.
↑ 3.03.1 "United States Census, 1850," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M4B7-RKY : 4 April 2020), Susanna Worley in household of Nathan Worley, Buncombe county, part of, Buncombe, North Carolina, United States; citing family 1042, NARA microfilm publication M432 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
↑ "United States Census, 1830," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XH5M-KTS : 22 August 2017), Nathan Worley, Buncombe, North Carolina, United States; citing 264, NARA microfilm publication M19, (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 118; FHL microfilm 18,084.
Is Susannah your ancestor? Please don't go away! Login to collaborate or comment, or
contact
a profile manager, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com
DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Susannah by comparing test results with other carriers of her mitochondrial DNA.
However, there are no known mtDNA test-takers in her direct maternal line.
It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Susannah:
Much of this is very cloudy. The picture of her daughter surely has Cherokee features. The fact that someone "checked their sources" and she was never married to William King after reading that it was "illegal" to marry interracially? If she lived on the reservation maybe it's why she would not have applied for the "Cherokee Money" or appeared on some census records? There do appear to be some duplicate entries. Someone said he was 300 miles away so no relationship yet he attended school in NC and spent time there? He traveled to Cuba didn't he? William Rufus King having NO children at all really? They say there is new Cherokee DNA work being done maybe it helps some. Good luck all.
There is nothing to support any Cherokee claims. I am a Cherokee citizen and have been working with Cherokee genealogy and history for 40 years. I have never seen a record for a Cherokee woman named "Morning Dove." There is no one named "King" or "Worley" on the 1835 Cherokee Census, no Worley on the 1848 Mullay Roll, the 1851 Siler Roll, the 1852 Chapman Roll, the 1869 Swetland Roll, or the 1883 Hester Roll. Many of these rolls involved money, so people were generally eager to sign up. None of her children who were alive in 1907 filed an application for a share of the Eastern Cherokee payment. Interracial marriage was illegal, so white men who married Cherokee women lived with them in the Cherokee Nation, not in white communities.
Thank you for this information. I have also suspected that the assertion that Susannah King was half Cherokee was false. I have found absolutely no supporting documentation nor any proof that Morning Dove existed. I have researched extensively and I cannot find a source that backs this story up. I only see it in stories attached to trees. I descend from Susannah's daughter, Julia Worley.
Also, you should explain where she is during the 1860 census...."United States Census, 1860", database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MD64-4P7 : 19 March 2020), Nathan Worley, 1860. There is Nathan with 4 of the youngest children.
1) You may want to add the children that are shown on the 1850 census to have a "complete" view of the family. It may help with finding additional information about her father.
2) The marriage record attached indicates a marriage in 1805, which means she was born earlier than shown.
Trying to figure out where Susan is from 1860 on...she is not living with Nathan and the children in 1860 "United States Census, 1860", database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MD64-4P7 : 12 April 2016), Nathan Worley, 1860.
based on the census record attached, Susan was born in 1811 "United States Census, 1850," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M4B7-RKY : 12 April 2016), Susanna Worley in household of Nathan Worley, Buncombe county, part of, Buncombe, North Carolina, United States; citing family 1042, NARA microfilm publication M432 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
edited by Kathie (Parks) Forbes
2) The marriage record attached indicates a marriage in 1805, which means she was born earlier than shown.
edited by Robin Lee
What year would this photograph have been taken?