In our collaborative work about Ruth, the wife of John York (1642-1690), we have not shown she was Ruth Graves, the daughter of William Graves. According to William Graves' profile, he had no known children.
See the research note on her profile--That she was called a Graves is presumed due to a literal interpretation of the 1681 lawsuit settlement between John York and William Graves--John York is referred to the "son in law" of William Graves.[1][2][3] William Graves was then married to John York's mother, Elizabeth so that this identity seems otherwise and better interpreted, "step son."
Alternative thoughts welcome. If there are none, does anyone object to severing her association with William Graves, and then re-creating her as Ruth Unknown?--Gene.
References--
[1] For 1681 settlement, Albert Stillman Batchellor, Probate Records ... Vol 1, 1635-1717 in New Hampshire State Papers, 40 vols. (1867-1943), 31:134-136 (Richard York, 1672, Dover) at 31:135-136; digital images, InternetArchive.
[2] For brief summary of the 1681 hearing, Otis G. Hammond, Court Records, 1640-1693; Court Papers, 1652-1668 in New Hampshire State Papers, 40 vols. (1867-1943), 40:375 (7 June 1681, Graves v York); digital images, InternetArchive.
[3] Transcript of proceeding, citing "Id. 3-182 [?Rockingham Reg. 3-182]," William M. Sargent, "The York Family", The Maine Historical and Genealogical Recorder, 2 (1885):217-229; 3 (1886):17-25, at 2:219; digital images, Hathi Trust.