Clean-up of "Susannah of the Pamunkey Tribe" [closed]

Question

Now that the profile for Totopotomoi (Pamunkey-1) has been cleaned up, I'd like to remove the two people listed as his children.  I recommend detaching Susannah from parents Totopotomoi and Cockacoeske and merging her with Swann-869. Susannah of the Pamunkey Tribe seems to only exist in unsourced Ancestry trees and Internet messages. I have not found any contemporary record which mentions or names any children for Cockacoeske and Totopotomoi as a couple. Cockacoeske ruled the Pamunkey after Totopotamoi died.  She had a son by an English man after Totopotamoi's death. When she died in 1686 Susannah was most definitely alive, but the title of queen went to a niece, which also strongly suggests that Cockacoeske had no daughters.

Susannah was the second wife of Cornelius Dabney, Cockacoeske's English interpreter.  They had several children, and after Cornelius' death in 1693 Susannah married a man named Anderson. There is a lengthy and detailed article on the Dabneys (found at JSTOR). There is no mention anywhere of a Native American connection.  If Cornelius Dabney married the daughter of an Indian Queen it surely would have been noted in the colonial records.

Susannah wrote a will in 1722 naming two sons, Cornelius Dabney and David Anderson. and two daughters, Mary Carr and Dorothy Trice, and a grandson, William Anderson.
https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/trice/529/

Thanks in advance

Comments

Thanks for your work on this, Kathie. I support these next steps.

---

Kathie, go ahead with your proposed action; the profile manager of Of-the-Pamunkey-Tribe-1 hasn't been on wikitree since 2015.

---

For the multiple profiles of Susannah, aka Dabney and Anderson, should Swann-336 be considered the lowest numbered profile and the correct LNAB, or should a new profile for Susannah Unknown, aka Dabney and Anderson be created?  I believe I've found at least five profile in need of merging, just wondering which way they should go.

---

I think she’s really Susannah Unknown, so creating a new profile for her with no parents, her two husbands, and her known children then merging everyone else into that good record makes the most sense to me.

---

I agree that Susannah Unknown seems to be the best way to go given the current information we have.  I believe I have all of the duplicate profiles of Susannah are now linked to Cornelius Dabney-13, so all of the potential merges should be easy to find, but the PPP would have to be removed from Susannah Of_the_Pamunkey_Tribe-1 and added to the new profile of Susannah Unknown.

Should Thomas Swann be linked as an uncertain father of Susannah Unknown?  What about Betty West/Powhatan/Pamunkey/etc as the mother?

And lastly, Kathryn, would I be stepping on your toes if I created a new profile for Susannah Unknown, and/or do you think it would be wise to wait on some more input from other members on this thread?

---

PPP has been removed.

---

No one is stepping on my toes.  I stumbled across these people when cleaning up Native American profiles and have done only a little research to support detaching them from the wrong parents.  From my brief research I am confident that Susannah has no Native American  connections, no  Cockacoeske, no Betty as mother or sister.  I also think Swann is unlikely as a parent.  The Swann family seems to be pretty firmly located in Maryland. Thanks for working on this.

---

Also, I proposed a merge of Thomas Pamunkey west into Totopotamoi, Pamunkey-1 to get rid of him.

---

Susannah Unknown-432160 has been created and linked to her spouse and children.  I've also initiated merges for the duplicate profiles.

Should Susannah's and her husband Cornelius' profiles be project protected, as well?

---

I protected Unknown-432160.

Not sure Dabney needs protecting unless he has disputed origins as well. PPP doesn't prevent spouse attachment; we just have to keep an eye on him.

---

And there isn't any that I found  saying she was a swan

---

Steve, the Swan theory (disputed) is addressed on her profile; she's listed as Unknown.

---

So since Bill Deyo (historian for Patawomec tribe told me Sussanah was a gift from Cockacoeske to Cornelius Dabney. Is that not proof since Cornelius was living with Pamunkey,  and lived on the pamunkey reservation? The pamunkey gave him a 99 year lease on the reservation while he was married to Sussanah Dabney.

---

There is absolutely nothing in any record to suggest that Cornelius Dabney's second wife had any Native American connection.  If she was Native American it would have been widely reported at that time since interracial marriages were illegal and thus uncommon.  If Cornelius' wife was Pamunkey and the daughter of Cockacoeske he wouldn't have needed to lease any land from them he could have had any land he wanted through his wife.

---

It wasn't outlawed until 1691, they were together and had 3 children before 1689 while living on pamunkey land the whole time. You have really set your mind to this. Going against the author and tribal historian.  If Sussanah wasn't Pamunkey, but was a gift from Cockacoeske to Cornelius at the passing of his first wife, had 3 kids before 1689... you have no other reason to believe that she was anyone else. Who would be allowed to live there while popping out children 1684, 1685, 1688.

 Remember it wasn't outlawed until 1691. Soooo... I think you are taking a lot of liberty here. 3 kids being raised on the reservation of the middle plantain treaty.

 What proof do you have that she wasn't native. She came from out of no where, supposedly given by Cockacoeske to her interpreter who lived with the pamunkey. I'd love to hear the evidence. She named her children Dorothy, Cornelius, and Mary. All while living on the reservation around 1680 and before 1691. She married David Anderson around 1695. P.s. a Pettus signed was one of the signers of the orphan bond when Sussanah's youngest son Robert Anderson passed away. That youngest son, was married to another no named person.

Sussanah's second known husband had been married before while living on pamunkey land (to another unknown female), he was also born on pamunkey land, and his father was also born in New Kent 1641. So the andersons had children born there from 1641-1695 (54 years straight) all of whom married unknown females. Who according to your theory were not natives although living on native lands.

---

Had you seen this?  I wasn't working on this but when I got the notification this morning with the question, it seemed possible that researching Cornelius Dabney might turn up her name.  This looks like it might be a family tree though but it does have a different surname.  Cornelius Dabney @ familysearch  

---

Another link from the one I just posted.  Susannah West Dabney

---

The Dabneys didn’t live with the Pamunkey.  Cornelius was a church official and a wealthy and prominent person in the English community and a Native wife would have to have been converted and baptized for them to marry.  Cornelius would have needed permission from the legislature to even have a Native American person in his home as a servant.  That would have been recorded and reported.  And Cockacoeske had no daughters - she was succeeded by her niece when she died.  If Susannah was closely related to Cockacoeske she would have been part of the Pamunkey leadership.

Nothing in the claims about Susannah fits with the laws and customs of that time period.

---

Sorry, but none of the stuff on FamilySearch is accurate.  Susannah was not the daughter of Cockacoeske or of John West.  All part of a fictional tree created to provide people with a Native American connection.

---

Chris,

I worry that you are placing too much reliability on the theories created by Bill Deyo.  He may be a tribal historian, but he has admitted himself that his conclusions about these early families are based on theories that he came up with; it is not part of tribal history. 

---

Just a reply to those replying to my recent comments.  I have nothing vested in this just found the process interesting.  I did find Dabney's profile Cornelius Dabney and found the notes interesting, including discussion of Susannah's lack of surname but nothing suggesting she was Native.  I do disagree, somewhat, with the contention and, since intermarriage was illegal, it didn't happen; it's never stopped people from doing what they wanted, but actual marriage, I'm sure was rare.  Anyway, interesting case.  Wondering about the Brandts/Brants in NY.

---

So much stuff out there, I don't know who to believe, I'll stop where I'm at on this one.

Answer 1

I'm sorry to say, when it comes to Native American princesses, especially of the Powhatan tribe, nothing ever seems to get cleaned up or disconnected. In one case, I saw some descendants defending their fictitious ancestor by saying that no, there's no documentation that this person ever existed, but "it means a lot to the descendants" to believe in her.

Comments

Wikitree's Native American project has a sub-project focused on identifying and addressing / fixing "mythological" individuals and connections.  Kathie (above) and Jeanie Roberts are two volunteers taking this on.  It's slow going but we are finally making some progress.  If you see more that need fixing, please bring them to the project's attention.  

Descendants who seek to maintain these myths have other options besides wikitree for their trees.

Answer 2

Regarding the five Susannahs:

Pamunkey-2  - "Thomas Pamunkey west" is a mythical person, no Pamunkey connection

Swann- 869   -  No parents listed, no evidence she was ever named "Swann"

Swann-964   -   This family lived in Surry County, VA. The name of Thomas Swann's first wife is unknown, it was not Betty West.  Their daughter Susannah married a man named William Marriott in 1659.  William died in 1681 and I found the following about Susannah:
SUSANNAH SWAN(N), born 26 October 1640. She died on 25 November 1660 without issue "Having been married to Major William Marriott eight months and twenty two days - and was buried at Swann's Point". Major William Marriott made a contract of marriage with Susannah Swan on 7 March 1659/60, promising to bequeath to her £100 sterling in the event of his death (Surry County Records, Book 1, p. 159).

if that is accurate, she can't be the wife of Cornelius Dabney;

of_the_Pamunkey_Tribe-1 -  no evidence of any connection with the Pamunkey

Swann-336  -   similar to Swann 964. 
 

Comments

Thanks, Kathryn. These seems to suggest that all of the Susannah's (wife of Dabney) need to be merged into Unknown-432160

---

I agree.

Answer 3

Just want to post a big “THANK YOU”  to everyone who has worked, or who is working, to clean up these profiles.

Answer 4

Can you tell me how to access the article on the Dabneys you reference at JSTOR? I do not know what that is. I am a direct decendent. thanks, Robin

Comments

The article is actually attached to Cornelius’ profile. “Origins  of the Dabney Family.”

Answer 5

Where did you find she was a Swan

Comments

This is a very old thread. She wasn’t a Swan, she is Susannah Unknown Dabney Anderson.