Dorothy ________ King (surname unknown) was born about 1601, based on her age listed as 34 when she emigrated with her family of William King and five children from England in 1635 on the Marygould.[1].[2]
As the wife of William King of Salem, Massachusetts Bay Colony, Dorothy raised eight children. She survived her husband and probably died in Southold, Long Island, New York, where she lived on land provided her by her son, Samuel, after William’s death.
Dorothy died after 28 March 1684, the date her commonage in land of Southold was recorded in the town records.[3]
Research Notes
Disputed Origins
Disputed Birth:
Dorothy may have been born as a Hayne or Haynes and been christened on 17 Feb 1593 in Portisham, Dorset Co., England. At this point, it is only speculation that her parents are John Haynes and Alice Lambert.
The date of christening in 1593, indicating an age of about 42 in 1635, conflicts with the age of 34 at emigration found in the The Great Migration source.
Edmund West (who relies on highly derivative sources such as unsourced family pedigrees) identifies Dorothy's father as Walter Hayne, not John, and places her birth at 1601 in Massachusetts, not England. (VERY unlikely.) He also claims that the wedding took place 17 Feb 1616 in Sherborne.[4]
Disputed Marriage:
17 FEB 1616/7 Abbey Church of St. Mary, Sherburne, Dorsetshire, England
Robert Charles Anderson, in The Great Migration, questions whether the marriage in Sherburne pertains to the emigrating couple:[5]
"In 1902 Lucy D. Akerly (and apparently Rufus King) took note of the marriage at Sherborne, Dorset, on 17 February 1615/6/7 of William King and Dorothy Hayne, and suggested that this marriage pertained to this immigrant [NYGBR 33:71]. In 1918 J. Gardner Bartlett stated (without providing any evidence or argumentation) that William King had two wives, of whom Dorothy was the second, and that he had four children with each of these wives.
"These two hypotheses are mutually exclusive. The English marriage record is certainly possible, but it seems a few years too early, based on both the approximate age of William and the ages of his children. Bartlett may have based his arrangement of the family on the apparent gap of six years between the birth dates of the fourth and fifth children. The gap is not, however, as great as this, and the total range of dates of birth for the eight children, from about 1623 to 1641, are well within the range of the fertility span of a single woman.
We do not subscribe to either of these hypotheses, and simply state that William had a single wife Dorothy, surname unknown."
In addition to the sources mentioned by Anderson, other genealogists have linked William King to Dorothy Hayne, not Haynes. Torry (New England Marriages Prior to 1700) places her birth in the year 1601[6] and describes their wedding as having taken place in "Sherborne, Dorset in Eng 17 Feb 1616/17". Other secondary sources concur that William King and a Dorothy Hayne, who was born in 1601, married.[7]
In the Great Migration, Anderson noted Lucy D. Akerly and Rufus King's hypothesis that Dorothy's surname may have been Hayne. The suggestion arose because of a record at Sherborne, Dorset, (less than 30 miles from the family's departure point of Wemouth) that showed a Dorothy Hayne marrying a William King on 17 Feb 1617/18. The names and geographic proximity are intriguing, but there is no further evidence indicating that this is the same couple. Anderson (and thus, Wikitree’s Puritan Great Migration project) thus considers Dorothy's surname and parents to be unknown.[8]
↑Southold Town Records copied with explanatory notes - Vol. 1 Liber A & B - J. Wickham Case 1882 - page 406 of text (page 71 of Liber B): Dority King her comonage in Southold is a first lott. . . . Entred 1684, March 28. pr Benj: Yo.
HathiTrust or Google Books
↑ Edmund West, comp.. Family Data Collection - Individual Records [1]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2000. HIGHLY derivative. Should not be relied upon.
↑ Great Migration 1634-1635, I-L. (Online database. AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2008.) Originally published as: The Great Migration, Immigrants to New England, 1634-1635, Volume IV, I-L, by Robert Charles Anderson. Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2005. Vol. 4, pp. 174-177 - p. 177: These two hypotheses are mutually exclusive Ancestry.com
↑ Torry, Clarence A. New England Marriages Prior to 1700. Baltimore, MD, USA: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2004, page 440 Ancestry.com
↑ Robert Charles Anderson, The Great Migration, Immigrants to New England, 1634-1635, I-L, Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society (2007), IV: page 177. Digital copy from www.AmericanAncestors.org subscription site. Accessed 1 Oct 2016.
See also:
John Arthur Tuthill and James McDougall Kortright, Tuthill Family: A family line from the 16th Century, Orange, California, 1936, 1980.
I agree - I think that a "Disputed Origins" section that is this detailed is distracting at the top of the bio. I would shorten it to something like: "Some researchers claim Dorothy was born as a Hayne or Haynes and was christened on 17 Feb 1593 in Portisham, Dorset Co., England, the daughter of John Haynes and Alice Lambert. These claims are unproven. See Research Notes."
Then move the rest of the discussion down to a Disputed Origins subsection of the Research Notes.
Questioning whether it is inappropriate to cite a West publication or the Millennium File, even if just to discuss unproven theories. Why even bring questionable information like that into the bio at all? If it is necessary, shouldn't it be in a research note rather than in the body of the bio? I would like to hear what other PGM members think.
I agree that information on her possible parentage belongs in Research Notes. I have said something like this about those type of sources: Unsourced publications/trees may show her as the daughter of ....., but no reliable sources have been found for her parents or last name
I agree that the details should be in a research note. But I do think it's helpful and in general a good practice to note some of the commonly cited sources that contain the error. (Although if I were going to be discussing an Ancestry database in that research note, I would use the collection name rather than the author, so "Family Data Collection" rather than "West").
I agree with M Cole on this that it can be helpful to include these "wrong" sources.
I've seen in profiles when the phrase "some internet sources claim X" a response is posted to the effect of "which sources say this"? A couple times I've gone to the effort of tracing through incorrect citations to find what seems to be the original source of an incorrect assertion mostly so that in the future when somebody comes along and says "my file says X" we can show that the research has already been done to debunk X.
Dorothy King - death date as: after 28 Mar 1684 - based on source:
Southold Town Records copied with explanatory notes - Vol. 1 Liber A & B - J. Wickham Case 1882 - page 406 of text (page 71 of Liber B)
(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101007823030&view=2up&seq=430)
page 406 of text:
Dority King her comonage in Southold is a first lott.
Thomas Moor Senr his comonage in Southold is a second lott.
Entred 1684, March 28. pr Benj: Yo.
Looks good Vincent, would you like to go ahead and update the biography and data field? WikiTree is 100% collaborative so your sourced edits are welcome.
Unknown-530174 and Unknown-242889 appear to represent the same person because: same birth and death info, same spouse, child on -530174 also on other profile. please merge.
UNKNOWN-74589 and Unknown-242889 appear to represent the same person because: These two profiles clearly represent the same woman who married a William Kinge and emigrated to the Americas.
Dorothy's father was John Haynes so her name at birth was Haynes. Although I initiated this profile of an ancestor, would someone with appropriate authority please correct it.
UNKNOWN-74589 and Hayne-88 appear to represent the same person because: Despite the disagreement on which side of the Atlantic she was born, the profiles seem to report the same peson.
Unknown-242889 and Hayne-140 are not ready to be merged because: Seems reasonable that both profiles are for the same person, but they also could be for two partially confused people.
The results of my mtDNA test have arrived. Are there any other descendants of John Haynes Sr (Haynes-256 ) or Alice Lambert Haynes (Lambert-308) willing to compare results to attempt triangulating to this ancestor. I am aware that this is a long shot, but you never know when you will be lucky.
Then move the rest of the discussion down to a Disputed Origins subsection of the Research Notes.
Jen
I've seen in profiles when the phrase "some internet sources claim X" a response is posted to the effect of "which sources say this"? A couple times I've gone to the effort of tracing through incorrect citations to find what seems to be the original source of an incorrect assertion mostly so that in the future when somebody comes along and says "my file says X" we can show that the research has already been done to debunk X.
Southold Town Records copied with explanatory notes - Vol. 1 Liber A & B - J. Wickham Case 1882 - page 406 of text (page 71 of Liber B) (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101007823030&view=2up&seq=430) page 406 of text: Dority King her comonage in Southold is a first lott. Thomas Moor Senr his comonage in Southold is a second lott. Entred 1684, March 28. pr Benj: Yo.
I will try to link with them as they appear to have more information on a couple my ancestral branches.
palmer-3058
Palmer-3058