The Real Housewives of Whitehall

IDENTIFYING THE MAYFLOWER LINES OF RUTH FULLER FRANCISCO

"Old Phil"

Above: Phillip Skene of Skenesborough

(Author's note: I believe I have successfully re-patriated the Mayflower Fullers to Whitehall in more ways than one. However, have I successfully linked Henry Francisco's wife, the lovely and elusive "Ruth Fuller" to Whitehall, and thusly tp the Mayflower Fullers living there? You be the judge...Remember, it's all a part of the process called, "A Preponderance of Evidence.")

Edited by ghosts.

                               PART FIVE

This is the part where we've had to go back. (Remember, I told you this was coming...) 

This is the part where we have to "talk" to strangers like "Old Phil" pictured above, or talk to the nice lady "Doris" who wrote the book with the list of Old Phil's "tenants" below. We need to "talk" to them to get the whole story, indeed to get the whole picture of the Mayflower descendants of Ruth Fuller Francisco and on down to Paige. And yes, I know it's a bit like walking in on a movie that's already started - a movie from way back in 1620 - but I think if you hang in there with me that you'll get the gist.

This is the part too where we have to argue against it. 

It's the part where we argue that we're utterly wrong about Ruth - and (once again) to cite all the opposing sides that say "Ruth Fuller was not the daughter of Aaron. " We have to do so yet again so that there can be no mistake about it - and that she, Ruth Fuller Francisco, daughter of Aaron, is the only logical choice. As they say, "sometimes in genealogy you have to work as had to prove yourself wrong as right to be successful." 

So hey, if you need to bail out now and go get a coffee or a super-size Red Bull, or take the dogs out to potty to keep from feeling obligated to read this diatribe no one would blame you.

Well, maybe "Phil and Doris" might, but I surely won't. 

(Oh, and don't tell my cousin Dan you caught me with another dang Red Bull)

Above: Morton, Doris Begor. Philip Skene of Skenesborough. Bicentennial issue. Granville, NY: Grastorf Press, 1959.

   

                           Above: "Doris"

Remember, all of this started in a place called Whitehall, New York. It's here where we first found Henry and his wife Ruth. We know that it's his wife, Ruth that is, because he mentions her in his pension application.       

Above: As taken from the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution. Application of Harriet Leas Hatfield (No. 238950) on Ancestor Henry Francisco (No. A041636). Member Applications and Supplementals, 1890–present. DAR Library, Washington, D.C. Digital image, DAR Genealogical Research System (https://www.dar.org/).

But before all of this, yes even before there was a place called Whitehall, New York, that same place was called something else. It was called, Skenesborough.

 It was land made by royal grant, made about 1759-1765 to a wealthy Englishman by the name of Philip Skene. "Old Phil" advertised the heck out of his royal grant of 25,000 acres, and as per author Doris Begor Morton, also handed out "three years free rent." No doubt this helped attract the Fuller family out of Connecticut and into Skenesborough, or what would become known of as Whitehall. It must have also enticed a guy we've come to know as Old Henry Francisco to also make his way there to Skenesborough. 

The dates of Old Henry's arrival at Skenesborough are a little vague. He's said to have been an Innkeeper at Fort Edward, New York, and that he was burned out by the British in 1777. I'm told that the distance between the Fort Edward and Skenesborough is about twenty miles along the river road. What's noteworthy is that Morton's list of Old Phil Skene's tenants at Skenesborough show Old Henry Francisco living there alongside the Fullers as early as 1759 and as late as 1775, implying that Old Henry Francisco was in Skenesborough before he went to Fort Edward, and then subsequently returned as evidenced by later census and tax records.

Above: The birth of Old Henry and Ruth's son Solomon and mention of Solomon's son John - Paige's direct line.

Why does this matter? The birth of Old Henry and Ruth Fuller Francisco's son Solomon Francisco is documented in a Bible record as October 2, 1768. This date falls within the time frame of Morton's list of Skene's tenants. Old Henry's marriage to Ruth circa 1766 is often disputed. Critics argue that a Whitehall marriage in 1766 is unproven. However, the business records of Philip Skene (Re: Morton, 1959) place Henry Francisco in Skenesborough as a tenant at the same limited era that Aaron Fuller and family arrived from Connecticut. Old Henry’s later move to Fort Edward was a temporary commercial venture that ended in fire, leading him to retreat back to the protection of his wife’s family—the Fullers of Whitehall—where he remained for the final 40 years of his life." 

In the end this part of the timeline doesn't matter. What matters is that all the Fullers listed in the Morton's list of Skene's tenants are from the same family, that of Aaron Fuller, Sr. The Proof: Aaron Fuller Sr. is recorded in Colchester/Kent, Connecticut, with children named Aaron Jr., Ephraim, Judah, and Ruth. (Bruce Campbell MacGunnigle, Mayflower Families Through Five Generations: Volume 4, Edward Fuller (Plymouth, MA: General Society of Mayflower Descendants, 2006)  AND as you find that exact same "set" of Fuller names appearing together in Whitehall (Skenesborough) in the 1760s/70s, it appears to satisfy the somewhat lofty notion of the Genealogical Proof Standard for "Unique Identity."

I believe that this also holds true for Ruth.

Above: Daughters of the American Revolution (New York). "New York State GRC Report, Volume 117: Bible and Family Records." Digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS8M-DS5X-P : accessed 28 January 2026), image 700; citing DGS 007949717, "Supporting Documentation for DAR Ancestor A041636."

Henry Francisco’s wife is the only "Ruth" who fits the Fuller Cluster in Whitehall. This is proven by physical nearness: Henry lived and farmed for fifty years in a "fraternal stronghold" alongside Aaron Jr., Ephraim, and Judah Fuller - and others directly related to Aaron Fuller, Sr, and the Mayflower Fullers.

Because these men are verified in the Silver Book (Vol. 4) as the brothers of a daughter named Ruth, the family bond is clear. In the small Skenesborough settlement, Henry’s life in the middle of the Fuller family lands confirms his wife’s identity through constant association with her known kin. By the way, "I’m not looking for a needle in a haystack; I’m showing you the whole haystack (the family cluster) is in the right place."

II. - Or have we just hallucinated this whole Mayflower thingy?

There are those who will say that as there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence that "Ruth" was "a Fuller" at all. They will cite (and perhaps rightfully so) that the four hundred and forty pages of information found on the Francisco family on FamilySearch and elsewhere mean nothing without some yellowed document somewhere that says something like this among the records of Aaron Fuller: 

"To my daughter Ruth, wife of Henry Francisco..."

But there isn't. There are however a plethora of D.A.R and S.A.R. applications that say she was "Ruth Fuller," with Ruth's association with the "Fullers of Whitehall" being arguably, well, previously discussed, logically proven by geographic location and, if I might say so, self-evident.

But before we just chalk up Ruth to those Whitehall Mayflower Fullers, (where she no doubt belongs) or to those "not those Fullers" at all, let's take just one more look at the other possible Ruth Fullers.

Let's look at this one first. I like to call this one the "Original Baby Ruth" (Fuller) 

(Well, I'm nothing if not a smart ass...)

Above: Fuller, William Hyslop. Genealogy of some descendants of Edward Fuller of the Mayflower. Palmer, MA: C.B. Fiske & Co., 1908, p.180

 

As far as "alternative Ruths" go, I gotta say, this one spelled out in William Hyslop Fuller's (1908) book is perhaps my favorite, the most alluring, and the most misleading. 

You see, "this Ruth Fuller" is our Ruth. She matches the Ruth found in the Silver Books (Bruce Campbell MacGunnigle, Mayflower Families Through Five Generations: Volume 4, Edward Fuller) and W. H. Fuller's 1908 book pretty much mirrors the family of Aaron Fuller of Whitehall. In case you need a reminder, here is "the current" (2006) Silver Book version of Ruth Fuller below:

The Silver Books don't lend any more information about "Ruth Fuller, born 15 November 1747." The W.H. Fuller book however generously says that she (Aaron's daughter Ruth) married Job Gould on February 29, 1767. So did she?

The first sign of trouble here is: 1767 was not a leap year. Duh.

Above:"Gould, Job, Jr., of Sharon, m. Ruth Fuller, of Kent, Apr. 23, 1767." (Source: Sharon Vital Records, Vol. LR7, page 15)

The second sign of trouble is that "Ruth and Job, Jr." got married in 1773 - not 1767 like W.H. Fuller's book says. They never left Sharon, Litchfield, CT. In fact W.H. Fuller appears to have conflated his "Ruth Fullers" and "Job Gould, Jr.'s" quite badly.

Here's another example:

  

Above: Fuller, William Hyslop. Genealogy of some Descendants of Edward Fuller of the Mayflower. Vol. 1. Palmer, MA: C.B. Fiske & Co., 1908, p.49

William Hyslop Fuller’s Fuller Genealogy (1908) contains a significant internal contradiction: on page 49, he attributes the Job Gould, Jr marriage to the daughter of Joseph Fuller, yet on page 180, he attributes the same marriage (with an impossible date of Feb 29, 1767) to the daughter of Aaron Fuller. 

Two different Job Gould Jrs marrying two Ruth Fullers with one Ruth born in 1747 and one in 1733, and one married on a leap year date that never existed? Yeah, beyond her father and birthdate, I think we can count much of this version of our Ruth out. 

You see, "Our Girl Ruth Fuller" was living with her family in Skenesborough, soon to be Whitehall, New York, where she married Henry Francisco and, as per that Bible record shown above, her reported son, (and Paige's ancestor, Solomon Francisco) was born 2 October 1768.

Yeah, any dang naysayers can zip it here.

III.

But wait there's more.

We gotta go back a bit. Remember that other Ruth? The one always said to have married Old Henry? She's the Ruth that's been copied and pasted into family trees ad infinitum. She said to be a daughter of Daniel Fuller and Mehitable Broughton. She's said to have been born on "May 17, 1746."

Let me remind you how the illustrious Mr. Doherty writes about Ruth without sources here:

Above: Frank J. Doherty’s error in The Settlers of the Beekman Patent 

Yeah, she "fits" all those records, at least on the surface. But even Doherty is careful not to commit to a birthdate like "May 17, 1746." 

These folks aren't either:

 

    

Above: "Flagler, Marion, Iowa, United States records," images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHK-Q35S-4QN?view=explore : Jan 30, 2026), image 172 of 1574; . Image Group Number: 008934193

Above: The reference that "Ruth Francisco and ... husband" lived in Pittstown "as early as 1770" is in direct conflict with Skene's Tenant's list for Henry Francisco in Washington County - and the birth of his and Ruth's son Solomon (presumably) in Washington County in 1768.

The secondary sources claim Henry lived in Pittstown, yet the 1790 Census shows no such man there. (Please feel free to double check me) Instead, we find 'Henry Sisco' exactly where the family cluster predicts him to be: in Whitehall, living as a neighbor to the sons of Aaron Fuller. 

Did he move from Whitehall to Pittstown and back to Whitehall after marrying some other Ruth Fuller about 1766? 

But his son Solomon was born in 1768 in Whitehall. 

AND he's on Skene's tenant list possibly as early as 1759 ...so again just exactly how did he end up marrying some rando Ruth Fuller that we aren't even sure existed of Pittstown again?

He's not our guy. She's not our Ruth - or please show me literally anything about her.

In fact, try as I might, there doesn't seem to be a birth record for ANY Ruth Fuller born on that date to anyone, let alone one married to Old Henry Francisco.

A search for Ruth Fuller and the date May 17, 1746, comes up empty.

Frank J. Doherty’s error in The Settlers of the Beekman Patent stems from some parentage attribution based on geographic proximity (but to who Daniel Fuller?) rather than primary records connecting  Daniel to Ruth. Doherty incorrectly identified Ruth Fuller (wife of Henry Francisco) as the daughter of Daniel Fuller. And because he found no record for her (seemingly if any kind), he (or perhaps some interloper) estimated her birth as "ca. 1746" to fit into Daniel's family timeline. 

This attribution is direct contra distinction to the Colchester Town Records, which document no such daughter for Daniel, but instead do record Ruth Fuller (b. Nov 15, 1747) as the daughter of Aaron Fuller. Furthermore, census and military records place the Francisco family in a cluster with Aaron Fuller's sons (Ephraim and Aaron Jr.) in Whitehall, NY, proving a pretty dang likely biological connection for Ruth to the Aaron Fuller branch rather than Daniel’s.

Hey, find any  record for Doherty's account of Daniel's Ruth Fuller - if you can...

Daniel's purported daughter Ruth is an undocumented insertion by secondary authors and cannot be the woman who married Henry Francisco. First, unlike Paige's ancestor, "this Ruth" has no primary record in New York to prove she existed. Even the hearsay accounts of her are limited. 

If "Ruth Fuller" had a son Solomon Francisco with Henry Francisco in October, 1768, and was living in Washington County, New York, and if this "Ruth Fuller Francisco" was still living in Washington County, New York in 1790 and in 1820 - How exactly could she "Ruth Fuller" have married Job Gould in Connecticut in the false leap year of 1767 or 1773 in Connecticut? Further, how could any "Ruth Fuller" who married "Henry Francisco of Washington County, New York," have lived in Pittstown in the 1770s when they (Henry) is shown to have lived in Washington County on Skene's tenants list?

They are conflated or different Ruths and or misappropriated Henrys.

Finally, Daniel’s family resided in the Beekman Patent (Dutchess County), a location and migration path entirely separate from the Whitehall (Washington County) cluster where Henry Francisco actually lived. Because Francisco is documented residing directly alongside Aaron Fuller’s sons (Ephraim and Aaron Jr.) in every census from 1790 to 1820 (and before) it is geographically and genealogically impossible for his wife to be a daughter of the distant Daniel branch. She must be the Ruth Fuller (b. 1747) documented as the sister of the Whitehall Fullers.

III.

Yes, I now it's time for me to close this out. 

I still need to revise the pedigree from Ruth Fuller Francisco to Paige, but that can wait for another day. I still need the Mexican-American Pension file on Clark Cisco, and I still need to grow more patient in waiting for it. In the meantime, I think I have successfully gone back and re-examined the sources, that is taken another look at Skenesborough aka Whitehall, and how it was that Old Henry and the Fullers came to be there in the first place.

And I have taken another look at the three Ruths:

Ruth Fuller, born Nov 15, 1747, daughter of Aaron

Ruth Fuller, born ca. 1733, who married Job Gould, Jr., daughter of Joseph

Ruth Fuller, born "1746," and with an attributed date of May 17, 1746, daughter of Daniel — A secondary-source calculation with no primary record.

In doing so, and in following the other records (DAR records, Bible records, letter of 1886 by Dr. Elon Francisco) that surround what original records and or statements as there may be, I have exhausted all resources available to me.

Still...

  

Above: Note the comment by a "Mr. Fuller" on the death of Henry Francisco in the above newspaper artcile.

In late 1819, the legendary age of Henry Francisco attracted the attention of Professor Benjamin Silliman of Yale College, one of the most distinguished scientists of the early Republic. While traveling through the Hudson and Champlain valleys, Silliman sought out the Francisco homestead near Whitehall to document what was then considered a medical marvel: a man claiming to be 134 years old. Silliman’s subsequent report, published in 1820 and widely syndicated in newspapers like the Long-Island Star, remains the most significant contemporary account of the family. Critically, Silliman did not rely solely on Henry’s own memory; he sought verification from the community’s elders.

Among these witnesses was a "Mr. Fuller," whom Silliman noted had recently died in Whitehall between the ages of 80 and 90. The identity of this "Mr. Fuller" is revealed through a process of chronological and geographic elimination within the federal census records. By filtering the 1790, 1800, and 1810 Whitehall censuses for a male whose age consistently aligns with a birth year between 1730 and 1740, Aaron Fuller, Jr. (1738–1820) emerges as the only viable candidate. While his younger brothers Ephraim and Judah appear in the same Whitehall kinship cluster, their later birth dates (1744 and 1741, respectively) make them too young to satisfy the "between 80 and 90" age bracket reported at the time of the 1820 interview.

Furthermore, the 1785 Forfeiture Records identify him as "Aaron Fuller, Esq.," a title of magistracy that explains why Silliman—a visiting scholar—would have sought him out as the primary credible witness to verify Henry Francisco’s age. This census-backed identification is the final blow to the "Pittstown Myth": it elucidates that the man who provided the foundational testimony for Henry’s life was not a distant contact from the south, but Ruth (Fuller) Francisco's own elder brother, who had lived as Henry’s immediate neighbor on the Skenesborough Creek lots for over half a century.

Above: Ward J. Roylance, Remingtons of Utah (1960), pp. 77, 109, 238.

So they actually did interview Aaron Fuller, Jr about Henry Francisco - his more than likely brother-in-law.

And...

Now I wasn't going to include this last piece (below) but it is so very telling. One of Aaron Fuller, Sr's well documented sons was Ephraim, who would have been an additional brother of Ruth Fuller Francisco. I know that it doesn't seem like Ephraim's part of the story is very relevant - but check out his children's names, especially those of Ruth, and Freelove.

Ephraim has named his daughters after his sisters. This demonstrates 'his' next geneartion of Fullers back to Aaron, Ruth Fuller Francisco, and the Mayflower Fullers. It helps cements the Fuller family of Whitehall as one and the same with that of Colchester, CT.

Above: Boston Evening Transcipt, October 1926

I can safely conclude that Ruth Fuller, likely of Whitehall, and likely the daughter of Aaron Fuller, Esq., was indeed the actual wife of Old Henry Francisco - and one of the real housewives wives of Whitehall.

END

 The Mayflower Kings

AND THE DESCENDANTS OF RUTH FULLER FRANCISCO

                     PART FOUR

(Author's note: To find a King, you usually look for a crown. But to find the Mayflower "Kings," I had to look for a ghost named Annie Cisco...)

Pardon my lack of edits.

I.

Before we can crown the next generation, we have to deal with the man in the middle, Clark Cisco. Clark is a major hinge upon which this entire Mayflower lineage door swings. Not only do we need him, we need to be able to get from Clark to his daughter Annie Cisco King in one fell swoop to make this Mayflower line not look like the Speedwell.* We can track Clark from the bridges of Cincinnati to the butcher shops of Madison, Jefferson County, and into the dusty enlistment rolls of The Mexican-American War in 1847 and tax records, but as he fades into the late 1860s, he leaves behind a genealogical puzzle that threatens to stall our progress. In the 1860 census, a two-year-old girl named "Susan" sits in his household—yet every meager record that follows insists his daughter was "Annie." Did Clark have two daughters? This isn't just a naming discrepancy; it is a "Hearsay Wall" of its own.

Is Annie the "Susan" of 1860, or is Annie a phantom we've conjured from the ink of later pension indexes? Personally, I tend to think any young girl called Susan never was there in the first place.

Hopefully, the answer lies 600 miles away in the Great Halls of Washington, D.C. I have placed my bet on Clark’s complete Mexican-American War pension file—a document that could hold the sworn affidavits, the family Bible (fingers crossed) pages, or the birth depositions needed to help realize our "ghosts" (Clark and Annie) into proven Mayflower descendants. It is the pivotal piece of the puzzle, the missing link between the Whitehall Fullers (Mayflower or otherwise) and the modern-day, or at least the early nineteenth "Kings."

      

Above: 1860 United States Federal Census; Census Place: Madison Ward 2, Jefferson, Indiana; Roll: M653_270; Page: 158; Family History Library Film: 803270. The Conflict: This is the only official record where the name "Susan" appears. In every subsequent record, including the 1881 marriage to Robert King and the Mexican War pension index, the daughter of Clark Cisco is identified as Annie.

But genealogy, much like life, doesn't always wait for the mail to arrive. While I am hoping for the National Archives to surrender Clark's (or Annie's) secrets, the clock is ticking. The line must move forward. We are pressing on into the next generations, following the trail of Annie Cisco King through the "Kings of Tennessee" and the genealogical "dead-zones" of the late 19th century. With that pension file, we might have a map; without it, we have a machete and a very thick forest. Either way, the Cisco Kid isn't the end of the line—he (or she) are just the folks holding the gate open.

With any luck, Annie is on the other side.

II.

Well, I don't know about you, but I could use some good news. And I know I shouldn't double back to this image I've used way back in another post about Paige's family - but I think we would all appreciate seeing it again. Call it the "Mayflower bridge to Kings." (That sounds kinda catchy anyway. :) 

So we're pretty much good going forward from here. We've got "an" Annie Cisco married to "a" Robert King which we can cement to the next generation, that of their son Don Carloss King. (More on Don Carloss a bit further on) And yes, we still need more than the Mexican- American War enlistment records and pension index card to connect "this" particular Annie Cisco King to her presumed father Clark Cisco, and further, Clark to his father John, but well, we are making progress.

Remember the goal: A preponderance of evidence as "one and the same."

Now, if the National Archives and Records Administration will just hurry their asses up and get me that pension file. (No offense intended to them or to the great genealogical Gods in the sky.) I am just anxious to see them. 

We still need to polish up the facts and circumstances around Clark's wife and Annie's presumed mother, Sarah Hurley Cisco, but fortunately beyond she and Clark's Indiana marriage record any facts don't affect the pedigree line all that much. Again, the pension file will hopefully shed more light. 

As far as "this" Annie's husband, Robert King, I for one think he had very an interesting life. I think he had a sad life. The first place I spot him is in the 1880 census with wife Annie and their kids, and, in where else, Madison, Jefferson County.

Above: 1880 U.S. census, Jefferson County, Indiana, population schedule, City of Madison, enumeration district (ED) 124; Anna King; Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 24 January 2026); citing NARA microfilm publication T9, roll 288.

Now again, we've looked at this image above before. It packs a whole lot of information with it. Previously, I'd thought the Calvin Cisco listed in the house next door was Annie's uncle, or a first cousin, but this was a rookie mistake. Submitted family trees imply that this Calvin was her older brother which makes a lot more sense. I may need to track this Calvin down if the pension files don't reveal more. He is shown as "John C." in the 1860 Census for Clark's household. The corresponding ages are right on for John C. Cisco/"Susan" Cisco in (1860) alongside Calvin Cisco and Anna Cisco King in (1880) as brother and sister. There is a Madison, Jefferson County, marriage record showing "Calvin marrying Clara" in 1875, and they are married by the same guy who married Annie and Robert. As they are living next door to each other, this also solidifies the working theory that "Susan in 1860 was Anna in 1880" - and are one and the same person.

I guess the question here is kind of, "What does Anna's husband Robert King bring to the story?" You could start by saying that his (Robert's) wife Annie died young and sometime around 1890 leaving him with at least a couple of kids. It's a little hard to piece together, but  Anna Cisco King and Robert King have hop-scotched from Indiana to or near Union City, Tennessee by 1886. We know this because of the birth of their son John Harrison King. The information about John Harrison King is a huge clue to the family's movements. Check out his World War II Draft Card:

Above: United States, World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942," database with images, Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 24 January 2026),

Due to the limited space here, I'm only going to reference this Draft Card as a geographical marker for the family of Robert and Annie, and mention also that Robert Harrison King moved to Sacramento, and is buried only a few miles away from where I live making this story of the Mayflower Kings a very geographically (if not serendipitous) close connection for me also. I should mention that John Harrison's sister, (and Annie Cisco King's daughter) Florence King Stewart, was born in Kentucky in 1888 (per her Indiana death certificate) and that BOTH John Harrison King and Florence state that their mother was Anna Belle Cisco.

 

Above: Indiana Archives and Records Administration; Indianapolis, Indiana; Death Certificates, 1900–2017; Year: 1976; Roll: 05; Certificate for Florence Jane Stewart. Accessed via Ancestry.com. Indiana, U.S., Death Certificates, 1899-2017 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2015.

This is important to note because Annie died shortly after Florence was born in 1888 for reasons unknown. Annie Cisco King may have died in Kentucky as there seems to be a reverse migration by Robert and Annie Cisco King from Tennessee back to Indiana. Indeed, Robert Wilkens/William King is all over the place, from Indiana to Alabama, with Annie passing away at points yet unknown. Robert remarries as his 2nd wife, Grace Cordelia Feagler, at Marion County, Indiana, July 20, 1891. Robert and Grace have another couple of kids together, and then Robert's luck gives out again about Grace passes away. Widowed twice, Robert tries marriage a 3rd time with Rose Feagler, Grace's younger sister with whom he also had children. The relationships here are complex and convoluted. 

Above: Bicknell, Grace Vawter. The Vawter Family in America: With the Allied Families of Branham, Wise, Stribling, Crawford, Lewis, Glover, Moncrief. Indianapolis: Hollenbeck Press, 1905, p. 149

As if things weren't intertwined enough with the lines leading to the next generations, Robert's wives, the sisters Grace Cordelia Feagler King's and Rose/Rosa Feagler King's mother's maiden name was also "King." If submitted family trees are to be believed, this implies that Robert Wilkens/William King not only married sisters but may have married one of his cousins - twice.

Above: 1900 U.S. Census, Morgan Co., Alabama, ED 143, roll T623_35, p. 7A, Ancestry.com. Not shown here is R.W. King's profession as "Foreman at a Spoke Factory" which corresponds to the earlier census record.

 

Above: Indiana, U.S., Death Certificates, 1899-2017, Year: 1929, Roll: 02, Certificate for Robert W King, Ancestry.com.

You may be asking yourself why I am laboring over Robert W. King, and his other wives, and or his other children since he doesn't effect the line directly. I'm doing so for two reasons, (1) to give evidence of the children of Anna Belle Cisco King, and to do so for one of the most important part of this line to Paige. That is the first child of Anna Belle Cisco King and Robert W. King who I mentioned earlier in the post. 

He is, Annie Cisco King's and Robert King's first son, is Don Carloss King, a man seemingly named after a Spanish prince!

          

III.

Remember, the goal is to always prove "one and the same." I need to be able to "cement" Don Carloss King into the family. The confusion arises in that Don Carloss (spelled with two ss's) is absent from the family or Robert Wilkens/William King by 1900, and that he is often referred to as "Carl King," or later as "D.C. King." (The 1890 census was destroyed by fire making it nearly impossible to track anyone around that time frame.)

Above:   U.S., World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918, Tennessee, Roane County, Draft Card K for Don Carloss King, Ancestry.com.

 

Fortunately, in the case we have Don Carloss' death certificate and it does name his parents. So yes, following Robert King's family, and clarifying where Don Carloss fits in with his siblings and his father's three wives may seem like genealogical and generational over-kill. Nevertheless, I still want to be certain that I have the right Robert King and the right Annie Cisco,and not some random kid named "Carl" in the census records. Hey, it's way too easy to get two people with the same name who marry and give their kid the same name as the other two. 

            

Anyway, I think we're good on our boy Don Carloss.

Above: Tennessee, U.S., Death Records, 1908-1965, Hamilton County, Year: 1944, Certificate for Don Carlos King, Ancestry.com.

 

Moving further down this line of Mayflower Kings will require a new pedigree chart from Old Henry and Ruth. I need to correct Don Carloss's name, note the variation in spellings and correct the "call names" for some of the others. I think too that while "Old Henry" is more than notable in his own right, that once we circle back to Ruth Fuller and reiterate the preponderance of her Mayflower connections that the new pedigree chart should begin with her as "primary" and connect further to the gang from 1620.

We gotta give that girl her due!

  

Aside for now, I think the line holds - pending a review of Clark's Mexican-American War pension records - and another review of Ruth Fuller.

 

We can take a look at Don Carloss's daughter, Edith King Haley, in a subsequent post. The more contemporary lines leading from Edith to her descendant Paige have, aside from better footnotes, already been reviewed and are solid in terms of documentation.

From Edith King Haley forward, this chapter of Paige's Mayflower "Kings" comes to a close. It's time to circle back.

To be continued.

END

 * The Speedwell was the leaky companion ship to the Mayflower that failed to make the 1620 crossing. In genealogy, it represents a "broken line" or a theory that takes on water and stays stuck in the harbor.

 "The Cisco Kid"

AND THE MAYFLOWER DESCENDANTS OF RUTH FULLER FRANCISCO

 (Author's note: There is a thin line between research and destiny. I realized I was crossing it when I went searching for Jefferson County, Indiana, Records, for an ancestor of Paige's -- and found a digital trail -- one that shared my name: Jeff Record. (www.myindianahome.net/gen/jeff/records/bio/biosf.html) The link is defunct now—a ghost of a website haunting the archives—but the irony remains. There is a certain kismet (and regrettable vanity) in a man named Jeff Record hunting for the "Cisco Kid" in the records of Jeff County. The link may have gone cold, but the investigator in me hasn't.)

Unapologetically, unedited.

                                     PART III

Clark was dead. 

Yes, last we left off, Clark Cisco was dead. I know, I know! Who would have ever believed it so? But yes, last we left off Paige's ancestor, Clark Cisco, was indeed, most certainly dead. I'd managed to track him and his family from Cincinnati to Jefferson County, Indiana. And I'd managed to link him to his parents, John Francisco and Anna Belle Kyle. But dang... the records have been scant. I'd had to rely heavily on the obituaries, death certificates, and tax records of his siblings, they being Alonzo, Calvin, Harriet, and Mary Ophelia, to link Clark to "mom and dad"  and to put "them" all together. These seemingly random missives and vitals proved to be a veritable potpourri of Cisco/Sisco/Francisco paraphernalia. I also had to rely heavily on the family's recurring occupation as the town butchers in Madison, Jefferson County, Indiana. And overall, I think I got the job done. 

But as to the circumstances of Clark's death...

However, before I forget and get too far into Clark's tale ... here's the link - in case you need to get caught up:

https://atroubledsage.blogspot.com/2026/01/the-second-step-and-mayflower-effect-of.html

You see...I've been working to establish a genealogical trail from Our Boy Clark to his ancestors Old Henry Francisco, and to Old Henry's wife, Ruth Fuller Francisco - a woman with a preponderance of circumstantial evidence linking her to the Mayflower Fullers, and with the goal of establishing a complete Mayflower line from Ruth to my friend Paige. (Paige, who has shown a keen interest in documenting the possibility of her Fuller Mayflower ancestry.)

Images above and below: "Sisco Correspondence and Family Records" (Genealogical Sidebar: To any of you naysayers about this not being a valid Mayflower line, well, you can just "shut it" for now. We will circle back in the end.) 

BUT As usual, I digress.

You see, Paige's ancestor, Clark Cisco, well, is a HUGE part of the line, and well he ("Clark") simply hasn't been cooperating. 

I managed to pull a date of birth for Our Boy Clark, that of August 31, 1829 - from a letter written by his uncle, Dr. Elon Francisco in 1886. It's a letter still housed in the D.A.R. records - and in records of one of Clark's sisters, Harriet (Cisco) Leas's descendants (No other Bible record, gravestone, cemetery, transcription, etc. exist for Clark), and not much more. I did learn via newspaper records that Clark Cisco was definitely deceased by 1888 when movement was made on his descendant's pension application for an increase in pay. Still though, the dates have been soggy. And regardless, I'm pretty sure that we would need a whole lot more if we ever plan to beseech the Tribunals of Plymouth Rock to review Paige's ancestry in connection to those tumultuous events of days gone by.

Above: The Indiana State Sentinel (Indianapolis, Indiana), 26 September 1888, page 6; digital images, Newspapers.com (https://www.newspapers.com : accessed 20 January 2026).

But just when the trail went cold in the butcher shops of Jefferson County, Indiana, a dusty index card and an enlistment record from the Mexican-American War started whispering a different story...

II.

And just like that the plot thickened...

Yes, this enlistment record for "Clarke Siscoe" appeared.

Above: U.S., Army, Register of Enlistments, 1798-1914," Clark Cisco, age 18, enlisted March 24, 1847, Cincinnati, Ohio; page 48, line 6; National Archives Microfilm Publication M233, roll 23; digital image, Ancestry.com (accessed 20 January 2026).

Now you could say that I didn't need this record. But the record does confirm Clark's age (18) and place of birth as Cincinnati, so it isn't useless. It also tells us he was a little bitty dude at just over 5 foot 3. Nah, for me it's good in that the enlistment record helps establish Clark's timeline from Cincinnati to Madison County, and helps lead us up to his life there.

Above: 1860 U.S. census, Jefferson County, Indiana, population schedule, Madison Ward 4, p. 129 (penned), dwelling 949, family 1008, Clark Cisco; NARA microfilm publication M653, roll 270; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 21 January 2026).

Yeah, it feels like we need all of these "parts" if we are going to get answers about Clark. We will need all of these parts if we are going to get here, to the next image below. It's this next image that will take us to the next stop on our Mayflower journey.

Above: Mexican War Pension Index, Clark Cisco (Co. C, 16th U.S. Inf.); "Organization Index to Pension Files, 1833-1902," FamilySearch (Image 3022 of 4344).

You see the Mayflower line (or indeed Clark's line) to Paige goes directly through "Annie King," AKA "Annie Cisco King." Further, we need to establish that the Annie listed in the pension index card above is "one and the same" as Clark's daughter. I know, like you I think this is kind of a foolish exercise. I mean we know that Annie Cisco married Robert King, but do we know for certain that it was this Annie Cisco? The census records are vague to non-existent for Clark or Clark and his family. Clark shows up in the 1860 Census for Madison, Jefferson County, Indiana, but Annie, his alleged daughter via this pension card (who is said to have been born in 1858) doesn't show up in Clark's household. There is a daughter "Susan Cisco" two years old in the household that year, and yes, perhaps this "Susan" is some dim-witted or nefarious census taker mis-recording "Annie" or "Ann." We know sure as Hell that won't fly with the Good Folks at Plymouth Rock.

And we don't really want to try to "prove Annie as Clark's daughter through her siblings" like we had to with Clark. We can - but it will and would prove to be much harder.

SO - We've got to prove Clark had a daughter Annie Cisco - which this pension index card definitely indicates. BUT, without something more this line will fall into question - and worse - genealogical purgatory. And more so, we haven't even gotten into the next generation - Annie Cisco herself. Indeed she may be the real "Cisco Kid" to this story. Think about it: Annie has no birth record, appears in no census records with her father Clark Cisco (that I have found thus far) and she has no death or cemetery record. 

Nada. Zip. Zilch.

We might - and believe me I said "might" be able to connect this all together - but only if we can connect Our Boy Clark Cisco to his daughter Annie somehow - and again connect her back to being "one and the same" as "Annie Cisco King."

To do so, I've gone full monty here. (Bad visual, I know) and I will be going to The Great Halls of Washington D.C.. I have ordered the complete and unadulterated Mexican-American pension file on Clark. We're gonna track down that Cisco kid - and his kid Annie too.

The Cisco Kid ain't gettin' away.

The worst part of this - well for me anyway - is the wait. It may take up to 120 (UGH!) days to get the full pension file back from the "Washington City" on Clark Cisco. Full disclosure too, is Clark may not have much in his file, or the family history in it may be lacking. Still it is the best course outside of guardianship or estate papers for Clark or his widow, Sarah (Hurley) Cisco, a lady who also remains a bit if a mystery.

We've got to get to Annie Cisco King.

We've got to get to the next generation: The Mayflower "Kings."

Stay tuned.

PS: Regrets to the reader for the repetitive stumblings of this old man in the telling of this tale. 

☮