Is John Kingsbury b 1569 a confused duplicate of PGM immigrant so named

Question

On 14 Jun 2021 GeneJ X wrote on Kingsbury-41:

Have adopted this unsourced, orphaned profile. I find no justification for birth--there are no Kingsbury baptisms reported for the year 1569. 

See transcribed Boxford Register. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/loc.ark:/13960/t1zc80k5m?urlappend=%3Bseq=50 

Will of James Kingsbury (d, before 8 June 1590, Boxford) linked as father, mentions several children, but no John. :https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Kingsbury-38 :https://hdl.handle.net/2027/wu.89061974648?urlappend=%3Bseq=68 

Is this a real person? 

There is another man, brother "Joseph," associated as a son of James equally questionable. 

The brother Joseph was reported born 1573 at Boxford; his profile reports a death "Enfield, Hartford, Connecticut." 

I find no Boxford baptisms for that year in the transcribed entries. 

Likewise, will of the purported father mentions several children, but no Joseph. 

Might these two profiles, of John (b. 1569, Boxford) and Joseph (b. 1573, Boxford) be badly mangled profiles intended to be about New England immigrants John and Joseph Kingsbury, (wannabe) sons of James d. 1622, Boxford (ala, James "Jr"). 

:James "Jr" profile is James Kingsbury 

:See the pull out descendancy chart published https://archive.org/details/genealogyofdesce00inking/page/n74/mode/1up 

Thank you for your time. --Gene

Comments

Your reasoning seems sound.  (altho typically in these legends there are three immigrant brothers)

---

+1

You wrote, "... legends there are three"  

Oh, Lois, isn't that the case.  

Thank you for taking the time to comment. --Gene

Answer 1

John Kingsbury, mentioned in the record of John Kingsbury

Name: John Kingsbury

Son: John Kingsbury

Christening Date: 25 Feb 1637 at Stoke by Nayland, Suffolk, England

Comments

Thank you for taking the time to undertake and comment about this research.

The maybe-not-real-persons, John and Joseph, are reported born 1569 and 1573, sons of James.  

While John might be confused with a man bap. 1637, son of John, wouldn't it be more likely that a John, the son of a James would be a confused profile about another man, also John, a son of James?  

Thank you again for taking the time to respond.--Gene