Curious about where the story of John Harrington 1584- died in 1630 in Boston Harbour came from (Harrington-7012), I have been looking at it's sources. I want to discuss it, because although it has been accepted on Wikitree that John Harrington who drowned in Boston Harbour is fictitious, there are still researchers trying to link American Harringtons with the Harington's of Kelston - unsupported; & I believe based on this earlier myth. (The echoes of it are all over the internet.)
The earliest source seems to be 'Manuscript of the Harrington Family Genealogical Gazetteer.' by George H. Harrington.
I have no idea how accurate the information for the later American Harrington's is in this manuscript; but the story of John Harrington & Ann Clinton can be easily disproved. Also there are 'quotes' in the appendix from alleged sources that can be proved to be 'mistaken'. (I'm being polite) I do not know if these alleged sources come from Eva Baker - 'Harrington family of Rhode Island', or George Harrington - but they are in my view a deliberate deception.
https://archive.org/details/manuscriptofharr01harr/page/n511 (This is volume one - the story is repeated a few times, as all Harringtons are listed in alphabetical order. Vol 2 you will find further down as it contains the appendix.
Firstly the facts :
1. John Harington (Harrington) - In the manuscript he is born in 1584 & died in circa 1630/31 by drowning at sea/or in Boston Harbour. The real son of Sir John Harington was born 1589 (some say 1588) lived his life in England, was an MP & died in 1654. He is buried in Kelston.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrington_(died_1654)
https://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/74680
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/alumni-oxon/1500-1714/pp652-678
2. Ann Clinton - in Harrington's manuscript Ann was born in 1575 in Newcastle - she was actually born in 1602/3 in Lincolnshire. (if you look at other births for this location you will find most of her siblings)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JM8M-CQR
Ann is not mentioned in the will of her father written in 1618 (when she would have been circa 15) & is believed to have died as a child.
3. The Harington's of Exton - The parents attributed to John Harington (father of Sir John Harington of Kelston) are incorrect. If George Harrington had done any research he would know the Harington's of Kelston are only distantly related to the Harington's of Exton. The father of John Harington was Alexander Harington of Stepney.
https://archive.org/details/haringtonfamily00grim/page/84
https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/harington-john-i-1517-82
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-12325
https://archive.org/details/miscellaneagenea03unse/page/17
The 'Authorities' cited in George Harrington's Manuscript for this story are nothing more than hearsay; letters from people, and 'private papers'. I doubt these private papers contain pages from Church Registers for births & marriages that cannot be found in England. There are no primary records. Harrington also cites the 'Nugae Antiquae' - if he had read this, he would have known that Sir John's grandfather was Alexander. There is a letter from Sir John to Prince Henry in 1609 talking about his forebears. (Also available on archive .org)
Now to the 'quotes' that supposedly back up the story (The appendix in Volume 2 of the Manuscript):
https://archive.org/details/manuscriptofharr02harr/page/n783
1. The first one purports to be from ‘Collinson’s History of Somersetshire England.’
This book in the form described does not exist. Collinson’s book is ‘The History and Antiquities of Somerset.’ It’s a well-known book & used to be quite hard to get hold of, but luckily now all 3 volumes are on archive.org. The entry for Kelston is in Volume 1 1: https://archive.org/details/historyantiqutit01colluoft/page/214
No text in it bears any relation to the ‘quote’ in Harrington’s manuscript. (I have seen quite a few family trees quoting the ‘evidence’ that the story of the Harington/Clinton marriage is in Collinson. It isn’t. There’s nothing in any of the 3 volumes. (But, lots on the real son John & his descendants.)
2. The next quote is from ‘Founders of New England’ by Rev. J. Hunter - I have failed to find anything resembling this quote in any of the volumes I’ve looked at (and I would love to know if anyone else can find anything close to it.) The quote seems to have Sir Henry Fynes ‘confused’ with Sir William Fiennes in an attempt to make as many ‘Harrington’ connections as possible. And claims Harrington Fynes sailed in the private merchant ship to New England.
Sir Henry Fynes did marry Eleanor Harington daughter of James Harington of Ridlington. (This seems to be the only Harington marriage for this family.) But, neither Sir Henry Fynes of Kirkstead (look him up, he was a sweetheart) or Sir James Harington of Ridlington (who died in 1614 & had nothing to do with the Massachusetts Bay Co.) were particularly known for being ‘zealous’ puritans. And the son Harrington Fynes, who supposedly embarked upon the private ship, died unmarried in England.
3. The Final quote on this page seems to be from something called ‘The Princess Chronology’ which is actually 'Prince’s Chronology'. This quote:
'Seventeen ships arrived in 1630 for the increase in population to New England; one was sent out by a private merchant, stated by Gov. Dudley to be the Count of Lincoln.'
This quote is not in 'PrincesChronology'
https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis02prin/page/270
The above is the only page that mentions anything like this quote & is pretty much Dudley’s letter.
We know about the ship sent by private merchant & that there were 17 ships arriving in 1630 from Dudley’s detailed letter to Bridget Fiennes 12-28th March 1631. This is all he has to say on the subject:
…And in May following, eight more followed, two having gone before in February and March and two more following in June and August, besides another set out by a private merchant. These seventeen ships arrived all safe in New England for the increase of the plantation here this year 1630,...
The letter in full:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod/9780415818124/Document6.pdf
Also, this brings me to a vital point. Dudley's letter is very detailed and mentions many things (including deaths) that happened to people since the time they landed - why is there no mention of Ann or John? Especially when Dudley mentions many people that Bridget Fiennes is not acquainted with. Surely he would have mentioned the plight of family members? Surely Bridget's husband Theophilus would have wanted to know what had become of his sister?
Also, why are there no records for this couple John & Ann on either side of the Atlantic?
There are also no records for an Ann & James either, which is the name some people are now giving the character of the drowned John Harrington. (If you look at the Manuscript, James was never a name for this character - George Harrington states this person was John 'sometime Henry, sometime Thomas' - both these names have no historical precedent. )
In all you have two people who in reality do not resemble those in the manuscript. A grave that is now believed to be that of Ann Lidell Errington. A mistaken antecedence for the Harington family & quotes that bear no relation to reality.
The manuscript also mentions John came over to America with his brothers Edward & Henry - there is no evidence for children with these names for Sir John Harington of Kelston.
One final note; there is now a Harrington Y-DNA project that has found the descendants of Robert & Benjamin Harrington (most often called Hearnden in his lifetime) have different Haplogroups & therefore cannot be brothers. And Robert is looking like he's linked to a family whose roots are in Essex. (Obviously this project is a work in progress)
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/harrington/about
The manuscript by George Harrington seems to me a dubious document & should be noted as an unreliable source. This whole story, although nice sounding, should perhaps be knocked on head; so future genealogists don't have to wade through this mud over & over ad infinitum. (And all the different versions- John - John/James- James- Robert- Edward- John of Witham on the Hill.)
Those looking for ancestors of American Harrington's may wish to contemplate broadening the horizons of their search; instead of continually looking in one place (an unsupported place.) There is no evidence that any children, cousins etc. of Sir John Harington of Kelston (1560-1612 Harington-50) emigrated to America.
Also, (teaching granny to suck eggs & I do apologise) it is a myth that every surname has one family it originates from. (Perpetuated by those terrible sites that try to sell the idea of a family crest) There are places called Harrington in Northampton, Lincolnshire, Cumbria & Shropshire (& probably others in England I am not aware of.) A surname has many roots.
Please, can we let this one go where it belongs? It's plainly rubbish; and although this story is continually twisting into some other beast, it's roots are the same (The manuscript mentioned above.)
If anyone can show me where I am wrong in this, then please let me know.
