If (in Dec 2019) you went to Philip’s DNA links, and looked for:
Surname: Kingsley with public tree
You get 42 DNA links:
26 DNA links CJO considers “solved”, by which I mean they seem at least reasonably reliably connected to our Kingsley tree. There are some of these connects that are not of genealogical quality, most being five Kingsley-Daniels who I will argue are connected to our tree by something similar to what I propose.
3 Unaccounted for DNA links.
13 potential pilgrim father connections through a John Kingsley:
John (Kyngesley-Ancestor Spelling) Kingsley 1614–1678
BIRTH 7 SEP 1614 • Kingsley, Cheshire, England
DEATH 6 JAN 1678 • Rehoboth, Bristol, Massachusetts
By potential I mean: if the tree owner had used other trees and traced back … without checking anything in detail … then they would have ended up with a tree with John Kingsley 1614-1678 on it. Many already had him on their trees.
There is a big problem with this: the only person of record I can find on a pilgrim boat is:
William Kingsley on the Marmaduke in 1623
But he has the wrong christian name, and he worked for his crossing and John was only 9 in 1623. So it must have been on a later date (if he existed).
Looking in the New England Genealogical Dictionary Vol 2 I find 9 references to Kingsley 6 of which had christian names with them in the text. They all refer to people who were alive in 1670. They are Enos Kingsley (2 references), John Kingsley (3 references), and Stephen Kingsley (1 reference). Enos and Stephen are Kingsley names in the ancestry.com trees I have seen. So it seems a John Kingsley did exist and our John Kingsley (1614-1678) is plausible this person.
I think we should leave the New England side to the New Englander’s. We should see if we can gleam any intelligence on the UK side. So I took a look:
I using a single tree can get back to :
BIRTH 1575 • Hertford, Hertfordshire, , England
Who had a son:
BIRTH 29 MAR 1612 • Hitchin, Hertfordshire, , England
This could be the John Kingsley who went to New England.
I suspected that these tree connections are false, and are due to people being very keen to be related to early settlers (see this). To check this hypothesis, I checked Colin’s American Kingsley DNA links. I found many links back to John Kingsley 1614–1678. Lower incidence than Philip but still quite high. Just in case Colin is related to us on the Kingsley line I checked Margaret Russell, first person I tried took me back to John Kingsley 1614–1678.
I doubt that this is worth further investigation, except for investigating non-pilgrim connections of our Kingsley’s to the American Kingsley’s we are potentially linked to.