Why concentrate on Ann Dynley. Why not instead concentrate on Matthew Beckwith.
You state that you have secondary sources. All that means is that you are trusting someone elses statements. Ask them for THEIR source....and you'll get exactly what I get whenever I ask. They will not provide it coming up with this excuse and that excuse. Most of it comes back to Paul Beckwith's "The Beckwiths" published in 1891. He stated that Matthew was borh on that date in 1610 that you quote in Ponterfract (or however it is spelled) England. However, there is no evidence (other than the name Matthew) that links Matthew of CT to that matthew born in 1610. The closest one can get is the statement (and I do not remember where it came from) but either in a court case or in Hempstea's diary, Matthew was of an age to have been born in 1612. Also, nowhere in any primary records that I have come across is the maiden name of Matthew Sr.'s wife mentioned. If you have this information, please site your source(s) and settle the matter.
IF you want to do good genealogy work, you must be willing to cite your sources- honestly and specifically (unlike the way I did above- unfortunately I sold my files to another Beckwith genealogist and do not have my info any more). Anyone unwilling to cite the sources which they swear show something should either get out of genealogy or learn the correct methods in teh SCIENCE of genealogy or simply shut up.
SO.......if you have sources that give Dynley as Mattthew's wife's maiden name, please cite them. If they are only secondary, that means nothing....and that is as factual as you will EVER get!
Mahlon Erickson Former editor of the "Beckwith Newsletter"