This article records tradition as it has been passed down and reported. Its sources are not yet part of the atlas's verified catalogue.
Deborah Harkness built her study directly from Dee's own surviving diaries, reading the angelic sessions in the context of Renaissance natural philosophy rather than treating them as either literally true or straightforwardly a fraud. That return to what the diaries themselves record, rather than to later received wisdom about them, is the study's own stated method.
That historical framing matters for an Enochian King entry because it situates the whole angelic hierarchy Dee recorded, kings among it, inside a real documented sixteenth century intellectual project rather than presenting it as timeless occult lore with no dated origin, and an entry can draw on that context to explain why such a hierarchy was being recorded at all.
An entry therefore records not only a king's name and later attribution but, where useful, the documented circumstance of the sessions that produced the whole system, since Harkness's own account treats Dee's project as inseparable from the intellectual world he actually worked in. Harkness's study is a historical and intellectual account, not a magical manual, so a claim about ritual particulars is drawn from the primary diaries themselves rather than from this secondary reading of them.