Re: LUKE DILLON/SUSANNAH GARRETT
-
In reply to:
Re: LUKE DILLON/SUSANNAH GARRETT
Cindy Fluri 12/29/04
Dear Cindy,
Family Bible records are acceptable as proof only if you can prove when they were written, who wrote them, and that the person who wrote them had personal knowledge of the people involved.
There's no documentary proof Daniel Dillon was the son of Luke and Susanah Garrett Dillon, not even documentation that constitutes circumstantial evidence to that effect. In fact, there's no proof, or documentary circumstantial evidence, proving, or suggesting, such a couple ever existed.
To the best of my knowledge, the earliest claim to that effect was made by Mary Hester. She was far removed from Daniel Dillon in time and place, had no personal knowledge of him or his parents, and doesn't cite her sources. She reported what she believed, probably what she'd been told, but her testimony isn't aceptable as proof to begin with, and contains several proven errors, which casts doubt on the whole of it.
Peter Dillon is proven by North Carolina tax records to have been the brother of Daniel Dillon, and proven by Quaker chutch records to have been the son of Peter and Susannah Dillon. Therefore, unless it can be proven otherwise, Peter's brother, Daniel, and their other proven brother, William, are also sons of Peter and Susannah Dillon, not Luke and Susannah as claimed only by legend.
The story that Susannah was married to Luke Dillon, and after being widowed, married Peter Dillon, is an attempt to fit fact with fiction. (If Peter, proven brother of Daniel, is the proven son of Peter Sr., then unless Susannah was previously married to Luke, Daniel is also Peter's son, not Luke's.)
As for whether Daniel's wife, Lydia, was a Wright or a Hodgeson, Mary Hester reports she was a Hodgeson, but Lydia Hodgeson was the name of Daniel's daughter-in-law, not his wife. Daniel and Lydia's grandson, William Blakely, reported her name was Lydia Wright. His testimony is more acceptable than Mary Hester's, but documentary proof is preferred, and none exists.
There's a wealth of easily found information on the Dillons that isn't found on the internet. Some of it disproves some of what is found on the internet, and some of it adds family members that aren't otherwise known. And much of what is found on the internet, in relation to Daniel's parents. where the required proofs are concerned, has no basis in fact.
I can only urge you to please, please, follow the cardinal rule of genealogical research which is to accept nothing as certain, and report nothing as fact, until or unless you have the required source document, providing the required proof,in hand.
Always,
Lynn
More Replies:
-
Re: LUKE DILLON/SUSANNAH GARRETT
Everett J. Cook 7/13/05
-
Re: LUKE DILLON/SUSANNAH GARRETT
Dale Harguess 7/20/09
-
Re: LUKE DILLON/SUSANNAH GARRETT
Velma Hutchens 12/26/05
-
Re: LUKE DILLON/SUSANNAH GARRETT
Myrna Goddard 12/29/10
-
Re: LUKE DILLON/SUSANNAH GARRETT
-
Re: LUKE DILLON/SUSANNAH GARRETT