Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
In 1909,Henry Dillon typed fifty-seven pages of information gathered from Dillon family members. He wasn't researching
and documenting family history, just collecting and recording some family lore.
He told a story Mary Hester had told to James Rees in 1859.
She was a great-grandaughter of Daniel Dillon, and descended through three generations of exclusively female lines. Charles Davis told an almost identical story, and Henry Dillon concluded, coming from "several branches of the family", "It must be true. The story, with other unverified details added, is this:
Daniel Dillon was the son of Luke Dillon and Susanah Garrett. Luke was a red-haired weaver from Kilkenny, County Armagh,Ireland. Susannah was the daughter of a rich and famous man who called Luke "a snot-nosed weaver", and disinherited Susannah for having married him. They went to the colonies and supported themselves as weavers. A daughter, Hannah, was born and died on Nantuckett Island, and sons, William and Daniel, were born in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Returning from the mill, when it was dark and snowing, Luke dismounted to drink from a flask he carried. He fell into a ditch, froze to death, and his body wasn't found for weeks. Susannah, after bearing a posthumous son, Luke, remarried someone named Bridges, or of unknown name, moved to Philadephia and became wealthy.
Henry Dillon, in contact mostly with family members in his own line of descent, didn't know family members, in other lines, had other legends. For example, it's reported Daniel Dillon's grandfather wanted to bring his whole family to the colonies, bought a ship for that purpose, and Daniel was born at sea aboard his grandfather's ship. It's reported the Dillons had huge estates in England they leased before coming out to the colonies. A book suggests the Dillons are related to the Baron of Kilkenny, and a researcher stated in 1985 that he's virtually certain Luke Dillon was the son of Viscount Henry Dillon.
Experienced researchers are immediately suspicious of both these legends though! They're extremely commen! An amazing number of people have legends of aristocratic ancestors, and stories of an ancestor who married someone of a lower class, was disinherited, and went to the colonies, are as commen as legends of an ancestor having married an Indian princess.
The cardinal rule of genealogical research is that nothing may be reported as fact until you've PERSONALLY verified it
from the source DOCUMENT. If circumstantial evidence has to be used, it must meet the test of being circumstantial evidence sufficient to constitute proof in a court of law.
Things such as the I.G.I. W.F.T. records of the D.A.R., and anything found in print anywhere, aren't acceptable. As far as I can determine, the legend of Luke, the weaver with drinking problems, which is reported as fact all over the internet, is "proven" by nothing more than just the fact Henry Dillon said James Rees told him Mary Hester said so.
Some legends are pure invention,while others may have bits and pieces of truth somewhere in them. Unfortunately, over time, people forget details, add details, and confuse names, dates, and relationships. It's possibly Mary Hester, and others before her, may have done this. Examples:
1. She reports Daniel Dilllon was the son of Luke and Susaanah Garrett Dillon. Records say he was the son of Peter and Susannah Dillon.
2. She reports Susannah, when widowed, married a man named Bridges. Daniel had a sister-in-law who, when widowed, married Joseph Bridges.
2. She reports Daniel Dilllon was married to Lydia Hodegeson. His grandson was married to Lydia Hodgeson. He's believed to have been married to Lydia Wright.
3. She names his father as Luke, and gives him a brother, Luke. He was close to a Luke Dillon, relationship unproven, but most likely a half brother or cousin.
4. She reports he had a sister named Hannah. He was close to a Hanah Dillon, relationship unproven, but most likely a stepmother or aunt.
There are too many coincidences for me to believe Mary Hester was pulling names out of thin air! It looks like
she correctly remembered the given names, and/or surnames, of people to whom Daniel was related, but confused, or had been given confused reports, of the relationships. This doesn't though add any credibility whatsoever to her story of Luke having been a poor weaver with drinking problems.
It simply says she wasn't giving accurate information, and so nothing she says can be accepted without having been proven.
Reading family histories on the internet, one can easily get the impression nothing much has been learned about the family of Daniel Dillon since Henry put his typewriter away alomost a hundred years ago. That's not true though! Considerable information not reported on the net is easily found in genealogical libraries, and county and state archives. If you want to gather family history, get off the net! Learn how to do genealogical research, and resign yourself to having to do it. If you don't, you'll end up with what's on the net - family histories containing obvious errors, many ommissions, and much that's more likely to be fiction than fact.
Enough said! If you're inexperienced, be careful! Follow the rules - don't believe it, don't accept it, and don't report it as fact, until you have the documentary proofs in hand!
Always,
Lynn
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/dillon/messages/2304.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|