|
Article located at: http://www.genforum.familytreemaker.com/dustin/messages/359.html Posted by: Joe Sullivan (ID *****1115) Date: July 16, 2004 at 13:18:20 of 401 Hiya! I am a direct decendent of Hannah Dustin, through William L. Dustin. (8th generation) I found a website with information on Thomas Duston, her husband, b. abt. 1606, that has exact death and birth dates, including place of birth and dates for his father and grandfather. Is this website a hoax? http://www.rienzihills.com/Hannah/thomasburgess1598.htm The birth and death dates are about 20 years off form what I got from the Dustin-Duston association. Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: Chris Bailey (ID *****8485) Date: October 18, 2004 at 04:38:19 e-mail: bentleyman@charter.net In Reply to: Thomas Duston b. abt. 1606 d. abt. 1662 by Joe Sullivan of 401 Mr. Sullivan - The lineage your found for the supposed ancestry of Thomas Duston (c. 1606-1662), ancestor of the New England Duston/Dustins is NOT CORRECT. That data was found in the 1920's and throughly research by the Duston-Dustin Family Association and they proved it was incorrect and deleted it from their records before publishing their first generation booklet. This incorrect lineage tries to inject an extra generation into the Dustin family suggesting that Thomas Durston who married Elizabeth Burgess was the one who came to America and that their son Thomas Durston b. 1627 died in 1703. THIS IS INCORRECT. The conclusion was first accepted prematurely because Thomas who came here was eventually married to an Elizabeth (Wheeler) and the Thomas in Wilton parish had a wife named Elizabeth (Burgess). Well, Thomas and Elizabeth are hardly rare names. It is also certain that the Thomas who came to American in 1632 with the Trelawney party was a single man as were most who came with that group. There is no evidence that the Thomas Durston, son of Thomas and Elizabeth (Burgess) Durston bap. 1627 ever came to America. The phony lineage fails to point out that this Thomas Durston bap. 1627 had a had a wife named Joan and a child born in Wilton, England in the late 1640's when "our" Thomas Duston/Durston had already been living in New England nearly 20 years. "Our" Thomas Durston/Duston made a deposition in 1661 that he was about 55 years old, which puts his birth at about 1606. Other records prove that "our" Thomas (b. abt. 1606) was married to Elizabeth Wheeler, not to Elizabeth Burgess. There was only one Thomas Duston in New England early, not two, and he was the one who was made a Freeman at Kittery on Nov. 16, 1652 and died between April of 1661 and July 1, 1662. The idea there was a second Thomas b. 1627 d. 1703 is fictitious, created from misinterpreting records and speculation trying to force the Wilton parish Durston lineage "fit." It does not fit. We have never been able to prove the parentage of Thomas Durston/Duston (c. 1606-1662) in England and perhaps it will never be proven. Unfortunately, this fictitious lineage has been accepted by many and posted on the internet as "gospel" and it will probably never go away, but I can assure you it is not correct. Chris H. Bailey, genealogist for the Duston-Dustin Family Association. ---end----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |