In a message dated 6/25/99 4:24:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
gcarruth(a)netcom.ca writes:
<< Are you sure about Hugh's birth date, and marriage date, he would be about
14 years old when he got married, does seem to fit.>>
Hello Glen and all,
This is a point that has bothered me for some time. All other family
researchers have is first child John born 1741, so his marriage would need to
be about 1740.
My personal thought is that this John is not Hugh's son but should be in
another yet unknown family. No records can be found for this John.
It makes more sense that Hugh Jr. would be the first born May 03, 1747, thus
placing the marriage Abt. 1746. This makes much more logic, some where we
will need to find their marriage bond, that will take a major break as all
that is known is they were married in Northern Ireland.
Ain't genealogy fun :-))
Jean Wilson