I think that DNA would be great. It would answer a lot of questions. I know that I got a message in my inbox earlier this month that said that some lab or another was having a discount on DNA kits and that the offer was extended to Sep 30; unfortunately, I deleted it and can't remember where it came from-not the lab-it was a posting to one of the lists. My no offense means that I meant absolutely no offense to Bob or anyone else. I do not want anyone to get the impression that I in any way impugn the characters of either Hugh Addingon or Judge G. W. Kilgore because I question their assertions. I only question their assertions because there is evidence that contradicts some of their assertions-if I had no evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't be questioning their assertions. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Hugh Addington. The task he took on compiling the family histories and the descendants of those featured in his book was nothing short of Herculeanean-I wouldn't have even tried. Just think, he did all of that without a computer to keep it straight-no internet, he probably wasn't even able to call many of his contacts because most people didn't have phones and it was too expensive anyway-Look what he accomplished in spite of that! It's not his fault that he came by some misinformation and then disseminated it and because his book was published so long ago ithat info became accepted fact-at least until questions began to be raised as to the authenticity of some of the claims. He never meant for his book to be the end-all authority on the Kilgores of SW VA-he said himself he only meant his book to be a guide. If he had had access to the information we do today, he almost certainly would have been the first to revise his conclusions. As for Judge G. W. Kilgore-he was a Judge for crying out loud. That alone deserves respect. He lived in a time when a man's word was his bond and especialy because he was a judge he must have had the utmost respect for the written word. After he wrote Scottish Historical Society concerning the origin of the Kilgore name in Scotland, he received the foundling story I've already referred to-this correspondence is alluded to in Addington's book-indeed I think he published the response. Based on that information and no additional info that for whatever reason wasn't included (that the name Kilgore is found elsewhere as Jennifer points out and was long established in those places), it's not surprising that Judge Kilgore thought he'd found the progenitor of the Kilgore family-it's really quite logical that he took it one step more and took the "traditional claim" as fact (after all why include it, if it wasn't?); and until Jerry contacted the Douglas family in pursuit of this and then discovered that no legitimate tie to these outlawed Douglas' exist we had no way of proving or disproving it or even really questioning it. Keep in mind that neither Addington or Judge Kilgore actually traced an American Kilgore to his parents in the old country-whether Ireland or Scotland. Now we know that there were other early Kilgores and anyone of them could & should be the ancestor of any Kilgore descendant anywhere here in America. All I'm saying is that the Douglas researchers refute this claim (and they know their own history) and we now know there are other contenders for the earliest Kilgores-we shouldn't lock ourselves into only one view (that the foundling is the only possible progenitor of the Kilgore name)-particularly-if that view is refuted. As for the Kilgore brothers, I'm sure that Judge Kilgore took in those stories along with his mother's milk. It appears that there is a strong tradition of brothers named Kilgore who were in America before the Rev. War and that there were brothers at the Battle of King's Mountain. This story doesn't happen to have survived in my particular line (from Charles Kilgore of King's Mountain) but that doesn't mean diddly squat-I'm 7 generations removed from Charles Kilgore; also Addington, for one, appears to have made no real effort to research Martha's children (my ancestors). I think that having those brothers in mind all of his life, that when Judge Kilgore found that book with 5 men named Kilgore listed all in the same place at the same time-he drew the only possible conclusion-that these must be those brothers; and really-it's quite plausible that he did so lacking any further information. I'm sure he pictured all of the marching together sharing their thoughts, hopes & fears as to what was to come-the problem with that picturesque thought-is that if these 5 men were who we think they were-then they came together from at least 4 different states if not 5. And really whether they were closely related or not, what really matters is that they answered the call and that's all that needs to be said about that. I don't refute that these men may have been related; I just question that these men were actually brothers because other evidence suggests something different. Let's keep in mind that Gabriel Lea Kilgore (who wrote the 1858 letter) was referring to his father in his letter-one generation away. Judge G. W. Kilgore was the great-great grandson of Robert Kilgore M: Winnie Clayton (whom he didn't even know existed-he thought he was a descendant of Charles Kilgore not Robert)-that puts him far more removed from a Rev. War participant than Gabriel Lea Kilgore and that means that the stories G. W. Kilgore heard had filtered down through a lot more generations. I have to say that I put more faith in the words of the son of an actual participant at King's Mountain who actually talked directly to his father the particiapant than one who didn't even know his great-great grandfather's name-who believed he was descended from an entirely different person and who was several generations removed from a Rev. War participant. I'm sorry that makes a difference to me. Again, if we look at Gabriel Lea Kilgore's letter we see that he states that his grandfather was one of 4 brothers who were in America before the Rev. War. One of those names was Charles-whom we believe-though haven't proved was the same Charles Kilgore who was wounded at the Battle of King's Mountain. Note that listed in G. L. Kilgore's letter were the names William & Ralph-again, if these are the same William & Ralph who turned up in GA and if William was the William Kilgore listed on Judge G. W. Kilgore's roster (and I say IF) then that means that Charles did indeed have a brother at King's Mountain. You only need 2 to make the word brother-brothers. That would lend weight to the story of brothers at King's Mountain. Also, if Thomas Kilgore b. 1759 (and possibly the nephew of Charles Kilgore) had 3 brothers at the battle-this too, supports the tradition that there were Kilgore brothers in the Rev. War if not necessarily, as believed, Charles' brothers. It's not far-fetched to think that one set of brothers got mixed up with another in the family tradition-especially keeping in mind that the Kilgore's of SW VA had erroneous information about their own ancestry. It certainly raises the possibility that the brothers story, especially if there was more than one set of brothers, got misconstrued-especially since they were wrong about their ancestry-they could have gotten other things wrong as well. Vickie