I do not believe we have ONE record that substantiates Thomas marrying Sarah, then Abigail. We have the SUM of the records from which we make conclusions based on what is there. It was believed by many for some time, and published I might add, that the children of Thomas: Thomas, Edward and John were the sons of Abigail. That was until additional evidence was found that caused some rethinking of the conclusion. That will always happen with genealogy or any forensic type work. And just because it's been published by the PRA, Bodie, Kelly Frirtz, Nelda Smith or anyone else doesn't make it absolute. I'm still going to draw my own conclusion based on the evidence. I don't see the action between the daughters and mother/step-father unusual if Sarah was ill and they were looking to bring their father's properties back into their hands rather than let them fall under the umbrella of their step father Thomas. We do not know what Morgan Lewis's will said, nor do we have any deed information that sheds light on the the possible exhange of property. I guess a very prudent researcher would extract the information regarding Morgan Lewis, and any additional information regarding the actions between Sarah George and her daughters. I'd support anyone who wished to make that effort. When we look at all the other documents, we do not find two wills for a Thomas Pennington with sons names Thomas, Edward and John. We do not have anything that shows a conflict with the idea that Thomas married first Sarah then Abigail. We do find however, shortly after the death of Thomas, a petition from Thomas, Edward and John to change their legal guardianship. Edward and John wished to be raised by their uncle, or more likely, his wife, the sister of their mother, rather than their step mother and her new husband. We don't have a document that says they are the same 3 young men reffered to in the will we have for Thomas, but it's safely assumed that their deceased father Thomas is indeed the same Thomas that died 1701/02 and mentions his wife Abigail. Therefore based on the sum of the documents, I feel confident in stating that there was one Thomas who married Sarah George then Abigail ___ . In one's sources and personal notes, it does make sense to reiterate that this conclusion is based on the sum of the evidence which in turn leaves the door open to make changes. But changes should not be that egregious. How many times have researchers found someone listed as 27 in one census, and then as 35 in the census 10 years later. They both are documents, but what do we do now? Research other documents and see what is supported. I personally have found ages that translate to 3 different birth dates for some of my ancestors. But when the children and wife and occupation are all the same, it has to be the same person. I think this is the same type of thing here. A wonderful thing about genealogy and again any forensic type work, is that different people can draw different conclusions from the same information. I choose to support the idea that there is only one Thomas with 3 sons rather than two Thomas's who happened to name at least two of their three sons the same. The population in Surry Co at the turn of the 18th century was quite small. The odds of this discussion centering on two Thomas's rather than just one are extremely small in my mind. I'm probably more likely to win the Lottery <G> Steve P REGINALD L VASSAR wrote: > > Hi Steve, > Do we have a record (marriage license, deed, court suite, etc that > states Thomas Pennigton who married Abigal was a widower of Sarah > (George) Lewis? What record do we use to substantiate this. > It is some what odd that two daughters and their husbands would take > their mother to court cocerning their father's estate, 18 years after his > death, but it could happen I suppose. > It seems record have been referred to during this discussion that Thomas > Pennington married Sarah (George) Lewis. Also Thomas Pidingtond.- 1701/2 > married Abigail, and in 1701/1 had three under age sons, the eldest > being Tho; Piddington. > >From the records I have seen referred to, do not prove that Thomas > Pennington and Thomas Pidington are the same man. We can assume it, > because it appears logical and other genealogist thought it to be the > case. > I have two different genaealogies giving the descendants of Thomas > Pennington; <SNIP>