William Dalton and Mary Brockenbrough

The Myth

William Dalton and Mary Brockenbrough were the parents of Timothy Dalton (ca 1690-1767) and/or Samuel Dalton (1699-1807). 

Source of the Myth

The origin of the confusion seems to stem from three printed sources involving erroneous info, an obvious typographical error, and part of a sentence being incorrectly read by some. They are:

Straightening the Record

Facts related to Mary Newman

Mary Newman (ca 1654-Dec. 12, 1734) 

m.1) 1684 to William Brockenbrough (ca 1650-1700).  children: 

  1. Austin Brockenbrough b.1685
  2. William Brockenbrough b. Nov. 10, 1687. Will proven 1733.
  3. Newman Brockenbrough b.1689

m.2) by Mar 5, 1701 to John Dalton  children: 

  1. Winifred Dalton (170?-1766) m.172? Henry Miskell
  2. Mary Dalton m.1) ca 1722 Thomas Stanfield m.2) 1729 Johathan Lyell

The above families are a compilation of data from "The Brockenbrough Family" Vol. 5, pg.447, North Farnham Parish Records of Richmond Co. VA 1680-1861, and Mary Dalton's will written Sept. 18, 1734.

 

Facts relating to William Dalton of Gloucester County VA

What do the facts tell us about the myth?

Mary Brockenbrough was Mary Newman when she married William Brockenbrough.  He died in 1700.  There is no evidence that at that time she had any Dalton children.  She then married John Dalton of Richmond County and had two Dalton children, both women, Winifred and Mary, whom she recognized in her will.  Typical dates listed for Samuel and Timothy (of Louisa County) Dalton's births would make it impossible for either of them to be a legitimate child of John Dalton and Mary. 

The record indicates that Mary Brockenbrough was never married to a William Dalton.

William Dalton of Gloucester County VA was married before 1708 to Margaret (surname unknown).  There is no evidence he was ever married to Mary Brockenbrough, or that Margaret was a Brockenbrough.  

Although nothing in the record makes it impossible that Samuel or Timothy were younger sons than William Jr., with none of the three having birth recorded in the church record, the record of the deed makes it unlikely that they are his children.  William Jr. ignores them in favor of his younger siblings.  

The evidence of the church record and the legacy of William Jr. would indicate that John Dalton of Alexandria is also not the son of William of Gloucester.


Originally researched by Helen Lu and Gwen Neuman, and published in Helen's "Dalton Newsletter" Jan. 1978.  Posted by Robert Dalton. Refined by James Klumpp.

Last revised June 15, 2004

Return to Myth Home Page