A BIG OL' MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND A HAPPY, HEALTHY, PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR, >From GeorgiaJoyce > > Since y'all are being so quiet today, let me be the first to wish one and all a very Merry Christmas!! > > If you're still out shopping - shame on you for procrastinating :-) > > If you're in the midwest, I hope you're sticking close to home! > > Merry, Merry! > > Nel > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Back atcha Nel. Nope no procrastinating here, just watching the snizzle and high winds. Had tornado warnings yesterday and until about 6 a.m. today. Have a wonderful Christmas gal. lab Dec 24, 2009 03:35:41 PM, [email protected] wrote: HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld Since y'all are being so quiet today, let me be the first to wish one and all a very Merry Christmas!! If you're still out shopping - shame on you for procrastinating :-) If you're in the midwest, I hope you're sticking close to home! Merry, Merry! Nel ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld Since y'all are being so quiet today, let me be the first to wish one and all a very Merry Christmas!! If you're still out shopping - shame on you for procrastinating :-) If you're in the midwest, I hope you're sticking close to home! Merry, Merry! Nel

Hello Nel Again thanks for the feedback. My apology, I should not have said "most researchers". Better phrase would have been "some or a few (not most) that are researching Edward Hatcher believe that Sarah Farley was his wife based upon "circumstantial" evidence or reasons listed that I know are not enough for solid proof. No, I am not saying only immediate neighbors married one another. Of course people did marry that lived some distance/miles away from one another. The point I was attemting to make was simply that Edward was literally a next door neighbor to Matthew while Richard was not. This alone of course would not consitute proof Edward md Sarah, but does have some bearing along with the other "clues" the POSSIBILITY of their connection. And no I am not saying Sarah Hatcher md Richard Booth out of obilgation, again only pointing out a "connection" of the family of Ed & Matthew. Again this did does not mean that Sarah was Edward wife. No, I am not saying that one had to be a family member to witness deeds. I wonder why Richard who was close could not have witnessed the deed instead of Mathew Farley from Powhatan. WHY Mathew from some distance away? One cannot help but to question why Edward had children named Farley & Phoebe (a Farley name), & why did Mathew from Powhatan witness a deed for Edward if there was no connection other than that his daughter Sarah md Richard Booth, s/o Phoebe Farley. Thank you for the challange & have a Good Christmas! JW Garrett > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:49:28 -0700 > Subject: Re: [HATCHER] Richard Hatcher update.......... > > > HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com > HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm > "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld > > JW, > > Again, my remarks embedded.... > > As I did mention & agreed there are some oddities abt Sarah Farley being the w/o Edward but not enough to dismiss or entertain the possibility. > > *** But to my way of thinking, those oddities defy usual human behavior in this situation. And I do believe human behavior must be considered equally along with the documents. > > I had to consider that Ed's 1st wife died before 1779 and that he was dead in 1781 - 10 yrs before Matthew's 1791 will. I've never seen another case like that. I had to consider that Richard's records show his wife died before 1791 with Richard remarrying sometime between 1789-93 when his dau Eunice was born, fitting squarely with the date of Matthew's will and his bequests to his gkids. > > I had to consider that Edward had died a wealthy man, far wealthier than his brother, Richard. Ed's 12 kids rec'd $370 EACH just for the sale of Ed's slaves. Richard's entire personal estate was only $2600. > > It simply defies logic that Matthew, with kids of his own, would dole out ANY part of his estate to very well off gkids [all 12 of them!], long after their mother AND father had died. > > It must also be considered that 9 of Ed's kids were already adults with families of their own [Farley was 36] when Matt wrote his will while 3 of Richard's 4 kids were still minors. There are a multitude of wills giving to specific gkids, almost always minors, while giving nothing to the older gkids - another oddity in Ed's case that defies usual human behavior. > > When I compare Ed and Richard's situation based on usual behavior [as found in wills], it's not possible for me to do anything but dismiss Ed in favor of Richard.*** > > There are also good & valid reasons (the ones I had listed) why most researchers do believe Sarah was wife of Edward that should not be minimized or downplayed. > > *** I have no way to determine who "most researchers" might be. It's been my experience that the majority of people, whether they consider themselves a "researcher" or not, simply accept as fact what someone else tells them, even more so when documents are provided that do nothing more than provide a superficial case for the belief - as I think is the case here with my reasoning stated above. I consider YOU a researcher because you do ask the questions and don't just accept blindly. *** > > While Mathew Farley was living literally next door to Edward Hatcher, Richard was some HH's away according to 1762 tax list. > > *** Soooo - are you saying that only the guy next door can marry the next door neighbor? The guy 2 blocks away can't do so?? Hmmmmm! Interesting concept :-) *** > > The name Sarah may have been a common name but Richard did not have a daughter named Sarah that I am aware of. > > *** As I stated in my first post, Richard named NO children after his own family. If he wasn't inclined to name for his own family, why would he be inclined to name after his wife's family? There was simply NO LAW that anyone had to name children according to some pattern. *** > > You are right it was very common for next door neighbors to marry. But we have no reference of Richard's children marrying in with the Farley family as does Edwards (d/o Sarah). > > *** I have no idea why that has any bearing here. Sarah's mother-in-law was a Farley, not her husband. Why would Richard's kids be obligated to marry into their mother's family? I seriously doubt Sarah Hatcher married Richard Booth because his mother was a Farley. *** > > Richard Hatcher & Mathew Farley may have had a connection as neighbors no doubt but there are no documents to show any activities they had together to show a family connection like that of Edward & Mathew. > > *** The only "family" connection between Ed and Matt is Farley Hatcher and because of that name, I do suspect Ed did marry a Farley, but NOT Sarah. > > As far as activities between Ed and Matt, the fact that they were next door neighbors would indicate Ed and Matt likely witnessed each other's deeds. That implies ONLY that they were very close neighbors. Normal human behavior again tells us we will take 10 minutes to go to the closest neighbor rather than travel 1/2 hour to a son-in-law's home, just because he's a son-in-law. *** > > And the comment that Mathew may have have been visiting friends or relatives in Chesterfield when he witnessed Edwards deed in 1770 can be considered speculative and far reaching. > > *** Of course it is. But so is it pure speculation that because Ed didn't pay Matt for his travel expenses that this somehow proves they were related. Again, IF Ed married another daughter of Matt's, they would indeed be related. But this incident simply does not prove Ed married Sarah. *** > > But why would Mathew have been a witness to Edwards deed transaction (if he was only visiting) if there was no connection to Edward other than being old neighbors? Why not call upon his brother Richard? I do not see where Mathew witnessed or signed anything for Richard. > > *** Deeds could be witnessed by anyone of age. You seem to be implying that deeds could only be witnessed by family. But one thing that is bothering me. I have never seen travel expenses paid for someone to witness a deed. The few that I've seen have always involved bringing someone in from another county to testify for you in a court case. Ed certainly did not have to have Matt come in from Powhatan to witness a simple deed. If it was indeed a deed and Matt signed it, I believe that justifies my suggestion that Matt was already visiting in the area. Unless he sold the property, one of his sons may have been living on his land next to Ed. So perhaps I'm missing something here.... ? > > And as I explained above, Matt would not travel to his son-in-law's house to get a deed witnessed when he had neighbors much closer. *** > > My attempt here is to only show why some researchers believe Sarah was possibly the w/o Edward which I believe are valid reasons despite some oddities you mention which are also good reasons not to be. So without any solid proof we can only "speculate" just as the case Sarah being the w/o Richard is based on speculation & not proof. > > *** I believe it's much more valid to believe ONLY that Ed married a Farley daughter. I believe there are too many oddities that are far too unusual to be credible in accepting Sarah as Ed's wife. While the evidence for Richard is not based on a slew of documents, he is the ONLY Hatcher in the area where the dates within his own family coincide nicely with the date of Matt's will. *** > > LUV sparring with you, JW! You always get the ol' brain cells chuggin' :-) > > Nel > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld JW, Again, my remarks embedded.... As I did mention & agreed there are some oddities abt Sarah Farley being the w/o Edward but not enough to dismiss or entertain the possibility. *** But to my way of thinking, those oddities defy usual human behavior in this situation. And I do believe human behavior must be considered equally along with the documents. I had to consider that Ed's 1st wife died before 1779 and that he was dead in 1781 - 10 yrs before Matthew's 1791 will. I've never seen another case like that. I had to consider that Richard's records show his wife died before 1791 with Richard remarrying sometime between 1789-93 when his dau Eunice was born, fitting squarely with the date of Matthew's will and his bequests to his gkids. I had to consider that Edward had died a wealthy man, far wealthier than his brother, Richard. Ed's 12 kids rec'd $370 EACH just for the sale of Ed's slaves. Richard's entire personal estate was only $2600. It simply defies logic that Matthew, with kids of his own, would dole out ANY part of his estate to very well off gkids [all 12 of them!], long after their mother AND father had died. It must also be considered that 9 of Ed's kids were already adults with families of their own [Farley was 36] when Matt wrote his will while 3 of Richard's 4 kids were still minors. There are a multitude of wills giving to specific gkids, almost always minors, while giving nothing to the older gkids - another oddity in Ed's case that defies usual human behavior. When I compare Ed and Richard's situation based on usual behavior [as found in wills], it's not possible for me to do anything but dismiss Ed in favor of Richard.*** There are also good & valid reasons (the ones I had listed) why most researchers do believe Sarah was wife of Edward that should not be minimized or downplayed. *** I have no way to determine who "most researchers" might be. It's been my experience that the majority of people, whether they consider themselves a "researcher" or not, simply accept as fact what someone else tells them, even more so when documents are provided that do nothing more than provide a superficial case for the belief - as I think is the case here with my reasoning stated above. I consider YOU a researcher because you do ask the questions and don't just accept blindly. *** While Mathew Farley was living literally next door to Edward Hatcher, Richard was some HH's away according to 1762 tax list. *** Soooo - are you saying that only the guy next door can marry the next door neighbor? The guy 2 blocks away can't do so?? Hmmmmm! Interesting concept :-) *** The name Sarah may have been a common name but Richard did not have a daughter named Sarah that I am aware of. *** As I stated in my first post, Richard named NO children after his own family. If he wasn't inclined to name for his own family, why would he be inclined to name after his wife's family? There was simply NO LAW that anyone had to name children according to some pattern. *** You are right it was very common for next door neighbors to marry. But we have no reference of Richard's children marrying in with the Farley family as does Edwards (d/o Sarah). *** I have no idea why that has any bearing here. Sarah's mother-in-law was a Farley, not her husband. Why would Richard's kids be obligated to marry into their mother's family? I seriously doubt Sarah Hatcher married Richard Booth because his mother was a Farley. *** Richard Hatcher & Mathew Farley may have had a connection as neighbors no doubt but there are no documents to show any activities they had together to show a family connection like that of Edward & Mathew. *** The only "family" connection between Ed and Matt is Farley Hatcher and because of that name, I do suspect Ed did marry a Farley, but NOT Sarah. As far as activities between Ed and Matt, the fact that they were next door neighbors would indicate Ed and Matt likely witnessed each other's deeds. That implies ONLY that they were very close neighbors. Normal human behavior again tells us we will take 10 minutes to go to the closest neighbor rather than travel 1/2 hour to a son-in-law's home, just because he's a son-in-law. *** And the comment that Mathew may have have been visiting friends or relatives in Chesterfield when he witnessed Edwards deed in 1770 can be considered speculative and far reaching. *** Of course it is. But so is it pure speculation that because Ed didn't pay Matt for his travel expenses that this somehow proves they were related. Again, IF Ed married another daughter of Matt's, they would indeed be related. But this incident simply does not prove Ed married Sarah. *** But why would Mathew have been a witness to Edwards deed transaction (if he was only visiting) if there was no connection to Edward other than being old neighbors? Why not call upon his brother Richard? I do not see where Mathew witnessed or signed anything for Richard. *** Deeds could be witnessed by anyone of age. You seem to be implying that deeds could only be witnessed by family. But one thing that is bothering me. I have never seen travel expenses paid for someone to witness a deed. The few that I've seen have always involved bringing someone in from another county to testify for you in a court case. Ed certainly did not have to have Matt come in from Powhatan to witness a simple deed. If it was indeed a deed and Matt signed it, I believe that justifies my suggestion that Matt was already visiting in the area. Unless he sold the property, one of his sons may have been living on his land next to Ed. So perhaps I'm missing something here.... ? And as I explained above, Matt would not travel to his son-in-law's house to get a deed witnessed when he had neighbors much closer. *** My attempt here is to only show why some researchers believe Sarah was possibly the w/o Edward which I believe are valid reasons despite some oddities you mention which are also good reasons not to be. So without any solid proof we can only "speculate" just as the case Sarah being the w/o Richard is based on speculation & not proof. *** I believe it's much more valid to believe ONLY that Ed married a Farley daughter. I believe there are too many oddities that are far too unusual to be credible in accepting Sarah as Ed's wife. While the evidence for Richard is not based on a slew of documents, he is the ONLY Hatcher in the area where the dates within his own family coincide nicely with the date of Matt's will. *** LUV sparring with you, JW! You always get the ol' brain cells chuggin' :-) Nel

Nel thanks for the feedback. As I did mention & agreed there are some oddities abt Sarah Farley being the w/o Edward but not enough to dismiss or entertain the possibility. There are also good & valid reasons (the ones I had listed) why most researchers do believe Sarah was wife of Edward that should not be minimized or downplayed. While Mathew Farley was living literally next door to Edward Hatcher, Richard was some HH's away according to 1762 tax list. The name Sarah may have been a common name but Richard did not have a daughter named Sarah that I am aware of. You are right it was very common for next door neighbors to marry. But we have no reference of Richard's children marrying in with the Farley family as does Edwards (d/o Sarah). Richard Hatcher & Mathew Farley may have had a connection as neighbors no doubt but there are no documents to show any activities they had together to show a family connection like that of Edward & Mathew. And the comment that Mathew may have have been visiting friends or relatives in Chesterfield when he witnessed Edwards deed in 1770 can be considered speculative and far reaching. But why would Mathew have been a witness to Edwards deed transaction (if he was only visiting) if there was no connection to Edward other than being old neighbors? Why not call upon his brother Richard? I do not see where Mathew witnessed or signed anything for Richard. My attempt here is to only show why some researchers believe Sarah was possibly the w/o Edward which I believe are valid reasons despite some oddities you mention which are also good reasons not to be. So without any solid proof we can only "speculate" just as the case Sarah being the w/o Richard is based on speculation & not proof. JW Garrett ------------------------------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:32:02 -0700 > Subject: Re: [HATCHER] Richard Hatcher update.......... > > > HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com > HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm > "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld > > Hey JW, > > My remarks embedded....... > > Your right Mathew Farley wrote his will 1791 giving gifts to grandchildren abt 10 yrs aft death of Edward Hatcher in 1781 which does seems odd. > > *** Very odd indeed. I've never seen a similar case. The other unmentioned oddity is that Edward died a wealthy man. And I've not seen gfathers bequeathing to the best well off but usually to the least well off of his gkids.*** > > The reasons for speculating that Sarah Farley was w/o Edward Hatcher are the following: > > -Edward Hatcher's first son was named Farley b. abt 1755 > > *** True - and more on that later.*** > > -Edward Hatcher was next door neighbor to Matthew Farley in 1762 Chesterfield VA. > > *** So was Richard. Don't forget that Edward and Richard were brothers and that their father who held a land grant for 1800+ acres gave land on this tract to his sons.*** > > -Edward had a daughter named Sarah b. ~1763 (named after her mother Sarah?) > > *** Sarah was a very common name at that time. So all I can say is - So?*** > > This daughter Sarah md Richard Booth who was s/o John Booth & Pheobe Farley, d/o Mathew Farley. > > *** Neighbors marrying neighbors. Very common. I believe its been found that most people back then married into families from within a 10 mile radius.*** > > -Edward had a daughter named Phoebe b.~1756 (named aft Sarah Farleys sister Phoebe?) > > *** NOW I say you may be ALMOST correct. It's quite possible Ed married a Farley but NOT Sarah. And if so, we will likely never know her name. Matthew > mentioned only one dec'd dau in his will, Sarah, and I believe that is because she died shortly before his death. This is the most common situation when you see gkids mentioned in a gfather's will. Because Ed's wife had died long before Matthew, if Matthew gave anything at all to Ed's kids, that record has not been found. And again, because Ed was a wealthy man, Matthew may have felt no need to give to these gkids.*** > > -Matthew Farley (now of Cumberland/Powhatan) went to Chesterfield in 1770 to witness a deed transfer of Edward Hatcher to Charles Cogbill. Edward was not required to pay Matthew Farley for travel/time expense. > > *** And that may be because Matthew was simply IN Chesterfield visiting family or friends at that time and made no special trip. *** > > Looking at Richard Hatchers file/activities I see no connection with Mathew Farley. > > *** Of course there's a connection. They were long time neighbors, just as Edward was. If Ed knew the Farleys, certainly Richard did, too. The Farley and Hatcher kids grew up together. *** > > Richard does not even have children named after Sarah Farleys family members. > > *** Richard also does not have children named for his father, mother or siblings. His children have names totally odd and unique in the Hatcher family - Zebediah, Ward, Judith and Deme. Names are meaningless as proof [or disproof] of a relationship. If one has proof of a connection, the addition of family names is only icing on the cake but the absence of family names does not disprove the proof. We can't ignore William's will and say this Richard can't be William's son because he didn't name a son William. If one does not have proof of a connection, the presence of common family names will become a strong clue that there IS a connection but that still remains only a theory, not a fact. An example would be my belief that Ed probably did marry a Farley, but I will not add to our file a Farley wife for him based only on the presence of a single name. > > I will point out, too, that Richard only had 5 known kids at a time when a dozen were common. He may have had children named after family who died young. But that's something we will never know. > > Simple fact - not every family followed naming patterns. You just can't hang any hats on names. > > Nel > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld Hey JW, My remarks embedded....... Your right Mathew Farley wrote his will 1791 giving gifts to grandchildren abt 10 yrs aft death of Edward Hatcher in 1781 which does seems odd. *** Very odd indeed. I've never seen a similar case. The other unmentioned oddity is that Edward died a wealthy man. And I've not seen gfathers bequeathing to the best well off but usually to the least well off of his gkids.*** The reasons for speculating that Sarah Farley was w/o Edward Hatcher are the following: -Edward Hatcher's first son was named Farley b. abt 1755 *** True - and more on that later.*** -Edward Hatcher was next door neighbor to Matthew Farley in 1762 Chesterfield VA. *** So was Richard. Don't forget that Edward and Richard were brothers and that their father who held a land grant for 1800+ acres gave land on this tract to his sons.*** -Edward had a daughter named Sarah b. ~1763 (named after her mother Sarah?) *** Sarah was a very common name at that time. So all I can say is - So?*** This daughter Sarah md Richard Booth who was s/o John Booth & Pheobe Farley, d/o Mathew Farley. *** Neighbors marrying neighbors. Very common. I believe its been found that most people back then married into families from within a 10 mile radius.*** -Edward had a daughter named Phoebe b.~1756 (named aft Sarah Farleys sister Phoebe?) *** NOW I say you may be ALMOST correct. It's quite possible Ed married a Farley but NOT Sarah. And if so, we will likely never know her name. Matthew mentioned only one dec'd dau in his will, Sarah, and I believe that is because she died shortly before his death. This is the most common situation when you see gkids mentioned in a gfather's will. Because Ed's wife had died long before Matthew, if Matthew gave anything at all to Ed's kids, that record has not been found. And again, because Ed was a wealthy man, Matthew may have felt no need to give to these gkids.*** -Matthew Farley (now of Cumberland/Powhatan) went to Chesterfield in 1770 to witness a deed transfer of Edward Hatcher to Charles Cogbill. Edward was not required to pay Matthew Farley for travel/time expense. *** And that may be because Matthew was simply IN Chesterfield visiting family or friends at that time and made no special trip. *** Looking at Richard Hatchers file/activities I see no connection with Mathew Farley. *** Of course there's a connection. They were long time neighbors, just as Edward was. If Ed knew the Farleys, certainly Richard did, too. The Farley and Hatcher kids grew up together. *** Richard does not even have children named after Sarah Farleys family members. *** Richard also does not have children named for his father, mother or siblings. His children have names totally odd and unique in the Hatcher family - Zebediah, Ward, Judith and Deme. Names are meaningless as proof [or disproof] of a relationship. If one has proof of a connection, the addition of family names is only icing on the cake but the absence of family names does not disprove the proof. We can't ignore William's will and say this Richard can't be William's son because he didn't name a son William. If one does not have proof of a connection, the presence of common family names will become a strong clue that there IS a connection but that still remains only a theory, not a fact. An example would be my belief that Ed probably did marry a Farley, but I will not add to our file a Farley wife for him based only on the presence of a single name. I will point out, too, that Richard only had 5 known kids at a time when a dozen were common. He may have had children named after family who died young. But that's something we will never know. Simple fact - not every family followed naming patterns. You just can't hang any hats on names. Nel

Nel, re: Sarah Faley Your analysis on Sarah Farley sounds reasonable as being to w/o Richard instead of Edward. Your right Mathew Farley wrote his will 1791 giving gifts to grandchildren abt 10 yrs aft death of Edward Hatcher in 1781 which does seems odd. The reasons for speculating that Sarah Farley was w/o Edward Hatcher are the following: -Edward Hatcher's first son was named Farley b. abt 1755 -Edward Hatcher was next door neighbor to Matthew Farley in 1762 Chesterfield VA. -Edward had a daughter named Sarah b. ~1763 (named after her mother Sarah?) This daughter Sarah md Richard Booth who was s/o John Booth & Pheobe Farley, d/o Mathew Farley. -Edward had a daughter named Phoebe b.~1756 (named aft Sarah Farleys sister Phoebe?) -Matthew Farley (now of Cumberland/Powhatan) went to Chesterfield in 1770 to witness a deed transfer of Edward Hatcher to Charles Cogbill. Edward was not required to pay Matthew Farley for travel/time expense. Looking at Richard Hatchers file/activities I see no connection with Mathew Farley. Richard does not even have children named after Sarah Farleys family members. JW Garrett -------------------------------------------------------------- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:00:34 -0700 > Subject: [HATCHER] Richard Hatcher update.......... > > > HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com > HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm > "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld > > Folks, > > Based on BedfordCo chancery court records, I've made some additions and corrections to the family of Richard Hatcher of BedfordCo, VA. He is the brother of Edward Hatcher/Sarah Bowling and the father of Ward Hatcher/Tempy Greer among others. > > I have also given a name to Richard's 1st wife - Sarah FARLEY, dau of Matthew Farley with reasoning provided on Richard's page. She never was, never will be the wife of Edward as most have assumed! > > Cheers, > Nel > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I had not realized it until I read this message, but I have not received anything from my other Rootsweb lists either, for some time. Martha ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vivian Toole" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:18 PM Subject: [HATCHER] WHY NO MESSAGES FROM E-MAIL LISTS??? Does anyone know what is happening at Rootsweb.com with the SUBSCRIPTION E-MAIL LISTS and the messages boards. Below is the first message that I have received since last Thursday. Does anyone know what the problems is? My computer and e-mail programs seem to be working just fine otherwise. I can send and receive other e-mail messages just fine or so it seems. I am just not getting anything from any of the some two dozen lists that I am on. I e-mailed in the password section of the rootsweb.com home page for a list of the lists to which I am subscribed and received nothing. Anyone have any suggestions. Tech support at my local ISP has no idea either. I am still trying to unravel the personal life of Alfred Hatcher b. c. 1800 Edgefield District, South Carolina, d. August 1868. Did he or did he not have children? Was he the father or the step-father of my ancestor, Frances _?_ b.c. 1842 d. before 1880 who was living with him in 1850 and 1860? She married James Whitlock, Jr. before 1865. Vivian Cates, Alto, Texas -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Helen Holmes Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HATCHER] jstor Nel: I have JSTOR and find it well worth the cost. I have renewed my membership for the second time. I find the site very useful. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.108/2566 - Release Date: 12/15/09 07:52:00

HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld For those of you who are not receiving list msgs, you can always check activity on any list at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ Click on the current month/yr. Click "order with names" and "order with dates" and redisplay. You will then see all msgs by date/poster. Our list had no msgs for a full week between 12-7 and 12-14. Many lists are not that active to begin with. Also keep in mind this is the holiday season and many people are busy with other things. Nel

Unless things have changed since I last accessed JSTOR, look in "The William and Mary Quarterly" and type "Hatcher" into the search engine. Also just graze around in the various Virginia counties for other information, and related kinfolk Take a look, you might just find "The Hatcher Family" by the Rev. Francis Campbell Symonds, but, please, don't believe him when he says that William Hatcher lived in Careby Manor, Lincolnshire, England. Bill Harmon

Does anyone know what is happening at Rootsweb.com with the SUBSCRIPTION E-MAIL LISTS and the messages boards. Below is the first message that I have received since last Thursday. Does anyone know what the problems is? My computer and e-mail programs seem to be working just fine otherwise. I can send and receive other e-mail messages just fine or so it seems. I am just not getting anything from any of the some two dozen lists that I am on. I e-mailed in the password section of the rootsweb.com home page for a list of the lists to which I am subscribed and received nothing. Anyone have any suggestions. Tech support at my local ISP has no idea either. I am still trying to unravel the personal life of Alfred Hatcher b. c. 1800 Edgefield District, South Carolina, d. August 1868. Did he or did he not have children? Was he the father or the step-father of my ancestor, Frances _?_ b.c. 1842 d. before 1880 who was living with him in 1850 and 1860? She married James Whitlock, Jr. before 1865. Vivian Cates, Alto, Texas -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Helen Holmes Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HATCHER] jstor Nel: I have JSTOR and find it well worth the cost.  I have renewed my membership for the second time.  I find the site very useful. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld Thanks, Bob! At least I know there's one article I can grab. Nel

Hi Nel I ve used Jstor. There is a beautiful piece about about lawyer and his settlement for James Hatcher of Dallas Co. there. Bob Hatcher ----- Original Message ----- From: "nelhatch" <[email protected]> To: "HATCHERLIST" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:45 PM Subject: [HATCHER] JSTOR....... > > HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com > HALL DNA project: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm > "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a > brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld > > Cuzins, > > Is there anyone who has/had access to JSTOR and if so, did you find it > useful in your research? > > Nel > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld Martha, I've had the same problem with the JSTOR site in that it appears not to relate to genealogy. Yet dozens of times on a Google search it will bring up JSTOR Hatcher data. Unfortunately, it brings up just enough for you to know you've found something worth reading that you're not allowed to access. Sooo....I've now joined the VA Historical Soc and it appears I will be able to subscribe to JSTOR once I get my VHS membership number. Nel

Please tell me about JSTOR. I went to their website and it had archives of academic content for research, but I saw nothing that would be pertinent to our genealogy research. What am I missing? Martha ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helen Holmes" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [HATCHER] JSTOR....... > > Nel, I have JSTOR and I find it well worth the cost. I have renewed my > membreship for the second time. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "nelhatch" <[email protected]> > To: "HATCHERLIST" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 11:45:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [HATCHER] JSTOR....... > > > HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com > HALL DNA project: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm > "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a > brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld > > Cuzins, > > Is there anyone who has/had access to JSTOR and if so, did you find it > useful in your research? > > Nel > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.108/2566 - Release Date: 12/15/09 07:52:00

Nel: I have JSTOR and find it well worth the cost.  I have renewed my membership for the second time.  I find the site very useful.

Nel, I have JSTOR and I find it well worth the cost. I have renewed my membreship for the second time. ----- Original Message ----- From: "nelhatch" <[email protected]> To: "HATCHERLIST" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 11:45:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [HATCHER] JSTOR....... HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld Cuzins, Is there anyone who has/had access to JSTOR and if so, did you find it useful in your research? Nel ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld Thanks, Helen! That's what I needed to know. Nel

HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld Cuzins, Is there anyone who has/had access to JSTOR and if so, did you find it useful in your research? Nel