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 Just got kicked in the be-hind! I wrote: " But if we go that route, that means we currently have NO kids attached to Henry/Dorothy. Yet I don't believe Dorothy would have had any reason to challenge what Henry left her if they had no kids. Everything would have gone to her." >From James Maloney, our very valuable lawyer: "That is true today, but it was not true in the early 1700's. Dorothy had the right to claim 1/3 for her lifetime use (she could not sell or interest or leave it to her heirs), but the underlying title would follow the blood lines - if no children, then his eldest brother (or the issue of the eldest brother)." And that shines a whole new spotlight on this picture. It's possible Henry/Dorothy didn't have kids and much of his property was willed to his brothers. The widow could challenge the will if she felt she was not receiving a full 1/3. Since neither his will nor any estate distribution recs have been found, we can only keep this new possibility in mind. Nel