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

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