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