HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "If you can't stand the skeletons, stay out of the closet" - Val D Greenwood W W, First, I love you, too, and I would be stunned to find that anyone would be "convinced" in just these few short days. This is a complex problem that will take much time. I ain't Wonder Woman :-) But I would also like to point out the major problem with the Robert connection - and I believe all of us who have worked on this over the years will agree - we have found NOT ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT that ever ties this family directly or even remotely to Robert. These two families were always living in distinctly different locations and that fact IS important. There is real substance to "locations" in geney analysis. Without any connection at all, we MUST look at other possibilities and what I am finding so far makes it supremely likely that no one other than Tom/Wilm can be their parents. "1. first you don't have any real proof. (wish we did)" We have no proof of Robert either. We never did. What I am doing right now is attempting to provide the proof for Tom/Wilm or such strong circumstantial evidence that the connection can't be denied. W W, a process of this magnitude takes a GREAT DEAL OF TIME. I can't do it overnite. "2. none of Mj. Johns children are named Thomas or Jameston." But we do have James all over the place. I don't necessarily expect the name of one I believe is an uncle to be splattered all over this family's map. We do not find the name Jameston even in his own direct family. I also do not use naming patterns as indicative of anything other than icing on the cake. You build the cake first from the records. If some names flow along in the family, they tend to ice the cake. Naming kids was an individual choice. It was not a requirement that one name kids after parents. Some did. Some didn't. "3. his first born was named "Jeremiah Brady"....but in the normal naming convention of the day, the first born would have been named for the grandfather..." No, you seem to be a gen off here. If Robert was John's father, John's 1st born would be named Robert, not Jeremiah (believed to be Robert's father). John named his 7th child Robert. I would also suggest that John may have named his 1st child after Jeremiah Beall who appears to have been one of his first commanding officers. This type of naming is not unknown in the military community, and John was definitely military. "If Jameston was Mj.s grandfather, why did he not name his first born Jameston and his second born male Thomas?" Same reasoning as above. The child would be named after his gfather (Thomas) and not his ggfather. We don't know whether John had a son Thomas who died. But it really doesn't matter since naming was a personal choice, not law. "...and in some cases their grandmother or great grandmother's maiden names." I believe you are referring to Ann Sanders. Again, I will point out that there is not a single ref in GA to the name of Robert's wife. She being Ann Sanders is a wild assumption and totally unproven. Remember Joyce's AmeliaCo research showing NO Sanders families in Amelia and the fact that this marriage rec was torn and showed only Ann San. We simply cannot tie the presence of the middle name Sanders to anyone. There is NO link between Ann San of Amelia and anyone in GA. "Strangely enough the only one missing is Edward of which just last year you were trying to say he was Mj. Johns father" Never did I say Ed was John's father. They were the same age. Now the file. You bet I'm rearranging and reorganizing. From a technical standpoint, the online file is my workfile. I must make my changes there, do my analysis from there, form my questions from there. I cannot do that by having these people scattered and disconnected all over the file. I would also like to make a very strong point about my theories and who and where I make connections. I have made several of these "major changes" in the past with a number of them leaving me with lots of nigglies in my gut. I know there are enough holes to sink a battleship. But I've also been rewarded doing this by occasionally having experienced researchers provide me with the evidence of my wrong thinking. And THAT is what I'm looking for. I make no claim any of my work is perfect. My goal is to get to the truth and I have no problem with mea culpas if someone can prove me wrong. I will get on my knees and say THANK you! The same is true today. My gut reaction to the John problem does not leave me with nagging nigglies with the larger connection. Yes, there will be other details within the family that may be minor problems and that is where I see the work ahead. I make every effort to keep all in this group informed when major changes are made. YOU, the people most directly affected, must know why I'm doing what I'm doing. But at no time am I asking anyone to just accept blindly. I ask for input, corrections, new theories, new questions. I ask for help, not acceptance. And to put it bluntly, I long ago gave up caring one whit what the uneducated and inexperienced hobbyists do or what they copy from my or anyone's file. No one is going to control that idiocy. There is no such thing as a perfect file. There are dozens of sites still showing Wm of Careby. The garbage got started long before we came along. We've got the truth about Wm "of Careby" on our file and they don't care. I refuse to cater to idiots. SO I DON'T CARE! :-) One final note. Defining proof can be difficult and we may never have smoking guns in our hands. Many trees are brilliantly put together on positive circumstantial evidence, sound logic and common sense. This may end up being the case (or not). But I will not leave these people scattered and disconnected all over the file because I don't have a smoking gun. It don't work that way :-) Nel