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 OK - this should be a fun exercise..........!! Shirley wrote: *I may have missed a couple of e-mails but the Sarah Hatcher that married William Spencer is the daughter of James Hatcher and Catherine Nichols. This is correct according to our file. Did someone indicate otherwise?? Now let's see what we can do with the following....... >From Evelyn Avery: "Robert Russell's Bible Records give his birth date as 24 Apr 1753, thus indicating Sarah, his mother must be the first child born to William and Ann." ***Sooo! Why would she be first born of Wm/Ann? If Rob himself was 1st born, Sarah may have been 18 and born c1735 - certainly not 1st born. AND how do we know this Robert is our Sarah's son? How do we know Sarah even HAD a son named Robert? Did Rob record his parents' births? I would think not or Evelyn would have revealed those dates. WHERE CAN WE FIND THIS BIBLE RECORD? And why do several people on WC show his parents as Samuel Russell and Sarah MOORE?? Are they righter than we are?** "That Sarah is married to a Russell is provided for us in her father's will. The will of William Hatcher, written 19 Jan 1780, proved 14 May 1781, leaves plantations to each of his 5 sons (John, James, William, George & Thomas) and an equal share of his estate to his daughter Mary Gibson. To his daughter Sarah Russell, he left 10 shillings with no explanation. His wife, Ann VanSandt, is unmentioned." **All we can say here is that by 1780, Sarah would appear to be a widow.** "Sarah does not get married in, nor does she join, the Quaker Church. This is probably why William cut her out of his will. Quakers were very strict, and the church and the family would disown a person for a marriage "contrary to the discipline of the church." **Wm/Ann did not join until 1754. How do we know whether Sarah was 18 in 1754 and simply wasn't ready to join (being considered an adult)? And Wm did not cut her out of his will. He left her 10 shillings. If she was widowed, it's quite possible she rec'd whatever inheritance he wished to give her long before he wrote his will. That's not at all uncommon. And how do you "disown" a person for a marriage "contrary to the discipline of the church" if one was never a member?** "At Quaker weddings, all the wedding guests sign the marriage record, Sarah does attend the weddings of her brothers and sister, and several of her nieces and nephews. She is in the company of a Samuel Russell and the children named in his will. Other than these "family marriages," Samuel Russell attends only one other Quaker Wedding." **And now for the fun part. It's obvious there are original documents somewhere showing these "wedding guests." WHERE DO WE FIND THE ORIGINALS? Now as Paul pointed out, guests signed these registers according to their relationship to the bride and groom - at the top, on a certain side of the page, etc. Unless we know exactly where Sam and Sarah signed, we can't say for sure WHAT her relationship was to the bride and groom. Knowing the dates they attended would also be helpful. What if this is Sam and Sarah MOORE Russell and just friends of the wedding couple? What if Sam/Sarah Moore was widowed and attended these weddings with his SIS-in-law, Sarah Hatcher Russell who married his BROTHER? Notice that in Wm/Ann's will, only Sarah Russell is named. Her husband's name is NOT mentioned which is somewhat unusual since this 1780 date is still under the laws of primogeniture. And this sentence....."She is in the company [at weddings] of a Samuel Russell and the children named in HIS will." Was Sarah mentioned in HIS will or just the kids from the marriage registers? Supposedly he died in 1806 so he would be alive in 1780 when Wm died and his wife would be alive IF she was Sarah Hatcher. WHERE MIGHT WE FIND SAM'S WILL? "Sarah and Samuel attended the wedding of Sarah's brother William Jr.who leaves a will, and he has no descendants. He divides his property among the children of his deceased brothers and sister, and includes a legacy to "my beloved sister Sarah Russell." She is alive when his will is written 14 Nov 1816. Sarah is paid her legacy among the first few names in the estate acccount record, which began Dec 1816, and was offered to the court 11 Dec 1820." God bless her!! If she was the eldest child and all but one of the rest of the sibs were dead, this lady was 88 when her brother died. She rec'd $50. Her brother gave as follows.... ... to the children of my decease brother John Hatcher ... one share of land ... one share of money ... to the children of my decease sister Mary Gibson ... one share of land ... one share of money ... to the children of my decease brother James Hatcher ... one share of land ... one share of money ... to the children of my decease brother George Hatcher ... one share of land ... one share of money ... and remaining share [of each] to my beloved brother Thomas Hatcher. Now how come he didn't give a share of land to SARAH's kids? Perhaps because she didn't have any?? Dive right in, folks!! Anyone got any answers? Questions? Wild theories? :-) Nel

I really wasn't trying to be argumentative, just sharing what I have. Robert Russell was not the first child of Samuel and Sarah he was the 3rd. Robert was the one interested in keeping the family bible I guess. I have a great deal of respect for Evelyn Avery's research so I might not be as objective as I should. Robert Russell's birthdate was taken from the "Russell Memoirs" by Ida May Biggs of Hebron, IN. Gail Russell Bond?copied excerpts from this book and sent the info to Kay Warren, who sent it to Evelyn Avery who sent it to me. I admit it isn't 1st hand information. I don't know if you can find the family bible but you might be able to find the book by Ida May Biggs. Just because Samuel Russell is not mentioned in William's will does not mean he is dead. If William, whom it appears was not a great example of honesty and virtue let alone forgiveness, might still harbor feelings of ill will toward his son-in-law and ignore mentioning his name. Perhaps Sarah was disowned by her father not the church. You are the one with the 12 volume set of Hinshaw's Encyclopedia, maybe you can find the original guest list. I'm satisfied that Evelyn did. Primogeniture or not, it would be plain for Samuel to see that Sarah's father wanted her to have the money not him. He could take it away from her if he chose. William Jr. gave one share of land and one share of money to his deceased brothers and sisters children. Since Sarah wasn't deceased she got the money and could probably pass it on to her children if she pleased. Notice that Thomas received his share not?Thomas' children. If the amount Sarah received was only $50 it would probably be equal to $500 of today's money. Since Evelyn refers to Samuel Russell's will it should be in the Loudoun Co. Will Book as they (Russell's)seemed to spend most or all of their lives?in that area. I have found 7 children for Samuel and Sarah but I cannot prove it so I won't share it. -----Original Message----- From: nelhatch <nelhatch@hills.net> To: hatcher@rootsweb.com Sent: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 7:30 pm Subject: Re: [HATCHER] Spencer's and Russell's 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 OK - this should be a fun exercise..........!! Shirley wrote: *I may have missed a couple of e-mails but the Sarah Hatcher that married William Spencer is the daughter of James Hatcher and Catherine Nichols. This is correct according to our file. Did someone indicate otherwise?? Now let's see what we can do with the following....... >From Evelyn Avery: "Robert Russell's Bible Records give his birth date as 24 Apr 1753, thus indicating Sarah, his mother must be the first child born to William and Ann." ***Sooo! Why would she be first born of Wm/Ann? If Rob himself was 1st born, Sarah may have been 18 and born c1735 - certainly not 1st born. AND how do we know this Robert is our Sarah's son? How do we know Sarah even HAD a son named Robert? Did Rob record his parents' births? I would think not or Evelyn would have revealed those dates. WHERE CAN WE FIND THIS BIBLE RECORD? And why do several people on WC show his parents as Samuel Russell and Sarah MOORE?? Are they righter than we are?** "That Sarah is married to a Russell is provided for us in her father's will. The will of William Hatcher, written 19 Jan 1780, proved 14 May 1781, leaves plantations to each of his 5 sons (John, James, William, George & Thomas) and an equal share of his estate to his daughter Mary Gibson. To his daughter Sarah Russell, he left 10 shillings with no explanation. His wife, Ann VanSandt, is unmentioned." **All we can say here is that by 1780, Sarah would appear to be a widow.** "Sarah does not get married in, nor does she join, the Quaker Church. This is probably why William cut her out of his will. Quakers were very strict, and the church and the family would disown a person for a marriage "contrary to the discipline of the church." **Wm/Ann did not join until 1754. How do we know whether Sarah was 18 in 1754 and simply wasn't ready to join (being considered an adult)? And Wm did not cut her out of his will. He left her 10 shillings. If she was widowed, it's quite possible she rec'd whatever inheritance he wished to give her long before he wrote his will. That's not at all uncommon. And how do you "disown" a person for a marriage "contrary to the discipline of the church" if one was never a member?** "At Quaker weddings, all the wedding guests sign the marriage record, Sarah does attend the weddings of her brothers and sister, and several of her nieces and nephews. She is in the company of a Samuel Russell and the children named in his will. Other than these "family marriages," Samuel Russell attends only one other Quaker Wedding." **And now for the fun part. It's obvious there are original documents somewhere showing these "wedding guests." WHERE DO WE FIND THE ORIGINALS? Now as Paul pointed out, guests signed these registers according to their relationship to the bride and groom - at the top, on a certain side of the page, etc. Unless we know exactly where Sam and Sarah signed, we can't say for sure WHAT her relationship was to the bride and groom. Knowing the dates they attended would also be helpful. What if this is Sam and Sarah MOORE Russell and just friends of the wedding couple? What if Sam/Sarah Moore was widowed and attended these weddings with his SIS-in-law, Sarah Hatcher Russell who married his BROTHER? Notice that in Wm/Ann's will, only Sarah Russell is named. Her husband's name is NOT mentioned which is somewhat unusual since this 1780 date is still under the laws of primogeniture. And this sentence....."She is in the company [at weddings] of a Samuel Russell and the children named in HIS will." Was Sarah mentioned in HIS will or just the kids from the marriage registers? Supposedly he died in 1806 so he would be alive in 1780 when Wm died and his wife would be alive IF she was Sarah Hatcher. WHERE MIGHT WE FIND SAM'S WILL? "Sarah and Samuel attended the wedding of Sarah's brother William Jr.who leaves a will, and he has no descendants. He divides his property among the children of his deceased brothers and sister, and includes a legacy to "my beloved sister Sarah Russell." She is alive when his will is written 14 Nov 1816. Sarah is paid her legacy among the first few names in the estate acccount record, which began Dec 1816, and was offered to the court 11 Dec 1820." God bless her!! If she was the eldest child and all but one of the rest of the sibs were dead, this lady was 88 when her brother died. She rec'd $50. Her brother gave as follows.... ... to the children of my decease brother John Hatcher ... one share of land ... one share of money ... to the children of my decease sister Mary Gibson ... one share of land ... one share of money ... to the children of my decease brother James Hatcher ... one share of land ... one share of money ... to the children of my decease brother George Hatcher ... one share of land ... one share of money ... and remaining share [of each] to my beloved brother Thomas Hatcher. Now how come he didn't give a share of land to SARAH's kids? Perhaps because she didn't have any?? Dive right in, folks!! Anyone got any answers? Questions? Wild theories? :-) Nel ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HATCHER-request@rootsweb.com 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 "If you can't stand the skeletons, stay out of the closet" - Val D Greenwood Ah, Shirley! I wasn't trying to suggest you were being argumentative at all. What I saw in your post, after checking our file and several other sites, were several details that raised some nigglies in my mind as to whether we really have our details and connections right. And I've personally met Evelyn and also have high respect for her research and her abilities. I'm in no way attempting to denigrate her efforts but after being around for 12 yrs, I'm acutely aware how easy it is to make mistakes along the way. I've found many of my own as I progressed and I've had many others point out other mistakes. I've said my mea culpas so many times, I can say it backwards :-) No one, and I do mean NO one, is immune from misreading a doc or coming up with what looks like a slam-dunk belief only to find out it's not true. I think I need only mention our John/Eve situation. I do have the Hinshaw CD but he did not include these lists of guests at weddings. He reports the marriage and nothing more. And I will see if I can find Sam's will in Loudoun. But you brought out that the living brother of Wm, Thomas, rec'd a share of land. That was my point. Why did not Sarah also receive the same share rather than money? When I can come up with questions like this, those become my nigglies. And I look for answers. I'm also aware that Sam/Sarah's 1st born was apparently Wm, given a birth of 1745 from all I've seen so far. But that's another niggly. If that's true, and Sarah was bn c1728, she was truly a child bride. Not impossible, of course. So believe me, it's not an argument I'm looking for but a debate, a discussion, the presentation of ideas worth pursuing or someone to come up with that hidden piece of info that none of us has been aware of. This whole conversation over the past week or so has produced a number of those "hidden pieces of info" that has been a big help in wending our way thru all this. So don't be mad at me. You'll cause me to lose my beauty sleep tonite :-) Nel