----- Original Message ----- From: "nelhatch" <nelhatch@hills.net> To: "HATCHERLIST" <hatcher@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:33 PM Subject: [HATCHER] Now a Quaker questions......... > > 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 > >>From the Quaker Fairfax minutes.... > > Wm was rec'd on request with his YOUNGER children June 1754 %%%%%%Quakers maintained both Men's and Women's records. Sons were recorded in Men's records. > Ann and dau, Mary, rec'd Aug 1754 by Women's Mtg James b 7-3-1732 (Not identified here) rec'd on request Feb 1755 (some time uc) %%%under care- checking to verify that he is qualified%%% , m Catherine Nichols (not identidifed here) %%%% (Not identified here) means exactly what it says. This is probably a Hinshaw note and also the birthdate was probably to help him identify James and Catherine at a later date in other records. He put many records together that were not together in the original records. *What does "not identified here" mean? And why was his birth date noted while others were not? > > John rec'd on request Dec 1756 > > Thomas of Loudoun Co rec'd on request Oct 1761, md Rebecca Nichols 1773 > > *Why was he ID'd as "of LoudounCo"? %%% Fairfax MM at that time was in > Fairfax county, Virginia%%% > > It seems to me that only George, Wm Jr and Mary were his "younger > children" since we find no requests by them as individuals. But....what > was the age limit where children automatically became members as part of > their parents request? Under 18? Under 21? %%% Usually under 18 but at any age if the parents were already Quakers (called birthright members) %%% > Thomas is a problem. If this Tom was s/o Wm/Ann, he would have to have > been born 1743 (age 18 in 1761) or born 1740 (age 21 in 1761). But if born > 1740 or later, he would have been 11-14 when Wm/Ann became members in > 1754. If, as a child, he automatically became a member with his parents, > why then would he need to be rec'd on request in 1761? The other option > seems to be that he was 18-21 in 1754 so born before 1737. %%% Or Tom wasn't there at that time,%%% > SO confuzed.......... > > 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 OK - Ed just checked in with a ton of Bucks images, Paul has given me some answers and Shirley has the Rakestraws - all that I need to work on. But just on what Ed sent, it appears that Nick of BucksCo had 1 son...named William. So....more tomorrow! Nel