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 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), m Catherine Nichols (not identidifed here) *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"? 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? 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. SO confuzed.......... Nel

Don't be confused, Nel. It's a common occurrence for a Thomas Hatcher to be a problem. Thomas G. Hatcher ----- Original Message ----- From: nelhatch To: HATCHERLIST Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:33 PM Thomas of Loudoun Co rec'd on request Oct 1761, md Rebecca Nichols 1773 *Why was he ID'd as "of LoudounCo"? Thomas is a problem... SO confuzed.......... Nel