I just noticed that you already have information on William Stokes and Hannah Hatcher. It is interesting that Rachel (Zane) Hatcher is suing her step-daughter's husband/William's step-uncle. There are also alot of other related surnames in the Stokes genealogy. Particulary the Haines and Heaton families. Still looking, Gary

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 Gary, Yes, we have the Stokes info but still with questions. Who was Hannah Hatcher's father if not William by a 1st wife? And I now know that Rachel may not have been a Zane but perhaps the widow of Nathan Zane, one Rachel Jenkins who md Nathan in 1775. I've found that Nathan left a will and died in 1788, just 1-2 yrs before Rachel md William Hatcher. And so far I've not found any of the many Zanes in Burlington with a dau named Rachel of the right age. I've not yet found the complete text (or even a good abstract) for Nathan Zane's will but Rachel and Aaron Pancoast (another familiar Quaker name) were the executors. You again mentioned the Heaton name which I had mentioned earlier - a Robert Heaton in early 1700s Bucks and then 90 yrs later Wm Hatcher of Burlington is bondsman for Robert Heaton's wedding. So far I'm not seeing anything that would spoil my belief that Wm of Burlington is Nicholas's son. I currently have him bn bef 1753 (dau Hannah bn 1774) but I suspect he was born c1742. I will mention something else I've noticed among several of the men in this NJ picture - many marry later than we are used to seeing - late 20s to early 30s. Nathan Zane was 31 when he md Rachel Jenkins. And I think I understand why. Most of these people were tradesmen who did not own large amts of land (to pass onto their sons). Reading the indenture for Wm Jr, we find how strictly his actions were controlled, right down to no fornicating and no contract to marry. His indenture began when he was only 9 yrs old and ended at age 21 and all he had was a trade. He would have to work a number of years before he was capable of supporting a wife or kids. >From a 1797 tax list we know that Wm Sr owned only 122A and was himself probably some sort of tradesman. Rachel wasn't kidding in her documents when she described herself as a "poor widow." Nel