Singleton and Related Genealogy Pages
A history of many families.
Abt 1664 - | Name | William HATCHELL [2] | |
| Birth | Abt 1664 | Ireland  [1, 2] |
| Gender | Male | |
| HIST | Bill Hatchell is the go-to-person of Hatchell History and the following are a few of his notes on the search for family history that he has sent us over the years. Just wanting to share. Not in any special order Jackie, just interesting. Jeanette I find these entries from the 1898 English Dialect Dictionary quite interesting and instructive re origin of our surname and the English and Scottish counties identified by usage. The 'covering' usage is definitely the oldest and most widespread, derived directly from the Anglo Saxon 'haecel' (=hackle) for cloak, covering, skin, etc. The comb usage came much later. Our softened consonant and modern English version, 'hatchel' applies to both the original covering usage as well as the later comb usage. I find the usage 'to dress up' and the related usage 'he has a good hackle on his back' (implying 'good looking') especially appealing! Anyway, I wanted to share this with you. Love, BH A note sent by Bill just prior to the 2011 Hatchell reunion at Walterboro SC home of Kaye and Ann Hatchell Warren. Most attendees were expected to be descendants of Morris Hatchell and Martha Arrington of SC. The attachment is not here but I’ve asked for another copy to be sent or will add it once found…. Hi All I've prepared the attached .PDF as an overview of Hatchell family research and history. It is by no means a complete family history through recent generations. Emphasis is on the earliest history through the first four or five generations of descendants of our Colonial American ancestor, William Hatchell of Virginia. For perspective, please bear in mind that this spans a period of time from prior to 1066 AD through the mid-19th century. In particular, I've tried to include all of the known SC twigs and branches since most, if not all, attendees of this 2011 reunion are descendants of Morris Hatchel and Martha Arrington of SC. You therefore should be able to link more recent lines of descent to these. If not, please feel free to contact me for help. Also, I'm not sure if I've included everyone, so please let me know of others who may want to be copied on this. We all should be very proud of our most rare and ancient family, and I for one, have enjoyed the adventure of discovery over the years! My work of many years now is rapidly approaching completion, and a much more extensive manuscript for publication is planned sometime soon. Meanwhile, I will continue to work with our British cousins on the elusive search for a link between our immigrant ancestor, William, and that of the Anglo-Irish branch of the family where YDNA has shown conclusive matches and a commonly shared distant ancestor. DNA, combined with existing and yet-to-be-discovered records, will be the key. Meanwhile, I encourage all interested descendants to participate in the Family Tree DNA Project Group. So far, we have a small number of participants, some tested into the 25- and 37-marker y-DNA (male) ranges showing deeper ancestry, and some also including mt-DNA (female) testing. Descendants of William Hatchell of Virginia all match within the first 12-markers, indicating a common ancestry confirming the paper trail research back to the immigrant ancestor. More limited but detailed testing in the deeper ranges (25- and 37-markers) exhibit reveal the expected mutations over time and within genetic branches of the family, and also match descendants of John Hatchell of Wexford, Ireland. The only two mismatches appear to confirm known or suspected name-change or adoption. We're hoping to expand the deep-clad testing and attract participants of all of the name-spelling variants, particularly those in the British Isles. Finally, I wish to congratulate everyone, including Dick and Marion Hatchell, and all those wonderful people on-site in SC, for the fine work and planning of this 2011 summer's reunion. Enjoy! Bill Hatchell 108A Arroyo Hondo Road Santa Fe, NM 87508-5941 Of deep interest to anyone, whether North or South. Bill Today, 12 April 2011, being the 150th year after forces of the Confederate States of America fired upon Ft Sumter, a brief summary of historical facts is in order. Read on, if interested. THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES[1] Or more accurately, The War of Northern Aggression And more commonly, The Civil War[2] 12 April 1861—9 April 1865 On December 6th, 1860, in recognition of the Sovereignty of the States of the South, the United States Government entered into a solemn Armistice with the officials of the State of South Carolina and on January 29th, 1861, the United States Government then entered into yet another solemn Armistice with the officials of the State of Florida. Both of these agreements were officially filed with the United States War and Navy Departments. In these agreements, the United States agreed not to attempt any reinforcement of Fort Sumter, Fort Pickens, the entire State of South Carolina and Florida. In return, the Confederate authorities agreed that there would be no attack on the Forts occupied by Union Forces as long as the agreements were observed to the letter. It was also understood by these agreements that any violation would be considered an act of war between the Confederacy and the United States. Additionally, it was understood by these agreements that any person visiting these fortifications, or areas covered by these agreements, with the intent to advise, plans, supply, reinforce or strengthen the fortifications that it too would be considered an act of war under the officially recognized and signed agreements. Within eight days of the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, the United States Government, upon Lincoln’s orders violated the Armistices by attempting to reinforce Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Florida, thus from that point a state of war existed between the Confederate States of America and the United States. In January 1861, on the U.S.S. Brooklyn, Captain Vogdes, along with an armed force, was sent to reinforce Fort Pickens. However, Vogdes remained on the U.S.S. Brooklyn temporarily stopped by the Armistice. However, according to the terms of the Armistice, from that moment of preparation, a legal state of war existed between The Confederate States of America and the United States of America. Late in March, despite division in his cabinet, Lincoln ordered an expedition by sea to resupply and perhaps reinforce the garrison at Fort Sumter. Lincoln and his department heads had wrestled over how the slave-holding southern border states would respond. If the attempt to hold Fort Sumter resulted in war, some or all of these border states might join the Confederacy. On April 6, Lincoln informed the governor of South Carolina that, “An attempt will be made to resupply Fort Sumter with provisions only.” The governor received it two days later as the first relief ship left New York City for Charleston. The next day, April 9, the Confederate cabinet endorsed President Jefferson Davis’s order to General P.G.T. Beauregard to reduce Fort Sumter by bombardment before Lincoln’s naval expedition arrived.[3] On the afternoon of April 11, a three-man delegation crossed Charleston Harbor to Fort Sumter by small boat and delivered a demand for the evacuation of the port to Major Robert Anderson, the fort’s commander. After a discussion with his officers, Anderson refused. Another meeting before midnight also failed to achieve a peaceful solution. So, at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, a single shot arced into the pre-dawn sky, and shore batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter. The bombardment and response continued for 34 hours before Anderson surrendered on April 14. The next day, Lincoln issued a proclamation declaring that an insurrection existed and asking for 75,000 militia troops from northern states. Americans embraced the fury. On April 17, Virginia’s secession convention voted to leave the Union, and Virginia state militia companies soon seized Federal installations. In Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee, conventions prepared to follow Virginia while Maryland voted against secession. Tens of thousands of volunteers rushed to join their respective armies. The Civil War had begun.[4] The war was costly in terms of human misery. The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to [property] and human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded. The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.[5] [1] CONGRESS JOINT RESOLUTION # 41. The Congressional record of March 2, 1928, reports Senate joint resolution No. 41 wherein Congress recognized the title "War Between The States" as proper. A war was waged from 1861 to 1865 between two organized governments: the United States of America, and the Confederate States of America. These were the official titles of the contending parties. It was not a "Civil War," as it was not fought between two parties within the same government. It was not a "War of Succession," for the Southern States succeeded without a thought of war. The right of a state to succeed had never been questioned. It was not a "War of Rebellion" for sovereign, independent States, co-equal, cannot rebel against each other. It was a War between the States, because twenty-two non-succeeding States made war upon eleven States to force them back into the Union of States. It was not until after the surrender of 1865 that succession was decided to be unconstitutional. [2] Other names include War for Southern Independence, War to Prevent Southern Independence, War of Secession, and Second American Revolution. [3] http://southtexas.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/the-treachery-of-lincoln/ [4] http://www.norwichbulletin.com/newsnow/x816841125/Civil-War-started-at-South-Carolina-fort - axzz1IrwcYmmv [5] http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm Love, Bill Hi Jeanette, If I recall, grandpapa Eddie Hatchell could only tell me that they came "down Lynches River" from NC and settled along the river banks. This jives with what we know of Morris Hatchell who arrived from Wayne Co., NC (Goldsboro area) by the time he wrote his 1797 Darlington Dist. will. He was counted in Wayne Co. on the 1787 NC State census (which fed into the reconstructed 1790 Federal census which was lost to fire). We also have several land sales by Morris in Wayne Co. prior to his leaving for SC. Reason he came to SC was that his father-in-law, Benjamin Arrington, had already settled on Lynches, and Morris and Martha "Patty" probably were enticed to join him and available land. But, several Wayne Co. families came about the same time probably more or less all together. Your dad once told me that via his railroad work he had discovered that we were related to the Hatchells of Beaufort, NC which is also true based on the records. Most of them (around Beaufort area) spell the name Hatsell however, although some use the Hatchel/Hatchell spelling, some even interchangeably. Remember that many people could not write or spell in those days! Now, we find that Hatsell and Hatchell and Hatchwell are all one and the same family in Devon Co., England! For the ones who obviously left their English county and followed Cromwell to Ireland sometime after 1649 (Cromwell's invasion), are all spelled Hatchell in the earliest Wexford and Dublin records, and we've searched for possible variant spellings but found only Hatchwell, so this needs to be followed up as it might be an earlier Irish entry from some English county like Devon. In fact, Devon is about the only English county with that early spelling, although Wiltshire and Somerset also have lots of Hachell/Hatchill entries very early on. Important thing: our DNA testing clearly shows exact matches between me and living descendants of the NC Hatsell family who have also tested. I've surmised that because the Hatsell spelling was also first used in Colonial records in VA, perhaps someone in the Virginia family knew something about earlier family history and the use of that spelling perhaps in Devon! Funny thing: any Britisher will tell you today that Hatsell is pronounced the same as Hatchell (the 'ts' should be pronounced just like a 'ch'). I think this must also be why another variant spelling became 'Hatchwell.' Right now, we're investigating Capt. Henry Hatsell of Plymouth, Devon who was the Royal Navy Commander during the Cromwell era. He also served as a Member of Parliament from Devon. His son, Henry, became Baron of the Exchequer, and was knighted. Captain Henry had other children, but when the Crown was restored following Cromwell, Hatsell was deposed and disenfranchised of his Devon property (Saltram House). Could be that one or more of his sons at the time left Devon for Ireland, or perhaps had left even prior to the Restoration, we don't know. Wish someone with the Devon Hatsell name would come forward and DNA test so we'd have a comparison with our own DNA, that would tell the tale for sure! I'll certainly keep you informed of any new findings. Right now, I've located several pre-1700 Devon wills I need to order from the British National Archives at Kew. Wouldn't it be great if one of them revealed some names who maybe went over to Ireland from Devon?! You take care and give Jim my best too. Love, Bill Jeanette, To update you per our medieval Hatchell research, we now know that the ancient parish near Dartmoor Park at Widecombe-on-the-Moor, Devonshire, known in 1510 as Hatchill or Hatshill, was spelled as influenced by the Latin, as Hattyshill, later became spelled as Hatshill, shown on 1700-era maps as Hatchel, and on modern maps, the same locality is spelled Hatchwell. Although, the very ancient name (in Anglo Saxon times) was Haecel, spelled 'Haeccel' in Domesday Survey for the locale in Northamptonshire, is Old English for a hooded cloak so commonly worn at that time. The feathers on the neck of a rooster and other male birds came also to be called the same and spelled 'hackle,' and used in fly fishing, known today as fishing hackle. Much later, by the 1400s, the similarity of the upraised neck feathers on a bird or back of an animal (hackle) came to be applied to a flax comb with its upraised hooked metal teeth. This was long after the name came to be established, based on the original cloak meaning, not the later flax comb meaning. The name was most common in west England from north to south (Yorkshire down to Devon), except for a few listings in London by the 1600s as people left the countryside for the city in search of work, etc. We still don't know where our William Hatchell of Virginia, the immigrant, originated. He had to have been born sometime prior to ca 1660-65, for he was a young man when he arrived, and was married and with family by the early 1690s, and was deceased shortly after or ca 1728. This birth (ca 1660-1665) seems to fit what we know based on the surviving records. Whether he left directly from England or from Wexford, Ireland is uncertain. The English family had become established in Wexford following Cromwell's Irish invasion in 1649, but few records have survived. "Hatchell of County Wexford" by Sir David Goodall is the best authority and research of the early family, and Goodall only surmised that Hatchell might have crossed the Irish Sea from Devon since the name appeared to have been so well represented there by the middle 1600s, even with given names that match those found among the early Anglo-Irish generations in Wexford! Not so common given names like Nicholas and Simon, as well as more common ones like Edward, John, and Henry. My DNA is an exact match with the DNA of descendants of John Hatchell (b. 1681) who lived in Wexford, and whose daughter, Mary Hatchell, married John Goodall (Mayor of Wexford), ancestor of Sir David Goodall. John Hatchell and Mary his wife are buried in the same crypt with the Goodalls at St. Selskir's Cathedral in Wexford. A grandson of John and Mary Hatchell was Hon. John P. Hatchell, Member of Parliament, Irish Attorney General, etc. and his son, John P. Hatchell, Jr. was Secretary to Lord Carlisle, Irish Chancellor. George Hatchell, a cousin, was Royal Surgeon to Queen Victoria, and another cousin, George Hatchell, was Clerk of the Rolls. Back to Devon: based on the ancient parish name Hattyshill, later names spelled Hatchell, Hatshill, Hatchwell, Hatswell, and Hatsell all appear to have come from the ancient parish name. In other words, DNA of direct male descendants of these should match my own and that of John Hatchell of Wexford, as well as Sir Henry Hatsell, Royal Naval Commander of Plymouth (Devon) and Member of Parliament under Cromwell during the English Civil Wars. We're attempting to contact Hatchwell and Hatsell descendants as best we can to locate any who might be interested in testing. Keep your fingers crossed! Not many left in England or even Ireland due to civil war, famine and out-migration to the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The names are almost extinct in fact in England and Ireland, and not all spelled like we spell ours which makes for some additional difficulty in tracking down descendants. The fact that a branch of our own Colonial US line chose to spell their name Hatsell (in VA and NC) might suggest they had some knowledge of earlier family name-spelling heritage! Well, this does it for now. Just wanted to bring you up-to-date on Hattyshill, an exciting discovery which has opened more avenues for us in terms of origins. Hope you are having a wonderful summer and enjoying life. Please keep in touch, as will I. Love, Bill Jackie, the following are email addresses listed by distant cousin Marion Hatchell (nick name 'Dunk'). Many of these attended the Hatchell reunion of 2011 as did Jeanette & I. All were great to meet and we enjoyed the reunion at Walterboro SC @ Ann Warren's place. From: Marion Hatchell Date: Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:48 AM Subject: Fwd: Hatchell Ancestors To: Ann Hatchell Warren Jeanette spoke with another cousin yesterday and that lady has a niece conducting family research works in-process with Evans, Brown, and other cross-related families. Hope to have those soon. Enough for this morning, Jim & Jeanette Yes I do have a lot of info that goes back to William Hatchell's line. (Ireland 1675) William Hatchell (married Elizabeth 1725 1710 mother was Ann Dunn, father William Hatchell. etc Tyler Sr was son of Sidney J Hatchell and Mary Catherine (Hatchell, yes Hatchell married Hatchell) Her father was Elizah C Hatchell and her mother was Margaret McKay Elizah C Hatchell 's father was John Amster and his mother was Mary Ann Allen Sidney J b 1856 is my great grand father (if all the info I have is correct and I believe it is) Does this go to any of your tree? Harriette J Hatton ("Josie" Hatchell) Proposed Change: William HATCHELL (I22261) Tree: Singleton and Related Families Link: http://singletonfamily.org//getperson.php?personID=I22261&tree=1 Description: Based on findings searching Devon records in early 2015 suggest that the immigrant William Hatchell, was born no later than about 1664 (not 1675) since he would have been a young man upon arrival in New Kent Co., VA in late 1682. The Devon finding is a birth record for a William Hatswell christened in April 1664, Tiverton, St. Peter Church, which fits well with our 1682 man. That said, I am not prepared to say conclusively that the 1664 birth is ours necessarily, as more documentation is needed, that is, aside from just the one record at Tiverton in combination with Capt. Wm. Bassett's headright list of 1682. At any rate, I would suggest we correct the estimated birth as c1664 rather than 1675. I have no proof either way, but for our lineal ancestor to have arrived alone in 1682, it is only reasonable to assume that he was at least 18 years of age, and certainly not a minor of age 7. The "1675" goes back many years to the time when our fledgling research had just begun, and few early Virginia and English records had been found. We estimated that birth based solely on the birth ranges of his known children in Virginia between c1696-1700. So, I respectfully suggest changing it at this point in time based on what we now know. A major task is to find additional corroborating documentation in Devon to show that this William Hatswell b. 1664 and our William H. in Virginia were one and the same. I will add that matches from our Hatchell-Hatsell DNA Study Group, which includes descendants of others (on both sides of the Atlantic) known to have been from Devon suggests that, in Devon at least, Hatswell, Hatchwell, Hatsell, and Hatchell are all one and the same genetic family. There is no question that the names in the Devon records appear to have been indifferently spelled even within the same local family, likely the result of local dialect and treatment of the middle consonant. I'll try to make reports to those interested on any updates and corrections as research continues. Thanks. Bill Hatchell hatchwill@comcast.net [1, 3, 4] | |
| _UID | C66B28E2D571474AAB9C1E421E420990B200 | |
| Person ID | I22261 | Singleton and Related Families |
| Last Modified | 17 Feb 2016 | |
| Family | Ann DUNN, b. Abt 1681, Virginia d. Virginia | |||||
| _UID | 555998BD6A5C46949447E15120BB6A6C61A9 | |||||
| _UID | 555998BD6A5C46949447E15120BB6A6C61A9 | |||||
| Children |
|
|||||
| Family ID | F15704 | Group Sheet | Family Chart | ||||
| Last Modified | 23 Mar 2026 | |||||
| Notes |
|
| Sources |
