Jon,    Taking #4 first, the death date in the Social Security Death Index is direct evidence - the Social Security Death Index plainly states a date, although it is incorrect in your father's case.  Direct evidence may be wrong.  It is not the correctness of the information that makes it direct evidence or indirect evidence.  Direct evidence is evidence that appears to answer a question without needing any other document.   A death certificate usually provides direct evidence of a person's death date.    Indirect evidence is evidence that is not stated plainly but needs additional information to be able to come to a conclusion.   For example, many times we use indirect evidence to determine a time period of a person's death by using the date of a person's will (the person is still living) and the date of the first probate record created after the person died or the date a will was proved in court (the person has since died).   By using these two documents, the time of death can be stated to be between the two dates.  These two documents provide indirect evidence as to the person's date of death. Now to #3:    A census record is an interesting document to analyze as to whether information is primary information or secondary information.       In most cases, primary information in a census document would include the date the census taker enumerated a household and the location of the household.  This information is usually first hand information.   Usually, the names of those in the household at the time of the census would be considered primary information - supposedly the person giving the information to the enumerator for a household would have first-hand information of who lived in the household when the enumerator showed up at the door.      But we all know the problems with census enumerations.  If we knew who provided the information to the census taker, it would help us in our analysis of how to classify the rest of the information on the census as being primary (first-hand) information or secondary (second-hand) information.    For example, in my own family, if my mother were to provide the information to the census taker, I would probably say any information she gave to the census taker about the ages and birth locations of her children is primary information.   She would be giving firsthand knowledge of our birth dates and locations (and be accurate).   Even if it were my father, the information would be roughly accurate and would probably be considered primary (first-hand) knowledge although it wouldn't surprise me if the ages and dates were wrong.   But, say the census taker approached a blended family created by two families becoming one larger family or the family included laborers or servants as many of our ancestors' households did.   Then some of the information may very well be secondary information - information given by someone without firsthand knowledge of an event.         Again, the rightness or wrongness of the information is not what determines whether it is primary information or secondary information.  Primary information may be wrong and secondary information may be right.   What makes information primary is that it is information given by someone with first hand knowledge and/or the information is provided close in time to the event.   Secondary information is second-hand or third-hand, etc., information given by someone who learned it somewhere else or can be information provided long after the event when the memory of the details of the event may be fading.    A death date on a gravestone would probably be considered primary information if the stone was created near the time of the death - although it could be incorrect.  Sometimes new gravestones are created to replace deteriorated stones or to mark graves that were previously unmarked.  In this case, the death date on a grave stone might be considered secondary information as the source of the information is often second-hand information rather than information from an eyewitness to the death.     The analysis of evidence needs to take into account all of these considerations - is the source an original source (still in its original form) or a derivative source (one that has been copied or manipulated), is the information primary (firsthand knowledge) or secondary (second-hand knowledge), and is the evidence direct (answers the question by itself) or indirect (needs additional information to answer the question).     Hope this helps. Rebecca Christensen --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jon Pace <[email protected]> wrote: #3 - Information: Primary or Secondary Primary: The person who supplied this source had firsthand knowledge of the fact. Secondary: The person who supplied this source had only secondhand knowledge of the fact. This is where I waver: Is census form head-of-household's birth date first or secondhand information? I don't remember being born - I know my birthday because my parents taught it to me. I'm leaning to secondhand information. Is census state of birth firsthand information for anyone? I've seen census forms where the enumerator appears to have been lazy and put all the kids down as born in the current state when I know the family moved in after the first couple were born elsewhere (and is reflected properly on other censuses). However, a parent would know where their child was born if everything is recorded properly. Can two firsthand sources disagree on an issue? I don't know what to indicate here. What about spellings of names? Is a census form firsthand? Draft registration card? Anything? Lastly, is date of death on a headstone first or secondhand knowledge? #4 - Evidence: Direct or Indirect Direct: The source plainly states the fact I have just entered. Indirect: The source suggests this fact but does not plainly state it. Proof will require better or additional evidence from other sources. Odd question on this one: My father's social security death index card shows the wrong date of death for whatever reason (6 days later). Does something that's just plain wrong even count as indirect evidence? Thanks for your guidance, Jon

Obituary published in the Henderson Times News: James C. Pace Published: Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 4:30 a.m. Last Modified: Friday, January 9, 2009 at 8:47 p.m. James C. Pace passed to his eternal heavenly home at 11 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009, at the Elizabeth House after a period of declining health. He was born Feb. 1, 1937, the son of the late William Howard Pace Sr. and Evelyn Rhodes Pace. He was also preceded in death by a brother, William Howard Pace Jr. He was a native and lifelong resident of Henderson County. He was an active member of Balfour Baptist Church. He loved and knew the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior. He enjoyed his family, friends, life and simple things like a cup of coffee, sitting on the porch, coloring with Hannah and watching cartoons with Gabe. He took pleasure in hearing the laughter of his family and friends. He retired from DuPont/AGFA after 22 years, and worked 17 years at Ruth Originals, a former designer and manufacturer of children’s clothing. He is survived by his wife of 48 years, Barbara Worsham Pace; a son, the Rev. Dale Pace; a daughter-in-law, Kristie Corn Pace; a sister, DeAnn Smith of Flat Rock; a brother, George Pace and his wife, Francis, of Weaverville; and two grandchildren, Hannah and Gabe Pace, “his bestest buddy.” A funeral service will be held at 11 a.m. Monday at Balfour Baptist Church with the Rev. Alan Perry and the Rev. Travis Harrison officiating. Burial will follow at Forest Lawn Memorial Park. The family will receive friends for one hour prior to the service at the church. In lieu of flowers, memorials may be made to Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute, 1455 Gilliam Road, Hendersonville, N.C. 28792, designated to the Kenneth Ridings Chapel for Biblical Preaching Fund or Grandfather Home for Children, P.O. Box 98, Banner Elk, N.C. 28604. An online guestbook is available at www.thosshepherd.com. Thos. Shepherd & Son Funeral Directors is in charge of the arrangements.

    It looks like Family Tree Maker has finally started implementing the evidence standards in their software.  It's about time.      There have been several excellent publications and articles about evaluating evidence.  The concepts John mentioned have been explained in more detail in the following resources, among others.  _Evidence: A Special Issue of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly_, 87 (September 1999).   (No longer available for purchase but you may find it in a larger genealogical library.) Elizabeth Shown Mills, _Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian_. Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1997. Elizabeth Shown Mills, _Evidence Explained!_.  Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2007.   (Also available as a downloadable digital version from Footnote.com) There is also a laminated  _Evidence Analysis, A Research Process Map_ that can be purchased from the Board for Certification of Genealogists.   It is a two-sided page with information from _Evidence Explained!_ _The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual_. Washington, DC: Board for Certification of Genealogists, 2000.   Also see their website at www.bcgcertification.org Mills, Elizabeth Shown, ed. _Professional Genealogy:A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers and Librarians._ Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2001. The "Clarity" term used by Family Tree Maker appears to be one they created as it is not part of the evidence standards. The evidence standards as discussed in the publications I listed above are: Sources:  Original vs. Derivative Information: Primary vs. Secondary Evidence: Direct vs. Indirect While many people still use the terminology "primary source" and "secondary source" those terms were abandoned when the evidence standards were created over a decade ago.    The problem with those terms is a *source* can have both primary information and secondary information.  For example, a death certificate has *primary information* - generally, the name of the deceased and the date of death and location and may have *secondary information* - the birthdate and birth location of the person and possibly his parents.   The death information is usually first hand information - reported at the time of the event by someone with firsthand knowledge while the birth information may be reported years after the birth event many times by those who were not present at the birth.   On the other hand, the death certificate of an infant who died shortly after birth might include primary information about both the birth and the death.  Classifying the *information* in the source as primary and secondary rather than the source as a whole is much clearer and easier than trying to classify a source one way or the other when there is both primary (first-hand) and secondary (second-hand) information together in the source. Rebecca Christensen --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jon Pace <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jon Pace <[email protected]> Subject: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 2:31 PM This Christmas I received Family Tree Maker 2009 and the companion book The Official Guide to Family Tree Maker 2009. I'd been using Legacy Family Tree 7.0 for a few months, but the explanations in the book made FTM 2009 far more useful for me. The recent discussion of source reliability have me focused on "rating" (FTM term - not sure it's universal) the quality of my sources. I've been debating answers to questions that have surely long been settled, so I would greatly appreciate my more experienced research kin answering a few newbie questions. The four quality measures & my questions: #1 - Source: Original or Derivative Original: The source is an original or image copy of the original document. Derivative: The source is derived (transcribed, translated, etc.) from the original. I'm largely looking at microfilmed records on Ancestry.com, so those are Original. #2 - Clarity: Clear or Marginal Clear: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is clear. Marginal: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is not clear. I can read some handwriting better than others, and some documents were better preserved before microfilming than others. Most of mine are Clear. #3 - Information: Primary or Secondary Primary: The person who supplied this source had firsthand knowledge of the fact. Secondary: The person who supplied this source had only secondhand knowledge of the fact. This is where I waver: Is census form head-of-household's birth date first or secondhand information? I don't remember being born - I know my birthday because my parents taught it to me. I'm leaning to secondhand information. Is census state of birth firsthand information for anyone? I've seen census forms where the enumerator appears to have been lazy and put all the kids down as born in the current state when I know the family moved in after the first couple were born elsewhere (and is reflected properly on other censuses). However, a parent would know where their child was born if everything is recorded properly. Can two firsthand sources disagree on an issue? I don't know what to indicate here. What about spellings of names? Is a census form firsthand? Draft registration card? Anything? Lastly, is date of death on a headstone first or secondhand knowledge? #4 - Evidence: Direct or Indirect Direct: The source plainly states the fact I have just entered. Indirect: The source suggests this fact but does not plainly state it. Proof will require better or additional evidence from other sources. Odd question on this one: My father's social security death index card shows the wrong date of death for whatever reason (6 days later). Does something that's just plain wrong even count as indirect evidence? Thanks for your guidance, Jon

Our Pace group has been discussing attempts to keep our information accurate as possible and trying to correct old research errors. The Ann Cain marriage to William Pace who married Sicely Walker was an assumption on someone's part years ago, and the key point is that there was no documentation then nor is there any now: The name was assumed because Cains lived in the vicinity of the Paces in Edgecombe County NC and had a lot of known daughters with unknown marriages. In addition William and Sicely had a son named Hardy Cain Pace, so why not??? (Yes, I was around back then and know what happened.) Now, we have Ann Cain surfacing again, still without documentation. This time the date is 1789, William Pace is living in Franklin County NC without any known Edgecombe County Cain associated with him. I believe we need to drop the Ann Cain name from the record of this group. Shirley Pace Graham In a message dated 12/7/2008 7:34:59 P.M. Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Charles, surely the possible marriage date to Ann Cain would not be 1889 -- would you please check that for us? Thanks, Carol Pace Hallman Greenville, SC --- On Fri, 12/5/08, Charles <[email protected]> wrote: William PACE was born abt 1745 in Edgecombe Co. (now Halifax Co.) NC. He died 1845 in Montgomery County, Tennessee. William married Sisley WALKER, The Last documents that mention Sisley is about 1776. He may have Married Ann Cain before 1889. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62)

Can anyone i.d. this Thomas PACE? === ==== Search Terms: PACE (1) Database: U.S. House of Representative Private Claims, Vol. 3 Name: Thomas PACE, et al Nature of Claim: Compensation for horses lost in public service Congress: 13. Session: 3. Manner Brought: Petition. Journal Page: 460. Referred to Committee: Claims. Date: 14 Nov 1814. Report: By Bill. Bill: 228 House Disposed: Passed. Senate Disposed: Indef. postp'd Congress/Date/Comments (blank) ANCESTRY http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/inddbs/4565.htm U.S. House of Representative Private Claims, Vol. 3 Description: Responsible for the allocation of federal funds, the United States Congress received thousands of claims for money, land, or aid in the first 75 years of the Union. This database is the third volume of claims to the House of Representatives in the early nineteenth century. It contains a variety of claims, including applications for pension benefits, compensation for services provided to the government, land, and change in pension benefits. Each entry provides the claimant's name, nature of the claim, & what action was taken by the House. In some entries, a residence is listed. Although most of the records are for claims in the first half of the nineteenth century, a few can be found from 1799. Including the names of nearly 20,700 men and women, this can be a useful source of information to researchers of early Americans. Source Information: House of Representatives. Digested Summary & Alphabetical List of Private Claims Which Have Been Presented to the House of Representatives, Vol. III. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing OffiCE. 1853. Thanks, Jackie Ashley PACE -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.8 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 27763 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message

Jon raises some interesting questions. Census records should never be deemed absolutely accurate unless supported by at least two other independent quality sources. While they may be accurate, there are numerous reasons why they might not be. 1. The source was guessing. For example, the day the census-taker comes around, everyone but Aunt Sarah is away from the house doing chores; and Aunt Sarah's memory is a little vague about the ages of her nieces and nephews, or how to spell their names. 2. The census-taker was guessing. He visits a family new to the community, none of whom can read or write. They're of German descent with a name that sounds vaguely like Smith, so this year they are Smiths. Or perhaps they don't trust him, and refuse to answer his questions, so he guesses at the ages of the members of the family that he can see, but misses sister Sarah who was visited her cousin that day. 3. The census-taker's handwriting is terrible. He visits a family named Snipp, but his handwriting looks like Sniff. I could go on, but I think you get the point. I once came across a family at the bottom of a census page with the husband, wife, and one child listed. At the top of the next page was a new family household. I knew that this husband and wife had several children, so where were they? Turns out that the census recorder put the rest of the kids at the end of the census roll, many pages away, with a note as to what household they belonged to. Census records are great sources, as long as you take them with a healthy grain of salt.

During the 1730s, vestry records of St Andrews parish in Brunswick show that a James Pace was sexton. At around the same time, court records appear in Brunswick Co mentioning James Pace. I have been looking at some of these records, to see if there are any clues as to where this James Pace was located. First: 06 Oct 1732 Brunswick Co Court Orders p.15 Grand Jury indictment agst ROBERT HUMPHREYS for assaulting JAMES PACE On 6 April 1733, Robert Humphreys was found not guilty. I haven't been able to find out any more about the case, but it does at least suggest that James Pace was located in the same general area as Robert Humphreys. It's possible the Robert Humphreys who was accused of assaulting James Pace, could be related to -- perhaps the son of -- the Robert Humphrys whose estate was valued by Richard Pace in 1713: 17 Mary 1713, Surry County Court Records, Book VII p54: Robert Hicks, David Crawley and Richard Pace or any two of them...are nominated and appointed to value and appraise the estate of Robt. Humphrys, deceased, and order that Mary Humphrys administratrix of the estate of said deceased present an inventory..." Presumably all three of these men (Hicks, Crawley, and Richard Pace) were neighbors of Robert Humphrys dec'd. That makes me wonder if James Pace in 1733 was living somewhere near (perhaps even on) land where Richard Pace was located in 1713. (This is Richard Pace m. Rebecca; he had no son named James, though he did have a grandson James. I don't know where James the grandson was in 1733.) However, I don't know if the 1733 Robert Humphreys was located on the same land as the 1713 Robert Humphreys. There are several patents in the name of Robert Humphreys in Brunswick. ===================================================== Second: 06 Sep 1733, Brunswick Co Court Orders p. 33 JAMES PACE petition to renew his ordinary license is granted. THOMAS RAVENSCROFT Gent. is security. Thomas Ravenscroft was married to Elizabeth Hamlin, granddaughter of Richard Taylor who Richard and Mary Pace sold land to in Prince George in 1662. He had 2000 acres on the South Side of the Meherrin, and (10 September 1735) 45 acres near the Court House. Handy for the ordinary, no doubt. ======================================================= Third: 07 Oct 1736, Brunswick Co Court Orders p. 138 Attachment obtained by AMOS TIMS agst JAMES PACE granted. Cattle attached to be sold. For 2 pounds and 15 shillings. Amos Tims looks like James Pace's competition: Brunswick County, VA: Order Book, 1732-1737 "Upon the pet. of AMOS TIMS ( and his giving security), leave is granted him to keep an ordinary on his own land." "AMOS TIMS together with John HUMPHRIS and John EZARD, his security, ack. a bond to keep an ordinary." Let's hope this competition wasn't the cause of the Grand Jury case. By 1742, John Humphreys was dead and his partner Amos Tims apparently bought from him land on Roses Creek, which he later sold on to Richard Witton. >From Lou Poole's study of the Wall family (http://www.poythress.net/Wall.html) "2 Sep 1742 from Amos Timms of Brunswick, planter, to Richard Witton of Henrico County, Merchant, for 80 £, a certain tract of land of about 305 acres, being part of a tract of land which the said Timms purchased of John Humphreys deceased. The land is in Brunswick on Rose’s Cr, and bounded by Rose, Ravenscroft, the head of the Spring branch, the mouth of the Little Cr, Brown." The "Brown" mentioned there was perhaps William Browne -- he whose son William married Mary Clements, daughter of Francis and Lydia Clements. He left his Roses Creek land to William in his will (proved 1747). James

When Richard Pace "with consent of my wife Mary Pace" sold land to Richard Taylor (13 March 1662 Charles City Co), The deed was witnessed by Caesar Walpole, John (X Hobbs, John ffloriday, and John Daniell. As posted to this list by James Pace (post dated 26 July 2006), Ann Baker, widow of Richard Baker, petitioned the vestry of Westover Parish, shortly after Baker's death, requesting tax relief for her son William Floriday. It appears Floridays were still around (and still struggling financially) in 1738. The following is from an entry by Michael Tutor on the Poythress list 16 Dec 2005: On October 10, 1738, in Prince George County, in the action on the cases brought by William Poythress and Francis Poythress, executors of the last Will and testament of John Fitzgerald, deceased, against William Floriday for £6, 9 shillings, 7 pence current money due by accounts the defendant came into court and being ruled to Special Bails, and failing, on the motion of the plaintiff's attorney it was ordered that the defendant be taken into custody of the Sheriff and safely kept until he shall give such bail. (PG Minute Book 1738-41 p194 (I think). John Fitzgerald is said to have married Elizabeth Poythress, daughter of John Poythress and Christian Peebles. (Not proved). Among other interesting connections, he was appointed administrator of the estate of Thomas Clay, son of Charles Clay and Hannah Willson; Hannah Willson being the sister of the Willson daughter who married Thomas Lowe and became the mother of William Lowe. William Lowe's daughter Elizabeth married a Pace, probably John Pace the son of Richard and Mary. James

Thank you for the advice. When my records arrive (we've moved to Germany for a year), I'll submit the information for the DNA test. I wasn't really worried about having each member documented; only about finding out which are documented and which are not. I'll check the database. Kaarin ************ phone: 703-912-5845 cell: 703-402-5694 fax: 760-203-0037 ________________________________ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:05:26 -0800 (PST) From: Kaarin Engelmann <[email protected]> Subject: [PACE] Succinct lines with sources To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Is it possible to obtain a document that provides information about the documented, "factual" Pace lines (as well as any others; as long as they are attributed properly)? Or is it necessary to piece everything together from a variety of sources? My mom was a Pace, and her brother has agreed to participate in the DNA test for me, but I need to put together her line as well as possible in order to submit the application for the DNA study. Kaarin

Get as much as you can from your family and post it on the list (maybe leaving out living persons for safety. Send me (Roy Johnson) the full lineage as well as you can for the DNA database that I keep. Someone may be able to help you get your line further back than from your family memories. It helps to have the line as far back as possible but it is not required for the DNA study. We have one applicant who does not know any further back than his father. The DNA can help to establish which general line of Paces you are in. When you apply at Family Tree DNA to join the Pace study, they will send it to me for confirmation and I will confirm and send you a join code to finish it up. That is done just to make sure non-Paces or females don't try to join; some people don't read carefully. Roy Johnson Pace DNA coordinator -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kaarin Engelmann Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [PACE] Succinct lines with sources Is it possible to obtain a document that provides information about the documented, "factual" Pace lines (as well as any others; as long as they are attributed properly)? Or is it necessary to piece everything together from a variety of sources? My mom was a Pace, and her brother has agreed to participate in the DNA test for me, but I need to put together her line as well as possible in order to submit the application for the DNA study. Kaarin ************ phone: 703-912-5845 cell: 703-402-5694 fax: 760-203-0037 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: 1/8/2009 6:05 PM

Jack, I really like this phrase that you used: "...do you want to build your family history on facts? Or on someone elses fantasy." I think that many people just want a relatively coherent story that seems plausible and that takes their line as far back in time as possible. I'm guilty of this sort of leaning myself, but I always manage to stop myself somewhere short of William the Congueror. I think that there are times when the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests a way to bridge the gaps that we all have, and I don't really fault people for making those best guess assumptions. But I think that when we communicate our information to others we should try to make it clear that this is what we have done. That is, we should state clearly what is documented vs. what is just a best guess assumption. Joe Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009

Kaarin,     Don't wait to do the DNA testing until you have a "documented" line.   Do the testing now and submit the lineage as you have it now, indicating at what point you are certain of the lineage and at what point the lineage is based on undocumented sources.   You can continue working on documenting the lineage and it is easy to make corrections on the website.     Because of the various versions of lineages that have been published (whether in books or online), the Pace Society started a document database.   The document database contains scanned images of original documents pertaining to the Paces.  These documents have been submitted by Pace researchers, so while several lines are represented, every Pace document is not necessarily included in the database.   If you have documents that are not included, they can be added for the benefit of other Pace researchers.    Also, Val Tice, Pace Society Historian/Archivist has been creating Finding Aids for several of the Pace lines detailing all of the known documents for a particular line, indicating whether the documents appear in the Pace Society document database.   Both the document database and the Finding Aids are a great resource for Pace research.  The document database, finding aids and back issues of the Pace Society Bulletin from the beginning of the Society are available online in the members only section of the Pace Society website. Rebecca Christensen      --- On Fri, 1/9/09, Kaarin Engelmann <[email protected]> wrote: From: Kaarin Engelmann <[email protected]> Subject: [PACE] Succinct lines with sources To: [email protected] Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 3:05 AM Is it possible to obtain a document that provides information about the documented, "factual" Pace lines (as well as any others; as long as they are attributed properly)? Or is it necessary to piece everything together from a variety of sources? My mom was a Pace, and her brother has agreed to participate in the DNA test for me, but I need to put together her line as well as possible in order to submit the application for the DNA study. Kaarin ************ phone: 703-912-5845 cell: 703-402-5694 fax: 760-203-0037 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sorry -- hit the "Send" key before I meant to. I was going to say, if you post what you know about your mother's Pace line (her Pace grandparents, for instance) someone on this list may be able to give you information going back further. James

It depends which line you are interested in documenting. As far as the Richard Pace lines go, no line is documented all the way back to Richard and Isabella Pace of Jamestown. Many of the records no longer exist. As with many other families, there are records for some periods but there are gaps, and duplicated names, and ambiguities, which give rise to differing interpretations. Hence the piecing together and puzzling. The picture of what happened is growing increasingly coherent, with the help of DNA results, but there is no definitive documented genealogy all the way back, and there may never be one. Going forward in time from Jamestown, the paper trail ends with Richard Pace (b. ca. 1638, d. ca. 1678), the only known (but not necessarily the only) grandchild of Richard and Isabella. Working backwards in time, there are a number of lines which are well-documented back to the point (typically mid to late 18th century) when the ancestors of those lines moved from VA or NC, further south to SC, GA, TN, KY, AL, MS, etc. So far, no one has managed to document a path back through the genealogical jungles of NC/SC, all the way back to 17th-century Virginia. There is plenty of guesswork, some pretty solid, some very tenuous, but there is not the documentation. I understand there is better documentation for some other Pace lines. James --- On Fri, 1/9/09, Kaarin Engelmann <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Kaarin Engelmann <[email protected]> > Subject: [PACE] Succinct lines with sources > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 3:05 AM > Is it possible to obtain a document that provides > information about the documented, "factual" Pace > lines (as well as any others; as long as they are attributed > properly)? Or is it necessary to piece everything together > from a variety of sources? My mom was a Pace, and her > brother has agreed to participate in the DNA test for me, > but I need to put together her line as well as possible in > order to submit the application for the DNA study. > > Kaarin > > ************ > > > phone: 703-912-5845 > cell: 703-402-5694 > fax: 760-203-0037 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

Is it possible to obtain a document that provides information about the documented, "factual" Pace lines (as well as any others; as long as they are attributed properly)? Or is it necessary to piece everything together from a variety of sources? My mom was a Pace, and her brother has agreed to participate in the DNA test for me, but I need to put together her line as well as possible in order to submit the application for the DNA study. Kaarin ************ phone: 703-912-5845 cell: 703-402-5694 fax: 760-203-0037

Pace History Documentation. This problem first started when the first Pace researcher started to put on paper the family history. I have read most of the bulletins as well as the published Pace History Books and not one of them is 100% correct. Even Nobles work has been questioned. I pushed for the Pace Society to certify through a documentation process the accepted linage of each Pace major line. An weak attempt was made but the Comm. never corsponded and several members were much against the exercise because the new facts that were surfacing did not agree with their recordings. In almost all lines there are blank spots where the researcher can not find any data to prove the continutity of the line. This leads to assumptions and best guesses rather than documented facts. I believe that some to many early Pace researchers thought that only Richard and John of Middlesex came to Colonial America, and whenever a Pace, Pass, Pease or other spelling were listed in a vincinity that they were related. It was early on that these researchers agreed that Pees were American Pace's from Germany. I recall spending a great deal of time with one member who asked my help with her line. She like so many others (before DNA ) mixed the Richard and John of Midd line, I was able to prove (document)that her line was not as she had published and as I spoke to her about the errors made her reply was "Maybe so, but I like my story better." She published it, it appeared on the net, and unfortuntally it was copied by others who are willing to accept anything published as being the truth. It all depends on what you are willing to accept, do you want to build your family history on facts? Or on someone elses fantasy. I like to think that I accept fact only but after 35 years of searching it is easy to slip and try to make history rather than only only record it. My interest started when I joined PSof A early on and like others started out copying from other members, It took a short time to learn i was going down the wrong path. *This is the time that I resolved that it was probably true if you can document It.* I have written but not published a John Pace of Middlesex booklet, Much is fact (documented,) some fanacy,( maybe it was this way) and much from research of others (with credits). This then much be labeled a story not a family history, so lies the difference. Jack Pace <williamsburg, va.> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Rebecca Christensen < [email protected]> wrote: > Debbie and others, > Many of us have older family records that show some of the same > information Debbie has been sending, but not all of it is correct or can be > verified, especially maiden names of some of the Pace wives. There was some > great research done by the earlier Pace researchers and we are indebted to > their great work and their forsight to publish it - both in books and in the > Pace Society Bulletins. But not all of it is correct, although they > appeared to do excellent work without all of the tools and resources we have > today. Some of their conclusions have been shown to be incorrect or at > least lacking evidence, again, the maiden names of wives being one of the > biggest problems. It doesn't help that many records no longer exist or > weren't created in the first place. > Unfortunately, the problem of incorrect information being published has > not gone away and in many cases is much worse today. A more recently > published book on the Pace family by Mr. Howard proposed different lineages > for many of our Pace lines than what was published by the earlier Pace > researchers and has been shown conclusively to have several inaccuracies > through the process of DNA testing. The DNA testing has shown that many of > the earlier conclusions about the different lineages are more correct than > what was published in the more recent book. Unfortunately, the information > in this book has been placed far and wide across the internet. > The fact that information about the Paces or any other family has been > published in a book, in a magazine, or can be found on numerous websites > does not necessarily make it correct. If it was wrong when it was > published the first time, it will still be wrong the hundredth time it was > copied onto someone's website or someone's personal family records. > Since the publication of Mr. Howard's book, there have been several Pace > researchers that have been researching the family lines once again to > determine which of the two versions of family lineages is correct, if > either. Many original records have been re-examined and studied. Many of > these original documents have been digitized and added to the Pace Society > document database. Many of these "controversies" have been discussed on > this list and findings have also been published in the Pace Society > Bulletins. No one says anyone has to agree with any new or old > conclusions, but many of the issues being discussed don't have an easy > answer - there is no one document that gives a conclusive answer. So, any > one of these issues has to be resolved by looking at various records and > trying to come to a conclusion based on the sum of the evidence. Sometimes > when new evidence previously unknown comes to light, we need to re-examine > the > previous conclusions and sometimes we learn that the previous conclusions > were not always accurate. > > Rebecca Christensen > > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, debbie pace <[email protected]> wrote: > From: debbie pace <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 9:58 PM > > my older family records show ... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > -- JackPace,Williamsburg, Virginia

That seems to fit together rather well. Repeating the same quote from Pritchett, "Southside Virginia Genealogies", p2563: "In September 1733 a William Willson, of Henrico County, deeded "Goodwyns", a 100-acre plantation on Ward's Creek in Prince George County, to Lydia Clements. Included in the transaction was a second plantation in Martins Brandon Parish on which Lydia was then living. We do not know how Willson came to own the tracts." William Willson's presumed ancestor, John Willson, had two daughters (that I know of). One, Hannah Willson, married Charles Clay, son of John Clay, who came in the Treasurer, Feb 1613 (muster of 1624/5). John Clay had a grant in 1635 of 1200 acres in Charles City County, bounded on the land of Captain Francis Hooke. To the head of Wards Creek and east upon the same, and north by the James River. 100 acres due as an Ancient Planter, 1100 acres for 22 headrights. Charles Clay's descendants would also be John Willson's descendants; could that be how the "Goodwyns" plantation came to William Willson, I wonder? John Willson's other daughter, whose name is not known, married Thomas Lowe, father of William Lowe whose daughter Elizabeth (probably) married John Pace and became the mother of the George Pace whose estate was divided in NC in 1745 by (among others) William Eaton, whose family also had land on Ward's Creek. James --- On Thu, 1/8/09, John <[email protected]> wrote: > From: John <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PACE] More on Francis and Lydia Clements > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 11:56 AM > As some of you know Val Tice and I have been platting land > patents for Charles City/Prince George and Dinwiddie Co in > VA. We are not finished by a long shot; but I can tell you > what we have learned so far about the subject of Southern > Run. As of now, I know of three Southern Runs in what was > Charles City Co VA but is now Prince George and Dinwiddie > Co. > > 1. Southern Run now located in Eastern most Dinwiddie Co, a > tributary running south off the Appomattox River. John Evans > obtained a patent there in 1682 and another in 1690. Some > patents occurring around him were Nicholas Overby 1690, > Abraham Jones 1683, the closest Pace land to this Southern > run was Francis Pace patent of 1756 is about 3 miles SE of > this Southern Run. > > 2. Southern Run in Southeastern Prince George Co, a > tributary off the head of Ward's Creek which flows south > off the James River. Some land patents in this area were > Edward Richards 1674, with neighbor Matthew Marks 1690; John > Eaton 1714, Benjamin Evans 1715, Ralph Hill 1699, George > Blighton/Blayton. This area is still very much a work in > progress but the closest Pace land I have found to this area > so far is George Pace patent of 1687 and it is at least 5 > miles west of this Southern run. > > 3. Southern Run in northern central Prince George Co is a > creek running south off of Ward's Run which is a > western running branch of Powell's creek. Land located > on this southern run is Francis Poythress 1683, James > Warradine 1652, Daniel Higdon 1683. This Southern Run is > about 1 mile from the line of Richard Pace which is the > northern border described in the other patent of Daniel > Higdon of 1683. About a mile and a half east of this > Southern Run is the 140a plat of land Richard & Mary > Pace bought off Richard Baker. Another branch of > Powell's creek in this area is called Holly Bush Run. > Francis Poythress sold Peter Grammer land there in 1715. The > land dealings of Francis Poythress and Richard Pace occuring > in 1717 with Thomas Goodwyn were were also in this same area > although we haven't gotten them platted yet. In 1731 > Thomas Goodwyn dies leaving his land in Prince George Co to > his son William. In the land sale of Richard & John Pace > to William Goodwyn occurring in 1759 Southern Run & > Swamp & Great Bottom is referred to. The Great Swamp is > referred to in many land dealings in this area and is the > same Ward's run mentioned earlier which Southern Run > branches from. I cannot say without a doubt that John & > Richard Pace sale of 1759 to Wm Goodwyn in 1759 was located > here but in my opinion it was. For those that are members of > PSA and want a visual, this area is mapped out in Bulletin > 163, Spring 2008 and Southern Run is the run flowing through > the word 'Dan" in the land plat of Daniel Higdon > 1683. Val and I have done more work in this area so some > additions and corrections will be coming to the map in this > bulletin. For those on the list who are not members and > would like a visual of this area, I invite you to join the > Pace Society. > > John Pace > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blair" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:08 PM > Subject: [PACE] More on Francis and Lydia Clements > > > > Mary Clements, daughter of Francis and Lydia Blighton > Clements, married William Browne (d. 1744), son of William > Browne and Jane Meriwether. (Boddie, Southside Virginia > Families p. 112.) > > > > Mary Browne, daughter of William Browne and Mary > Clements, married William Eaton (d. 1785, Northampton Co., > NC). (Boddie) > > > > William Eaton was the son of William Eaton and Mary > Rives, and a grandson of John Eaton of York Co. John Eaton > patented land "on the Southern Run" in 1714. He > seems to have done so by claiming to have imported the > entire Marks family who were already living there, but hey, > who's counting? > > > > "John Eaton, of york Co; 429 acres (N. L.), > Prince George County beg. on the > > Southern Run, in line of Capt. George Blayton, > dec'd; on land of Ralph Hill; 23 > > Dec. 1714. 10 shill., & Imp. of 7 pers: Mathew > Markes, Mary Markes, > > Edward Markes, John Markes, Isreal Markes, Sarah > Markes, William Townsin. > > > > William Eaton was associated with Paces in Carolina. > William Eaton was one of those who divided the estate of > George Pace in 1745 but it's not clear to me whether > this was William Eaton who married Mary Browne, or his > father William Eaton who married Mary Rives. > > > > William Eaton the elder died in 1759 in Granville Co. > NC. His will mentions his son-in-law Robert Jones, Jr, who > is mentioned in boundary descriptions of land belonging to > Paces in NC. > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > >

As some of you know Val Tice and I have been platting land patents for Charles City/Prince George and Dinwiddie Co in VA. We are not finished by a long shot; but I can tell you what we have learned so far about the subject of Southern Run. As of now, I know of three Southern Runs in what was Charles City Co VA but is now Prince George and Dinwiddie Co. 1. Southern Run now located in Eastern most Dinwiddie Co, a tributary running south off the Appomattox River. John Evans obtained a patent there in 1682 and another in 1690. Some patents occurring around him were Nicholas Overby 1690, Abraham Jones 1683, the closest Pace land to this Southern run was Francis Pace patent of 1756 is about 3 miles SE of this Southern Run. 2. Southern Run in Southeastern Prince George Co, a tributary off the head of Ward's Creek which flows south off the James River. Some land patents in this area were Edward Richards 1674, with neighbor Matthew Marks 1690; John Eaton 1714, Benjamin Evans 1715, Ralph Hill 1699, George Blighton/Blayton. This area is still very much a work in progress but the closest Pace land I have found to this area so far is George Pace patent of 1687 and it is at least 5 miles west of this Southern run. 3. Southern Run in northern central Prince George Co is a creek running south off of Ward's Run which is a western running branch of Powell's creek. Land located on this southern run is Francis Poythress 1683, James Warradine 1652, Daniel Higdon 1683. This Southern Run is about 1 mile from the line of Richard Pace which is the northern border described in the other patent of Daniel Higdon of 1683. About a mile and a half east of this Southern Run is the 140a plat of land Richard & Mary Pace bought off Richard Baker. Another branch of Powell's creek in this area is called Holly Bush Run. Francis Poythress sold Peter Grammer land there in 1715. The land dealings of Francis Poythress and Richard Pace occuring in 1717 with Thomas Goodwyn were were also in this same area although we haven't gotten them platted yet. In 1731 Thomas Goodwyn dies leaving his land in Prince George Co to his son William. In the land sale of Richard & John Pace to William Goodwyn occurring in 1759 Southern Run & Swamp & Great Bottom is referred to. The Great Swamp is referred to in many land dealings in this area and is the same Ward's run mentioned earlier which Southern Run branches from. I cannot say without a doubt that John & Richard Pace sale of 1759 to Wm Goodwyn in 1759 was located here but in my opinion it was. For those that are members of PSA and want a visual, this area is mapped out in Bulletin 163, Spring 2008 and Southern Run is the run flowing through the word 'Dan" in the land plat of Daniel Higdon 1683. Val and I have done more work in this area so some additions and corrections will be coming to the map in this bulletin. For those on the list who are not members and would like a visual of this area, I invite you to join the Pace Society. John Pace ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blair" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:08 PM Subject: [PACE] More on Francis and Lydia Clements > Mary Clements, daughter of Francis and Lydia Blighton Clements, married > William Browne (d. 1744), son of William Browne and Jane Meriwether. > (Boddie, Southside Virginia Families p. 112.) > > Mary Browne, daughter of William Browne and Mary Clements, married William > Eaton (d. 1785, Northampton Co., NC). (Boddie) > > William Eaton was the son of William Eaton and Mary Rives, and a grandson > of John Eaton of York Co. John Eaton patented land "on the Southern Run" > in 1714. He seems to have done so by claiming to have imported the entire > Marks family who were already living there, but hey, who's counting? > > "John Eaton, of york Co; 429 acres (N. L.), Prince George County beg. on > the > Southern Run, in line of Capt. George Blayton, dec'd; on land of Ralph > Hill; 23 > Dec. 1714. 10 shill., & Imp. of 7 pers: Mathew Markes, Mary Markes, > Edward Markes, John Markes, Isreal Markes, Sarah Markes, William Townsin. > > William Eaton was associated with Paces in Carolina. William Eaton was > one of those who divided the estate of George Pace in 1745 but it's not > clear to me whether this was William Eaton who married Mary Browne, or his > father William Eaton who married Mary Rives. > > William Eaton the elder died in 1759 in Granville Co. NC. His will > mentions his son-in-law Robert Jones, Jr, who is mentioned in boundary > descriptions of land belonging to Paces in NC. > > James > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

this all makes sense to me, as my old family records do show the two richard paces and all this info in marriages. i think this is the closest to the facts that i have seen thank you so much ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blair" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 3:03 AM Subject: [PACE] Rebecca Poythress > Rebecca (probably Coggan) married Francis Poythress. They had a son, > Francis, and a daughter Rebecca. > > By 1692, when Mrs Rebecca Poythress patented the escheat land, her husband > Francis was dead. So Rebecca Poythress the daughter must have been born > by 1692 (give or take a few months). But just WHEN she was born is not > known, at least not by me. > > Mrs Rebecca Poythress then remarried, to Charles Bartholomew. She and her > new husband had a daughter, Ann. > > In 1711, Mrs Rebecca Poythress Bartholomew and her husband Charles > Bartholomew gave land to their two UNMARRIED daughters, Rebecca Poythress > and Ann Bartholomew. > > We know that Rebecca Poythress the daughter was not married in 1711, > because if she had been married, the land would have been given to her > husband, probably using some phrase such as "in right of his wife". But > it wasn't. It was given to her, in her own right and in her own name. > Therefore, she was unmarried in 1711. > > Meanwhile, in 1711, Mr and Mrs Richard and Rebecca Pace had been married > to each other since at least 1698. We know this because their oldest son, > Richard, patented land in NC in 1720. He had to be 21 to patent land, so > he was born by 1699. So by 1698, Richard and Rebecca must have been > married. They probably met and married in Prince George Co. (please note > the word "probably"), but by 1711 they were probably living in the part of > Surry Co. which later became Brunswick Co. (Probably.) > > Back in Prince George, there was another, younger, Richard Pace, who in > 1718 had land deals with Francis Poythress, the son of Mrs Rebecca Coggan > Poythress Bartholomew and her first husband. The earlier researchers > didn't realize that there were TWO Richard Paces around. The records > which prove this, had not yet been unearthed. Consequently, the earlier > researchers assumed that the Richard Pace who was selling land with > Francis Poythress in 1718, was the same Richard Pace who was married to a > Rebecca. Some (not all) therefore concluded that the Rebecca who was > married to a Richard Pace in NC was Rebecca, the sister of Francis > Poythress who had land deals with Richard Pace in Prince George. An easy > mistake to make, but it IS a mistake. It shows the dangers of confusing > two different people with the same name. > > Now we know that there WERE two Richard Paces. The Richard Pace who had > the land deals with Francis Poythress married Sarah Woodlief. There are > records which prove this. > > The younger Richard Pace, who married Sarah Woodlief, was probably a > nephew of the Richard Pace who married Rebecca [maiden name unknown]. > > As for the young Rebecca Poythress, we have no records which reveal what > happened to her. > > I hope this helps to clarify. Quite useful to get all this put down, if > I've explained it clearly enough. I will try to find time to post it to > the rootsweb and genforum Pace forums also, with the record citations. I > hope that may help future family researchers to untangle the background to > this Poythress mistake. > > James > > > --- On Wed, 1/7/09, debbie pace <[email protected]> wrote: > >> it looks like from what i can see, rebecca coggin(cogan) >> married a francis >> poythress and one of their children was rebecca poythress >> who married >> richard iii >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "debbie pace" >> <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction >> >> >> > dont think ANYONE knows for sure. if so, there >> wouldnt be this >> > controversy >> > about birthdates, marriages, etc. thanks >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> >> > To: <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:39 PM >> > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On >> >> Behalf >> >> Of debbie pace >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:58 PM >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction >> >> >> >> my older family records show rebecca poythress and >> there is marriage >> >> records >> >> >> >> to show this. i have that francis poythress >> wife's name was rebecca >> >> coggan(maiden name) richard pace ii was married >> to mary baker or mary >> >> knowles??? >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================================ >> >> ===================================== >> >> >> >> Where are those marriage records? The most >> diligent research by the best >> >> Pace genealogists have not found any such records. >> >> >> >> In fact, research has found the opposite: Richard >> and Rebecca Pace were >> >> married and had children 14 years before Rebecca >> Poythress was born. So >> >> how >> >> could she be his wife" >> >> >> >> Here is the info from Mrs. Maude McClure Kelly, >> one of the best Pace >> >> researchers: >> >> >> >> A letter written to MRS. ELEANOR PACE TERRELL 20 >> MAY 1971 by MISS MAUD >> >> KELLY, Attorney, who devoted over forty years >> accumulating Pace family >> >> records, states on p. 5 of the letter that RICHARD >> PACE (4) DID NOT MARRY >> >> A >> >> POYTHRESS and, "FURTHERMORE, THE REBECCA >> POYTHRESS WHOM SOME CLAIM AS HIS >> >> WIFE WAS BORN ABOUT 1714, WHEREAS RICHARD AND >> REBECCA PACE HAD GIRLS BORN >> >> IN >> >> THE 1690'S AND A SON, RICHARD, BORN 1699-1700, >> WHICH IS 14 YEARS AT LEAST >> >> BEFORE HIS SO CALLED [alleged] MOTHER WAS >> BORN." >> >> >> >> . To prove marriage records, they need to be cited >> specifically and >> >> quoted >> >> exactly. Like this: >> >> >> >> The 1608 Marriage Reg. of St. Dunstan's, >> Stepney, County of Middlesex, >> >> England. Specific wording of the marriage >> register, from Pace Society >> >> Bulletin No. 13, September, 1970: >> >> >> >> " Richard Pace of Wapping Wall Carpenter and >> Isabell Smyth of the same >> >> marryed the 5th day October 1608" >> >> >> >> It would be even better if the specific page in >> the St. Dunstan's record >> >> were cited. >> >> >> >> Thanks to all who have contributed to this >> discussion. Controversy is >> >> good >> >> if it leads to improved understanding. It is a >> struggle getting the >> >> inaccurate records out of the various gedcoms. >> >> >> >> Roy Johnson >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "val & jeff tice" >> <[email protected]> >> >> To: <[email protected]>; >> <[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:46 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction >> >> >> >> >> >>> After re-reading it, it is because Richard >> Pace paid him for it. I'd >> >>> always >> >>> read that it was a Deed of Gift. I should >> have paid closer attention >> >>> earlier. It is actually just a Deed that >> doesn't mention what the >> >>> consideration was. >> >>> >> >>> Val >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On >> >>> Behalf >> >>> Of James Blair >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:40 PM >> >>> To: [email protected] >> >>> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- >> correction >> >>> >> >>> It's been explained to me that this >> scenario wouldn't have applied -- I >> >>> was >> >>> misunderstanding the inheritance laws. So my >> suggestion below can't >> >>> explain >> >>> why Richard Baker deeded the 140 acres to >> Richard Pace. It's a mystery >> >>> to >> >>> me. >> >>> >> >>> James >> >>> >> >>> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, James Blair >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Richard Baker's wife Ann mentions (in >> her petition to >> >>>> the Westover vestry, see >> >>>> >> http://searches2.rootsweb.com/th/read/PACE/2002-09/1032643426, >> >>>> also posted by James Pace), having >> "the charge of two >> >>>> children to maintaine". If these >> were children of >> >>>> Richard Baker's, and if one was a boy, >> by law that child >> >>>> would inherit all Richard Baker's >> property. So if Mary >> >>>> Pace really was Baker's daughter, and >> he realized he was >> >>>> soon going to die, that might be why he >> would give her >> >>>> husband a deathbed gift of land -- because >> he couldn't >> >>>> leave it as a legacy. >> >>>> >> >>>> Wholly theoretical, however. The maiden >> name of Mary Pace >> >>>> remains unproven. >> >>>> >> >>>> James >> >>>> >> >>>> --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Roy Johnson >> <[email protected]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> > From: Roy Johnson >> <[email protected]> >> >>>> > Subject: RE: [PACE] The PG land sold >> by John and >> >>>> Richard Pace 1759 >> >>>> > To: [email protected], >> [email protected] >> >>>> > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:27 >> PM >> >>>> > Debbie and others, >> >>>> > >> >>>> > We have to be very careful to >> distinguish between >> >>>> theory >> >>>> > and fact in citing >> >>>> > these early Pace records. On the Pace >> Network I have a >> >>>> > section called >> >>>> > Problems and Controversies in Pace >> research, in which >> >>>> > several competent Pace >> >>>> > authorities state that (1) there is >> absolutely no firm >> >>>> > evidence that Richard >> >>>> > Pace married a Knowles or a Baker, >> although some >> >>>> > genealogies cite one and >> >>>> > some the other. (2) the >> Pace-Poythress marriage is >> >>>> also >> >>>> > quite questionable. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >> >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pace/poythres.htm#boykin >> >>>> > >> >>>> > The above is a discussion of the >> Pace-Poythress >> >>>> > controversy. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > This URL discusses the Baker-Knowles >> controversy: >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pace/bkr_knwl.htm >> >>>> > >> >>>> > If there are no sources verifying an >> assertion, it >> >>>> cannot >> >>>> > be cited as a >> >>>> > fact. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Roy Johnson >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ------------------------------- >> >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send >> an email to >> >>>> [email protected] with the word >> >>>> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and >> >>>> the body of the message >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------- >> >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an >> email to >> >>> [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> >>> in >> >>> the subject and the body of the message >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------- >> >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an >> email to >> >>> [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> >>> in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email >> to >> >> [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> >> in >> >> the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> >> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1881 - >> Release Date: 1/7/2009 >> >> 5:59 PM >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email >> to >> >> [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> >> in the subject and the body of the message >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> > [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> > in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Rebecca (probably Coggan) married Francis Poythress. They had a son, Francis, and a daughter Rebecca. By 1692, when Mrs Rebecca Poythress patented the escheat land, her husband Francis was dead. So Rebecca Poythress the daughter must have been born by 1692 (give or take a few months). But just WHEN she was born is not known, at least not by me. Mrs Rebecca Poythress then remarried, to Charles Bartholomew. She and her new husband had a daughter, Ann. In 1711, Mrs Rebecca Poythress Bartholomew and her husband Charles Bartholomew gave land to their two UNMARRIED daughters, Rebecca Poythress and Ann Bartholomew. We know that Rebecca Poythress the daughter was not married in 1711, because if she had been married, the land would have been given to her husband, probably using some phrase such as "in right of his wife". But it wasn't. It was given to her, in her own right and in her own name. Therefore, she was unmarried in 1711. Meanwhile, in 1711, Mr and Mrs Richard and Rebecca Pace had been married to each other since at least 1698. We know this because their oldest son, Richard, patented land in NC in 1720. He had to be 21 to patent land, so he was born by 1699. So by 1698, Richard and Rebecca must have been married. They probably met and married in Prince George Co. (please note the word "probably"), but by 1711 they were probably living in the part of Surry Co. which later became Brunswick Co. (Probably.) Back in Prince George, there was another, younger, Richard Pace, who in 1718 had land deals with Francis Poythress, the son of Mrs Rebecca Coggan Poythress Bartholomew and her first husband. The earlier researchers didn't realize that there were TWO Richard Paces around. The records which prove this, had not yet been unearthed. Consequently, the earlier researchers assumed that the Richard Pace who was selling land with Francis Poythress in 1718, was the same Richard Pace who was married to a Rebecca. Some (not all) therefore concluded that the Rebecca who was married to a Richard Pace in NC was Rebecca, the sister of Francis Poythress who had land deals with Richard Pace in Prince George. An easy mistake to make, but it IS a mistake. It shows the dangers of confusing two different people with the same name. Now we know that there WERE two Richard Paces. The Richard Pace who had the land deals with Francis Poythress married Sarah Woodlief. There are records which prove this. The younger Richard Pace, who married Sarah Woodlief, was probably a nephew of the Richard Pace who married Rebecca [maiden name unknown]. As for the young Rebecca Poythress, we have no records which reveal what happened to her. I hope this helps to clarify. Quite useful to get all this put down, if I've explained it clearly enough. I will try to find time to post it to the rootsweb and genforum Pace forums also, with the record citations. I hope that may help future family researchers to untangle the background to this Poythress mistake. James --- On Wed, 1/7/09, debbie pace <[email protected]> wrote: > it looks like from what i can see, rebecca coggin(cogan) > married a francis > poythress and one of their children was rebecca poythress > who married > richard iii > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "debbie pace" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:49 PM > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > > > > dont think ANYONE knows for sure. if so, there > wouldnt be this > > controversy > > about birthdates, marriages, etc. thanks > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:39 PM > > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On > >> Behalf > >> Of debbie pace > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:58 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > >> > >> my older family records show rebecca poythress and > there is marriage > >> records > >> > >> to show this. i have that francis poythress > wife's name was rebecca > >> coggan(maiden name) richard pace ii was married > to mary baker or mary > >> knowles??? > >> > >> > ============================================================================ > >> ===================================== > >> > >> Where are those marriage records? The most > diligent research by the best > >> Pace genealogists have not found any such records. > >> > >> In fact, research has found the opposite: Richard > and Rebecca Pace were > >> married and had children 14 years before Rebecca > Poythress was born. So > >> how > >> could she be his wife" > >> > >> Here is the info from Mrs. Maude McClure Kelly, > one of the best Pace > >> researchers: > >> > >> A letter written to MRS. ELEANOR PACE TERRELL 20 > MAY 1971 by MISS MAUD > >> KELLY, Attorney, who devoted over forty years > accumulating Pace family > >> records, states on p. 5 of the letter that RICHARD > PACE (4) DID NOT MARRY > >> A > >> POYTHRESS and, "FURTHERMORE, THE REBECCA > POYTHRESS WHOM SOME CLAIM AS HIS > >> WIFE WAS BORN ABOUT 1714, WHEREAS RICHARD AND > REBECCA PACE HAD GIRLS BORN > >> IN > >> THE 1690'S AND A SON, RICHARD, BORN 1699-1700, > WHICH IS 14 YEARS AT LEAST > >> BEFORE HIS SO CALLED [alleged] MOTHER WAS > BORN." > >> > >> . To prove marriage records, they need to be cited > specifically and > >> quoted > >> exactly. Like this: > >> > >> The 1608 Marriage Reg. of St. Dunstan's, > Stepney, County of Middlesex, > >> England. Specific wording of the marriage > register, from Pace Society > >> Bulletin No. 13, September, 1970: > >> > >> " Richard Pace of Wapping Wall Carpenter and > Isabell Smyth of the same > >> marryed the 5th day October 1608" > >> > >> It would be even better if the specific page in > the St. Dunstan's record > >> were cited. > >> > >> Thanks to all who have contributed to this > discussion. Controversy is > >> good > >> if it leads to improved understanding. It is a > struggle getting the > >> inaccurate records out of the various gedcoms. > >> > >> Roy Johnson > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "val & jeff tice" > <[email protected]> > >> To: <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:46 PM > >> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > >> > >> > >>> After re-reading it, it is because Richard > Pace paid him for it. I'd > >>> always > >>> read that it was a Deed of Gift. I should > have paid closer attention > >>> earlier. It is actually just a Deed that > doesn't mention what the > >>> consideration was. > >>> > >>> Val > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On > >>> Behalf > >>> Of James Blair > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:40 PM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- > correction > >>> > >>> It's been explained to me that this > scenario wouldn't have applied -- I > >>> was > >>> misunderstanding the inheritance laws. So my > suggestion below can't > >>> explain > >>> why Richard Baker deeded the 140 acres to > Richard Pace. It's a mystery > >>> to > >>> me. > >>> > >>> James > >>> > >>> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, James Blair > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Richard Baker's wife Ann mentions (in > her petition to > >>>> the Westover vestry, see > >>>> > http://searches2.rootsweb.com/th/read/PACE/2002-09/1032643426, > >>>> also posted by James Pace), having > "the charge of two > >>>> children to maintaine". If these > were children of > >>>> Richard Baker's, and if one was a boy, > by law that child > >>>> would inherit all Richard Baker's > property. So if Mary > >>>> Pace really was Baker's daughter, and > he realized he was > >>>> soon going to die, that might be why he > would give her > >>>> husband a deathbed gift of land -- because > he couldn't > >>>> leave it as a legacy. > >>>> > >>>> Wholly theoretical, however. The maiden > name of Mary Pace > >>>> remains unproven. > >>>> > >>>> James > >>>> > >>>> --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Roy Johnson > <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > From: Roy Johnson > <[email protected]> > >>>> > Subject: RE: [PACE] The PG land sold > by John and > >>>> Richard Pace 1759 > >>>> > To: [email protected], > [email protected] > >>>> > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:27 > PM > >>>> > Debbie and others, > >>>> > > >>>> > We have to be very careful to > distinguish between > >>>> theory > >>>> > and fact in citing > >>>> > these early Pace records. On the Pace > Network I have a > >>>> > section called > >>>> > Problems and Controversies in Pace > research, in which > >>>> > several competent Pace > >>>> > authorities state that (1) there is > absolutely no firm > >>>> > evidence that Richard > >>>> > Pace married a Knowles or a Baker, > although some > >>>> > genealogies cite one and > >>>> > some the other. (2) the > Pace-Poythress marriage is > >>>> also > >>>> > quite questionable. > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >> > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pace/poythres.htm#boykin > >>>> > > >>>> > The above is a discussion of the > Pace-Poythress > >>>> > controversy. > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > This URL discusses the Baker-Knowles > controversy: > >>>> > > >>>> > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pace/bkr_knwl.htm > >>>> > > >>>> > If there are no sources verifying an > assertion, it > >>>> cannot > >>>> > be cited as a > >>>> > fact. > >>>> > > >>>> > Roy Johnson > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send > an email to > >>>> [email protected] with the word > >>>> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and > >>>> the body of the message > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an > email to > >>> [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > >>> in > >>> the subject and the body of the message > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an > email to > >>> [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > >>> in the subject and the body of the message > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to > >> [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > >> in > >> the subject and the body of the message > >> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1881 - > Release Date: 1/7/2009 > >> 5:59 PM > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to > >> [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message