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

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

-----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

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

There is another interesting question regarding the land which Mrs Rebecca Poythress patented in 1692, and in 1711 deeded to her two (unmarried!) daughters. This, again, will be tedious to those who are not interested, for which my apologies. The land patented by Mrs Rebecca Poythress is described in the patent as escheated land being late in the tenure of Edward Ardington, dec'd (Land Office Patents No. 8, 1689-1695, p. 241). However, if we go back a few decades, we can see that the land which Mrs Rebecca Poythress patented in 1692 seems to have adjoined land which was patented by her late husband's father, also called Francis Poythress. On 8 May 1648, Francis Poythress (the father of Mrs Rebecca Poythress' husband) patented '750 acres in Charles City near the mouth of Baylie's Creek, adjoining land belonging to the orphans of Jenkins Osborne, bounded westerly by the lands of Thomas Baylie, "now in the tenure of John Butler", 350 acres formerly granted Jenkins Osborne and purchased by said Poythress of Jenkins Osborne'. (Land Office Patents No. 2, 1643-1651, p. 139) It looks like Mrs Rebecca Poythress may have been taking the opportunity, following the death of her husband, to obtain land in her own name in the vicinity where her in-laws were located. In 1648, at the time of Francis Poythress' patent, John Butler only had "tenure" of the land belonging to Thomas Baylie, but at some point in the next ten years he appears to have purchased the land. By 1658, Butler was dead. and his wife, now remarried, sold 150 acres to Edward Ardington: 5 Aug 1658 "This indenture made the third day of Aprill in the year of o'r Lord God 1658 betweene Mary West of Apamattock in the Com of Henrico widd formerly the relick &c of Jo. Butler chirurgeon deed of the one part and Edd Ardington of Jordans in the Com of Charles City of the other part". Mrs. West sells Ardington 150 acres at Baylyes Creek in the par. of Jordans. Bounded northerly by the creek, westerly by land of Wm. Reynes, southerly into the woods and easterly "on the land late in the tenure and cocupaeon of Wm. Worsuham", wch sd land did formerly belong to Mr. Thomas Bayly and was purchased of him by the sd John Butler deed." (Fleet, Charles City County court orders, 1658-1661) My question is: who was John Butler, chirurgeon, and was he related to (perhaps the father of?) the John Butler who married Mutus [unknown] Newhouse? Mutus [?] Newhouse Butler's stepson, also called John Butler, married Mary Wallace, daughter and heir (together with her sister Elizabeth who married George Woodlief) of James Wallace. The two sisters, together with Mary's husband John Butler, quit claim in 1713 to part of the land they inherited from their father: "Deed. John Butler & Mary my wife and Eliza Woodley, all of Prince George to Arthur Biggins, heir at law to Laurence Biggins, late of this county, dec'd we the said John Butler & Mary his wife, and Elizabeth Woodley, heirs at law of James Wallace, quit claim to 100 acres in Prince George bounded by Thomas Crooks, Baker's line, being part of land granted to Richard Baker and Patrick Jackson Jno Butler, Mary x Butler, Eliza Woodleif Wit: Fra: Mallory, Gilb. Hay Rec 11 May 1713" This Laurence Biggins would presumably have been the grandfather of the Laurence Biggins who witnessed the sale of 16 acres by Richard and John Pace to Goodwyn in 1759. Because of these connections, I would be interested to know more about the identity of John Butler, the chirurgeon, who died by 1658, and about the identity of his wife Mary West of Appomattox. If I have misinterpreted any of the above, I would be grateful for corrections. James --- On Tue, 1/6/09, James Blair <[email protected]> wrote: > There seems to be very firm evidence on some of those > points. The wife of Richard Pace of Bertie Co. NC could NOT > have been Rebecca Poythress, daughter of Francis and Rebecca > Poythress. > > Prince George Co., VA Will & Deed Book 1710-1713 > P. 70 - 10 Sep 1711 Rec 13 Sep 1711 > "We, Charles Bartholomew & Rebecca Bartholomew, > for love and affection to > our daughter Anne Bartholomew, after our decease, give her > 200A on both > sides of Easterly Run in Westover Parish; being rest of > 1000A granted to > said Rebecca in her widowhood by escheat patent 29 April > 1692; the moiety > whereof is at present belonging to Col. Littlebury Epes, > and 300 more > whereof is given by us to Rebecca POYTHRESS, by deed of > gift to her this > date. The said 200A is bounded by said Rebecca's > 300A."

John, will add my thanks also for your comments concerning Jesse Pace, well stated. Shirley Pace Graham In a message dated 1/5/2009 11:07:08 P.M. Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes: John, thank you for your comments; it is very important that correct information be recorded and that corrections be made when warranted by the evidence. Miriam Nixon -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:29 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Jesse Pace 1773 Surry Co, Nc Although I find no pleasure in badgering Bruce Howard's book, I feel it necessary from time to time to prevent the spread of misinformation from becoming reality in people's gedcoms. There is absolutely no proof who Jesse Pace's parents were. There is no proof that Thomas was a son of John the Tory. In fact, there is evidence he was a son of Richard and Elizabeth Pace of Edgecombe, NC., who is likely the brother of John the Tory. Thomas Pace was married to a woman named Keziah however there is no proof that her maiden name was Howell. John Pace ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricky Pace" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [PACE] Jesse Pace 1773 Surry Co, Nc > Jesse is believed to be the son of Thomas Pace m. Keziah Howell. Thomas > Pace was the son of John Pace (the tory) and Sarah (Burgh). > > Jesse Pace went to Harlan Co, KY. He was living next to his uncle Edmund > Marion Pace in Surry Co, NC in 1795. Edmund was a brother of the Thomas > Pace > who m. Keziah Howell, and this Thomas Pace, according to Bruce Howard's > argument, was the father of this Jesse Pace. > > Jesse is not found in Ky after 1820, he either died or returned to VA. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Janet Roberson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:21 PM > Subject: [PACE] Jesse Pace 1773 Surry Co, Nc > > >> Looking for info on Jesse Pace b. 1773 Surry Co, NC married Mary Polly >> Unknown and moved to Harlan Co Ky. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Janet >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1857 - Release Date: 12/19/2008 10:09 AM ------------------------------- 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 **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

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 ...

i have this in my family older records from jimme c pace born 1902. i know barnabus pace (son of richard iv) first wife was agnes aycock. at least according to our records ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard Pace 1759 >I question whether there is any documentary evidence for "Richard III' and > John being siblings of George. The only documentation I know is the > Winifred > Aycock Lane letter, which is not primary evidence and doesn't identify > which > of the three Richard Paces in Virginia at that time was her ancestor. > > There is much that go into many gedcoms that is not based on > documentation. > > Roy Johnson > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf > Of Ricky Pace > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:09 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard Pace 1759 > > Notes for GEORGE PACE II from Richard Eugene Pace's family tree gedcom: > George Pace II is the older brother of John I and Richard III. In the > absence of a will, all of Richard's real estate went to the oldest son, > George II. We know little of George II's history. In 1699 he was appointed > tobacco inspector for the warehouse at Maycox. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Blair" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:51 PM > Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard Pace 1759 > > > Thank you but it wasn't I who identified George as being the probable > eldest > > son of Richard and Mary. It was probably Boddie, or perhaps Jester & > Hiden. > > James > > > --- On Sun, 1/4/09, 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: Sunday, January 4, 2009, 6:43 PM >> I wish I could help also. This is exactly the kind of >> research needed to >> establish a line from the southern Paces to Richard of >> Jamestown--so many of >> the submitted lineages simply assume it. James, I believe >> you have done more >> than anyone else on the list to establish a line through >> George as the >> oldest son of Richard and Mary. I am beginning a quest to >> better understand >> groups 3a and 3b, which I have mainly just left to the >> families to sort out. >> I have your email somewhere which established the best >> evidence for this >> George, and I have to go back and find it and post it >> somewhere as our only >> documentary evidence even suggesting what the relationship >> back to Richard >> of Jamestown could be. My compliments, and keep it up. >> >> Roy Johnson >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of James Blair >> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 12:52 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard >> Pace 1759 >> >> >> --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Rebecca Christensen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > James, >> > I sure wish I could give constructive comments. I >> > haven't generally researched the Paces this early, >> so am >> > unfamiliar with many of the names of others that you >> mention >> > but wish I was so I could follow where you are >> leading. >> >> >> It may lead nowhere. I'm just exploring, hoping to >> glean some clues as to >> the parents of John and Richard Pace who sold the land to >> Goodwyn in 1759. >> >> It appears to me, though I may be misinterpreting the >> records, that John >> Westhrope patented land near Wards Creek, some of which >> through various >> transactions came to belong to Francis Poythress, and some >> of which came to >> belong to George Blighton, father of Lydia Blighton >> Clements. >> >> George Blighton's share of the land, in the patent of >> 1686, is described as >> being near "the Southern Run". The land which >> Richard Pace and John Pace >> sold to Goodwyn in 1759 is described as being on the >> southwest side of the >> Southward Run. To me that suggests that the 16 acres being >> sold by Richard >> Pace and John Pace was near the land of George Blighton >> (which had >> originally been patented by John Westhrope in 1650), and >> therefore perhaps >> also near the land which Francis Poythress took up (which >> was originally >> part of the same John Westhrope patent). >> >> Therefore I wonder if some of the land which Richard Pace >> and a later >> Francis Poythress sold to a Goodwyn in 1718, might have >> been part of the >> Westhrope land. If so, might this tract of land >> subsequently have become >> called "Goodwins" and been sold to Lydia Blighton >> Clements in 1733, together >> with "a second plantation on which Lydia was then >> living". >> >> This line of reasoning, if borne out by the land >> descriptions, might suggest >> that John and Richard Pace were of the line of George Pace, >> eldest son of >> Richard and Mary. >> >> On the other hand, one of the witnesses to the sale of the >> 16 acres to >> Goodwyn in 1759 was Laurence Biggins, presumed to be the >> son of Arthur >> Biggins who in 1715 owned land bounding the land of James >> Pace. This might >> suggest that Richard and John Pace could have been of the >> line of James >> Pace. >> >> As I say, I'm exploring, rather than drawing any >> conclusions. >> >> 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 >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1874 - Release >> Date: 1/4/2009 >> 4:32 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1874 - Release Date: 1/4/2009 > 4:32 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

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??? ----- 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

my older family records also say mary knowles or mary baker. but there is a marriage record for poythress in marriage records for this period ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blair" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:40 PM Subject: [PACE] Richard m. Mary, Richard m. Rebecca > > There seems to be very firm evidence on some of those points. The wife of > Richard Pace of Bertie Co. NC could NOT have been Rebecca Poythress, > daughter of Francis and Rebecca Poythress. > > Prince George Co., VA Will & Deed Book 1710-1713 > P. 70 - 10 Sep 1711 Rec 13 Sep 1711 > "We, Charles Bartholomew & Rebecca Bartholomew, for love and affection to > our daughter Anne Bartholomew, after our decease, give her 200A on both > sides of Easterly Run in Westover Parish; being rest of 1000A granted to > said Rebecca in her widowhood by escheat patent 29 April 1692; the moiety > whereof is at present belonging to Col. Littlebury Epes, and 300 more > whereof is given by us to Rebecca POYTHRESS, by deed of gift to her this > date. The said 200A is bounded by said Rebecca's 300A." > > P. 76 ibid > "Charles & Rebecca Bartholomew of Prince George for love & affection to > out > daughter Rebecca POYTHRESS of same 300A. Quit rents to be paid by Charles > & > Rebecca for 2 years." > > That proves that Rebecca Poythress (daughter of Francis and Rebecca > Poythress) was not the same person as Rebecca the wife of Richard Pace of > Bertie Co. NC. So it's no longer a controversy. > > It's also been proved that Mary, wife of Richard Pace, was not Mary > Knowles. See James Pace's posting of 15 June 2007, in which he shows that > there were two different men named John Knowles in the area at the time, > and neither had a daughter Mary. So that one, also, is no longer a > controversy. > > That leaves the theory that Richard's wife Mary was a daughter of Richard > Baker. This theory arises from the fact that in 1655, shortly before his > death, Richard Baker made a deed of gift of 140 acres of land to Richard > Pace. Personally, I have been somewhat doubtful of this, as it seems a > slender hook, especially since Richard and Mary had already been married > for at least three years when the deed of gift was made. > > However, coincidentally and as a result of a discussion elsewhere, today a > scenario has occurred to me which could explain why the deed of gift was > made when it was. > > 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

this came from my family records and also for poythress, there are marriage records. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard Pace 1759 > 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 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf > Of debbie pace > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 8:18 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard Pace 1759 > > richard pace iii born about 1663 in charles city , va and john pace born > approx 1669 in charles city, va are the sons of richard pace ii born in > charles city, va who was married to rebecca poythress ( her father was > francis poythress) she was before rebecca cogan does this help any? my > father was samuel pace jr who is the son of samuel m pace Sr who is son > of richard randall pace who is son of dreadzil evans pace and so on > thanks > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Blair" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:51 AM > Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard Pace 1759 > > > > --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Rebecca Christensen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> James, >> I sure wish I could give constructive comments. I >> haven't generally researched the Paces this early, so am >> unfamiliar with many of the names of others that you mention >> but wish I was so I could follow where you are leading. > > > It may lead nowhere. I'm just exploring, hoping to glean some clues as to > the parents of John and Richard Pace who sold the land to Goodwyn in 1759. > > It appears to me, though I may be misinterpreting the records, that John > Westhrope patented land near Wards Creek, some of which through various > transactions came to belong to Francis Poythress, and some of which came > to > belong to George Blighton, father of Lydia Blighton Clements. > > George Blighton's share of the land, in the patent of 1686, is described > as > being near "the Southern Run". The land which Richard Pace and John Pace > sold to Goodwyn in 1759 is described as being on the southwest side of the > Southward Run. To me that suggests that the 16 acres being sold by > Richard > Pace and John Pace was near the land of George Blighton (which had > originally been patented by John Westhrope in 1650), and therefore perhaps > also near the land which Francis Poythress took up (which was originally > part of the same John Westhrope patent). > > Therefore I wonder if some of the land which Richard Pace and a later > Francis Poythress sold to a Goodwyn in 1718, might have been part of the > Westhrope land. If so, might this tract of land subsequently have become > called "Goodwins" and been sold to Lydia Blighton Clements in 1733, > together > > with "a second plantation on which Lydia was then living". > > This line of reasoning, if borne out by the land descriptions, might > suggest > > that John and Richard Pace were of the line of George Pace, eldest son of > Richard and Mary. > > On the other hand, one of the witnesses to the sale of the 16 acres to > Goodwyn in 1759 was Laurence Biggins, presumed to be the son of Arthur > Biggins who in 1715 owned land bounding the land of James Pace. This > might > suggest that Richard and John Pace could have been of the line of James > Pace. > > As I say, I'm exploring, rather than drawing any conclusions. > > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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: 270.10.2/1874 - Release Date: 1/4/2009 > 4:32 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

I question whether there is any documentary evidence for "Richard III' and John being siblings of George. The only documentation I know is the Winifred Aycock Lane letter, which is not primary evidence and doesn't identify which of the three Richard Paces in Virginia at that time was her ancestor. There is much that go into many gedcoms that is not based on documentation. Roy Johnson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ricky Pace Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:09 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard Pace 1759 Notes for GEORGE PACE II from Richard Eugene Pace's family tree gedcom: George Pace II is the older brother of John I and Richard III. In the absence of a will, all of Richard's real estate went to the oldest son, George II. We know little of George II's history. In 1699 he was appointed tobacco inspector for the warehouse at Maycox. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blair" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard Pace 1759 Thank you but it wasn't I who identified George as being the probable eldest son of Richard and Mary. It was probably Boddie, or perhaps Jester & Hiden. James --- On Sun, 1/4/09, 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: Sunday, January 4, 2009, 6:43 PM > I wish I could help also. This is exactly the kind of > research needed to > establish a line from the southern Paces to Richard of > Jamestown--so many of > the submitted lineages simply assume it. James, I believe > you have done more > than anyone else on the list to establish a line through > George as the > oldest son of Richard and Mary. I am beginning a quest to > better understand > groups 3a and 3b, which I have mainly just left to the > families to sort out. > I have your email somewhere which established the best > evidence for this > George, and I have to go back and find it and post it > somewhere as our only > documentary evidence even suggesting what the relationship > back to Richard > of Jamestown could be. My compliments, and keep it up. > > Roy Johnson > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of James Blair > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 12:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard > Pace 1759 > > > --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Rebecca Christensen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > James, > > I sure wish I could give constructive comments. I > > haven't generally researched the Paces this early, > so am > > unfamiliar with many of the names of others that you > mention > > but wish I was so I could follow where you are > leading. > > > It may lead nowhere. I'm just exploring, hoping to > glean some clues as to > the parents of John and Richard Pace who sold the land to > Goodwyn in 1759. > > It appears to me, though I may be misinterpreting the > records, that John > Westhrope patented land near Wards Creek, some of which > through various > transactions came to belong to Francis Poythress, and some > of which came to > belong to George Blighton, father of Lydia Blighton > Clements. > > George Blighton's share of the land, in the patent of > 1686, is described as > being near "the Southern Run". The land which > Richard Pace and John Pace > sold to Goodwyn in 1759 is described as being on the > southwest side of the > Southward Run. To me that suggests that the 16 acres being > sold by Richard > Pace and John Pace was near the land of George Blighton > (which had > originally been patented by John Westhrope in 1650), and > therefore perhaps > also near the land which Francis Poythress took up (which > was originally > part of the same John Westhrope patent). > > Therefore I wonder if some of the land which Richard Pace > and a later > Francis Poythress sold to a Goodwyn in 1718, might have > been part of the > Westhrope land. If so, might this tract of land > subsequently have become > called "Goodwins" and been sold to Lydia Blighton > Clements in 1733, together > with "a second plantation on which Lydia was then > living". > > This line of reasoning, if borne out by the land > descriptions, might suggest > that John and Richard Pace were of the line of George Pace, > eldest son of > Richard and Mary. > > On the other hand, one of the witnesses to the sale of the > 16 acres to > Goodwyn in 1759 was Laurence Biggins, presumed to be the > son of Arthur > Biggins who in 1715 owned land bounding the land of James > Pace. This might > suggest that Richard and John Pace could have been of the > line of James > Pace. > > As I say, I'm exploring, rather than drawing any > conclusions. > > 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1874 - Release > Date: 1/4/2009 > 4:32 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1874 - Release Date: 1/4/2009 4:32 PM

Good to have you on the list. I know all about Johnson research. My blank wall is just five generations back. I joined the Johnson DNA site and my nephew and I are the only matches in the entire Johnson DNA database. FTDNA says our male line ancestry is probably West African, so maybe that's the problem and there's a "passing" incident in mmy history that has been covered up. I assume you have found the John of Middlesex site on the Pace DNA study at http://www.pacesociety.org/DNA/johnofm.htm This site summarizes what we know about John and what the DNA seems to reveal. Roy Johnson Mother ENa Pace -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Pace Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 12:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [PACE] Greetings Just a quick hello after finding your website and joinigeneaology back in the 19in suburban Washington DC, back before the internet made everything so much easier to share information. He had Society until I mentioned it to him over the holidays. We're of the Nebraska Pace line, trthrough Kentucky to Virginia. In reverse order: Cadwallader W. Pace (1877 Kansas -1961 Omaha NE) (my great-grandfather, paternal) -> George W. PaceKansas?) -> Thomas Nunn PacBurkesville KY) -> Langston PWilliam Pace (c.1724John Pace (c.1696-1734 Middlesex County, VA) ->John Pace (c.1665-1717 Middlesex County, VA) &nThis is mostly my dad's research; I've just corroborateyour excellent website, and am lookimore information about this line and their offshoots. Dnot related to Richard Pace /need to point him your way. </DIVI am particularly interested in this line as my mother is B.F. Pof the Middlesex County Johnson line.&nThankfully, it appears that her line came to Middlesex County from 1880's) separately from the rash of MiddlesexJohnson after Middlesex Johnson marrying Middlesex Pace after Middlesexsatisfactorily fleshed this out yet, though.&nbs(just try doing geneaology on a name like Johnson sometime...eek!)</D Thanks, Brian Pace ------------------------------- 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: 270.10.2/1874 - Release Date: 1/4/2009 4:32 PM

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

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

There seems to be very firm evidence on some of those points. The wife of Richard Pace of Bertie Co. NC could NOT have been Rebecca Poythress, daughter of Francis and Rebecca Poythress. Prince George Co., VA Will & Deed Book 1710-1713 P. 70 - 10 Sep 1711 Rec 13 Sep 1711 "We, Charles Bartholomew & Rebecca Bartholomew, for love and affection to our daughter Anne Bartholomew, after our decease, give her 200A on both sides of Easterly Run in Westover Parish; being rest of 1000A granted to said Rebecca in her widowhood by escheat patent 29 April 1692; the moiety whereof is at present belonging to Col. Littlebury Epes, and 300 more whereof is given by us to Rebecca POYTHRESS, by deed of gift to her this date. The said 200A is bounded by said Rebecca's 300A." P. 76 ibid "Charles & Rebecca Bartholomew of Prince George for love & affection to out daughter Rebecca POYTHRESS of same 300A. Quit rents to be paid by Charles & Rebecca for 2 years." That proves that Rebecca Poythress (daughter of Francis and Rebecca Poythress) was not the same person as Rebecca the wife of Richard Pace of Bertie Co. NC. So it's no longer a controversy. It's also been proved that Mary, wife of Richard Pace, was not Mary Knowles. See James Pace's posting of 15 June 2007, in which he shows that there were two different men named John Knowles in the area at the time, and neither had a daughter Mary. So that one, also, is no longer a controversy. That leaves the theory that Richard's wife Mary was a daughter of Richard Baker. This theory arises from the fact that in 1655, shortly before his death, Richard Baker made a deed of gift of 140 acres of land to Richard Pace. Personally, I have been somewhat doubtful of this, as it seems a slender hook, especially since Richard and Mary had already been married for at least three years when the deed of gift was made. However, coincidentally and as a result of a discussion elsewhere, today a scenario has occurred to me which could explain why the deed of gift was made when it was. 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 >

posted by Jack pace in 2006 In the Fluvanna Co ,Va census for 1820 Tarton Pace is head of household and the father of five boys and one girl. Can anyone identify these childrens names,dates of birth, etc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Please note: My new email address is [email protected] Please remove [email protected] from your address books and files so that we can stay in touch!

John, thank you for your comments; it is very important that correct information be recorded and that corrections be made when warranted by the evidence. Miriam Nixon -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:29 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Jesse Pace 1773 Surry Co, Nc Although I find no pleasure in badgering Bruce Howard's book, I feel it necessary from time to time to prevent the spread of misinformation from becoming reality in people's gedcoms. There is absolutely no proof who Jesse Pace's parents were. There is no proof that Thomas was a son of John the Tory. In fact, there is evidence he was a son of Richard and Elizabeth Pace of Edgecombe, NC., who is likely the brother of John the Tory. Thomas Pace was married to a woman named Keziah however there is no proof that her maiden name was Howell. John Pace ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricky Pace" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [PACE] Jesse Pace 1773 Surry Co, Nc > Jesse is believed to be the son of Thomas Pace m. Keziah Howell. Thomas > Pace was the son of John Pace (the tory) and Sarah (Burgh). > > Jesse Pace went to Harlan Co, KY. He was living next to his uncle Edmund > Marion Pace in Surry Co, NC in 1795. Edmund was a brother of the Thomas > Pace > who m. Keziah Howell, and this Thomas Pace, according to Bruce Howard's > argument, was the father of this Jesse Pace. > > Jesse is not found in Ky after 1820, he either died or returned to VA. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Janet Roberson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:21 PM > Subject: [PACE] Jesse Pace 1773 Surry Co, Nc > > >> Looking for info on Jesse Pace b. 1773 Surry Co, NC married Mary Polly >> Unknown and moved to Harlan Co Ky. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Janet >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1857 - Release Date: 12/19/2008 10:09 AM

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 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of debbie pace Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 8:18 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard Pace 1759 richard pace iii born about 1663 in charles city , va and john pace born approx 1669 in charles city, va are the sons of richard pace ii born in charles city, va who was married to rebecca poythress ( her father was francis poythress) she was before rebecca cogan does this help any? my father was samuel pace jr who is the son of samuel m pace Sr who is son of richard randall pace who is son of dreadzil evans pace and so on thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blair" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and Richard Pace 1759 --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Rebecca Christensen <[email protected]> wrote: > James, > I sure wish I could give constructive comments. I > haven't generally researched the Paces this early, so am > unfamiliar with many of the names of others that you mention > but wish I was so I could follow where you are leading. It may lead nowhere. I'm just exploring, hoping to glean some clues as to the parents of John and Richard Pace who sold the land to Goodwyn in 1759. It appears to me, though I may be misinterpreting the records, that John Westhrope patented land near Wards Creek, some of which through various transactions came to belong to Francis Poythress, and some of which came to belong to George Blighton, father of Lydia Blighton Clements. George Blighton's share of the land, in the patent of 1686, is described as being near "the Southern Run". The land which Richard Pace and John Pace sold to Goodwyn in 1759 is described as being on the southwest side of the Southward Run. To me that suggests that the 16 acres being sold by Richard Pace and John Pace was near the land of George Blighton (which had originally been patented by John Westhrope in 1650), and therefore perhaps also near the land which Francis Poythress took up (which was originally part of the same John Westhrope patent). Therefore I wonder if some of the land which Richard Pace and a later Francis Poythress sold to a Goodwyn in 1718, might have been part of the Westhrope land. If so, might this tract of land subsequently have become called "Goodwins" and been sold to Lydia Blighton Clements in 1733, together with "a second plantation on which Lydia was then living". This line of reasoning, if borne out by the land descriptions, might suggest that John and Richard Pace were of the line of George Pace, eldest son of Richard and Mary. On the other hand, one of the witnesses to the sale of the 16 acres to Goodwyn in 1759 was Laurence Biggins, presumed to be the son of Arthur Biggins who in 1715 owned land bounding the land of James Pace. This might suggest that Richard and John Pace could have been of the line of James Pace. As I say, I'm exploring, rather than drawing any conclusions. 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 ------------------------------- 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: 270.10.2/1874 - Release Date: 1/4/2009 4:32 PM

Although I find no pleasure in badgering Bruce Howard's book, I feel it necessary from time to time to prevent the spread of misinformation from becoming reality in people's gedcoms. There is absolutely no proof who Jesse Pace's parents were. There is no proof that Thomas was a son of John the Tory. In fact, there is evidence he was a son of Richard and Elizabeth Pace of Edgecombe, NC., who is likely the brother of John the Tory. Thomas Pace was married to a woman named Keziah however there is no proof that her maiden name was Howell. John Pace ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricky Pace" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [PACE] Jesse Pace 1773 Surry Co, Nc > Jesse is believed to be the son of Thomas Pace m. Keziah Howell. Thomas > Pace was the son of John Pace (the tory) and Sarah (Burgh). > > Jesse Pace went to Harlan Co, KY. He was living next to his uncle Edmund > Marion Pace in Surry Co, NC in 1795. Edmund was a brother of the Thomas > Pace > who m. Keziah Howell, and this Thomas Pace, according to Bruce Howard's > argument, was the father of this Jesse Pace. > > Jesse is not found in Ky after 1820, he either died or returned to VA. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Janet Roberson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:21 PM > Subject: [PACE] Jesse Pace 1773 Surry Co, Nc > > >> Looking for info on Jesse Pace b. 1773 Surry Co, NC married Mary Polly >> Unknown and moved to Harlan Co Ky. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Janet >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >