In a message dated 8/9/2006 1:14:59 P.M. Central Standard Time, roy.w.johnson@att.net writes: I forgot the URL on the Pace Network where I put the Sarah Maycock material: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pace/maycock.htm Check it out and see what you think of it. Roy ****************** 8/9/06 Kathlynn writes: Hi Roy, I just went to your site and read the Sarah Maycock material. Re: George Pace's wife was Sarah Maycock, is she the daughter OR widow of Samuel Maycock? I thought this controversial issue had been settled once and for all in the flurry of post that was made to the list last month....now I'm confused again! Since you did not include the following data, or any of the other conclusion, I am now wondering if perhaps you know something that I don't know that would make you discount this as proof. If you do will you please share it with me? There were many, many more post made regarding this subject, I believe in June and July, which can be viewed on Rootweb archives . I have included only a few that should give you the total picture. In my opinion the COMPLETE 1626 document [see * transcribed] proves without a doubt that Sarah was indeed the daughter of Samuel Maycock.....however, I stand to be corrected if you have proof otherwise. ~Kathlynn~ ************************************ 7/1/2006 _Zapnyou@aol.com_ (mailto:Zapnyou@aol.com) writes: While I was at the DAR Continental Congress this week, I had time to check out the source for the Virginia (Historical) Magazine, Vol. XXV, October 1917, info Sarah Maycock. (The National Archives Building was closed all week due to the flooding of the basement.) It took some time to track it down because the magazine's source was not exactly clear itself. (Went from the Jefferson reading room to Adams reading room and the Madison reading room; thus, ending up in all three buildings.) The source book from which their information came from was: Minutes of the Council and General court of colonial Virginia, 1622-1632. Published in Richmond, VA by The Colonial Press, Everett Waddey Co. in 1924. Call number J87.V85 This book is located in the Manuscript Reading Room in the Madison Bldg., Rm 101. However, I was unable to copy the pages due to the poor condition of the book. (The spine was broken and the pages were becoming unstitched.) But there was a copy made. It was back in the Jefferson reading room. It was a photocopy of the same book (at 99%). We found that it had a different call number (they are in the process of assigning them the same call number) It was F229 N523. Published by the Virginia State Library in 1979. The preface indicates that these records are compiled from the partially burned remnants of records that were saved after the Richmond fire of 1865. English records, and other papers. Virginia has these remnants in a fireproof vault (Is the vault located in their Archives?). *Transcribed: VIIIth day of May 1626 A courte held the viiith day of May 1626 beinge p[?]fent Sr ffrancis Wyatt Knight Gournor &c, Capt ffranis Weft Capt Roger Smith Capt Samuel Mathewes Mr William Cleybourne. Yt is order yt Sara Maycock for fower fervants brought over in the Abigaill 1622 vppon the Accompt of Mr Samuell Maycock fhall have two hundred acres of lande to be taken vpp by her in any place not fomerly Taken vpp. (I used the same basic serif font as the author did except I did not use the superscript font which does not available for this list.) By the way, can anyone in Richmond find out if these original burnt remnants have ever been fully photographed or digitized? Hope this helps. Kim Stracener Zapalac ************************************** 7/8/2006 _Kathlynn3@aol.com_ (mailto:Kathlynn3@aol.com) To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Sarah Maycock - Virginia Magazine Source Reference Hi Kim, et al, What is your opinion... now that we have the complete document, instead of the extracted tidbit? Does it appear that perhaps Capt Roger Smith [and the other men listed] appeared in court to validate/testify in behalf of minor child Sarah's right to father Samuel's land? Or am I reading something into this that has no validity? Opinions requested... ~Kathlynn~ ************************************** 7/8/2006 janders45@hotmail.com writes: Kathlynn, That would be my interpretation. Samuel Maycock had earned the right to the land by virtue of paying for the transport of the four persons mentioned. Since he is now deceased, Samuel could no longer speak up to demand his due. Being honorable men, these gentlemen are declaring officially that the minor child Sarah now has the right to the land, lest it be forgotten in future. Sarah at this point has no awareness of any of her rights, so they want it written into the record now to avoid confusion at some point in the future when she comes of age. Notice that they are not granting her any specific parcel of land. They are just declaring that she has the right to "two hundred acres of lande to be taken vpp by her" at some time in the future. That's my interpretation. Joe Anderson **************************************************** 7/8/2006 _Zapnyou@aol.com_ (mailto:Zapnyou@aol.com) writes: Sorry it took me so long to write back, I am out of town, up in the Colorado mountains, with no Internet or phone service. Using the local library to sign on. In my opinion, these men were probably leaders of the town and had to be at most of the "business dealings" concerning the company's investment (in other words, like a company's board today). Most of them were noted in the rest of the minutes as well as this one concerning Sarah Maycock. I can scan a copy of the book page for everyone when I get back to Texas and put it up on the Pace Society web page? I still would like to see the original from which these minutes were taken to verify what was transcribed in the book was exactly the same. Does anyone have a contact with the Viriginia Archives to find out? Kim

James River National Wildlife Refuge James River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is one of four refuges that comprise the Eastern Virginia Rivers National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Refuge encompasses 4,200 acres of forest and wetland habitats along the James River, bordered by Powells Creek to the west, and the historic Flowerdew Hundred Plantation to the east. Located in Prince George County, Virginia, the refuge is 8 miles southeast of the City of Hopewell and thirty miles southeast of the City of Richmond. The Nature Conservancy purchased 3,538 acres of land in May 1988 to ensure that continued use of the land by bald eagles would not be jeopardized. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service purchased the land from the Nature Conservancy in March 1991 under the authority of the Endangered Species Act. A 613 acre parcel known as Maycocks Point was purchased and added to the refuge in 1992 to further protect bald eagle habitat, including a major bald eagle feeding roost. Location Link: http://www.clocations.com/clist.aspx?list=county&state=VA&county=Prince+George Scroll down to Maycocks LINK to Hamlin, also clarifies who Ravenscroft was as later owner of MAYCOCKS: http://www.ccrtc.com/family/griffon/hamblenconnector_v5no4.txt John Hamlin, later captain of county militia, arrived in Charles City County shortly before 20 Aug 1663 when his name appeared in court records. He soon married Elizabeth Taylor, daughter of neighbors Richard Taylor and Sarah Barker. On 13 Dec 1696, John and Elizabeth bought Maycock's Plantation on the southern bank of the James River. which became their final home. John seems to have died by 1698 and was probably buried near the home. Elizabeth died 07 Jun 1720 and was surely buried in Westover Church Cemetery, according to the secret diary 1717-1721 of William Byrd II. John and Elizabeth had issue: Richard who married Ann, daughter of Thomas and Elinor Harrison, John, who married Anne, daughter of Major Charles Goodrich, William, no marriage record, Peter, who died of smallpox 05 Jul 1711, unmarried, Hannah, who married Thomas Cocke, Elizabeth, who married Thomas Ravenscroft, Lucy, who married William Epes, Sarah, who married (!) Micajah Lowe and (2) Rev. John Cargill. *************** In reading over thing's it LOOKS like Flowerdieu Hundred BECAME Piercey's Hundred in 1624... then back to Flowerdew... LINK to ABRAHAM PEIRSEY/PIERSEY: http://webpages.charter.net/pepbaker/peirsey.htm http://webpages.charter.net/pepbaker/woodson.htm PS Would love to have the Plantation map......

In a message dated 8/9/2006 6:55:35 P.M. Central Standard Time, beckymosely@comcast.net writes: George's Patent 1650: "commonly called Matocks....." (I haven't been able to locate a plantation on the James called Matocks, on Powell's Creek by Pierce's Hundred.) ************************************** Becky, et al, I have a map showing all of the different plantations......total 46. Betty Pace just recently sent to me, hopefully, she will not mind me sharing. If you would like I will send as an attachment...just let me know. On the south side of James River - the map shows; # 25 Maycock's Plantation next to it is # 26 "Powle [sic] - Brooks" or Merchant's Hope Plantation

I'd love to have a copy if you wouldn't mind scanning it. -----Original Message----- From: Kathlynn3@aol.com [mailto:Kathlynn3@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 8:18 PM To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Maycock's In a message dated 8/9/2006 6:55:35 P.M. Central Standard Time, beckymosely@comcast.net writes: George's Patent 1650: "commonly called Matocks....." (I haven't been able to locate a plantation on the James called Matocks, on Powell's Creek by Pierce's Hundred.) ************************************** Becky, et al, I have a map showing all of the different plantations......total 46. Betty Pace just recently sent to me, hopefully, she will not mind me sharing. If you would like I will send as an attachment...just let me know. On the south side of James River - the map shows; # 25 Maycock's Plantation next to it is # 26 "Powle [sic] - Brooks" or Merchant's Hope Plantation ==== PACE Mailing List ==== Check out the Pace GenConnect Boards where you can post or peruse Pace Bibles, Obits, Bios, Deeds, Wills, Queries, etc. Bookmark this URL: http://boards.ancestry.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/415 - Release Date: 8/9/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/415 - Release Date: 8/9/2006

Fantastic evidence and bit of analysis! This is exactly what we need more of. You are convincing me that at least it is possible that the little girl in the records COULD have groen up and married George. You are also convincing me that his mother was probably formerly named Maycock. So unless there was another Sarah Maycock around for him to marry, it seems hishly probable. I sould like to add this information to the page on the Pace Network. May I reference you as the author? If I give email addresses, I fix them up so the "spiders" used by spammers to glean addresses from the Internet won't work. Roy Johnson Roy -------------- Original message from James Blair <jnb05042000@yahoo.com>: -------------- > See for example a deed of gift from Edward Herndon to his > son Edward Herndon, dated 16 June 1739: > > "Beginning at a Corner of Mrs Mary Waller's (Now Mr Zachary > Lewis's) and Capt. Larkin Chew's (Now Hawkins) standing on > a hill Side by a Branch...." et cetera. > > "Mrs Mary Waller" referenced in this document is in fact > Mary Waller (daughter of John Waller) who married Zachary > Lewis. She was Mary Waller (single) in 1720 when the land > was patented in her name by her father. She was Mrs > Zachary Lewis in 1739 when Edward Herndon's deed of gift is > being drawn up. By that date, the land belongs not to her > but to her husband, but because it was patented in her > maiden name, it is identified (for metes and bounds > purposes) by reference to her maiden name but with a Mrs in > front. > > As for the age question, look at it this way: > > Richard was under age on 25 Feb 1658/9 ("heire apparent"). > Richard was of full age by 11 Feb 1659/60. > Therefore Richard turned 21 during the period from 26 Feb > 1658/9 to 11 Feb 1659/60. > Therefore Richard was born during the period from 26 Feb > 1637/38 to 11 Feb 1638/9 > > Sarah was "aged 2 yeares" (i.e., she was at least two and > not yet three) when the muster was taken on 24 Jan 1624/5. > Therefore she was "aged 16 yeares" (i.e., she was at least > 16 and not yet 17) 14 years later on 24 Jan 1638/39. > > As shown above, Richard was born by 11 Feb 1638/39. By > that date, Sarah was at least 16. If he was born between > 24 Jan 1638/9 and 11 Feb 1638/9, she could have been 17. > > Have I got that right? Would appreciate being told if I've > made a mistake. > > > The date of the marriage of course is not known. > > James > > > --- roy.w.johnson@att.net wrote: > > > > > > > -------------- Original message from James Blair > > : -------------- > > > > > > > In the case of George Pace's marriage to Sarah Maycock, > > > > > however, it seems to me we do have pretty good > > evidence. > > > > > > We don't know when George Pace was born, so we don't > > know > > > how old he would have been when his son Richard was > > born. > > > > > > If in 1628 he was not yet of full age, then ten years > > later > > > when Richard was born he must have been not yet 31. > > Sarah > > > Maycock would be around 16. That doesn't seem to me to > > > present a problem. > > > > I need to check, but I think some have Richard born 1637 > > and Sarah Maycock born 1622 or 23, depending on how they > > figure the years. Still not impossible, Loretta Lynn did > > it in modern times. > > > > > > > > It also doesn't seem to me to be a problem that Richard > > > > > Pace refers to his mother as "Mrs Sarah Maycocke". > > Usage > > > was different in the 17th century > > > > What is the evidence that usage was different then? I > > have read quite a bit of history in this time era and > > have never heard of a person being referred to as "Mrs." > > and then her maiden name. > > > > . I don't see what else > > > he could have called her, without seeming > > disrespectful. > > >. I don't see what else > > > he could have called her, without seeming > > disrespectful. > > > > > Why couldn't he call her Mrs. Sarah Pace? That would have > > been her name at the time of death unless she married > > again. > > > > I have put together the arguments on this subject, which > > contain quite a bit of primary source data from Ruth Keys > > Clark, professional genealogist now deceased, which I > > feel cast considerable doubt on the assumption. I'm not > > ready to put it as fact or near fact quite yet. > > > > Roy Johnson > > > > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > > You can search archived messages from the Pace Mailing > > List by going to http://searches.rootsweb.com. If you > > need instructions just ask me - gordonpace@comcast.net > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > You can search archived messages from the Pace Mailing List by going to > http://searches.rootsweb.com. If you need instructions just ask me - > gordonpace@comcast.net >

WELL - I had looked at the map and decided the land 'was probably' the same. Do not know, just a deduction on my part. Will add to the list.... Library of VA says this in a study by Jennie S. Harrison: Patent date to Samuel Maycock: 1618 (I haven't found description) PRIMARY OWNERS: Samuel Maycock, Roger Draytone prior to 1696, John Hamlin 1696, Thomas Ravenscroft 1723, David Meade 1774, William Cole 1845, John Pinkney, Ella Hine etc. DESCRIPTION: borders James River. still retains original name. ***************** George's Patent 1650: "commonly called Matocks....." (I haven't been able to locate a plantation on the James called Matocks, on Powell's Creek by Pierce's Hundred.) If someone has the Samuel Maycock booklet sold by the Pace Society - possibly they could look and pass on Samuel's patent description to us. THE PRINCE GEORGE HOPEWELL STORY, by Francis Earle Lutz, 1957 The William Byrd Press pg. 23 Samuel Maycock & wife were butchered at Maycock's Plantation, a few miles below Coggin's Point. There also Edward Lister, who had come over in the Mayflower and was a signer of the Mayflower Compact, was killed. The plantation passed to Sarah Maycock Pace, wife of George Pace, of Surry, whose father Richard Pace, .... pg. 33 While the political upheaval was under way, a mill had been started, about 1650, on Ward's Creek near the present Burrowsville. At this time, another "old" plantation changed hands. This was Maycock's, which that year was sold by Richard Pace, son of Sarah Maycocks Pace, to Thomas Dew. After passing through several hands, it was purchased, in 1774, by David Meade. *************************** ONE of the 'several hands' listed in the LVA doc is JOHN HAMLIN, brother in law of Richard Bradford.... P.149-50 AT A COURT HOLDEN AT WESTOVER 3 AUGUST 1688 In Oct. 1684 Col. Edwd. Hill, as guardian to Jno. Taylor, orphan of Richd. Taylor, dec'd, obtained administration of estate of Sarah and Katherine Taylor, sisters to said Jno. Whereas Capt. Jno. Hamblin as marrying Elizabeth, daughter of said Richard & Mr. Richard Bradford, as marrying Elizabeth, daughter of said Richard & Mr. Richard Bradford, as marrying Frances, daughter of said Richard, pretend a claim of a childs part of est. of said sisters, and they being in court with Jon. Taylor, now of lawful age; said Jno. Taylor, Jno Hamblin, and Richard Bradford, jointly, acquit Sarah Lucy. Adm'x of Robert Lucy, dec'd, from all claims due them under the wills of Richard Taylor and James Ward, dec'd, due by said wills to said Katherine and Sarah Taylor. In consideration Jno. Taylor affirms that said Sarah Lucy, his mother, shall give said Hamblin and Bradford each a ring of 10- shillings price. CHARLES CITY CO., VA. COURT ORDERS, 1687-1695 [Which, by the way, some folks have ELIZABETH PACE married to Hamlin (Hamblin) but the above entry shows Elizabeth to be a Taylor.] All I see at the moment.

-------------- Original message from "Becky Mosely" <beckymosely@comcast.net>: -------------- > Good news, I've found someone to retrieve Richard Pace, etc. documents. The > person I depended on has moved to DC so had to locate another. > > On the Sarah who? debate.... I cannot understand why he would have had to name > anyone concerning the land he PURCHASED himself with headrights. Interesting thought. Have you checked out the specific parcel to know it was land he purchased, or was it land he inherited from Richard and Sara(h)? I find only the following: There is a deed in the Charles City County records by which "Richard Pace, son and heire as the first issue of my mother, Mrs. Sarah Maycock, wife unto my aforesaid father, both dec'd", confirms a sale of 800 or 900 acres "lying near unto Pierce's Hundred als Flowerdieu Hundred" to Mr. Thomas Drew as per bill of his father October 12, 1650. If you have looked up where this land came from, would you mind sharing it? I had always just assumed he was selling inherited land and wanted to confirm the inheritance. Roy Johnson > > Regards, Becky Mosely > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > If you haven't done so within the last six months, please post a message > describing your Earliest Pace Ancestor and how you descend from them. Please > include dates, places, spouses, etc, if possible. Send the message to > PACE-L@rootsweb.com >

I forgot the URL on the Pace Network where I put the Sarah Maycock material: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pace/maycock.htm Check it out and see what you think of it. Roy

-------------- Original message from James Blair <jnb05042000@yahoo.com>: -------------- > In the case of George Pace's marriage to Sarah Maycock, > however, it seems to me we do have pretty good evidence. > > We don't know when George Pace was born, so we don't know > how old he would have been when his son Richard was born. > > If in 1628 he was not yet of full age, then ten years later > when Richard was born he must have been not yet 31. Sarah > Maycock would be around 16. That doesn't seem to me to > present a problem. I need to check, but I think some have Richard born 1637 and Sarah Maycock born 1622 or 23, depending on how they figure the years. Still not impossible, Loretta Lynn did it in modern times. > > It also doesn't seem to me to be a problem that Richard > Pace refers to his mother as "Mrs Sarah Maycocke". Usage > was different in the 17th century What is the evidence that usage was different then? I have read quite a bit of history in this time era and have never heard of a person being referred to as "Mrs." and then her maiden name. . I don't see what else > he could have called her, without seeming disrespectful. >. I don't see what else > he could have called her, without seeming disrespectful. > Why couldn't he call her Mrs. Sarah Pace? That would have been her name at the time of death unless she married again. I have put together the arguments on this subject, which contain quite a bit of primary source data from Ruth Keys Clark, professional genealogist now deceased, which I feel cast considerable doubt on the assumption. I'm not ready to put it as fact or near fact quite yet. Roy Johnson

Good news, I've found someone to retrieve Richard Pace, etc. documents. The person I depended on has moved to DC so had to locate another. On the Sarah who? debate.... I cannot understand why he would have had to name anyone concerning the land he PURCHASED himself with headrights. Regards, Becky Mosely

Good, I'm glad you thought it made sense. I have no objection to my name being used but please do not give my email address. Not even in "mangled" format. Thanks. James --- roy.w.johnson@att.net wrote: > Fantastic evidence and bit of analysis! This is exactly > what we need more of. You are convincing me that at > least it is possible that the little girl in the records > COULD have groen up and married George. You are also > convincing me that his mother was probably formerly named > Maycock. So unless there was another Sarah Maycock around > for him to marry, it seems hishly probable. > > I sould like to add this information to the page on the > Pace Network. May I reference you as the author? If I > give email addresses, I fix them up so the "spiders" used > by spammers to glean addresses from the Internet won't > work. > > James __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

That is indeed good news. Regarding the deed of 1658: is it certain that the land being sold was wholly contained within the 1700 acres which George Pace patented by headrights on 1 August 1650? There are a couple of things which seem rather curious about this deed. To begin with, why does the sale of 1650 need confirming by George's son in 1658? And, as you say, why does he need to name his mother? According to the abstract in the Avant book, Richard Pace says: "I, Richard Pace, sonne and heire apparent of Mr. George Pace, of the Co. of Charles City, att Mount March in Virginia, and sonn and heire as the first issue by my mother, Mrs Sara Macocke, wife unto my aforesaid father (being both deceased) do hereby...sell 800 or 900 acres of land being neere unto Pierce's Hundred, alias Flowerday Hundred, sold by my deceased father 12 Oct 1650 to Mr. Thomas Drewe..." George Pace was still alive two years later on 6 December 1652 when he was granted 507 acres in Charles City County on the south side of the James River and the East side of Powells Creek, due for the transportation of ten persons. Did some doubt arise, after the death of George Pace, as to whether he had been clearly entitled to sell the land? If his wife had an interest in the land, but the sale was for some reason accomplished without her signature or acknowledgment, that might explain both the need for confirmation (by the man who was heir to both George and Sarah) and the need to explicitly name Sarah Maycocke in the deed. So it would be interesting to figure out if possible what land was being sold by George Pace, and where Samuel Maycock lived before he died. Somewhere I've seen an account of the dead which indicated that he lived near Flowerdew Hundred, but I can't recall now what document that was. It seems likely that the 200 acres which was granted to Sarah in 1626 would be adjacent to the land which Samuel Maycock had before he died. Did Samuel Maycock actually patent that land? Or was he just living on it? Do we know? James --- Becky Mosely <beckymosely@comcast.net> wrote: > Good news, I've found someone to retrieve Richard Pace, > etc. documents. The person I depended on has moved to DC > so had to locate another. > > On the Sarah who? debate.... I cannot understand why he > would have had to name anyone concerning the land he > PURCHASED himself with headrights. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Regarding the argument that the child Sarah Maycock could not have been granted land, therefore the Sarah Maycock referred to must have been a grown woman, probably the widow of Samuel: I'm not an expert but it does not seem to be the case that a child could not be granted land. When this was being discussed recently on this list, one poster posted an example of a child being granted land. See http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PACE/2006-06/1150580028 Regarding the argument that "Mrs Sarah Maycocke" should be interpreted to mean that George died first and his widow remarried to a Mr Maycock -- I can only say that that interpretation does not seem persuasive to me. There is nothing to support it (i.e. no trace of a Mr Maycock). James --- roy.w.johnson@att.net wrote: > I forgot the URL on the Pace Network where I put the > Sarah Maycock material: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pace/maycock.htm > > Check it out and see what you think of it. > > Roy > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > Be sure to check the Pace Family Genealogy Forum at > http://genforum.com/pace/ and the Pace Network at > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pace > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

See for example a deed of gift from Edward Herndon to his son Edward Herndon, dated 16 June 1739: "Beginning at a Corner of Mrs Mary Waller's (Now Mr Zachary Lewis's) and Capt. Larkin Chew's (Now Hawkins) standing on a hill Side by a Branch...." et cetera. "Mrs Mary Waller" referenced in this document is in fact Mary Waller (daughter of John Waller) who married Zachary Lewis. She was Mary Waller (single) in 1720 when the land was patented in her name by her father. She was Mrs Zachary Lewis in 1739 when Edward Herndon's deed of gift is being drawn up. By that date, the land belongs not to her but to her husband, but because it was patented in her maiden name, it is identified (for metes and bounds purposes) by reference to her maiden name but with a Mrs in front. As for the age question, look at it this way: Richard was under age on 25 Feb 1658/9 ("heire apparent"). Richard was of full age by 11 Feb 1659/60. Therefore Richard turned 21 during the period from 26 Feb 1658/9 to 11 Feb 1659/60. Therefore Richard was born during the period from 26 Feb 1637/38 to 11 Feb 1638/9 Sarah was "aged 2 yeares" (i.e., she was at least two and not yet three) when the muster was taken on 24 Jan 1624/5. Therefore she was "aged 16 yeares" (i.e., she was at least 16 and not yet 17) 14 years later on 24 Jan 1638/39. As shown above, Richard was born by 11 Feb 1638/39. By that date, Sarah was at least 16. If he was born between 24 Jan 1638/9 and 11 Feb 1638/9, she could have been 17. Have I got that right? Would appreciate being told if I've made a mistake. The date of the marriage of course is not known. James --- roy.w.johnson@att.net wrote: > > > -------------- Original message from James Blair > <jnb05042000@yahoo.com>: -------------- > > > > In the case of George Pace's marriage to Sarah Maycock, > > > however, it seems to me we do have pretty good > evidence. > > > > We don't know when George Pace was born, so we don't > know > > how old he would have been when his son Richard was > born. > > > > If in 1628 he was not yet of full age, then ten years > later > > when Richard was born he must have been not yet 31. > Sarah > > Maycock would be around 16. That doesn't seem to me to > > present a problem. > > I need to check, but I think some have Richard born 1637 > and Sarah Maycock born 1622 or 23, depending on how they > figure the years. Still not impossible, Loretta Lynn did > it in modern times. > > > > > It also doesn't seem to me to be a problem that Richard > > > Pace refers to his mother as "Mrs Sarah Maycocke". > Usage > > was different in the 17th century > > What is the evidence that usage was different then? I > have read quite a bit of history in this time era and > have never heard of a person being referred to as "Mrs." > and then her maiden name. > > . I don't see what else > > he could have called her, without seeming > disrespectful. > >. I don't see what else > > he could have called her, without seeming > disrespectful. > > > Why couldn't he call her Mrs. Sarah Pace? That would have > been her name at the time of death unless she married > again. > > I have put together the arguments on this subject, which > contain quite a bit of primary source data from Ruth Keys > Clark, professional genealogist now deceased, which I > feel cast considerable doubt on the assumption. I'm not > ready to put it as fact or near fact quite yet. > > Roy Johnson > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > You can search archived messages from the Pace Mailing > List by going to http://searches.rootsweb.com. If you > need instructions just ask me - gordonpace@comcast.net > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

I subscribe to the Madison County, Georgia, Journal newspaper and saw the following obituary for Horace E. Pace. Mr. Pace is not in my Pace family, but thought someone else might be interested in this news. If any one would like a xerox copy of the article, please feel free to contact me. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* The Madison County (Georgia) Journal, Thursday, August 3, 2006, Page 8A - Obituaries HORACE PACE Horace E. Pace, 70, of Commerce, died Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at Athens Regional Medical Center. Born on June 8, 1936, in Jackson County, he was the son of John E. and Cora Stewart Pace. He was a member of the Mt. Bethel Methodist Church. Mr. Pace was preceded in death by a brother, J. C. Pace; and a sister, Louise Hart. Survivors include his wife, Irene E. Cowart Pace, Commerce; two sons, David Pace and John Pace, both of Commerce; three daughters, Cathy Bruce, Homer, Carol Denton, Maysville, and Barbara King, Martin; a brother, Roger Pace, Commerce; two sisters, Genevieve Burke and Oneal Pace, both of Commerce; eight grandchildren; seven great-grandchildren; and several nieces and nephews. Funeral services were held Friday, July 28, in the chapel of Little-Ward Funeral Home with the Rev. Hilton Purvis officiating. Burial was in the Jackson Memorial Gardens, Commerce. Little-Ward Funeral Home, Commerce, was in charge of arrangements. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* submitted by: Linda Bennett Harrington My Pace Family Line: Daniel Rice Pace (from DuBois County, Indiana), Edward A. Pace, Mary Belle Pace Bailey, Elizabeth Rosella Bailey Harrington, John Arthur Harrington, Michael LeRoy Harrington (my husband) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

I agree with you. A lot of things have been assumed to be true, which it turns out there is no evidence for. In the case of George Pace's marriage to Sarah Maycock, however, it seems to me we do have pretty good evidence. We don't know when George Pace was born, so we don't know how old he would have been when his son Richard was born. If in 1628 he was not yet of full age, then ten years later when Richard was born he must have been not yet 31. Sarah Maycock would be around 16. That doesn't seem to me to present a problem. It also doesn't seem to me to be a problem that Richard Pace refers to his mother as "Mrs Sarah Maycocke". Usage was different in the 17th century. I don't see what else he could have called her, without seeming disrespectful. If we had as much evidence for the children of Richard as we have for the marriage of George and Sarah Maycock, I'd be happy. James --- roy.w.johnson@att.net wrote: > Also it is still being debated if the little Maycock girl > grew up to be George's wife. She would have been about > 13 or 14 when Richard was born (I don't remember exactly > but Jack Pace had an email on that). He would have been > considerably older. Also he said his mother was "Mrs. > Sarah Maycock" and the girl in question would have been > Miss Sarah Maycock before she married George (if indeed > she did) she would never have been Mrs. Sarah Maycock > unless the custom were different back then. This has > caused some to doubt the usual interpretation, and there > is no certain documentation. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

46 marriage records listing PACE's here: http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=3283671&pid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=pace Scott __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Also it is still being debated if the little Maycock girl grew up to be George's wife. She would have been about 13 or 14 when Richard was born (I don't remember exactly but Jack Pace had an email on that). He would have been considerably older. Also he said his mother was "Mrs. Sarah Maycock" and the girl in question would have been Miss Sarah Maycock before she married George (if indeed she did) she would never have been Mrs. Sarah Maycock unless the custom were different back then. This has caused some to doubt the usual interpretation, and there is no certain documentation. The early Pace Society accepted so many things that were "generally known" that we have to be careful to haave exact documentation, whiat source, what page, an exact quote not a summery, etc. before accepting those early conclusions. Roy Johnson -------------- Original message from "Gordon W. Pace" <gordonwpace@peoplepc.com>: -------------- > > James: > Your message suggests that we don't know who the children were of the Richard > Pace who was a son of George Pace and Sarah Maycock. I think this is fairly > well known: Richard III b. 1661, Sarah b. 1662, George b. abt 1663, Elizabeth > b. 1664, James b. 1666, John, Sr b. 1668 and Ann b. 1674. > Gordon W. Pace > -----Original Message----- > >From: James Blair > >Sent: Aug 6, 2006 6:32 AM > >To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Documents, questions, speculations > > > >That's a great offer, Becky. Thank you. > > > >I guess probably a lot of the evidence we would dearly like > >to have is just no longer there. > > > >For instance, we would like to know whether George (son of > >Richard and Isabella) had more than the one son Richard. > >The wording of the deed of 25 Feb 1658/9 seems to allow for > >that possibility (perhaps a son of a second marriage), but > >there's probably little chance of discovering evidence. > > > >And secondly of course what we would all most like to know > >is the number and names of the children of Richard (George, > >Richard). > > > >Well, those two questions may be unanswerable, but here is > >a third question which would may be less of a brick wall: > >what was the name of Mary who was granted administration on > >the estate of her deceased husband Richard Pace in Feb > >1677/8? > > > >Mary was married to her Richard Pace by 13 March 1661/2, > >when he sold to Richard Taylor land in which Mary > >apparently had an interest. It would be interesting to > >know why her consent was required. It might point to who > >her parents were, or perhaps to a previous marriage. > > > >The land is described as: > > > >"...land on Powells Creek beginning at Buckland Island up > >creek to road called Hawksnest to Reedy Bottoms as far as > >Wm. Wilkins plantation..." > > > >If only it could be discovered who originally patented that > >land, it might reveal Mary's parentage. > > > >Another interesting question: why was this Richard Pace an > >executor of the estate of Hugh Kirkland, and why did Mary > >take the orphans? It may mean nothing, but it COULD mean > >that there was a closer relationship between Richard and > >Mary and Hugh Kirkland than we at present know of. For > >instance, Mary could have been a Kirkland. > > > >There is the court case brought by Thomas Kirkland (one of > >the orphans?) on 3 Aug 1692, against Nicholas Whitmore and > >his wife Mary as executrix of her deceased husband Richard > >Pace one of the executors of Hugh Kirkland. In your notes > >which you posted, it is suggested that this case had > >something to do with orphan Hannah Pitt. Well, I am > >speculating that perhaps Hannah's mother was born Hannah > >Kirkland and married a Pitt, and now the orphan's uncle > >Thomas is trying to get the estate of Richard Pace dec'd to > >pay money which Thomas thinks is owed to Hannah. > > > >Only speculation of course. > > > >And my final question: is it proved that the "relict of > >Richard Pace" who married Briscoe is the same person as > >Mary, widow of Richard Pace who subsequently married > >Nicholas Whitmore? The Briscoe marriage seems very > >unexpected, and unconnected with the people Richard and > >Mary Pace were otherwise involved with. > > > >You mention in your notes that William Briscoe left > >everything to Ann Holden (Holder). She seems to have been > >his daughter-in-law, according to a post on the > >HOLDER-DNA-L list > >(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/HOLDER-DNA/2004-12/1103162204). > > And he was a blacksmith. > > > >What I'm thinking is that if there really were two > >unrelated Richard Paces, the Richard Pace relict who > >married William Briscoe could have been a different person > >from Mary Pace. > > > >Just some of my thoughts about the various unanswered > >questions. We may never know the answers but then again, > >who knows what may turn up in an unexpected place? > > > >James > > > > > >--- Becky Mosely wrote: > > > >> > >> If you have a list or recommendation of what we need - > >> please send it to me. > >> > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > >==== PACE Mailing List ==== > >You can search archived messages from the Pace Mailing List by going to > http://searches.rootsweb.com. If you need instructions just ask me - > gordonpace@comcast.net > > > > > ________________________________________ > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > If you haven't done so within the last six months, please post a message > describing your Earliest Pace Ancestor and how you descend from them. Please > include dates, places, spouses, etc, if possible. Send the message to > PACE-L@rootsweb.com >

Gordon, I have always heard this too but have not seen any documentation to prove it. Where are the sources? Roy -------------- Original message from "Gordon W. Pace" <gordonwpace@peoplepc.com>: -------------- > > James: > Your message suggests that we don't know who the children were of the Richard > Pace who was a son of George Pace and Sarah Maycock. I think this is fairly > well known: Richard III b. 1661, Sarah b. 1662, George b. abt 1663, Elizabeth > b. 1664, James b. 1666, John, Sr b. 1668 and Ann b. 1674. > Gordon W. Pace > -----Original Message----- > >From: James Blair > >Sent: Aug 6, 2006 6:32 AM > >To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Documents, questions, speculations > > > >That's a great offer, Becky. Thank you. > > > >I guess probably a lot of the evidence we would dearly like > >to have is just no longer there. > > > >For instance, we would like to know whether George (son of > >Richard and Isabella) had more than the one son Richard. > >The wording of the deed of 25 Feb 1658/9 seems to allow for > >that possibility (perhaps a son of a second marriage), but > >there's probably little chance of discovering evidence. > > > >And secondly of course what we would all most like to know > >is the number and names of the children of Richard (George, > >Richard). > > > >Well, those two questions may be unanswerable, but here is > >a third question which would may be less of a brick wall: > >what was the name of Mary who was granted administration on > >the estate of her deceased husband Richard Pace in Feb > >1677/8? > > > >Mary was married to her Richard Pace by 13 March 1661/2, > >when he sold to Richard Taylor land in which Mary > >apparently had an interest. It would be interesting to > >know why her consent was required. It might point to who > >her parents were, or perhaps to a previous marriage. > > > >The land is described as: > > > >"...land on Powells Creek beginning at Buckland Island up > >creek to road called Hawksnest to Reedy Bottoms as far as > >Wm. Wilkins plantation..." > > > >If only it could be discovered who originally patented that > >land, it might reveal Mary's parentage. > > > >Another interesting question: why was this Richard Pace an > >executor of the estate of Hugh Kirkland, and why did Mary > >take the orphans? It may mean nothing, but it COULD mean > >that there was a closer relationship between Richard and > >Mary and Hugh Kirkland than we at present know of. For > >instance, Mary could have been a Kirkland. > > > >There is the court case brought by Thomas Kirkland (one of > >the orphans?) on 3 Aug 1692, against Nicholas Whitmore and > >his wife Mary as executrix of her deceased husband Richard > >Pace one of the executors of Hugh Kirkland. In your notes > >which you posted, it is suggested that this case had > >something to do with orphan Hannah Pitt. Well, I am > >speculating that perhaps Hannah's mother was born Hannah > >Kirkland and married a Pitt, and now the orphan's uncle > >Thomas is trying to get the estate of Richard Pace dec'd to > >pay money which Thomas thinks is owed to Hannah. > > > >Only speculation of course. > > > >And my final question: is it proved that the "relict of > >Richard Pace" who married Briscoe is the same person as > >Mary, widow of Richard Pace who subsequently married > >Nicholas Whitmore? The Briscoe marriage seems very > >unexpected, and unconnected with the people Richard and > >Mary Pace were otherwise involved with. > > > >You mention in your notes that William Briscoe left > >everything to Ann Holden (Holder). She seems to have been > >his daughter-in-law, according to a post on the > >HOLDER-DNA-L list > >(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/HOLDER-DNA/2004-12/1103162204). > > And he was a blacksmith. > > > >What I'm thinking is that if there really were two > >unrelated Richard Paces, the Richard Pace relict who > >married William Briscoe could have been a different person > >from Mary Pace. > > > >Just some of my thoughts about the various unanswered > >questions. We may never know the answers but then again, > >who knows what may turn up in an unexpected place? > > > >James > > > > > >--- Becky Mosely wrote: > > > >> > >> If you have a list or recommendation of what we need - > >> please send it to me. > >> > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > >==== PACE Mailing List ==== > >You can search archived messages from the Pace Mailing List by going to > http://searches.rootsweb.com. If you need instructions just ask me - > gordonpace@comcast.net > > > > > ________________________________________ > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > If you haven't done so within the last six months, please post a message > describing your Earliest Pace Ancestor and how you descend from them. Please > include dates, places, spouses, etc, if possible. Send the message to > PACE-L@rootsweb.com >

Indeed I don't know what child or children Richard (George, Richard) had. If there is evidence of what children he had, I would be very interested to know of it. I know of the record referring to "the orphan" but that record doesn't say the name or age or sex of the orphan, or whether there were any siblings. Any further information would be very welcome. James James __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com