Definitely. We can't be sure of the wording unless someone can get sight of the original or an image of the original. None of the transcripts I have seen have got the wording "Mrs Sarah Maycock". In one version there is the wording "Mrs Samuel Maycock". We don't know the given name of Samuel Maycock's wife. We do know that Samuel's heir was named Sarah Maycock, since that is the name of the person who receives the 200 acres. If the Maycocks had a daughter named Sarah, it is possible the daughter was named after her mother. So the question is, was "Sarah Maycock" (heir of Samuel) his daughter or his widow? Ellen Kathlynn3@aol.com wrote: Re: Minutes of the Council and General Court May 8, 1626 Question: Does anyone have a copy of the original document or know where it might be obtained SO we can see if it has her named as Sara Maycock OR Mrs Samuel Maycock? I have had no success with my attempts. From Ellen's following post we find the name on this document as "Sara Maycock." Conversely, per Ruth Keys Clark: Document 4 we find the name on this document as "Mrs Sarah Maycock." All of Ruth's documents, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 can be found on web site: _http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/PACE+2003+ 6461545990+F_ (http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/PACE+2003+6461545990+F) How can this happen, i.e. supposedly same document but each with a different name? I think before we can untangle these discrepancies we are going to have to have a copy of the actual document......don't you? I thought I had it all figured out which was basically/exactly the you had it discerned, Ellen, i.e. George Pace m: Sarah Maycock d.o. Samuel. Now after reading Ruth's conclusions.....I'm back to being more confused than ever. Note: Ruth believes it was Samuel's widow that m: George and Dtr. Sarah died!!!??? If we do determine it was widow/mother Mrs Sarah Maycock then we have the mystery of determining what her maiden name was...right? Well now...there's my 2 cents worth! ~Kathlynn~ In a message dated 6/14/2006 4:05:22 AM Central Standard Time, gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk writes: >From the Minutes of the Council and General Court May 8 1626: "y't is ordered y't Sara Maycock for fower servants brought over in the Abigaill 1622 upon the accompt of Mr. Samuell Maycock shall have two hundred acres of lande to be take upp by her in any place not formerly taken upp." I've just realized that if this land was being granted to Samuel Maycock's widow, it would surely refer to her as "Mrs Sarah Maycock" or "Mrs Samuel Maycock". The widow of a man who had been a gentleman, a scholar, a reverend, and a council member, would surely be spoken of as "Mrs Maycock". I have not seen the original source. There is always the possibility that it has been mistranscribed. If not -- if it really does refer to her as "Sara Maycock", then to me that seems strong confirmation that they were referring to the child, Samuel Maycock's daughter and heir. It then follows that she was indeed the Sarah Maycock who later became the wife of George Pace and the mother of Richard. One final point: someone raised the question of why Richard would refer to his mother by her maiden name but using the title "Mrs". I believe this was the natural thing for him to do. He could hardly refer to his deceased mother without any title, and as has been noted, "Mrs" did not inevitably denote the married state. Thank you all for your patience. For me it has been well worth thinking this through. Even though none of it can be proved, I now have a much clearer picture of events as I believe they must have occurred. Ellen ==== 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 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

I agree. Being ready to express a different opinion, and being ready to listen to and consider a different opinion, is part of respect. That is basically what this is all about, it seems to me. There are aspects of the Pace history which used to be taken for granted but have rightly been questioned and challenged in recent years. At one time it was accepted that Richard Pace (m. Rebecca Unk, d. abt 1738 NC) "must have" been a great grandson of Richard and Isabella Pace. Ruth Clark was scrupulous in pointing out that there is no proof of this, and consequently none of us can prove descent from Richard and Isabella. Another point which was once accepted but has more recently been questioned, is the supposition that George Pace married the daughter of Rev Samuel Maycock. It appears that some who subscribe to this list dislike the questioning of things, and would like to go back to accepting everything that was once claimed. When I started posting to the list about Sarah Maycock, that apparently was misinterpreted to mean that I agreed with that "don't-ask-awkward-questions" attitude -- which obviously I don't. The more questions, and the more open discussion, the better, in my opinion. I think you are right that people may be reluctant to ask questions or to say what they really think. As you say, some of us have thicker skins than others. Some, if they get a rather sharp response in public, may feel upset and may say no more for fear of being upset again. We should all perhaps bear that in mind, and speak more gently to one another, even if we are disagreeing. My 2p. Ellen Janders 45 <janders45@hotmail.com> wrote: I don't know what's behind this thread, but I have to declare myself in favor of respect also. Respecting others is not only important, it is the polite and civilized thing to do. But I hope that we don't equate disagreement with disrespect. I come from a scientific background where it is common and expected that one's interpretations and conclusions will be challenged. It is through the process of challenge and debate followed by refutation or confirmation that the boundaries of knowledge are extended. I think that this applies to genealogy as well as to the scientific disciplines. I can recall no instances of disrespect on the Pace list, though others may have detected some that I missed. Perhaps I am a bit more thick-skinned than some. I fear that the greater danger is that we will err on the other side. That is, we may decline to disagree in public for fear that someone might be offended, even though we might sincerely disagree with the opinion or conclusion being expressed. This is just a point of view from someone sitting out on the periphery of the circle. I now feel obliged to point out that I mean no disrespect to anyone in suggesting that some of you folk may be just too darned polite. Joe Anderson ==== PACE Mailing List ==== To subscribe or unsubscribe send email to PACE-L-request@rootsweb.com with the one word message: subscribe OR unsubscribe For digest mode, use PACE-D-request@rootsweb.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Since Britain did not adopt the Gregorian calendar for another 130 years or so, in lieu of conflicting information I ASSUME the date of 22 Mar 1622 would be by a Julian date. This is based on the ASSUMPTION that this is the date shown on the original reports, etc. (and could be properly shown today, I believe, as 1622/23). What we are reading in the histories, encyclopedias, etc may well be "edited" or "corrected", however, certainly not acceptable unless so noted. Has anyone out there seen actual copies of any of these original reports? Or are we depending upon "transcripts" which, in actuality, may not be transcripts at all, but "edited transcripts" or even "edited abstracts". And even "transcripts" contain typos. M.A. Causey ----- Original Message ----- From: <Kathlynn3@aol.com> To: <PACE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: [PACE-L] Massacre: What year did it occur, per Julian Calendar used at this time? > Re: Terrible massacre of Good Friday, 22 March > 1622 > > Question: Does anyone know if this is a Julian > or Gregorian year date? > Should the year be correctly claimed as Friday, > March 22, 1621/22? > > ~Kathlynn~

AMEN Jim. Dave

Can someone please unsubscribe me from this thread? Not from the list as a whole... just from this wholly un-necessary, not related to research of any sort, theread.... In other words folks, I for one am not interested, and am willing to bet I'm not the only one... please, take it to private emails and stop cluttering my inbox.

You all are beginning to sound like Republicans and Democrats whose communication exchanges equate to pissing in one anothers pocket without constructive result. Dave

These are some notes I made a long time ago in looking at a timeline.... Was trying to get my Bradford timeline in order.... 1628 George Pace, "son and heir apparent to Richard Pace, decd." on 1 September, 1628 received a patent "to the plantation called 'Paces Paines', granted his father 5 December, 1620; westward on land of his mother Isabella Perry; East on land of Francis Chapman now in the tenure of William Perry, gent., his father-in-law (step father), and north upon the main river; 100 acres due for the personal adventure of his father Richard Pace and 300 acres for the transportation of four persons." Where was George 1635 to 1650??? If George did marry a Maycocke why would he have bought this land? He would already have owned it. THE below patent IS the same land. In 1650, George Pace obtained a grant for 1,700 acres for 34 headrights. 1 Aug. 1650, p. 252. Lyeing on S. side of James Riv. commonly called Matocks, beg. at the mouth of a little swamp by the river side where PEIRCE his hundred takes ending, running etc., W. to a swamp which leads to POWELLS Cr. & along the cr. to the river, Trans. of 34 pers:.....................Source: Early Virginia Families along the James River, Vol. II by Louise Pledge Heath Foley, page 19 THOMAS DREW, Gent., 490 acs. Chas. City Co., 26 Oct. 1650, p. 268. Lyeing on N. side of Flower De Hundred Cr., bounded N. upon land purchased by MR. PACE, S. upon sd. Cr. & N.E. upon Snow Cr. Trans. of 10 pers. Source: Early Virginia Families along the James River, Vol. II by Louise Pledge Heath Foley, page 20 Page 48 - (Same piece of land as above. bbm) ROBERT NETHERLAND, 490 acs. Chas. Citty Co., on N. side of Flower de hundred Cr., 15 June 1676, p. 613. Adj. land of MR. PACE upon sd. Cr., N. E. upon Snow Cr., &c. Granted to THO. DREW, Gent., dec'd., 4 June 1657. & being not seated, &c. Trans. of 10 pers: JNO. WILSON, THO. HILLIARD, ROBT. SUSSER, THO. ARTH. (AUTHUR?), Negro THEMS (others not mentioned). OFF TOPIC but interaction between Pace/Bradford ancestral families went back a long way before Brunswick Co. COMMENT: Tangled roots. FRANCES WARD, [wife of William Barker, mariner & owner of Merchant's Hope, Flowerdew Hundred] was married to Netherland and Drew. She was the Mother of SARAH BARKER who married RICHARD TAYLOR (Sarah also married Robert Lucy & Capt. James Bisse), and Grandmother of FRANCES TAYLOR who married RICHARD BRADFORD. RICHARD PACE, II is the son of George Pace and Sarah Pace. Richard Pace, II was born in latter part of 1637 in Virginia. This relationship is firmly established by Richard’s 1655 guardianship records: 'Richard Pace, the orphan and heire of George Pace, dec’d.' Richard Pace, at the age of around seventeen, inherited 1,700 acres of land. Being a minor but over the age of fourteen, Richard had the right to choose his own guardian and he chose William Baugh. Immediately upon coming of age, Richard Pace filed a confirmation of his father’s sale of 800 or 900 acres to Thomas Drew. This document had been drawn up on June 4, 1655 while Richard was still a minor and was rerecorded on May 9, 1659. (this may have come from Avant book) ACTUAL: At a Co'rt holden att merchts hope Feb 25, 1658. Present: Thomas Drewe, mr Antho: Wyatt, mr. War: Horsmonden, Capt. John Epes, mr Steph: Hamelin, Capt. Tho: Stegge p. 179. "Know all men by these presents, and withnesse that I Richd Pace sonne and heire apparent of mr Geo pace of the Com of Charles Citty att Mount March in Virginia, and sonn and heire as the first issue by my mother Mrs Sara Macocke wife unto my aforesd father (being both dec'd) Do hereby by these presents ffor my selfe my heirs ex'ors adm'rs and ass's for ever absolutely confirme and allow of the sale of eight or nine hundred acres of land being neere unto Pierces hundred, als fflorday hundred, sold by my dec'd father mr George Pace unto mr Thomas Drewe as per bill of sale bareing date the 12th Day of October Ao 1650 may more large app'e x x [Richd Pace further confirms sale to Thos. Drewe] x x. Dated 25 February 1658/9. Signed Richard Pace. Wit: Anthony Wyatt, Thomas Stegge, Hoel Pryse CI. Rec 19 May 1659. Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Vol. III, Charles City County Court Orders, 1658-1661, page 214 by Beverly FLEET I don't have original...... Probable disposition of some of the above land. 1659/60 Richard Pace planter of Powells Creek in Virginia sells Tho: Madder of fflowerde hundred 300 acres on Powell's Creek . "as I the sd Richard Pace doe hold it by pattent" [Charles City Court Orders, P. 371] 1659/60 On February 11, 1659/60, Richard Pace sold 200 acres to William Wilkins and sold 300 more acres to Thomas Madder on February 28, 1659/60. Both of these deeds were only signed by Richard which probably indicates that he was unmarried at the time. 1661/62 On March 13, 1661/62, Richard Pace 'with consent of my wife Mary' sold an unspecified number of acres to Richard Taylor. NOTE: RICHARD TAYLOR was the Father-in-Law of RICHARD BRADFORD. Just info...... Becky

Holy Jesus, Mary & Joseph....what in the heck is going on here??? Please help me to understand all of this "respect" issue so I won't think I am going completely bonkers..... Wasn't it the same person that sent the "respect" msg. in the first place, the same person who is now sending msg's to the contrary? Likewise, the same person who voiced her OPINION to me FIRST in a personal msg. and when I responded voicing my opinion, using different adjectives, albeit the same type, replied with letting me know in no uncertain terms that she didn't want to hear it? I think the exact statement was "quite uncalled for" along with other stronger statements. Don't we have enough issues to solve with getting our family history accurate, without wasting time with unwarranted instructive reprimands, from one to another, about how/what they are allowed to say? No doubt Ruth Keyes Clark was a "fine researcher" - "devoted, thorough, excellent" - "warm, friendly, generous" person...and without doubt we should all never fail to be grateful to be the beneficiaries of her contributions. HOWEVER, in no way does this automatically eliminate the possibility that she could have inadvertantly made mistakes...and likewise this is true for all of us. I make them everday and addressing this issue is probably mine for this day...LOL! But I have never been one to sit still and not state my opinion on any issue, mine or others, on what appears to me to be unfairness. I have never been able to keep my mouth shut about having my hand called on something and by someone who appears to have the attitude that If I do or say it, it's okay....if you do the same thing you are a bad person and not worthy of my association. Boy! I better HUSH right now..... Thank you Joe, for having the courage and diplomacy to address this issue. IMHO, a totally unwarranted issue that has wasted all of out time. But all is well that ends well and IMO I think this was all necessary for better understanding of each other so we can continue to work harmoniously on our family history. Now we are all kin so lets :* and make up and get on with the more important issue at hand. Sincerely sent with good intentions..... ~Kathlynn~

I believe that Cousin Joe Anderson Has it just about as Near Right as I have Seen. I believe that TOO many people are under the impression, That As every one is entitled to their Opinion, BUT; as My late Brother's opinion was AS long he agreed with it, <the other Fellows Opinion> That is All wrong. TRUE we have the right to our opinion, BUT no one is required to Agree with our Opinion. ONE problem: Some statements are <NOT OPINION> Our Constitution IS NOT open to opinion, Our Laws ARE not open to Opinion, IF so Why have we Had Three Presidents Found Guilty of Acting out their Opinion If The President WAS wrong in Acting According to his Opinion I Am sure that My Conduct Should Not Be JUST as my Opinion, But according to the Rules of Society. Though we may Disagree, The Right of Many Opinions are Defendable, THE right to Disagree is the GREATEST RIGHT ON EARTH. BUT, in an attempt to Avoid Disagreement In Genealogy I always Just say, <According to MY INFORMATION> If I would see that Kind of Post I could say that it does not Match Mine- BUT that Arrogant, ONE- whom is being Criticized AS being Disrespectful, Would, BLURT that I, AM wrong, when it Could that some of the Disrespectful one could be a BIT wrong. I believe that some, perceived Disrespect is the results of People Who do not GET what they read connected to what was said. THAT is my idea of the diplomatic way to describe the <BLURTER> or in other words, uninformed Bias personal Opinion. Those People Do not understand; IT is not who one was where they Came from- BUT- rather who they are where they are. CUZ A T <atpoweljr@aol.com>

More questions: Why was Sarah at age 2 in the household of someone else? Where was her mother? Did her mother die during childbirth, or during the illness epidemic that followed soon after the massacre? Surely if she lived we could find her somewhere?

Re: Minutes of the Council and General Court May 8, 1626 Question: Does anyone have a copy of the original document or know where it might be obtained SO we can see if it has her named as Sara Maycock OR Mrs Samuel Maycock? I have had no success with my attempts. From Ellen's following post we find the name on this document as "Sara Maycock." Conversely, per Ruth Keys Clark: Document 4 we find the name on this document as "Mrs Sarah Maycock." All of Ruth's documents, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 can be found on web site: _http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/PACE+2003+ 6461545990+F_ (http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/PACE+2003+6461545990+F) How can this happen, i.e. supposedly same document but each with a different name? I think before we can untangle these discrepancies we are going to have to have a copy of the actual document......don't you? I thought I had it all figured out which was basically/exactly the you had it discerned, Ellen, i.e. George Pace m: Sarah Maycock d.o. Samuel. Now after reading Ruth's conclusions.....I'm back to being more confused than ever. Note: Ruth believes it was Samuel's widow that m: George and Dtr. Sarah died!!!??? If we do determine it was widow/mother Mrs Sarah Maycock then we have the mystery of determining what her maiden name was...right? Well now...there's my 2 cents worth! ~Kathlynn~ In a message dated 6/14/2006 4:05:22 AM Central Standard Time, gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk writes: >From the Minutes of the Council and General Court May 8 1626: "y't is ordered y't Sara Maycock for fower servants brought over in the Abigaill 1622 upon the accompt of Mr. Samuell Maycock shall have two hundred acres of lande to be take upp by her in any place not formerly taken upp." I've just realized that if this land was being granted to Samuel Maycock's widow, it would surely refer to her as "Mrs Sarah Maycock" or "Mrs Samuel Maycock". The widow of a man who had been a gentleman, a scholar, a reverend, and a council member, would surely be spoken of as "Mrs Maycock". I have not seen the original source. There is always the possibility that it has been mistranscribed. If not -- if it really does refer to her as "Sara Maycock", then to me that seems strong confirmation that they were referring to the child, Samuel Maycock's daughter and heir. It then follows that she was indeed the Sarah Maycock who later became the wife of George Pace and the mother of Richard. One final point: someone raised the question of why Richard would refer to his mother by her maiden name but using the title "Mrs". I believe this was the natural thing for him to do. He could hardly refer to his deceased mother without any title, and as has been noted, "Mrs" did not inevitably denote the married state. Thank you all for your patience. For me it has been well worth thinking this through. Even though none of it can be proved, I now have a much clearer picture of events as I believe they must have occurred. Ellen

Please note: The previous email I just and gave this URL for the 1621/22 Massacre date infor. _http://english-america.com/places/va607001.html _ (http://english-america.com/places/va607001.html ) After I sent the msg, I went to check out something else and it appears the site had to be closed from like of funds...that's too bad because it had so much good info. on it. ~Kathlynn~

Re: Terrible massacre of Good Friday, 22 March 1622 Question: Does anyone know if this is a Julian or Gregorian year date? Should the year be correctly claimed as Friday, March 22, 1621/22? ~Kathlynn~

The massacre was March 1621/2 [per Virginia People, 1607- English-America: The Voyages, Vessels, People and places website: _http://english-america.com/places/va607001.html _ (http://english-america.com/places/va607001.html ) 1621 is the old Julian Calendar year and the year used during the time frame we are talking about. Therefore, wouldn't 1621 be the actual date Samuel was killed? And make it evident that Samuel's wife must have been pregnant with Sarah who was then born within a few months after her father was killed, or after March 25, but in the year 1622, because the Julian months were from March to March instead of Jan to Jan. Sarah at age 2 in Jan 1624 [Julian year] = b: 1622...all fit better...right? I think the problem occur when one transcription of a document states a Julian year, and another document that is being used for discernment to make things fit, uses Gregorian year???? But that brings up another unsolved mystery.....where was Mrs Samuel Woodlief? Has anyone found her on any of the musters? I have not. ~Kathlynn~ ************************************************************************* In a message dated 6/14/2006 1:30:36 PM Central Standard Time, gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk writes: It was March 22 1622/3. Sarah's age is stated as 2 in the muster of 24 Jan 1624/5. "Two" could mean anything from 24 months to 35 months, so let's call it "at least 2 but not yet 3". So she was born (if the age on the muster is accurate) between 25 Jan 1621/2 and 24 Jan 1622/3. She would turn 16 (legal age to marry) between 25 Jan 1637/38 and 24 Jan 1638/39. Richard Pace, her putative first-born son, comes of age at some time between 25 Feb 1658/9 (when he is only "heir apparent") and 11 Feb 1659/60, when he sells land in his own right. So -- Richard must have been born between the 26th of Feb 1637/38 and the 11th of Feb 1638/39. And Sarah could have been giving birth as early as Nov 1637/38. Seems to work. Have I made any arithmetic mistakes? Ellen MAC <olems@bellsouth.net> wrote: I don't know the exact date the Indian massacre occurred, but don't forget to factor in the calendar change. Until Sep 1752, Britain used the Julian Calendar (i.e. Old Style) and the year changed on March 25, not Jan 1. Thus a child born 24 March 1622 would be but one day older than one born 25 March 1623. M.A. Causey

Oh heck. All my fine calculating is wasted then because I started from the wrong date. I thought it was 1622/3! Ellen Rebecca Christensen <rchristen@sbcglobal.net> wrote: In July 2002, I posted a message to the list with a time chronology of events while trying to determine the order and time placement of events with reference to the old calendar system. The original posting is here: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PACE/2002-07/1027306113 but I am including the time chronology below, again. I once again wrote all of the months down on paper and counted - I count 34 months between the date of the massacre on 22 March 1622 (actually 1621/22) and January 1624/25 when Sarah Maycock was a child of 2 on the muster. Technically, a child is still 2 years old until reaching 36 months, although we also know census records are not *always* exact. March 22, 1622 - Jamestown Massacre (Samuel Maycock died in the massacre) July 13, 1622 - It took 4 months for news of the massacre to reach England. July 29, 1622 - It was ordered that some ordinance be sent to Jamestowne for the colonists' protection March 25, 1623. "George Sandys wrote that the plague which followed the Indian massacre had been twice as fatal as the massacre itself" February 16, 1623 (also listed as February 16, 1623/24) List of the Living and Dead completed - List of the living and those who had died since April 1623 January 1624/25 - Muster, or census, ordered by the crown was taken It appears the muster dated 29 January 1625 which lists the child Sarah Maycock [age] 2 born in Virginia is 29 January 1624/25. Rebecca MAC wrote: I don't know the exact date the Indian massacre occurred, but don't forget to factor in the calendar change. Until Sep 1752, Britain used the Julian Calendar (i.e. Old Style) and the year changed on March 25, not Jan 1. Thus a child born 24 March 1622 would be but one day older than one born 25 March 1623. M.A. Causey ==== 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 ==== 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 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

To the person who keeps sending me emails disparaging the work of others, please stop it. I respect the work of Ruth Keys Clark very highly. She was a fine researcher who contributed a great deal to research on the early Paces, and I learned a lot from her. She also generously sent me a copy of her event/source documents even though I did not know her personally. Your remarks shock me. I was brought up to believe that decent people don't go around badmouthing those who can no longer reply. So please, stop it. A little respect for others is necessary, if we are all to get along together in this world. Ellen Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

It was March 22 1622/3. Sarah's age is stated as 2 in the muster of 24 Jan 1624/5. "Two" could mean anything from 24 months to 35 months, so let's call it "at least 2 but not yet 3". So she was born (if the age on the muster is accurate) between 25 Jan 1621/2 and 24 Jan 1622/3. She would turn 16 (legal age to marry) between 25 Jan 1637/38 and 24 Jan 1638/39. Richard Pace, her putative first-born son, comes of age at some time between 25 Feb 1658/9 (when he is only "heir apparent") and 11 Feb 1659/60, when he sells land in his own right. So -- Richard must have been born between the 26th of Feb 1637/38 and the 11th of Feb 1638/39. And Sarah could have been giving birth as early as Nov 1637/38. Seems to work. Have I made any arithmetic mistakes? Ellen MAC <olems@bellsouth.net> wrote: I don't know the exact date the Indian massacre occurred, but don't forget to factor in the calendar change. Until Sep 1752, Britain used the Julian Calendar (i.e. Old Style) and the year changed on March 25, not Jan 1. Thus a child born 24 March 1622 would be but one day older than one born 25 March 1623. M.A. Causey ==== 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 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://english-america.com/places/va607001.html found thru the Internet Archive Wayback Machine http://web.archive.org/collections/web.html ----- Original Message ----- From: <Kathlynn3@aol.com> > Please note: The previous email I just and gave this URL for the 1621/22 > Massacre date infor. _http://english-america.com/places/va607001.html _ > (http://english-america.com/places/va607001.html ) > > After I sent the msg, I went to check out something else and it appears > the > site had to be closed from like of funds...that's too bad because it had > so > much good info. on it. > > ~Kathlynn~ > >

Hi Darlene Thanks for your reply, and for the information about the books. I'm not familiar with the Wulfeck book. I did a Google search to see if I could learn anything about the book you mentioned, and that came up, and so I wondered if that was the one you were quoting from. I agree, it's not easy to decipher early records or to be sure what they were saying. That's all we've got to go on though. I guess we have to keep trying. Ellen darlene <darlene@adweb.net> wrote: Ellen I really am a novice at researching old information, but I tend to think if something written down was a bases of the marriage ..no matter how written we just have decipher what they really meant in this Case.... and this Sarah could not have died in 1622 as she was not born until 1623, and it definitely says d/o Sam Maycock, if it was his wife would have said Widow of Sam Maycock, So we know who ever wrote that was having a bad day, or being distracted and not paying attention to what was being written down. I have done that, even to this site ...Sure would be nice to find another piece of info to be sure....also see below more**** I tried to figure out where it came from in info below and afraid I don't have enough knowledge of old info in area to make a decision. You apparently have knowledge of book by Dorothy Ford Wulfeck mentioned below Colonial Virginia Source Records, 1600s-1700s Apparent info in the Virginia marriages books references,Comes from all these Sources, Produced in collaboration with the Genealogical Publishing Company, the following volumes are included in this data set: Gleanings of Virginia History William F. Boogher Virginia Wills Before 1799 - A Complete Abstract Register of All Names Mentioned in Over 600 Recorded Wills William Montgomery Clemens Virginia Court Records in Southwestern Pennsylvania (Records of the District of West Augusta and Ohio and Yohogania Counties, Virginia 1775-1780) Boyd Crumrine Virginia Tax Payers, 1782-87 (Other Than Those Published by The United States Census Bureau) Augusta B. Fothergill and John M. Naugle This unique list names 34,000 residents of Virginia who were not included in the 1790 Federal Census. Genealogical Abstracts from 18th-Century Virginia Newspapers Robert K. Headley, Jr. This ultimate resource draws together all genealogical data in 18th-century Virginia newspapers. Historical Collections of Virginia Henry Howe Index to Obituary Notices in The 'Richmond Enquirer' From May 9, 1804, through 1828, and The 'Richmond Whig' From January 1824 Through 1838 H. R. McIlwaine Virginia Wills and Administrations, 1632-1800 Clayton Torrence Early Quaker Records in Virginia Miles White, Jr. Marriages of Some Virginia Residents, 1607-1800 Dorothy Ford Wulfeck ---------------------------------------- **** Virginia Genealogies and Biographies, 1500s-1900s Info taken from 9 different Book, Virginia Historical Genealogies, Pace, Page 166 George Pace son of Richard, married Sarah Maycock daughter of the Reverend Samuel Maycock, Member of the coucil in the first Virginia Gen Assembly in 1619.. He was killed in the Massacre of 1622, leaving his young daughter Sarah as his heiress..She was granted a patent for 200 Acres in Surry in 1626 See Chapter IX Bottom of this page 166 says; 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 deced",confirms a sale of 800 or 900 acrs "lying near unto Pierce's Husndred als Flowerdieu Hundred' to Mr Thomas Drew as per bill of his father October 12 1850 I see two old record abv that note Sarah Maycock was daug of Samuel Maycock -m- George Pace So in my opinion two notes sure make me think this is a fact .....but I will say unless I can see where the actual info came from makes me a bit afraid, as I am so use to seeing the actual papers but I doubt those original papers would be readable now. So we may have to take others work on this... and that kinda scary... Darlene ----- Original Message ----- From: "gnlgy458" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Sarah Maycock > Hi Darlene, > > Is that the book that is edited by Dorothy Ford Wulfeck? Does it say anything about where the information came from? > > I think it was always believed (by those who took an interest) that George Pace married Samuel Maycock's daughter. It's only quite recently, I believe, that that assumption has been questioned. So I guess the record in the "Early Marriages" book is saying what was generally believed to be the case. (Except that they made a mistake about Sarah's death.) > > Do you have an opinion about who George Pace married? I would be interested to hear. > > Ellen > > darlene wrote: > I have not seen this marriage was listed in this book > Marriage of Virginia residents Vol 2 Part @ Page 145 Notes > Pace > George son of Richard and Isabella (_____) Sarah Maycock b- abt1623; killed in Massacre of 1622 daug of Capt Sam, also killed then Surry, pp30, 76 ( error here. Sarah obviously survived.) > > I have typed this as exactly as written so we have Maybe one Clue saying she was daug of Sam Maycock Sarah Maycock b-abt 1623 > So guess this could be a clue but not definitely as this say she died as I read it .. but she died1622 before she was born 1623 so I think it should read this way ((Grin)) > George -m- Sarah Maycock daug of Sam Maycock who was killed in the massacre of 1622 .. I have found those old records confuse me at time the way they are written > You are all far more knowledable reading those old documents, I am just a novice at this..but possibly a clue > Darlene > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > To share info which may be of interest to others, reply to the mail list (PACE-L@rootsweb.com). To say thank you or otherwise reply personally, reply to sender. > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.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 ==== 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 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

I totally forgot about the calendar change. Probably because it is so confusing, and I'd rather not think about it. But I am still confused. What I have been reading on the list is that young Sarah was born in 1623 and her father, Sam, was killed in the Indian raid of 1622. Regardless of which calendar one is using, it seems to me that this indicates that Sarah was born after the Indian raid. But my account says that she was 4 months old on the day of the massacre. I am remain sooooo confused. S Reidinger _olems@bellsouth.net_ (mailto:olems@bellsouth.net) writes: I don't know the exact date the Indian massacre occurred, but don't forget to factor in the calendar change. Until Sep 1752, Britain used the Julian Calendar (i.e. Old Style) and the year changed on March 25, not Jan 1. Thus a child born 24 March 1622 would be but one day older than one born 25 March 1623. M.A. Causey