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

lew977MitziA wrote: > Is anyone researching the Murray Pace lines still? All I see in the > recent past regard the Richard/Isabel lines or unknown lines. > > Mitzi > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== Yes, I am interested in this line. It's a 'foundation line'. Jack Pace of Williamsburg and Lois Long Carey, and no doubt, others, have done a great deal of work on their related lines. Many of the VA KY marriage SURNAMES associated were previously, quite popular in Shropshire, England, where PACE was also found. I've collected info from this list, the Groome list and other Rootsweb lists, Barnett, Picken, Gregory, with pertinent info, the surnames involved in VA & KY, I suspect, were the same a few generations previously, back in Shropshire, England. I've got the same names back in the English parishes, 1600,1700,1800's http://www.phc.igs.net/~gordpace/records/index.htm and maybe someday will be able to secure the 'migration ancestor' of some of the pioneers of these Shropshire surnames in America. This is not a small job. I got Ruth Keys Clark interested in this a couple years ago, she also found one of her other Virginia names in several Shropshire parishes where PACE also was, in a research trip she took to LDS Library at Salt Lake City. I'd mentioned to her what Shropshire parishes to find PACE, she looked them up (microfilms) and found her other names too in same parishes. The DNA tests tell us John Pace of Middlesex comes from my family. Roy Johnson has worded some explicet messages on this. See - http://www.pacesociety.org/DNA/johngeorge.htm TRULY, it would be great to find some ship's passenger lists with the appropriate people on those records. Jane Shelton has asked me to approach descendents of John of M and see if they'd like to put some money together for research into these matters. Others have worked together on such focused directives. The drawback here is, there's only so much research material in England to look up. In the PACE case, most of this has already been done. I could go on and on. Getting back to Murray Pace line. http://www.phc.igs.net/~gordpace/lines/john-mid/joseph.htm#grm 5 JOHN MARTIN b 1740 in Goochland Co VA m 03 Jan 1757 Goochland (now Cumberland) Co VA d 26 Jan 1821 Clark Co KY Burial Sheely Farm, Lower Howard's Creek, Clark Co KY + RACHAEL PACE b 20 Feb 1734/35 Christ Church Parish Middlesex Co or Goochland Co VA d 26 January 1820 in Clark Co KY Burial Sheely Farm, Lower Howard's Creek, Clark Co KY What a group of interested descendents can do is note the surnames that married into that line, or ancestral lines, and start collecting and putting things together. If you have further questions, interest, let's hear it. As I said, I've collected a lot from this and other lists and put together some web pages. I'd be happy to see others work together, find info, contribute, and we all learn. The web pages have links to help put you here and there, where related info also exists. Gord Pace, Ontario,Canada

It is not known when the child Sarah Maycock was born - that is part of the problem. We just have her approximate age in January 1624/25 - 2 years - which technically can be 24 months to less than 36 months assuming her age was given correctly in the first place. I am not aware of any document that gives her age at the time of the massacre and we don't know if she was born before or after the massacre. But with the age parameters above, she could have been born in the two months prior to the massacre (less than 3 years old) and within 9 months after the massacre (when Samuel Maycock died) and still be Samuel Maycock's child and also 2 years old in January 1624/25. This would place her birth in the year 1622 not 1623. I hope this helps. Rebecca ReidingerZ@aol.com wrote: 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 ==== 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

She was also a warm and friendly woman. She also provided me with some of her own research to help me out. I envy those of you who were privileged to get to know her. The Pace Society lost a treasure with her passing. I do genealogy because I love the mysteries of our ancestors, who they were, what they did for a living, where they lived. It's often like a treasure hunt. I very much appreciate those who do intense and accurate research and provide the rest of us, with their hard work. I find the academic discussions really great. But personally, it's the romance of the story that attracts me, and while I recognize the need for "sourcing", I happy to stop at John of Middlesex and never look any further back. Brenda Howorko Executive Assistant to the Deputy Minister Alberta Energy Ph: (780) 427-7727 Fx: (780) 422-3920 -----Original Message----- From: Rebecca Christensen [mailto:rchristen@sbcglobal.net] Sent: June 14, 2006 1:44 PM To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Respect I have to agree with Ellen. Ruth Keys Clark was a very dedicated, thorough, and excellent researcher. Her research and efforts on behalf of all Paces, not just her particular line of Paces, is a benefit to all of us today. She did so much for Paces, including many things unknown to most people that we are and will continue to benefit from for years to come. I am especially glad that I was able to get to know her personally in the last few years of her life. I am sorry to hear that she is not being given the respect that she so greatly deserves. There are a lot of differing views on several aspects of Pace research, many of them which will not be resolved anytime soon. We just don't have the records we need at this time. We won't all agree on the interpretation of the records, but we should give respect to the views of others. I am hopeful that as more records are now seeing the light of day with new technology and better indexes, some new information will become available to help us solve some these puzzles. The DNA study has already helped in this regard as it has shown that there is no relationship between the John of Middlesex line and the major NC Pace line - a long-time Pace puzzle with many differing views of Pace descendants over the years. In the meantime, I hope that the dialogues continue on Pace research. Rebecca Christensen gnlgy458 <gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: 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 ==== PACE Mailing List ==== Help this list grow - tell other Pace researchers about it. Also, the Pace Society of America home page is located at: http://www.pacesociety.org - check it out!

I have to agree with Ellen. Ruth Keys Clark was a very dedicated, thorough, and excellent researcher. Her research and efforts on behalf of all Paces, not just her particular line of Paces, is a benefit to all of us today. She did so much for Paces, including many things unknown to most people that we are and will continue to benefit from for years to come. I am especially glad that I was able to get to know her personally in the last few years of her life. I am sorry to hear that she is not being given the respect that she so greatly deserves. There are a lot of differing views on several aspects of Pace research, many of them which will not be resolved anytime soon. We just don't have the records we need at this time. We won't all agree on the interpretation of the records, but we should give respect to the views of others. I am hopeful that as more records are now seeing the light of day with new technology and better indexes, some new information will become available to help us solve some these puzzles. The DNA study has already helped in this regard as it has shown that there is no relationship between the John of Middlesex line and the major NC Pace line - a long-time Pace puzzle with many differing views of Pace descendants over the years. In the meantime, I hope that the dialogues continue on Pace research. Rebecca Christensen gnlgy458 <gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: 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

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 <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

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

Is anyone researching the Murray Pace lines still? All I see in the recent past regard the Richard/Isabel lines or unknown lines. Mitzi

The information that was passed down to me has Sara Macock as a survivor of the Indian raid on the Macock Plantation in March 1622, and that she was about four months old at that time. Which would have her birth as December 1621? It also gives her father as being one of the casualties of the raid but says nothing of her mother. So if Sam Macock died in March of 1622 and Sara was not born until 1623, who is the father of Sara? Documentation did not accompany this gift. Please set me straight. Sherard Reidinger darlene@adweb.net writes: 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.

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 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

I found record The Massacre was Mar 22 1622 ----- Original Message ----- From: "MAC" <olems@bellsouth.net> To: <PACE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Sarah Maycock > 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 > > __________ NOD32 1.1599 (20060614) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >

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" <gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk> To: <PACE-L@rootsweb.com> 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 <darlene@adweb.net> 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

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 <darlene@adweb.net> 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

I am switching horses. Although there is no proof, after mulling over these three theories and going through it all again, and after much discussion with my smarter cousin, I now believe that the earlier researchers had it right all along -- George married Samuel Maycock's daughter Sarah. The reason I have come round to this way of thinking is that the evidence does seem to show that George Pace patented the Maycock land. It is too much of a coincidence to suppose that he patented the Maycock land AND his widow just happened to marry an otherwise-unidentified Maycock after he died. And in that light, it becomes understandable that Richard would have named his mother by her name before marriage, to register the fact that she (and therefore he) was the Maycock heir and thus had full title to the land. The arguments AGAINST young Sarah being George's wife are as follows: 1. There's no proof that she was Samuel Maycock's daughter. I'm swayed to believe she was, not only because it makes sense for Capt Roger Smith to take in a fellow Council member's orphan daughter, but also because he seems to have been sheltering another little girl whose parents seem to be missing (Elizabeth Salter). That makes it look like Capt Smith and his wife did take in the orphaned girl children. The fact that they already had a 4-year-old daughter, and no boy child, might have been a factor in this. It would make sense, accommodation-wise, for stray children to be divided by sex and billeted where there was already a child or children of the same sex. 2. Objection number two: Sarah Maycock was granted 200 acres for the four servants brought over by Mr or Mrs Samuel Maycock. It has been argued that this Sarah Maycock, the heir of Samuel, must have been a grown woman (i.e. his widow), because a minor child could not come into court alone. I am not knowledgeable enough to judge how strong this argument is. However, it seems to me that it may be significant that little Sarah was the daughter of one Council Member and (apparently) the de facto ward of another. It's impossible to be sure, from the fragment of the record, but mightn't it be a note of an order by Council rather than an order in court? The four servants apparently came in on the Abigail in Dec 1622. Council Member Samuel Maycock, who was entitled to land for bringing them over, was dead. Mightn't his fellow Council Members have just been recording the fact that the land which was due to him would now go to his daughter? At any rate, it seems to me to be putting too much on to the order granting the 200 acres, to conclude on that basis that Samuel's widow, never mentioned elsewhere, (a) was named Sarah, and (b) survived the massacre though not listed on the muster, and (c) married George Pace many years later. Too many conclusions from one uncertain premise, for me. 3. Finally, there is the question of whether or not Sarah Maycock the child would be old enough to be the mother of George Pace's son Richard in 1638. It is argued that she would have been no more than 13 or 14 in 1638. "Two" could mean anything between 24-35 months, and also we don't know how accurate it was. With both her parents dead and the colony under extreme pressure, it's not certain that anyone in the household would be able to say the exact date she was born. At the latest, the way I figure it, she could have been born Dec 1622 (nine months after the massacre). Would that not make her 16, of legal age to be married, in 1638? And most probably she was born before Dec 1622. If I'm miscalculating, could someone please point out my error. As a result of the above reasoning, I am pencilling little Sarah back in as wife to George and mother to Richard. I would be interested to hear any corrections or counter-arguments. Ellen Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

In a message posted to this list by the late Ruth Keys Clark Sun 23 Feb 2003 (http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/PACE+2003+6461545990+F). She does not give a citation for the document but says the original record is in the Library of Congress. The date given is VIIth May 1626. Elsewhere online I have seen (and quoted in a message to this list yesterday at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PACE/2006-06/1150123006) what seems to be a slightly different version of the same or a very similar document. In that version, the document being quoted is cited as the Minutes of the Council and General Court May 8 1626. I have not seen either document in the original. Ellen paceshire@juno.com wrote: Ellen: Give me a clue where in 1626 a Mrs. Sara Maycock is mentioned. Jack Pace / Wmsburg, Va. On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:32:56 +0100 (BST) gnlgy458 writes: > As I understand it, there is a > document dated 1626 which mentions "Mrs Samuel Maycock", but > unfortunately does not reveal her given name. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

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

Lois: I believe that the John Pace in Nottoway County 1815 was John Pace (John,JohnJr.,John of Middlesex) I would like more info.-- for other than census records the info is sparce. When I first saw your post I missed John Anderson surety for the marriage of John Pace and Elizabeth P maybe Smith or Swift. This may be the son of John who was a large land owner (over 700 acres) who was a brother of William Pace who also held over 700 acres in Amelia County Va. Their land along with the Sheltons was on the Nottaway. If this John is of this lineage his brother would be Newsome who married Lucy. Very little is known of this family so it sparks my interest. Do you get to Nottoway County Court House? Jack Pace / Wmsburg, Va. On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 10:26:20 -0400 "Lois Long Carey" <lcarey@bcpl.net> writes: > while looking for a John Anderson who was surety > for the marriage of John Pace and Elizabeth P. > ( possibly smith or Swift) I came upon this:: > > Nottoway County Court Order Book 7 , page 194 > > It is decreed and ordered that Nathaniel Niblett, > Abraham Buford, JOHN PACE, and Samuel Morgan > of any three of them who are hereby named and > appointed Commissioners ------- > > Who was this John Pace??? > > > ==== 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 > > May your every shot be long and down the middle. Jack Pace

Ellen: Give me a clue where in 1626 a Mrs. Sara Maycock is mentioned. Jack Pace / Wmsburg, Va. On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:32:56 +0100 (BST) gnlgy458 <gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > Hi Kathlynn, > > I also puzzle over this question. I'm not sure that I completely > understand all the arguments which are put forward in support of the > various theories, but for what it's worth, here's how I think it > goes: > > 1. Some believe that Richard was referring to his mother by her > maiden name and that "Mrs Sarah Maycock" was the same person as the > child "Sarah Maycock" listed in the 1624/5 muster as two years old, > born in VA. This child may or may not have been related to Samuel > Maycock who was killed in the massacre. > > 2. Some believe that Richard was referring to his mother by her > maiden name and think that "Mrs Sarah Maycock" was the widow of > Samuel Maycock who was killed in the massacre. Samuel Maycock's > widow does not appear among those listed in the 1624/5 Muster, and > her given name is not known. As I understand it, there is a > document dated 1626 which mentions "Mrs Samuel Maycock", but > unfortunately does not reveal her given name. I think the argument > goes that IF the child Sarah Maycock was a daughter of Samuel > Maycock, then she might have been named after her mother, so her > mother might have been called Sarah also. Too many "IFs" for me. > > 3. Some believe that Bruce Howard's interpretation of the "sonne > and heire" document is the correct one, and that Richard's mother > must have married a Maycock after the death of George. > > This makes more sense to me than either of the other theories. > When you think of it, there doesn't seem to be any reason why > Richard would mention his mother by her maiden name. So I agree > with Bruce Howard that the document shows that Richard's mother was > "Mrs Sarah Maycock" by the time she died, therefore she must have > married again after George died. > > Mr Howard also argues that Mrs Sarah Maycock's maiden name was > Snowe but there he loses me. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence > as to what her maiden name might have been. Obviously this is a > question that all of us who might be descended from Richard and > Isabella would really like to see answered. But there are so many > gaps in our knowledge of who was there, and how they might have been > related. We can't assume that the Maycocks we know about, and the > Sarahs we know about, were the only ones who were there. We can't > just choose the Sarah that seems to fit the best and assume she was > the right one. > > That's my take on it. I'd be interested to hear what others > believe, even though I agree that "Unknown" is the only answer we > can at present be sure of. > > Ellen > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > ==== 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 > > May your every shot be long and down the middle. Jack Pace

Hi Pat, Yes, I found that after I posted the question. And after he died, his widow married Capt Roger Smith, so that explains why little Elizabeth Rolfe was living in Capt Roger Smith's household. I'd like to discover who the little Salter girl belonged to. She is the only Salter listed on the Muster. Ellen Pat M Stevens IV <Pat@PatMStevens.com> wrote: Dear Ellen -- Yes, John Rolfe married a third time after his wife Pocahontas died in England, to Jane Pierce, born abt 1587 in England. They had one daughter, Elizabeth, said to be born on 25 Jan 1620/21 in James City County, Va. Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "gnlgy458" To: Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:33 AM Subject: [PACE-L] Was Rev Samuel Macock father of the child Sarah Macock? > It's interesting to consider the James City household of Capt Roger Smith > as shown on the muster of 1624/5: > > Capt Roger Smith head > Mrs Joan Smith his wife > Elizabeth Salter aged 7, arrived on the Seaflower > Elizabeth Rolfe aged 4, born in VA > Sarah Macock aged 2, born in VA > Charles Waller servant, 22, arrived on the Abigail in 1620 > Christopher Bankus, servant, 19, arrived on the Abigail in 1622 > Henery Booth servant, 20, arrived on the Dutie > Henery Lacton servant, 18, arrived on the Hopwell in 1623 > > So there are three mystery girl children without parents living in this > household. > > Who is Elizabeth Rolfe? If aged 4, she would be born abt 1620, so she > can't be a daughter of Pocahontas. Did John Rolfe marry a third time? > > Who is Elizabeth Salter? Sir Nicholas Salter was a hefty shareholder in > the Virginia Company but would this be his daughter, all alone in > Virginia? Seems unlikely. > > And then there's Sarah Macock, who may or may not have been the daughter > of Samuel, who like Roger Smith was a member of Council. > > Roger Smith seems to have taken in all the unprotected children of high > social status. > > Ellen > > pace3637@nc.rr.com wrote: > Just one more point about the Sarah Maycock issue. Pace researchers > "assumed" for years that George Pace married the daughter of Saml. > Maycock. who would have been a girl of 14 or 15 in 1637 (date?) > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > ==== 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 ==== 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

John Rolfe did marry a third time, to Jane or Joan Pierce. They had the little girl, Elizabeth. After John Rolfe's death, his widow married Capt Roger Smith. So that's why Elizabeth Rolfe is living in Capt Roger Smith's household: she is his stepdaughter. gnlgy458 <gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Who is Elizabeth Rolfe? If aged 4, she would be born abt 1620, so she can't be a daughter of Pocahontas. Did John Rolfe marry a third time? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com