Roy: A good argument and well done. But for every argument there is a blind side. There were many who was willing to accept Bruce Howard,s argument that John of Midd was a son of George who migrated from Prince George Co. to the Eastern Shore to become a carpenter due to the fact that Richard as oldest son inherited the land and John a younger son had to to make his own way. This was a story without any evidence. Please recall that I and a few others would not accept this as fact and without a great deal of possibility. Some where there are facts that will prove that John of Midd was John 1665 or otherwise it will be forever speculation. John of Midd. had to leave a location and turn up in another location along with some colloidal facts. The fact he was no longer in Shropshire area records does not prove he migrated to Colonial America. People usually moved in groups or were sent by some authority. Gordon has done a sterling job in getting his man from England to Canada but! the search is still on for the journey of John Pace of Middlesex. ---- Roy Johnson <Roy> wrote: > Re the recent dispute between Gordon W Pace and Jack Pace about John of > Misslesex: > > The crux of the matter: > > Gordon accepts the strong circumstantial evidence that John of M is John b. > 1665 Shropshire > > Jack will accept nothing but documentary evidence and accepts only "proven" > or "unproven" nothing between. > > I will argue that John of M was PROBABLY John of Shropshire but a bit short > of PROVEN. > > Some of my philosophy: > > Nothing is "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" in law or genealogy. In law a > person must be "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and DNA evidence has > released numerous prisoners so deemed by juries earlier. True also in > genealogy. Say a family raises the child of a Pace relative as their own, > includes him in census records, wills, etc. All of the documentation would > "prove" that he was a son of that father, and the DNA would likely also > match-and all would be wrong. > > But there are more categories than "proven" or "uproven." Here we can also > go to law. In criminal cases it is "proven beyond reasonable doubt." In > civil cases "preponderance of evidence" is the criteria. We could also use > that as a degree below "Proven" - say, Probable -- rather than taking the > absolutes. > > Now let's look at the different views and the data: > > First, Jack said: > > "Do you now contend that the Eastern Shore Paces came to America from > Shropshire." > > Well, John of M most certainly did: Reasoning: > > Gordon T Pace has proven Shropshire ancestry > Gordon matches 36/37 with the modal for John of M's descendents > Therefore John of M has Shropshire ancestry. > > If this is not true, then DNA is useless. > > In addition, I have somewhere (can't find it now) a letter by a John of M > descendent-I think 1900s-stating that John passed down the information that > he was from Wales. Another Pace line has an oral history stating the same. > The area of Shropshire where the records are found was once part of Wales. > > But DNA cannot tell us WHICH common ancestor. Let's look at those records: > > Gordon W said: > > "Gordon Thomas Pace.has provided convincing circumstantial evidence that > John of Middlesex was b. in 1665 in Shropshire, a son of Joseph and Margaret > Pace (or Pacey). This has been confirmed by the results of many DNA tests." > > But first we have to show that John 1665 was a relative of Gordon T. Pace's > ancestor for the DNA to be valid. > > Here are the actual parish records: > > > JOHN PACE Chr 22 Sep 1665 > > WROCKWARDINE Shropshire > > Father: JOSEPH PACE > > Mother: MARGARET PALMER > > P006621 > > GEORGE PACE > - Chr 28 May 1670 > PREES, Shropshire > - Father: JOSEPH PACE > - Mother not mentioned > but George's 1st child also named MARGARET > > These two parishes are ten or twelve miles apart. > > They appear to be brothers. Is "proven beyond reasonable doubt" that they > are brothers? If not, at least it fits the "preponderance of evidence" test. > > Further circumstantial evidence that John of M is John of Shropshire: > > Age is just right. John b 1665 would be 27 when John of M bought his farm. > > John b. 1665 vanishes from Shropshire records. If he stayed, married, or > died there would be other records. So he apparently left the area, and since > there is no marriage record, probably at a young age. > > But the best circumstantial evidence comes from naming patterns for their > children. > > John of M in America: > Sarah > John Jr. > JOSEPH > Benjamin > MARGARET > MARY > Newsome > JANE (Listed as Joane in will but as Jane elsewhere-an easy > spelling difference) > GEORGE > William > > George Pace in Shropshire: > > George Pace > Chr. 28 May 1670 Prees Shropshire father > Proven 6x ancestor of Gordon T Pace > > +(1) Mary (Elizabetha) Cotterell > 19 Oct 1693 > > Children: > > MARGARETT > MARY > JANE > GEORGE > n > +(2) Elizbeth Picken > Son: JOSEPH > > So ALL FIVE of the given names of George in England match with five of the > ten children of John in America. Two of those names are Joseph and Margaret, > the proven parents of John 1665. > > This seems to me to add to the "preponderance of evidence" but WE STILL DO > NOT HAVE A "PROVEN". For that we need to add documentary evidence. > > Even Jack has agreed in private email that John 1665 is the "most likely > candidate". So why stick to just two categorise - proven or unproven? > > I believe that if John 1665 is listed as ancestor of John of M a caveat > should be added-perhaps "Probable" or "based on circumstantial evidence." > > To just list it as a given can be misleading as IT IS NOT PROVEN, and to not > acknowledge the circumstantial evidence can be equally misleading. Why not > something in between? > > I have it listed in my genealogy as "Probable" and I cite the evidence > above. Citing the evidence is what is important. > > Roy Johnson > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to PACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message