> It would be interesting to see lineage of > Pierce who's DNA matches John of Midd. The difference in spelling is > common and name likeness are too. Yes, that would be interesting PEARCE is in Shareshill Staffordshire, although my PACE ancestry starts there around 1720 when my 6X great grandfather GEORGE PACE about 1720 came to Shareshill parish in south Staffordshire, about 30 miles east of where he was Christened in 1670 Little doubt the name similarity went further back as stated: 1. JEREMIAH PIERCE is thought to have been born in 1710 in Essex County, Virginia. (This is an unverified entry.) I have here notes of a PACE cousin, Adrian Fenton of Pittsburg PA. Our common ancestor being JOSEPH PACE Chr 1735. Adrian had included several PEARCE name entries as a variant of Pace in his study of Shareshill parish in Staffordshire. This name similarity went on in this parish into the early 1900s. It's my opinion JEREMIAH PIERCE of Virginia probably had PACE connection much further back in Shropshire. Latin was used now and then for recording in registers; the name PEACE seemed to be a minor variant too. In north Staffordshire, it took the spelling PASS and much of that migrated to Birmingham. Leonard Pace of Wolverhampton, a Pace researcher and Methodist preacher married a PASS. Based upon notes gathered from the Shareshill, Staffordshire parish Church of St.Mary & St.Luke (one church) PEACE-PACE-PIERCE-PEARCE-PASS similarity appears more common than previously thought. GEORGE PACE Chr 1670 Prees, Shropshire, thought to be brother of John Pace of Middlesex, came to Shareshill parish Staffordshire after Chr. of son JOSEPH 10 Sep 1709 at Ranton, Staffordshire. There is a first PACE entry at Shareshill in 1730, marriage of a Joshua Paste (in the register) to Margaret Mather. We are of the opinion this was Joseph Pace Christened in 1709, son of George Pace and 2nd wife Elizabeth Picken. It appeared previously, Joseph and Joshua plus minor variants of these seemed to represent the same person. I had wondered if the Latin translation had something to do with that as it likely did with understanding PEACE-PACE-PIERCE-PEARCE-PASS SOMETIME after JOSEPH PACE's Christening at RANTON in 1709 this PACE family relocated to SHARESHILL parish about 10 or 12 miles south/east of RANTON. TODAY's location near Junction 11 of M-6 Motorway. PACE family descendents are still there today and run a farm market, Holly's Farm Market near the Wheatsheaf Inn near the roundabout. Also work a TV programme Antique Roadshow seen on BBC TV. General Registers 1725-1812 Shareshill, includes Little Sardon, Laney Green Although it's interesting there are several Pearce entries in these notes, I think the ancestry of JEREMIAH PIERCE of Virginia goes much further back in time. A similar story with Palmer, Bladen which sticks close to Pace in the UK Midlands parishes they migrated to in more recent years. The Francis Palmer, father of Margaret Palmer seems to be connected to a large Palmer finding I came across from in the Welsh mountain area, Bishops Castle, Hopesay, Lydbury North. I added them to http://www.pacefamilyhistory.info/records/palmer.htm Use reload or refresh to update, get latest version. Gord

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