my older family records show rebecca poythress and there is marriage records to show this. i have that francis poythress wife's name was rebecca coggan(maiden name) richard pace ii was married to mary baker or mary knowles??? ----- Original Message ----- From: "val & jeff tice" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > After re-reading it, it is because Richard Pace paid him for it. I'd > always > read that it was a Deed of Gift. I should have paid closer attention > earlier. It is actually just a Deed that doesn't mention what the > consideration was. > > Val > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf > Of James Blair > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > > It's been explained to me that this scenario wouldn't have applied -- I > was > misunderstanding the inheritance laws. So my suggestion below can't > explain > why Richard Baker deeded the 140 acres to Richard Pace. It's a mystery to > me. > > James > > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, James Blair <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Richard Baker's wife Ann mentions (in her petition to >> the Westover vestry, see >> http://searches2.rootsweb.com/th/read/PACE/2002-09/1032643426, >> also posted by James Pace), having "the charge of two >> children to maintaine". If these were children of >> Richard Baker's, and if one was a boy, by law that child >> would inherit all Richard Baker's property. So if Mary >> Pace really was Baker's daughter, and he realized he was >> soon going to die, that might be why he would give her >> husband a deathbed gift of land -- because he couldn't >> leave it as a legacy. >> >> Wholly theoretical, however. The maiden name of Mary Pace >> remains unproven. >> >> James >> >> --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Roy Johnson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > From: Roy Johnson <[email protected]> >> > Subject: RE: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and >> Richard Pace 1759 >> > To: [email protected], [email protected] >> > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:27 PM >> > Debbie and others, >> > >> > We have to be very careful to distinguish between >> theory >> > and fact in citing >> > these early Pace records. On the Pace Network I have a >> > section called >> > Problems and Controversies in Pace research, in which >> > several competent Pace >> > authorities state that (1) there is absolutely no firm >> > evidence that Richard >> > Pace married a Knowles or a Baker, although some >> > genealogies cite one and >> > some the other. (2) the Pace-Poythress marriage is >> also >> > quite questionable. >> > >> > >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pace/poythres.htm#boykin >> > >> > The above is a discussion of the Pace-Poythress >> > controversy. >> > >> > >> > This URL discusses the Baker-Knowles controversy: >> > >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pace/bkr_knwl.htm >> > >> > If there are no sources verifying an assertion, it >> cannot >> > be cited as a >> > fact. >> > >> > Roy Johnson >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in > the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Debbie and others,   Many of us have older family records that show some of the same information Debbie has been sending, but not all of it is correct or can be verified, especially maiden names of some of the Pace wives.  There was some great research done by the earlier Pace researchers and we are indebted to their great work and their forsight to publish it - both in books and in the Pace Society Bulletins.  But not all of it is correct, although they appeared to do excellent work without all of the tools and resources we have today.  Some of their conclusions have been shown to be incorrect or at least lacking evidence, again, the maiden names of wives being one of the biggest problems.  It doesn't help that many records no longer exist or weren't created in the first place.    Unfortunately, the problem of incorrect information being published has not gone away and in many cases is much worse today.   A more recently published book on the Pace family by Mr. Howard  proposed different lineages for many of our Pace lines than what was published by the earlier Pace researchers and has been shown conclusively to have several inaccuracies through the process of DNA testing.   The DNA testing has shown that many of the earlier conclusions about the different lineages are more correct than what was published in the more recent book.  Unfortunately, the information in this book has been placed far and wide across the internet.      The fact that information about the Paces or any other family has been published in a book, in a magazine, or can be found on numerous websites does not necessarily make it correct.   If it was wrong when it was published the first time, it will still be wrong the hundredth time it was copied onto someone's website or someone's personal family records.    Since the publication of Mr. Howard's book, there have been several Pace researchers that have been researching the family lines once again to determine which of the two versions of family lineages is correct, if either.   Many original records have been re-examined and studied.  Many of these original documents have been digitized and added to the Pace Society document database.    Many of these "controversies" have been discussed on this list and findings have also been published in the Pace Society Bulletins.   No one says anyone has to agree with any new or old conclusions, but many of the issues being discussed don't have an easy answer - there is no one document that gives a conclusive answer.   So, any one of these issues has to be resolved by looking at various records and trying to come to a conclusion based on the sum of the evidence.  Sometimes when new evidence previously unknown comes to light, we need to re-examine the previous conclusions and sometimes we learn that the previous conclusions were not always accurate. Rebecca Christensen --- On Tue, 1/6/09, debbie pace <[email protected]> wrote: From: debbie pace <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 9:58 PM my older family records show ...

Pace History Documentation. This problem first started when the first Pace researcher started to put on paper the family history. I have read most of the bulletins as well as the published Pace History Books and not one of them is 100% correct. Even Nobles work has been questioned. I pushed for the Pace Society to certify through a documentation process the accepted linage of each Pace major line. An weak attempt was made but the Comm. never corsponded and several members were much against the exercise because the new facts that were surfacing did not agree with their recordings. In almost all lines there are blank spots where the researcher can not find any data to prove the continutity of the line. This leads to assumptions and best guesses rather than documented facts. I believe that some to many early Pace researchers thought that only Richard and John of Middlesex came to Colonial America, and whenever a Pace, Pass, Pease or other spelling were listed in a vincinity that they were related. It was early on that these researchers agreed that Pees were American Pace's from Germany. I recall spending a great deal of time with one member who asked my help with her line. She like so many others (before DNA ) mixed the Richard and John of Midd line, I was able to prove (document)that her line was not as she had published and as I spoke to her about the errors made her reply was "Maybe so, but I like my story better." She published it, it appeared on the net, and unfortuntally it was copied by others who are willing to accept anything published as being the truth. It all depends on what you are willing to accept, do you want to build your family history on facts? Or on someone elses fantasy. I like to think that I accept fact only but after 35 years of searching it is easy to slip and try to make history rather than only only record it. My interest started when I joined PSof A early on and like others started out copying from other members, It took a short time to learn i was going down the wrong path. *This is the time that I resolved that it was probably true if you can document It.* I have written but not published a John Pace of Middlesex booklet, Much is fact (documented,) some fanacy,( maybe it was this way) and much from research of others (with credits). This then much be labeled a story not a family history, so lies the difference. Jack Pace <williamsburg, va.> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Rebecca Christensen < [email protected]> wrote: > Debbie and others, > Many of us have older family records that show some of the same > information Debbie has been sending, but not all of it is correct or can be > verified, especially maiden names of some of the Pace wives. There was some > great research done by the earlier Pace researchers and we are indebted to > their great work and their forsight to publish it - both in books and in the > Pace Society Bulletins. But not all of it is correct, although they > appeared to do excellent work without all of the tools and resources we have > today. Some of their conclusions have been shown to be incorrect or at > least lacking evidence, again, the maiden names of wives being one of the > biggest problems. It doesn't help that many records no longer exist or > weren't created in the first place. > Unfortunately, the problem of incorrect information being published has > not gone away and in many cases is much worse today. A more recently > published book on the Pace family by Mr. Howard proposed different lineages > for many of our Pace lines than what was published by the earlier Pace > researchers and has been shown conclusively to have several inaccuracies > through the process of DNA testing. The DNA testing has shown that many of > the earlier conclusions about the different lineages are more correct than > what was published in the more recent book. Unfortunately, the information > in this book has been placed far and wide across the internet. > The fact that information about the Paces or any other family has been > published in a book, in a magazine, or can be found on numerous websites > does not necessarily make it correct. If it was wrong when it was > published the first time, it will still be wrong the hundredth time it was > copied onto someone's website or someone's personal family records. > Since the publication of Mr. Howard's book, there have been several Pace > researchers that have been researching the family lines once again to > determine which of the two versions of family lineages is correct, if > either. Many original records have been re-examined and studied. Many of > these original documents have been digitized and added to the Pace Society > document database. Many of these "controversies" have been discussed on > this list and findings have also been published in the Pace Society > Bulletins. No one says anyone has to agree with any new or old > conclusions, but many of the issues being discussed don't have an easy > answer - there is no one document that gives a conclusive answer. So, any > one of these issues has to be resolved by looking at various records and > trying to come to a conclusion based on the sum of the evidence. Sometimes > when new evidence previously unknown comes to light, we need to re-examine > the > previous conclusions and sometimes we learn that the previous conclusions > were not always accurate. > > Rebecca Christensen > > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, debbie pace <[email protected]> wrote: > From: debbie pace <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 9:58 PM > > my older family records show ... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > -- JackPace,Williamsburg, Virginia

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of debbie pace Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction my older family records show rebecca poythress and there is marriage records to show this. i have that francis poythress wife's name was rebecca coggan(maiden name) richard pace ii was married to mary baker or mary knowles??? ============================================================================ ===================================== Where are those marriage records? The most diligent research by the best Pace genealogists have not found any such records. In fact, research has found the opposite: Richard and Rebecca Pace were married and had children 14 years before Rebecca Poythress was born. So how could she be his wife" Here is the info from Mrs. Maude McClure Kelly, one of the best Pace researchers: A letter written to MRS. ELEANOR PACE TERRELL 20 MAY 1971 by MISS MAUD KELLY, Attorney, who devoted over forty years accumulating Pace family records, states on p. 5 of the letter that RICHARD PACE (4) DID NOT MARRY A POYTHRESS and, "FURTHERMORE, THE REBECCA POYTHRESS WHOM SOME CLAIM AS HIS WIFE WAS BORN ABOUT 1714, WHEREAS RICHARD AND REBECCA PACE HAD GIRLS BORN IN THE 1690'S AND A SON, RICHARD, BORN 1699-1700, WHICH IS 14 YEARS AT LEAST BEFORE HIS SO CALLED [alleged] MOTHER WAS BORN." . To prove marriage records, they need to be cited specifically and quoted exactly. Like this: The 1608 Marriage Reg. of St. Dunstan's, Stepney, County of Middlesex, England. Specific wording of the marriage register, from Pace Society Bulletin No. 13, September, 1970: " Richard Pace of Wapping Wall Carpenter and Isabell Smyth of the same marryed the 5th day October 1608" It would be even better if the specific page in the St. Dunstan's record were cited. Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion. Controversy is good if it leads to improved understanding. It is a struggle getting the inaccurate records out of the various gedcoms. Roy Johnson ----- Original Message ----- From: "val & jeff tice" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > After re-reading it, it is because Richard Pace paid him for it. I'd > always > read that it was a Deed of Gift. I should have paid closer attention > earlier. It is actually just a Deed that doesn't mention what the > consideration was. > > Val > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf > Of James Blair > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > > It's been explained to me that this scenario wouldn't have applied -- I > was > misunderstanding the inheritance laws. So my suggestion below can't > explain > why Richard Baker deeded the 140 acres to Richard Pace. It's a mystery to > me. > > James > > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, James Blair <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Richard Baker's wife Ann mentions (in her petition to >> the Westover vestry, see >> http://searches2.rootsweb.com/th/read/PACE/2002-09/1032643426, >> also posted by James Pace), having "the charge of two >> children to maintaine". If these were children of >> Richard Baker's, and if one was a boy, by law that child >> would inherit all Richard Baker's property. So if Mary >> Pace really was Baker's daughter, and he realized he was >> soon going to die, that might be why he would give her >> husband a deathbed gift of land -- because he couldn't >> leave it as a legacy. >> >> Wholly theoretical, however. The maiden name of Mary Pace >> remains unproven. >> >> James >> >> --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Roy Johnson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > From: Roy Johnson <[email protected]> >> > Subject: RE: [PACE] The PG land sold by John and >> Richard Pace 1759 >> > To: [email protected], [email protected] >> > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:27 PM >> > Debbie and others, >> > >> > We have to be very careful to distinguish between >> theory >> > and fact in citing >> > these early Pace records. On the Pace Network I have a >> > section called >> > Problems and Controversies in Pace research, in which >> > several competent Pace >> > authorities state that (1) there is absolutely no firm >> > evidence that Richard >> > Pace married a Knowles or a Baker, although some >> > genealogies cite one and >> > some the other. (2) the Pace-Poythress marriage is >> also >> > quite questionable. >> > >> > >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pace/poythres.htm#boykin >> > >> > The above is a discussion of the Pace-Poythress >> > controversy. >> > >> > >> > This URL discusses the Baker-Knowles controversy: >> > >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pace/bkr_knwl.htm >> > >> > If there are no sources verifying an assertion, it >> cannot >> > be cited as a >> > fact. >> > >> > Roy Johnson >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in > the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1881 - Release Date: 1/7/2009 5:59 PM