Rebecca (probably Coggan) married Francis Poythress. They had a son, Francis, and a daughter Rebecca. By 1692, when Mrs Rebecca Poythress patented the escheat land, her husband Francis was dead. So Rebecca Poythress the daughter must have been born by 1692 (give or take a few months). But just WHEN she was born is not known, at least not by me. Mrs Rebecca Poythress then remarried, to Charles Bartholomew. She and her new husband had a daughter, Ann. In 1711, Mrs Rebecca Poythress Bartholomew and her husband Charles Bartholomew gave land to their two UNMARRIED daughters, Rebecca Poythress and Ann Bartholomew. We know that Rebecca Poythress the daughter was not married in 1711, because if she had been married, the land would have been given to her husband, probably using some phrase such as "in right of his wife". But it wasn't. It was given to her, in her own right and in her own name. Therefore, she was unmarried in 1711. Meanwhile, in 1711, Mr and Mrs Richard and Rebecca Pace had been married to each other since at least 1698. We know this because their oldest son, Richard, patented land in NC in 1720. He had to be 21 to patent land, so he was born by 1699. So by 1698, Richard and Rebecca must have been married. They probably met and married in Prince George Co. (please note the word "probably"), but by 1711 they were probably living in the part of Surry Co. which later became Brunswick Co. (Probably.) Back in Prince George, there was another, younger, Richard Pace, who in 1718 had land deals with Francis Poythress, the son of Mrs Rebecca Coggan Poythress Bartholomew and her first husband. The earlier researchers didn't realize that there were TWO Richard Paces around. The records which prove this, had not yet been unearthed. Consequently, the earlier researchers assumed that the Richard Pace who was selling land with Francis Poythress in 1718, was the same Richard Pace who was married to a Rebecca. Some (not all) therefore concluded that the Rebecca who was married to a Richard Pace in NC was Rebecca, the sister of Francis Poythress who had land deals with Richard Pace in Prince George. An easy mistake to make, but it IS a mistake. It shows the dangers of confusing two different people with the same name. Now we know that there WERE two Richard Paces. The Richard Pace who had the land deals with Francis Poythress married Sarah Woodlief. There are records which prove this. The younger Richard Pace, who married Sarah Woodlief, was probably a nephew of the Richard Pace who married Rebecca [maiden name unknown]. As for the young Rebecca Poythress, we have no records which reveal what happened to her. I hope this helps to clarify. Quite useful to get all this put down, if I've explained it clearly enough. I will try to find time to post it to the rootsweb and genforum Pace forums also, with the record citations. I hope that may help future family researchers to untangle the background to this Poythress mistake. James --- On Wed, 1/7/09, debbie pace <[email protected]> wrote: > it looks like from what i can see, rebecca coggin(cogan) > married a francis > poythress and one of their children was rebecca poythress > who married > richard iii > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "debbie pace" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:49 PM > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > > > > dont think ANYONE knows for sure. if so, there > wouldnt be this > > controversy > > about birthdates, marriages, etc. thanks > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:39 PM > > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction > > > > > >> -----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 > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> 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

James, Do you know of any records of the younger Richard Pace (who married Sarah Woodlief) selling 400 acres of VA land to Rebecca Poythress around 1718? I am aware of the land transactions betwen this Richard and Francis Poythress in 1718. Ricky ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blair" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:03 AM Subject: [PACE] Rebecca Poythress > Rebecca (probably Coggan) married Francis Poythress. They had a son, > Francis, and a daughter Rebecca. > > By 1692, when Mrs Rebecca Poythress patented the escheat land, her husband > Francis was dead. So Rebecca Poythress the daughter must have been born > by 1692 (give or take a few months). But just WHEN she was born is not > known, at least not by me. > > Mrs Rebecca Poythress then remarried, to Charles Bartholomew. She and her > new husband had a daughter, Ann. > > In 1711, Mrs Rebecca Poythress Bartholomew and her husband Charles > Bartholomew gave land to their two UNMARRIED daughters, Rebecca Poythress > and Ann Bartholomew. > > We know that Rebecca Poythress the daughter was not married in 1711, > because if she had been married, the land would have been given to her > husband, probably using some phrase such as "in right of his wife". But > it wasn't. It was given to her, in her own right and in her own name. > Therefore, she was unmarried in 1711. > > Meanwhile, in 1711, Mr and Mrs Richard and Rebecca Pace had been married > to each other since at least 1698. We know this because their oldest son, > Richard, patented land in NC in 1720. He had to be 21 to patent land, so > he was born by 1699. So by 1698, Richard and Rebecca must have been > married. They probably met and married in Prince George Co. (please note > the word "probably"), but by 1711 they were probably living in the part of > Surry Co. which later became Brunswick Co. (Probably.) > > Back in Prince George, there was another, younger, Richard Pace, who in > 1718 had land deals with Francis Poythress, the son of Mrs Rebecca Coggan > Poythress Bartholomew and her first husband. The earlier researchers > didn't realize that there were TWO Richard Paces around. The records > which prove this, had not yet been unearthed. Consequently, the earlier > researchers assumed that the Richard Pace who was selling land with > Francis Poythress in 1718, was the same Richard Pace who was married to a > Rebecca. Some (not all) therefore concluded that the Rebecca who was > married to a Richard Pace in NC was Rebecca, the sister of Francis > Poythress who had land deals with Richard Pace in Prince George. An easy > mistake to make, but it IS a mistake. It shows the dangers of confusing > two different people with the same name. > > Now we know that there WERE two Richard Paces. The Richard Pace who had > the land deals with Francis Poythress married Sarah Woodlief. There are > records which prove this. > > The younger Richard Pace, who married Sarah Woodlief, was probably a > nephew of the Richard Pace who married Rebecca [maiden name unknown]. > > As for the young Rebecca Poythress, we have no records which reveal what > happened to her. > > I hope this helps to clarify. Quite useful to get all this put down, if > I've explained it clearly enough. I will try to find time to post it to > the rootsweb and genforum Pace forums also, with the record citations. I > hope that may help future family researchers to untangle the background to > this Poythress mistake. > > James > > > --- On Wed, 1/7/09, debbie pace <[email protected]> wrote: > >> it looks like from what i can see, rebecca coggin(cogan) >> married a francis >> poythress and one of their children was rebecca poythress >> who married >> richard iii >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "debbie pace" >> <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction >> >> >> > dont think ANYONE knows for sure. if so, there >> wouldnt be this >> > controversy >> > about birthdates, marriages, etc. thanks >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> >> > To: <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:39 PM >> > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction >> > >> > >> >> -----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 >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> 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