Maybe I'm the one missing something, but here's what I saw: In the chart, nearly all of the 3b people are designated as JP-SB, or lineage to John + Sarah ("John the tory"); the others are unsure. But none of the William-Sicely three even speculates a connection with John, although their DNA matches with the JP-SB people. The "interesting study" is trying to figure out what this means. Perhaps they are descended from a brother or relative of John, or perhaps if records could be found, all of the speculation is wrong and they are descended from John. The last submitter included some good speculation with records cited. You can see what he sent by clicking on his link in the chart, which will take you to the donors page, and at the bottom of his lineage is a link to his comments. All I am saying is that we have a new puzzle, a DNA match that does not corroborate with the documentary records although it does not contradict those records. Is there something wrong with this reasoning? I am aware that you have studied DNA more deeply than I have. My contribution to Pace genealogy has not been in the research field, but rather in bringing people together, first through the Pace Network and now through the DNA study. I don't know whether you are aware of it or not, but Gordon of Canada first found his Pace relatives in England through the Pace Network, which enabled him to do the research back to George Pace in Shropshire, and then in the DNA, his match with John of M descendents gave us the best candidate for John's origin (George's brother John b. 1665). It makes me happy to perform this kind of service. I like it better than original research. I don't know why Jack Pace, in his article in the latest bulletin, does not at least give mention to John b. 1665 Shropshire as the best candidate for John of M. Roy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Christensen Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents Roy,   I'm not sure why this is "emerging as an interesting study" based on the new results for the William Pace/Sicely Walker line. (What am I missing?)  The new participant #134499, through William and Sicely's son Gideon only tested 12 markers and they are a perfect match not only to the previous participant through William and Sicely's son William Richard (#10683), but also to the modal (most common) result for all of Group 3b.   In this case 12 markers really isn't enough to tell us anything new about this branch of the family.   The other participant from this line (#16218) through William and Sicely's son Alsey does have a DNA difference at DYS 390 (marker 2), but this appears to have been a more "recent" change - somewhere between Alsey Pace and the participant.    We do now have 12 marker DNA results for three lines of descent from William Pace and Sicely Walker - through Alsey, William Richard, and Gideon.   Between the three sets of results, the results show that the father William Pace's 25 marker DNA results are a perfect match to the Group 3b modal - with the 1st 12 matching DNA marker results of the William Richard and Gideon lines and markers 13-25 matching for the Alsey and William Richard lines.  These three results place this line solidly in Group 3b with the modal for these three results a perfect match overall at 25 markers to the Group 3b modal. Rebecca Christensen --- On Thu, 12/4/08, Roy Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Roy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 9:00 PMMa This small group is emerging as a very interesting study. There are three donors now tracing different lineages back to William and Sicely. DNA evidence relates them to the John Pace-Sarah ?Burgh? (John the Tory) group, but their submitted lineages show no relationship to that group. The problem is that there is no documentation as to William's father, and all before that seems to be speculation and circumstantial evidence. I have grouped these three at the bottom of the Group 3b chart so that they will be together, and I have grouped them on the Donors page, where there is also a link to some speculation by Charles R. Pace as to William's possible parentage-look for the link. Rebecca might have some commentary on this line???? http://www.pacesociety.org/DNA/Group3.htm and scroll to the bottom of the chart. Click the kit numbers if you want to see the lineages. 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.14/1829 - Release Date: 12/4/2008 2:59 PM

Roy This is not my line but William and Sicely Walker Pace were originally thought to be a descendents of John and Elizabeth Lowe? Pace line. This lineage was based on Bruce Howard's theories. [refer to John Pace DNA chart #1]. DNA evidence, in my opinion has disproven this. The PSA bulletins give a different lineage for William & Siceley Walker Pace which suggests William was descended from John's brother, George Pace who remained in Charles City/ Prince George Co, VA and never came to NC as far as anyone knows. This lineage is reflected in John Pace chart #2 and it is the most likely line of descent for William. Although William's father is unproven, just as the father of my Jesse Pace remains unproven, it is my opinion that DNA evidence places these families as descendents of George Pace of Charles City Co, VA. It is also my opinion that the the 2 marker mutation between Group 3a and Group 3b occurred at this George Pace, brother to John, James, Richard & Thomas in the Aycock letter. Discussions welcome. Another lineage theory of Bruce Howard's disproven by DNA is the line of George Pace who migrated to Clay co KY about 1807. John Pace ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents Maybe I'm the one missing something, but here's what I saw: In the chart, nearly all of the 3b people are designated as JP-SB, or lineage to John + Sarah ("John the tory"); the others are unsure. But none of the William-Sicely three even speculates a connection with John, although their DNA matches with the JP-SB people. The "interesting study" is trying to figure out what this means. Perhaps they are descended from a brother or relative of John, or perhaps if records could be found, all of the speculation is wrong and they are descended from John. The last submitter included some good speculation with records cited. You can see what he sent by clicking on his link in the chart, which will take you to the donors page, and at the bottom of his lineage is a link to his comments. All I am saying is that we have a new puzzle, a DNA match that does not corroborate with the documentary records although it does not contradict those records. Is there something wrong with this reasoning? I am aware that you have studied DNA more deeply than I have. My contribution to Pace genealogy has not been in the research field, but rather in bringing people together, first through the Pace Network and now through the DNA study. I don't know whether you are aware of it or not, but Gordon of Canada first found his Pace relatives in England through the Pace Network, which enabled him to do the research back to George Pace in Shropshire, and then in the DNA, his match with John of M descendents gave us the best candidate for John's origin (George's brother John b. 1665). It makes me happy to perform this kind of service. I like it better than original research. I don't know why Jack Pace, in his article in the latest bulletin, does not at least give mention to John b. 1665 Shropshire as the best candidate for John of M. Roy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Christensen Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents Roy, I'm not sure why this is "emerging as an interesting study" based on the new results for the William Pace/Sicely Walker line. (What am I missing?) The new participant #134499, through William and Sicely's son Gideon only tested 12 markers and they are a perfect match not only to the previous participant through William and Sicely's son William Richard (#10683), but also to the modal (most common) result for all of Group 3b. In this case 12 markers really isn't enough to tell us anything new about this branch of the family. The other participant from this line (#16218) through William and Sicely's son Alsey does have a DNA difference at DYS 390 (marker 2), but this appears to have been a more "recent" change - somewhere between Alsey Pace and the participant. We do now have 12 marker DNA results for three lines of descent from William Pace and Sicely Walker - through Alsey, William Richard, and Gideon. Between the three sets of results, the results show that the father William Pace's 25 marker DNA results are a perfect match to the Group 3b modal - with the 1st 12 matching DNA marker results of the William Richard and Gideon lines and markers 13-25 matching for the Alsey and William Richard lines. These three results place this line solidly in Group 3b with the modal for these three results a perfect match overall at 25 markers to the Group 3b modal. Rebecca Christensen --- On Thu, 12/4/08, Roy Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Roy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 9:00 PMMa This small group is emerging as a very interesting study. There are three donors now tracing different lineages back to William and Sicely. DNA evidence relates them to the John Pace-Sarah ?Burgh? (John the Tory) group, but their submitted lineages show no relationship to that group. The problem is that there is no documentation as to William's father, and all before that seems to be speculation and circumstantial evidence. I have grouped these three at the bottom of the Group 3b chart so that they will be together, and I have grouped them on the Donors page, where there is also a link to some speculation by Charles R. Pace as to William's possible parentage-look for the link. Rebecca might have some commentary on this line???? http://www.pacesociety.org/DNA/Group3.htm and scroll to the bottom of the chart. Click the kit numbers if you want to see the lineages. 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.14/1829 - Release Date: 12/4/2008 2:59 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

   As has been mentioned by others, specifically see Val's e-mail, John Pace of Surry (wife Sarah) is not the "founder" of  Group 3b.   Group 3b originated with an earlier Pace than John Pace, probably George Pace, son of Richard and Mary.  In that context, all three results for the William Pace-Sicely Walker descendants are part of the larger Group 3b and their results do not suggest that they are necessarily descended from John Pace nor a brother of his.   The DNA results do not "say JP-SB" but says Group 3b.  It just happens that we have quite a few participants that are descendants of John Pace of Surry and his wife Sarah, but that doesn't mean that everyone in Group 3b needs to share close ties with him in particular, although they do share a common ancestor, probably George Pace.    As Val mentioned and this is an important point, the Pace DNA project results in many instances show support for the conclusions of the earlier Pace Society researchers including Marion Mehrkens and in several instances has disproven the theories of Bruce Howard as published in his book.    It is really hard to get all of the wrong information that was introduced to the internet when the book was published out of circulation.   For those interested, the earlier published research conclusions of Mehrkens is available in the members section of the Pace Society website in the earlier Bulletins.    Rebecca Christensen --- On Fri, 12/5/08, Roy Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Roy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents To: [email protected] Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 8:57 AM Maybe I'm the one missing something, but here's what I saw: In the chart, nearly all of the 3b people are designated as JP-SB, or lineage to John + Sarah ("John the tory"); the others are unsure. But none of the William-Sicely three even speculates a connection with John, although their DNA matches with the JP-SB people. The "interesting study" is trying to figure out what this means. Perhaps they are descended from a brother or relative of John, or perhaps if records could be found, all of the speculation is wrong and they are descended from John.

Thanks, Rebecca. I think my problem was that in the early going, I used JP-SB to identify all whose DNA matched this line, and I need to go in and change that. While we were working out our first objective (John of Middlesex-Richard of Jamestown), I didn't pay a lot of attention to group 3, allowing the donors to make their own submissions, as I still do. I think I designated everyone who matched as JP-SB but I need to change that JP-SB designation, as it obviously isn't appropriate, and just go with the yellow column at right that uses the most recent proven common ancestor of the submitters. The database has grown and spread out like a house with wings added as time goes on, and it can get confusing. Thanks for the suggestions and the information. Roy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Christensen Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 4:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents    As has been mentioned by others, specifically see Val's e-mail, John Pace of Surry (wife Sarah) is not the "founder" of  Group 3b.   Group 3b originated with an earlier Pace than John Pace, probably George Pace, son of Richard and Mary.  In that context, all three results for the William Pace-Sicely Walker descendants are part of the larger Group 3b and their results do not suggest that they are necessarily descended from John Pace nor a brother of his.   The DNA results do not "say JP-SB" but says Group 3b.  It just happens that we have quite a few participants that are descendants of John Pace of Surry and his wife Sarah, but that doesn't mean that everyone in Group 3b needs to share close ties with him in particular, although they do share a common ancestor, probably George Pace.    As Val mentioned and this is an important point, the Pace DNA project results in many instances show support for the conclusions of the earlier Pace Society researchers including Marion Mehrkens and in several instances has disproven the theories of Bruce Howard as published in his book.    It is really hard to get all of the wrong information that was introduced to the internet when the book was published out of circulation.   For those interested, the earlier published research conclusions of Mehrkens is available in the members section of the Pace Society website in the earlier Bulletins.    Rebecca Christensen --- On Fri, 12/5/08, Roy Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Roy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents To: [email protected] Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 8:57 AM Maybe I'm the one missing something, but here's what I saw: In the chart, nearly all of the 3b people are designated as JP-SB, or lineage to John + Sarah ("John the tory"); the others are unsure. But none of the William-Sicely three even speculates a connection with John, although their DNA matches with the JP-SB people. The "interesting study" is trying to figure out what this means. Perhaps they are descended from a brother or relative of John, or perhaps if records could be found, all of the speculation is wrong and they are descended from John. ------------------------------- 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: 270.9.14/1832 - Release Date: 12/5/2008 9:57 AM