Dear Roy: The 3b DNA are made up of four groups: John m. Sarah Richard m. Elizabeth (depending on how you list Stephen) Jesse/Polly William m. Sisley Walker We had John Pace m. Ann Russell here at first, but the newest tests show that they are 3a DNA which makes more sense based on the records as well. I'm not sure whether those have been posted yet. I've had no luck yet with researching the John Ashley Pace line, but I am looking at it. We don't know exactly how the four groups relate, but William first shows up in Edgecombe County, North Carolina (other than the property involving his wife in Halifax) - where Richard & John moved when they left Prince George, Virginia. There are several ways to argue William's parents - younger sibling of Richard & John, etc. Jesse first shows up in the Surry County, NC tax records. All of which coincides with the original research by Mehrkens for the Pace Society: Richard m. Mary's Sons: 1. George (wife unknown) - 3b DNA (but this is where we are waiting the results of the Bignal Pace descendant. Last I knew the culture was being re-done. Bignal is most likely a son of Francis of Prince George/Dinwiddie.) 2. John m. Elizabeth (prob. Lowe) descendants - 3a DNA 3. Richard m. Rebecca - 3a DNA 4. James (wife unknown) - 3a DNA - through the John Pace m. Ann Russell line. James moved from Prince George to Brunswick, Virginia. Again not exactly sure how this group descends. James had to be born before 1677, and John (m. Ann Russell) is still living in 1816, so there are one or more generations between James and John. A test on Buckner Pace from Wake County, North Carolina's descendants would certainly help with this, but I don't know anyone at present working on this line. The main theory has been Francis as a son of James, but we need the results of Bignal's line. Francis appears records wise to line up with the 3b DNA (George descendants) as Francis is in Prince George at the same time Richard & John before they move to Edgecombe. Francis moved from Prince George to Dinwiddie/Petersburg. James went to Brunswick. There are no records I know of putting Francis in Brunswick. 5. Thomas - no known descendants. Val -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> > 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