Ellen: You might want to check the laws of 1620s to determine if a child could be a land owner. I believe if the patent was granted it was either to an adult or to a guardian of the child. However I have been advised that a child could hold title but had to be of age to sell land. I have not read all the stuff about Ruth Keys Clark on the Line, and I shall not bother, but her contention was that Sarah must have been an adult to receive the patent. I worked (she has died) with Ruth on several projects and she had her opinions, all of which I did not agree with, but when she could not document she stated it was her opinion. Lets let her rest in Peace. If you can not document it is fiction, and opinions (including mine) are mere fiction!!!. Jack Pace/Williamsburg, Va. On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:36:14 +0100 (BST) gnlgy458 <gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > I too still think it's more likely to have been young Sarah who > married George. Only my opinion, though, and I am far from sure. > > I think the document of 1626 is our best hope of solving it. Two > questions that need expert answers: > > 1. The heir is referred to as "Sara Maycock" with no title. Can > one draw any reliable conclusion from this as to whether she was the > child or the widow? > > 2. Can we reliably conclude that the person mentioned as due the > 200 acres must by law have been a grownup, or is it possible she > could have been a child? > > Solid answers to one or both these questions might, taken > together, tell us who married George Pace. > > I don't think it's cluttering up the list to discuss these > questions. Isn't it what the list is for? Personally, I'd like to > hear more people's opinions about it. > > Ellen > > > > --------------------------------- > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all > new Yahoo! Security Centre. > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > To share info which may be of interest to others, reply to the mail > list (PACE-L@rootsweb.com). To say thank you or otherwise reply > personally, reply to sender. > > May your every shot be long and down the middle. Jack Pace

It's not that simple, I'm afraid. Private property law was just in the process of development at that time. Up until around 1615, all land belonged to the Company. By 1626, when Sarah Maycock was granted her 200 acres, the Company had lost its Charter, Virginia had become a royal colony, and the headright system had been established. Not easy, I imagine, even for an expert, to decipher how such an evolving system might have applied to a particular instance in 1626. However, Nancy Webb Wood has cited an example of a child Temperance Bailey owning land in Virginia in 1620. If it was possible for a child to own land in Virginia in 1620, then it is possible that the Sarah Maycock who received land in 1626 (for persons transported in 1622) was a child rather than an adult. No firm conclusion can be drawn. She could have been the daughter or she could have been the widow. However, we have evidence that the daughter survived, and no evidence either that the widow survived or that her given name was Sarah. Consequently my personal opinion is that George Pace's wife probably was Samuel Maycock's daughter, but it can't be proven. "If you can not document it is fiction, and opinions (including mine) are mere fiction!!!. " I don't agree. When documentation is sparse, it can be helpful, and interesting, to try to make sense of the known facts, as long as one bears in mind the distinction between proven fact and mere supposition. --------------------------------- The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.