I have been discussing this with a cousin, who has explained to me a possible reason why Richard Pace might have found it necessary to establish who his mother was before she married his father. I daresay many on this list are already familiar with this argument but I am going to explain it anyway for the benefit of those who may not know of it. The purpose of the 1658/9 document is to confirm a sale of land. To do that, Richard Pace has to show that it is his, and show how he came by it. On 1 Aug 1650, George Pace patented 1700 acres "on the south side of the James River commonly called Matocks". It is alleged by some (though not the Lib of VA) that this should read "Macocks". On 12 Oct 1650, George sold part of this land to Thomas Drew. It is this sale which George's son Richard is confirming in 1658/9. On 26 October 1650, Thomas Drew repatented the land in question, and in that patent it is described as "490 acres lying on the north side of the Flower De hundred Creeke bounded north on the land purchased by Mr. Pace, south upon Flower Do hundred Creek". The argument goes, that in 1650 George Pace was patenting land which formerly belonged to Sarah Macock, Samuel's heir. If true, that would lend weight to the theory that his wife was Sarah Macock (whether widow or daughter) when he married her. So where did Samuel Macock or his heir own land? 1. There was "Samuel Macocks divident", where five were killed in the massacre. This is listed in John Smith's account immediately following Flower de Hundred, which adjoined the land that George Pace patented in 1650. 2. In the Minutes of the Council and General Court May 8 1626 it says: "y't is ordered y't Sara Maycock for fower servants brought over in the Abigaill 1622 upon the accompt of Mr. Samuell Maycock shall have two hundred acres of lande to be take upp by her in any place not formerly taken upp." It is not known, at least by me, where she took up this land but it would not be surprising if she chose land adjoining "Samuel Macocks Divident". So it appears that the land George Pace patented, and later sold part of to Thomas Drew, had indeed previously belonged to Sarah Maycock. And if George married her and acquired the land in that way, then when Richard confirmed the sale to Thomas Drew, it might have been important for him to explain in the document of 1650 that (a) his mother was Sarah Maycock and (b) he was "first issue" and her rightful heir. Can't help noticing that Thomas Drew's patent says that George Pace purchased his land. Any comments? Does anyone know of any evidence to support or refute this argument, which I have not mentioned? Ellen gnlgy458 <gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: 3. Some believe that Bruce Howard's interpretation of the "sonne and heire" document is the correct one, and that Richard's mother must have married a Maycock after the death of George. This makes more sense to me than either of the other theories. When you think of it, there doesn't seem to be any reason why Richard would mention his mother by her maiden name. So I agree with Bruce Howard that the document shows that Richard's mother was "Mrs Sarah Maycock" by the time she died, therefore she must have married again after George died. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com