Re: Minutes of the Council and General Court May 8, 1626 Question: Does anyone have a copy of the original document or know where it might be obtained SO we can see if it has her named as Sara Maycock OR Mrs Samuel Maycock? I have had no success with my attempts. From Ellen's following post we find the name on this document as "Sara Maycock." Conversely, per Ruth Keys Clark: Document 4 we find the name on this document as "Mrs Sarah Maycock." All of Ruth's documents, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 can be found on web site: _http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/PACE+2003+ 6461545990+F_ (http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/PACE+2003+6461545990+F) How can this happen, i.e. supposedly same document but each with a different name? I think before we can untangle these discrepancies we are going to have to have a copy of the actual document......don't you? I thought I had it all figured out which was basically/exactly the you had it discerned, Ellen, i.e. George Pace m: Sarah Maycock d.o. Samuel. Now after reading Ruth's conclusions.....I'm back to being more confused than ever. Note: Ruth believes it was Samuel's widow that m: George and Dtr. Sarah died!!!??? If we do determine it was widow/mother Mrs Sarah Maycock then we have the mystery of determining what her maiden name was...right? Well now...there's my 2 cents worth! ~Kathlynn~ In a message dated 6/14/2006 4:05:22 AM Central Standard Time, gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk writes: >From the Minutes of the Council and General Court May 8 1626: "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." I've just realized that if this land was being granted to Samuel Maycock's widow, it would surely refer to her as "Mrs Sarah Maycock" or "Mrs Samuel Maycock". The widow of a man who had been a gentleman, a scholar, a reverend, and a council member, would surely be spoken of as "Mrs Maycock". I have not seen the original source. There is always the possibility that it has been mistranscribed. If not -- if it really does refer to her as "Sara Maycock", then to me that seems strong confirmation that they were referring to the child, Samuel Maycock's daughter and heir. It then follows that she was indeed the Sarah Maycock who later became the wife of George Pace and the mother of Richard. One final point: someone raised the question of why Richard would refer to his mother by her maiden name but using the title "Mrs". I believe this was the natural thing for him to do. He could hardly refer to his deceased mother without any title, and as has been noted, "Mrs" did not inevitably denote the married state. Thank you all for your patience. For me it has been well worth thinking this through. Even though none of it can be proved, I now have a much clearer picture of events as I believe they must have occurred. Ellen

Definitely. We can't be sure of the wording unless someone can get sight of the original or an image of the original. None of the transcripts I have seen have got the wording "Mrs Sarah Maycock". In one version there is the wording "Mrs Samuel Maycock". We don't know the given name of Samuel Maycock's wife. We do know that Samuel's heir was named Sarah Maycock, since that is the name of the person who receives the 200 acres. If the Maycocks had a daughter named Sarah, it is possible the daughter was named after her mother. So the question is, was "Sarah Maycock" (heir of Samuel) his daughter or his widow? Ellen Kathlynn3@aol.com wrote: Re: Minutes of the Council and General Court May 8, 1626 Question: Does anyone have a copy of the original document or know where it might be obtained SO we can see if it has her named as Sara Maycock OR Mrs Samuel Maycock? I have had no success with my attempts. From Ellen's following post we find the name on this document as "Sara Maycock." Conversely, per Ruth Keys Clark: Document 4 we find the name on this document as "Mrs Sarah Maycock." All of Ruth's documents, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 can be found on web site: _http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/PACE+2003+ 6461545990+F_ (http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/PACE+2003+6461545990+F) How can this happen, i.e. supposedly same document but each with a different name? I think before we can untangle these discrepancies we are going to have to have a copy of the actual document......don't you? I thought I had it all figured out which was basically/exactly the you had it discerned, Ellen, i.e. George Pace m: Sarah Maycock d.o. Samuel. Now after reading Ruth's conclusions.....I'm back to being more confused than ever. Note: Ruth believes it was Samuel's widow that m: George and Dtr. Sarah died!!!??? If we do determine it was widow/mother Mrs Sarah Maycock then we have the mystery of determining what her maiden name was...right? Well now...there's my 2 cents worth! ~Kathlynn~ In a message dated 6/14/2006 4:05:22 AM Central Standard Time, gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk writes: >From the Minutes of the Council and General Court May 8 1626: "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." I've just realized that if this land was being granted to Samuel Maycock's widow, it would surely refer to her as "Mrs Sarah Maycock" or "Mrs Samuel Maycock". The widow of a man who had been a gentleman, a scholar, a reverend, and a council member, would surely be spoken of as "Mrs Maycock". I have not seen the original source. There is always the possibility that it has been mistranscribed. If not -- if it really does refer to her as "Sara Maycock", then to me that seems strong confirmation that they were referring to the child, Samuel Maycock's daughter and heir. It then follows that she was indeed the Sarah Maycock who later became the wife of George Pace and the mother of Richard. One final point: someone raised the question of why Richard would refer to his mother by her maiden name but using the title "Mrs". I believe this was the natural thing for him to do. He could hardly refer to his deceased mother without any title, and as has been noted, "Mrs" did not inevitably denote the married state. Thank you all for your patience. For me it has been well worth thinking this through. Even though none of it can be proved, I now have a much clearer picture of events as I believe they must have occurred. Ellen ==== PACE Mailing List ==== If you haven't done so within the last six months, please post a message describing your Earliest Pace Ancestor and how you descend from them. Please include dates, places, spouses, etc, if possible. Send the message to PACE-L@rootsweb.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com