In a message dated 6/16/2006 5:08:55 AM Central Standard Time, gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk writes: Oh yes, sorry, I jumped to the conclusion (tssk) that the "image" button was for an image of the original, but it's just an image of the transcript page. I can't see how it's possible to solve the Sarah Maycock question through the dates and the single record of young Sarah's age. The known dates don't seem to rule out either Sarah Maycock (Samuel's daughter) or Mrs Sarah Maycock (Samuel's widow). Ellen Kathlynn comments: I agree Ellen. But it does help in solving the question that was recently posted on the list: "How could Sarah be Samuel Maycock's dtr when she was born too long after he got killed to be his dtr?" Which is the way it appears when you use the wrong date 1622 that the massacre occurred, instead the correct 1621 date or 1621/22. I had also questioned this many times and decided to try the answer....and that is why I proposed the question to the list in the first place and why I searched til I found the correct date. I still don't understand why so many web sites still claim the massacre date as 1622.....because that is exactly what cause the problem with making Sarah's born date fit!

-----Original Message----- From: Kathlynn3@aol.com [mailto:Kathlynn3@aol.com] "How could Sarah be Samuel Maycock's dtr when she was born too long after he got killed to be his dtr?" Which is the way it appears when you use the wrong date 1622 that the massacre occurred, instead the correct 1621 date or 1621/22. I had also questioned this many times and decided to try the answer....and that is why I proposed the question to the list in the first place and why I searched til I found the correct date. I still don't understand why so many web sites still claim the massacre date as 1622.....because that is exactly what cause the problem with making Sarah's born date fit! ------------------------------------------------------- Jim Comments: The dates that get the divided year as in 1622/23 are January 1st to March 25th of each year. The first year listed is the Julian, the second the Gregorian. After March 25th they both reflect the same year, until the following January 1st. Based on the "Order to Keep the 22d of March Holy dated March 4, 1622/3" which says the massacre happened the preceding March 22nd, 1621/22, the Gregorian date for the massacre is March 22nd, 1622. That would explain why so many people insist on that date. If Sam Maycock was killed in the massacre on March 22nd, 1622 Gregorian Calendar (1621 Julian calendar), then Sarah would have had some trouble being born in 1623 Gregorian calendar. However, if the massacre were March 22nd, 1622 on the Julian calendar, then the year 1623 started a mere 3 days later. The muster of January 29th, 1624/25 shows Sarah as 2 years old. So, she had not yet attained her third birthday, but, she could have been as old as 2 years and 11 months and still listed as 2 years old. The Gregorian date for the muster then was January, 1625. If Sarah was over 2, but not yet 3 years old, then she still could have been born in 1622 Gregorian calendar, but not in 1621. If I am missing some information here, please let me know, just trying to think about this is making my head hurt. Jim