Hi Kathlynn, I also puzzle over this question. I'm not sure that I completely understand all the arguments which are put forward in support of the various theories, but for what it's worth, here's how I think it goes: 1. Some believe that Richard was referring to his mother by her maiden name and that "Mrs Sarah Maycock" was the same person as the child "Sarah Maycock" listed in the 1624/5 muster as two years old, born in VA. This child may or may not have been related to Samuel Maycock who was killed in the massacre. 2. Some believe that Richard was referring to his mother by her maiden name and think that "Mrs Sarah Maycock" was the widow of Samuel Maycock who was killed in the massacre. Samuel Maycock's widow does not appear among those listed in the 1624/5 Muster, and her given name is not known. As I understand it, there is a document dated 1626 which mentions "Mrs Samuel Maycock", but unfortunately does not reveal her given name. I think the argument goes that IF the child Sarah Maycock was a daughter of Samuel Maycock, then she might have been named after her mother, so her mother might have been called Sarah also. Too many "IFs" for me. 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. Mr Howard also argues that Mrs Sarah Maycock's maiden name was Snowe but there he loses me. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence as to what her maiden name might have been. Obviously this is a question that all of us who might be descended from Richard and Isabella would really like to see answered. But there are so many gaps in our knowledge of who was there, and how they might have been related. We can't assume that the Maycocks we know about, and the Sarahs we know about, were the only ones who were there. We can't just choose the Sarah that seems to fit the best and assume she was the right one. That's my take on it. I'd be interested to hear what others believe, even though I agree that "Unknown" is the only answer we can at present be sure of. Ellen Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com