In a message dated 6/16/2006 9:36:45 AM Central Standard Time, 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. Kathlynn comments: FWIW: I'm back with this original discernment too, 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? Kathlynn comments: Remember we also have one claiming the name is "Mrs Samuel Maycock"....right? 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? Kathlynn comments: Is it possible, if it was minor child, the original does have a guardian/representative named and the original extractor, whoever or whenever or wherever and for whatever reason, could have simply failed to include it??? Redundant...but I agree with you ....the only way we can have this answer is to find and get a copy of the whole original document. I've tried, albeit, my browse/search skills leave a lot to be desired. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT HOW WE CAN CAN GO ABOUT FINDING/OBTAINING IT? Solid answers to one or both these questions might, taken together, tell us who married George Pace. Kathlynn comments: AGREE!