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. 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? 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? Solid answers to one or both these questions might, taken together, tell us who married George Pace. I don't think it's cluttering up the list to discuss these questions. Isn't it what the list is for? Personally, I'd like to hear more people's opinions about it. Ellen --------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

Quoting gnlgy458 <gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk> > 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. > > 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? > > 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? > > Solid answers to one or both these questions might, taken together, > tell us who married George Pace. > > I don't think it's cluttering up the list to discuss these > questions. Isn't it what the list is for? Personally, I'd like to > hear more people's opinions about it. > > Ellen Discussion of genealogy is exactly what it's for, and this is definitely that... Not enough facts presented so far as to which Sara/h for me to offer an opinion. However, in keeping with this thread I wanted to address the following: ----- Forwarded message from olems@bellsouth.net ----- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:13:16 -0500 From: MAC <olems@bellsouth.net> In the Records of the Virginia Company I found an order by the Governor of Virginia dated 4 March 1622 in which is noted the "treachery of the Indians on the 22nd day of March last". This would place the date of the massacre as 22 March 1621 (Julian), rather than 1622, and could be written today as 1621/22. ----------------------------------------------------- I believe he is refering to the entry: CCXCII 417 Governor in Virginia. Order to Keep the 22d of March Holy. March 4, 1622/3. ------------------------------------------------------ The generally accepted explanation of the dating ssytem referred to can be found at http://www.dome-igm.com/convers.htm Translation, March 4, 1622/23 would have been the year 1623 Gregorian, OR the year 1622 Julian, which would not have ended until March 25th (1623) so, i would conclude that the previous March 21st would have been March 21, 1621/22 OR, 1622 Gregorian.

In response to your questions I submit the following: 1. Peter Coldham's "The Complete Book of English Emmigrants" states in part :"George Yardley, Knight Governor and Captain General of Virginia with the consent of the Council give to Samuel Jordan of Charles City in Virginia, ancient planter who hath abode here in the Colony for 10 years ... 450 acres and to Cecily his wife, an ancient planter also of nine years continuance ... 100 acres more." This event occurred on 16 November 1618 and land was granted 20 Sep 1620. The above is an example of no title given to a wife. 2. Temperance Bailey, born 1617, was the daughter of the above Cecily Jordan by her first marriage to Thomas Bailey. Thomas died before 20 Sep 1620 in Virginia. His daughter Temperance Bailey was granted 200 acres in the Territory of the Weyanoke credited to her in the 1626 list of patents. On 10 Dec 1620 Samuel Jordan patented "338 acres of land in or near upon Sandy's hundred, toward the land of Temperance Bailey." This deed shows Temperance Bailey was a landowner at the age of three. Her mother lived many years after this land patent. I agree the original documents might provide helpful clues if they are extant. I do not know whether Sarah Maycock was the wife or daughter of Samuel Maycock, so I hesitate to offer an opinion. Nancy Webb Wood ----- Original Message ----- From: "gnlgy458" <gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk> To: <PACE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Re:Jamestown Massacre: What year did it occur? > 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. > > 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? > > 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? > > Solid answers to one or both these questions might, taken together, tell us who married George Pace. > > I don't think it's cluttering up the list to discuss these questions. Isn't it what the list is for? Personally, I'd like to hear more people's opinions about it. > > Ellen > > > > - ------------------------------- > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. > > ______________________________