A Bible record written after 1892 of an event that occurred before 1647 would not be considered proof, in my opinion. Nancy Webb Wood ----- Original Message ----- From: "darlene" <darlene@adweb.net> To: <PACE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:02 PM Subject: Bible record of Richard Pace of Va to Bertie NC notes George Pace -m- Sarah Maycock > I think W. James Pace bring up a valuable claim in his message below as to Widow of Samuel Maycock, > > also in Pace archives Carolyn wrote this :Sent to Pace List Archives: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 9:27 PM She says she wrote Colonial Dames and they show with absolute Certain "George Pace -m- Sarah Maycock d/o Samuel Maycock " at one time info was submitted and not questioned but I think they have cleaned up their records and make people show Documentation. > > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgibin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/PACE+2002+165287479+F > > I also believe we go by Bible records as proof ... Right? Well then go to this site and you will see a Bible record showing George Pace -m- Sarah Maycock d/o Samuel Maycock, or are we going to question this Richard Pace Bible record ? > http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/bibles/p2000001.txt > I know we all like to see the actual Document and guess one Can get it by Microfilm at the Georgia Archives, Drawer 91, Roll 62 > > My opinion we show far to many reference that George Pace -m- Sarah Maycock d/o Samuel Maycock, for it not to be so..... > > Also not too long ago someone on Pace mailing wanted some kind of proof the Richard Pace of Bertie Co NC was the one in Virgina this Bible record also note he went to Bertie Co NC > Darlene > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <pace3637@nc.rr.com> > To: <PACE-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:51 AM > Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Re:Jamestown Massacre: What year did it occur? > > > > Hello: > > You are correct Ellen; the dates do not solve the question of which Sarah (Sara) narried George Pace. I doubt we will ever know. But it is hard for me to believe that the widow would remain unmarried for all those years (12-14?) until young George was of marriagable age. It would not be unusual today, but think of how things were in that time and place. Someone suggested that the widow returned to England for a time. Why did the daughter remain behind living with another family? Can you picture the widow remainig unmarried in England and then returning to marry George? Other opinions are just as valid as mine, but that is all they are-opinions. > > Please forgive me! I promise not to clutter up the List with any more comments on this matter. > > W. James Pace > > > > ______________________________