Also it is still being debated if the little Maycock girl grew up to be George's wife. She would have been about 13 or 14 when Richard was born (I don't remember exactly but Jack Pace had an email on that). He would have been considerably older. Also he said his mother was "Mrs. Sarah Maycock" and the girl in question would have been Miss Sarah Maycock before she married George (if indeed she did) she would never have been Mrs. Sarah Maycock unless the custom were different back then. This has caused some to doubt the usual interpretation, and there is no certain documentation. The early Pace Society accepted so many things that were "generally known" that we have to be careful to haave exact documentation, whiat source, what page, an exact quote not a summery, etc. before accepting those early conclusions. Roy Johnson -------------- Original message from "Gordon W. Pace" <gordonwpace@peoplepc.com>: -------------- > > James: > Your message suggests that we don't know who the children were of the Richard > Pace who was a son of George Pace and Sarah Maycock. I think this is fairly > well known: Richard III b. 1661, Sarah b. 1662, George b. abt 1663, Elizabeth > b. 1664, James b. 1666, John, Sr b. 1668 and Ann b. 1674. > Gordon W. Pace > -----Original Message----- > >From: James Blair > >Sent: Aug 6, 2006 6:32 AM > >To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Documents, questions, speculations > > > >That's a great offer, Becky. Thank you. > > > >I guess probably a lot of the evidence we would dearly like > >to have is just no longer there. > > > >For instance, we would like to know whether George (son of > >Richard and Isabella) had more than the one son Richard. > >The wording of the deed of 25 Feb 1658/9 seems to allow for > >that possibility (perhaps a son of a second marriage), but > >there's probably little chance of discovering evidence. > > > >And secondly of course what we would all most like to know > >is the number and names of the children of Richard (George, > >Richard). > > > >Well, those two questions may be unanswerable, but here is > >a third question which would may be less of a brick wall: > >what was the name of Mary who was granted administration on > >the estate of her deceased husband Richard Pace in Feb > >1677/8? > > > >Mary was married to her Richard Pace by 13 March 1661/2, > >when he sold to Richard Taylor land in which Mary > >apparently had an interest. It would be interesting to > >know why her consent was required. It might point to who > >her parents were, or perhaps to a previous marriage. > > > >The land is described as: > > > >"...land on Powells Creek beginning at Buckland Island up > >creek to road called Hawksnest to Reedy Bottoms as far as > >Wm. Wilkins plantation..." > > > >If only it could be discovered who originally patented that > >land, it might reveal Mary's parentage. > > > >Another interesting question: why was this Richard Pace an > >executor of the estate of Hugh Kirkland, and why did Mary > >take the orphans? It may mean nothing, but it COULD mean > >that there was a closer relationship between Richard and > >Mary and Hugh Kirkland than we at present know of. For > >instance, Mary could have been a Kirkland. > > > >There is the court case brought by Thomas Kirkland (one of > >the orphans?) on 3 Aug 1692, against Nicholas Whitmore and > >his wife Mary as executrix of her deceased husband Richard > >Pace one of the executors of Hugh Kirkland. In your notes > >which you posted, it is suggested that this case had > >something to do with orphan Hannah Pitt. Well, I am > >speculating that perhaps Hannah's mother was born Hannah > >Kirkland and married a Pitt, and now the orphan's uncle > >Thomas is trying to get the estate of Richard Pace dec'd to > >pay money which Thomas thinks is owed to Hannah. > > > >Only speculation of course. > > > >And my final question: is it proved that the "relict of > >Richard Pace" who married Briscoe is the same person as > >Mary, widow of Richard Pace who subsequently married > >Nicholas Whitmore? The Briscoe marriage seems very > >unexpected, and unconnected with the people Richard and > >Mary Pace were otherwise involved with. > > > >You mention in your notes that William Briscoe left > >everything to Ann Holden (Holder). She seems to have been > >his daughter-in-law, according to a post on the > >HOLDER-DNA-L list > >(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/HOLDER-DNA/2004-12/1103162204). > > And he was a blacksmith. > > > >What I'm thinking is that if there really were two > >unrelated Richard Paces, the Richard Pace relict who > >married William Briscoe could have been a different person > >from Mary Pace. > > > >Just some of my thoughts about the various unanswered > >questions. We may never know the answers but then again, > >who knows what may turn up in an unexpected place? > > > >James > > > > > >--- Becky Mosely wrote: > > > >> > >> If you have a list or recommendation of what we need - > >> please send it to me. > >> > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > >==== PACE Mailing List ==== > >You can search archived messages from the Pace Mailing List by going to > http://searches.rootsweb.com. If you need instructions just ask me - > gordonpace@comcast.net > > > > > ________________________________________ > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > If you haven't done so within the last six months, please post a message > describing your Earliest Pace Ancestor and how you descend from them. Please > include dates, places, spouses, etc, if possible. Send the message to > PACE-L@rootsweb.com >

I agree with you. A lot of things have been assumed to be true, which it turns out there is no evidence for. In the case of George Pace's marriage to Sarah Maycock, however, it seems to me we do have pretty good evidence. We don't know when George Pace was born, so we don't know how old he would have been when his son Richard was born. If in 1628 he was not yet of full age, then ten years later when Richard was born he must have been not yet 31. Sarah Maycock would be around 16. That doesn't seem to me to present a problem. It also doesn't seem to me to be a problem that Richard Pace refers to his mother as "Mrs Sarah Maycocke". Usage was different in the 17th century. I don't see what else he could have called her, without seeming disrespectful. If we had as much evidence for the children of Richard as we have for the marriage of George and Sarah Maycock, I'd be happy. James --- roy.w.johnson@att.net wrote: > Also it is still being debated if the little Maycock girl > grew up to be George's wife. She would have been about > 13 or 14 when Richard was born (I don't remember exactly > but Jack Pace had an email on that). He would have been > considerably older. Also he said his mother was "Mrs. > Sarah Maycock" and the girl in question would have been > Miss Sarah Maycock before she married George (if indeed > she did) she would never have been Mrs. Sarah Maycock > unless the custom were different back then. This has > caused some to doubt the usual interpretation, and there > is no certain documentation. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com