In a message dated 8/9/2006 1:14:59 P.M. Central Standard Time, roy.w.johnson@att.net writes: I forgot the URL on the Pace Network where I put the Sarah Maycock material: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pace/maycock.htm Check it out and see what you think of it. Roy ****************** 8/9/06 Kathlynn writes: Hi Roy, I just went to your site and read the Sarah Maycock material. Re: George Pace's wife was Sarah Maycock, is she the daughter OR widow of Samuel Maycock? I thought this controversial issue had been settled once and for all in the flurry of post that was made to the list last month....now I'm confused again! Since you did not include the following data, or any of the other conclusion, I am now wondering if perhaps you know something that I don't know that would make you discount this as proof. If you do will you please share it with me? There were many, many more post made regarding this subject, I believe in June and July, which can be viewed on Rootweb archives . I have included only a few that should give you the total picture. In my opinion the COMPLETE 1626 document [see * transcribed] proves without a doubt that Sarah was indeed the daughter of Samuel Maycock.....however, I stand to be corrected if you have proof otherwise. ~Kathlynn~ ************************************ 7/1/2006 _Zapnyou@aol.com_ (mailto:Zapnyou@aol.com) writes: While I was at the DAR Continental Congress this week, I had time to check out the source for the Virginia (Historical) Magazine, Vol. XXV, October 1917, info Sarah Maycock. (The National Archives Building was closed all week due to the flooding of the basement.) It took some time to track it down because the magazine's source was not exactly clear itself. (Went from the Jefferson reading room to Adams reading room and the Madison reading room; thus, ending up in all three buildings.) The source book from which their information came from was: Minutes of the Council and General court of colonial Virginia, 1622-1632. Published in Richmond, VA by The Colonial Press, Everett Waddey Co. in 1924. Call number J87.V85 This book is located in the Manuscript Reading Room in the Madison Bldg., Rm 101. However, I was unable to copy the pages due to the poor condition of the book. (The spine was broken and the pages were becoming unstitched.) But there was a copy made. It was back in the Jefferson reading room. It was a photocopy of the same book (at 99%). We found that it had a different call number (they are in the process of assigning them the same call number) It was F229 N523. Published by the Virginia State Library in 1979. The preface indicates that these records are compiled from the partially burned remnants of records that were saved after the Richmond fire of 1865. English records, and other papers. Virginia has these remnants in a fireproof vault (Is the vault located in their Archives?). *Transcribed: VIIIth day of May 1626 A courte held the viiith day of May 1626 beinge p[?]fent Sr ffrancis Wyatt Knight Gournor &c, Capt ffranis Weft Capt Roger Smith Capt Samuel Mathewes Mr William Cleybourne. Yt is order yt Sara Maycock for fower fervants brought over in the Abigaill 1622 vppon the Accompt of Mr Samuell Maycock fhall have two hundred acres of lande to be taken vpp by her in any place not fomerly Taken vpp. (I used the same basic serif font as the author did except I did not use the superscript font which does not available for this list.) By the way, can anyone in Richmond find out if these original burnt remnants have ever been fully photographed or digitized? Hope this helps. Kim Stracener Zapalac ************************************** 7/8/2006 _Kathlynn3@aol.com_ (mailto:Kathlynn3@aol.com) To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Sarah Maycock - Virginia Magazine Source Reference Hi Kim, et al, What is your opinion... now that we have the complete document, instead of the extracted tidbit? Does it appear that perhaps Capt Roger Smith [and the other men listed] appeared in court to validate/testify in behalf of minor child Sarah's right to father Samuel's land? Or am I reading something into this that has no validity? Opinions requested... ~Kathlynn~ ************************************** 7/8/2006 janders45@hotmail.com writes: Kathlynn, That would be my interpretation. Samuel Maycock had earned the right to the land by virtue of paying for the transport of the four persons mentioned. Since he is now deceased, Samuel could no longer speak up to demand his due. Being honorable men, these gentlemen are declaring officially that the minor child Sarah now has the right to the land, lest it be forgotten in future. Sarah at this point has no awareness of any of her rights, so they want it written into the record now to avoid confusion at some point in the future when she comes of age. Notice that they are not granting her any specific parcel of land. They are just declaring that she has the right to "two hundred acres of lande to be taken vpp by her" at some time in the future. That's my interpretation. Joe Anderson **************************************************** 7/8/2006 _Zapnyou@aol.com_ (mailto:Zapnyou@aol.com) writes: Sorry it took me so long to write back, I am out of town, up in the Colorado mountains, with no Internet or phone service. Using the local library to sign on. In my opinion, these men were probably leaders of the town and had to be at most of the "business dealings" concerning the company's investment (in other words, like a company's board today). Most of them were noted in the rest of the minutes as well as this one concerning Sarah Maycock. I can scan a copy of the book page for everyone when I get back to Texas and put it up on the Pace Society web page? I still would like to see the original from which these minutes were taken to verify what was transcribed in the book was exactly the same. Does anyone have a contact with the Viriginia Archives to find out? Kim