-------------- Original message from James Blair <jnb05042000@yahoo.com>: -------------- > 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. I need to check, but I think some have Richard born 1637 and Sarah Maycock born 1622 or 23, depending on how they figure the years. Still not impossible, Loretta Lynn did it in modern times. > > 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 What is the evidence that usage was different then? I have read quite a bit of history in this time era and have never heard of a person being referred to as "Mrs." and then her maiden name. . I don't see what else > he could have called her, without seeming disrespectful. >. I don't see what else > he could have called her, without seeming disrespectful. > Why couldn't he call her Mrs. Sarah Pace? That would have been her name at the time of death unless she married again. I have put together the arguments on this subject, which contain quite a bit of primary source data from Ruth Keys Clark, professional genealogist now deceased, which I feel cast considerable doubt on the assumption. I'm not ready to put it as fact or near fact quite yet. Roy Johnson