I don't know if logic alone can answer the questions. Some of the information we need is simply missing. Although obviously an indentured servant would start from a disadvantage, I was under the impression that it was possible, with luck and a helpful master, for indentured servants to become landowners. (Didn't Richard Bradford come as an indentured servant? There are records which seem to suggest that he did, although as with Richard Pace one can't be absolutely certain that there mightn't have been two people of the same name.) At any rate, disregarding the Richard Pace who appears on Thomase Browne's list of tithables, there seem to have been at least two planters named Richard Pace. There is the Surry County record of 7 September 1675, in which Col. Thomas Swann is granted an attachment against the estate of Richard Pace for 400 lbs of tobacco. And there is the Charles City County record of 14 Feb 1677/8, in which Mary Pace is granted administration of the estate of her deceased husband. These two are not the same person. James --- roy.w.johnson@att.net wrote: > I've been doing some thinking and trying to apply > some logic to the connection between Jamestown Paces > and those of NC. > > Landowners in early Virginia usually left more > abundant records tue to their land transactions and > court appearances. It was the servant class that > slipped in under the radar. So it seems to me the > only landowning Paces--at least large > landowners--were the Richard line, or at least we > haven't found evidence of any others. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com