Fantastic evidence and bit of analysis! This is exactly what we need more of. You are convincing me that at least it is possible that the little girl in the records COULD have groen up and married George. You are also convincing me that his mother was probably formerly named Maycock. So unless there was another Sarah Maycock around for him to marry, it seems hishly probable. I sould like to add this information to the page on the Pace Network. May I reference you as the author? If I give email addresses, I fix them up so the "spiders" used by spammers to glean addresses from the Internet won't work. Roy Johnson Roy -------------- Original message from James Blair <jnb05042000@yahoo.com>: -------------- > See for example a deed of gift from Edward Herndon to his > son Edward Herndon, dated 16 June 1739: > > "Beginning at a Corner of Mrs Mary Waller's (Now Mr Zachary > Lewis's) and Capt. Larkin Chew's (Now Hawkins) standing on > a hill Side by a Branch...." et cetera. > > "Mrs Mary Waller" referenced in this document is in fact > Mary Waller (daughter of John Waller) who married Zachary > Lewis. She was Mary Waller (single) in 1720 when the land > was patented in her name by her father. She was Mrs > Zachary Lewis in 1739 when Edward Herndon's deed of gift is > being drawn up. By that date, the land belongs not to her > but to her husband, but because it was patented in her > maiden name, it is identified (for metes and bounds > purposes) by reference to her maiden name but with a Mrs in > front. > > As for the age question, look at it this way: > > Richard was under age on 25 Feb 1658/9 ("heire apparent"). > Richard was of full age by 11 Feb 1659/60. > Therefore Richard turned 21 during the period from 26 Feb > 1658/9 to 11 Feb 1659/60. > Therefore Richard was born during the period from 26 Feb > 1637/38 to 11 Feb 1638/9 > > Sarah was "aged 2 yeares" (i.e., she was at least two and > not yet three) when the muster was taken on 24 Jan 1624/5. > Therefore she was "aged 16 yeares" (i.e., she was at least > 16 and not yet 17) 14 years later on 24 Jan 1638/39. > > As shown above, Richard was born by 11 Feb 1638/39. By > that date, Sarah was at least 16. If he was born between > 24 Jan 1638/9 and 11 Feb 1638/9, she could have been 17. > > Have I got that right? Would appreciate being told if I've > made a mistake. > > > The date of the marriage of course is not known. > > James > > > --- roy.w.johnson@att.net wrote: > > > > > > > -------------- Original message from James Blair > > : -------------- > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > ==== 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 > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > 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 >

Good, I'm glad you thought it made sense. I have no objection to my name being used but please do not give my email address. Not even in "mangled" format. Thanks. James --- roy.w.johnson@att.net wrote: > Fantastic evidence and bit of analysis! This is exactly > what we need more of. You are convincing me that at > least it is possible that the little girl in the records > COULD have groen up and married George. You are also > convincing me that his mother was probably formerly named > Maycock. So unless there was another Sarah Maycock around > for him to marry, it seems hishly probable. > > I sould like to add this information to the page on the > Pace Network. May I reference you as the author? If I > give email addresses, I fix them up so the "spiders" used > by spammers to glean addresses from the Internet won't > work. > > James __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com