The DNA study by itself cannot prove that anyone is a descendant of Richard Pace of Jamestown. The paperwork has to first prove that a particular line of Paces are descendants of Richard of Jamestown, then the DNA study can be used to determine if other participants share a common ancestor with the participants who can prove their lineage to Richard of Jamestown. As there have been questions created about the long-accepted link between Richard Pace of NC being the descendant of Richard of Jamestown, these questions have to be resolved with the paper trail before anyone can say that DNA has shown they are RELATED to Richard of Jamestown. In fact, we have very little DNA evidence for most of the Pace lines. The DNA study has been very effective in determining that there are at least two main groups of Paces in the United States - and also other Pace lines which have not had as much research performed and WRITTEN about. We have learned that the John Pace of Middlesex line, the majority (or the most written about) of the NC Pace lines, and the Michael Pace/Pees lines are very distinct lines and have no common ancestor in "modern" times. But, as for Group 3 of the Pace DNA study, we really have very little representation of family lines in the DNA project. Most of the Group 3a participants are descendants of William Pace and Ruth Lambert - a line that has several theories of the lineage back to the early Richard Pace of NC. Other participants are from two different Hardy Paces, an unconnected George Pace, and two participants whose DNA results can only give us the *ancestral* DNA results for Richard Pace whose wife was Elizabeth Cain - and not any further back. Group 3b is not any better in representation. Basically there are three lines represented - the John Pace (wife Sarah) of Surry Co., NC, the William Pace (wife Sicely Walker) line, and the Jesse Pace line. We have been advised by FTDNA that Group 3a and Group 3b share a common ancestor and that a rare 2-step change occurred that separates the two groups. At this point we have no way of telling when and with which Pace this change occurred. We don't even have enough DNA evidence to determine which group - 3a or 3b, if either - has the DNA pattern of the early Richard of NC. So few NC Pace lines are represented in the DNA study. We really need Pace descendants with documented lines to the early Richard Pace of NC that descend from lines other than Richard Pace (wife Elizabeth Cain) to find participants from their lines to be tested. Until we have participants from other documented lines we will not be able to determine when the split between Groups 3a and 3b occurred. DNA testing still has the potential to help many NC Pace descendants determine where they fit in the Pace family tree, especially if the split between Groups 3a and 3b can be determined. This has been discussed in greater detail at the Pace Society reunion this past summer and a more detailed article will be appearing in an upcoming issue of the Pace Society quarterly Bulletin. Rebecca Christensen

Thanks to Ruth; I believe this answers Becky's question. I maintain the DNA study but I am not a qualified Pace genealogist. As a John of Middlesex descendent I have understandably paid more attention to that line. My plate is pretty full and I don't have time to research the other lines. Ruth is obviously an expert on that topic. But my understanding of the evidence that we have might be helpful: First, we have a clear paper trail from Richard of Jamestown to George to "Richard II" We do not know whether George had children other than Richard II. I do not believe we have documentation on "Richard II"'s children; someone correct me if I am wrong. Then we have Paces appearing in NC who from circumstantial evidence MAY be the children of "Richard II". One of these has been designated by descendents as "Richard III" and presumed to be the son of "Richard II". The paper evidence for this connection is solely in the Winifred Aycock Lane letter, a reminiscence by an old lady of what her mother told her. Winifred Aycock Lane is the daughter of Richard+Rebecca and the granddaughter of Richard+Mary, the presumed "Richard III". She affirms that her grandfather was born in Virginia in a place "where five counties meet" on a creek near a river, and that her grandfather was a junior, so his father' name was Richard.. She gives names for her grandfather's brothers, as told to her by her mother. From this it is ASSUMED that her grandfather's father was "Richard II". But if there were other Richards in VA, this might not be. To read about the Lane letter (three versions) go to: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pace/documnts/aycock.htm Then our paper trail picks up in NC and the evidence improves, but some of the specific lineages submitted are in question. John Pace's chart using name comparisons to try to sort out some of these lineages is interesting: http://www.pacesociety.org/DNA/names.htm Hope I have all of this straight. Ruth, straighten me out if I don't. Roy Johnson