Thank you, but no. My Pace line is proved back as far as Richard Pace and Elizabeth Cain. This thread is about the wife of Richard Pace b. abt 1638, who may or may not have been the grandfather of the Richard Pace who was married to Elizabeth Cain. As far as I'm aware, no one can prove descent back this far, but it's still interesting to consider the possibilities. For the sake of clarity, and for anyone searching this forum in future, I will recap. The wife of this Richard was named Mary, but her surname is unknown. Because of the deed of gift from Richard Baker to Richard Pace (1665), it has been speculated that Richard Baker might have had a daughter and if he did have a daughter she might have been named Mary, and Richard Pace might have married her. But now it seems that Richard Baker's wife Ann was married previously, and had a son from that previous marriage. The son's age is not given, but it does raise the possibility that IF there was a daughter at all, she could have been Richard Baker's stepdaughter rather than his daughter. So...would Richard Baker have deeded land to Richard Pace because of the marriage of his stepdaughter, without mentioning in the deed that that was the reason for the gift? And a couple of months later he dies leaving his wife unprovided for? For me, it doesn't hang together. The deed of gift could have been for some entirely different purpose (debt of honour, perhaps? paying it off before he dies?). And we don't even know if Richard Baker had a daughter or step-daughter. Personally I feel it is not good practice to "invent" possible ancestors. Consequently I prefer to leave the wife of this Richard Pace as "Mary [unknown]". I hope that explains it. Thank you for your kind offer of assistance. James --- BetinFL@aol.com wrote: > Are you trying to prove your line? Do you need > help? > Best regards, > Betty Morgan > BetinFL@aol.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com