PACE-L Archives

Archiver > PACE > 2008-04 > 1208611181


From: Robert Webb <>
Subject: Re: [PACE] Frederick of Wales group - Preliminary results 113987
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:19:41 -0500
References: <000301c8a020$78665870$69330950$@edu> <BAY134-W298DCEF32F551E30B733CFABE50@phx.gbl><000101c8a0e7$518d3f80$f4a7be80$@edu><BAY134-W39AFF9C3877E718C2A7368ABE40@phx.gbl><000c01c8a151$756fc020$604f4060$@edu>
In-Reply-To: <000c01c8a151$756fc020$604f4060$@edu>


On this point I will have to stick to my dissenting opinion. The story
of this family is pretty consistent among different sources going back
to the pre-Clarke County settlement days, that much is true. This Pace
family came to Alabama from South Carolina, with detours in Kentucky,
Tennessee and Georgia. It is likely that they migrated from Virginia or
North Carolina, perhaps both, before coming to South Carolina. Before
that time, the family traditions cease being consistent, and are pretty
sketchy. While the Wales point of origin may be true, it is only one
family story and has never turned up in any other source. England has
been passed down as a point of origin as well.

I believe that the Wales tradition in the John of Middlesex line does
give more credence to the Wales story in the Frederick line. Also, as
I've researched (skimmed over, really) the history of the early
Baptists in America, I've found that the Welsh played a significant
role in the formation that church. The families in the Frederick line
were Baptists and can be found in early church records in Alabama and
Georgia, but so far have not turned up in earlier (pre-1800) Baptist
records in South Carolina, North Carolina or Virginia. That remains one
of the areas of research where something may yet surface on this
family.

So I'm not "agin" the Wales idea, I'm just still a doubter.

Bob Webb


On Apr 18, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Roy Johnson wrote:

> Good response, Joe. That's what I intended. I suspect that both John
> of M
> and Frederick probably came from somewhere in the Welsh border
> country, due
> to the population figures showing the high percentage of Paces there,
> and
> that it is not incorrect to say that they were "of Wales." That story
> is too
> consistent among different descendents to doubt it.
>
> Roy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On
> Behalf
> Of Janders 45
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 7:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [PACE] Frederick of Wales group - Preliminary results
> 113987
>
> Re: "DNA does not prove that Frederick was from Wales. . . ."
>
> Yes, it's always good to remind folks what yDNA analysis can and
> cannot do.
> These results do not prove that William Pace was my 4th
> great-grandfather.
> That conclusion depends on documentary sources. Nor do these results
> prove
> that my William was the brother of John, the progenitor of the other
> four
> donors in the Frederick of Wales group. That conclusion also depends
> on
> documented sources.
>
> So what do these results show? Since the results are consistent with
> the
> story told by the documents, they give us greater confidence in that
> story.
> We can now feel pretty confident that the biography of Dr. J.M. Pace of
> Dallas had the story pretty much right. It doesn't "prove" that the
> story
> is correct, but it does support it.
>
> As Roy has often said, DNA evidence is much better at disproving.
> Since the
> origin of this line has been disputed, we now know that one of the
> competing
> theories is undeniably false. It does not prove that the other theory
> is
> correct, but it does give us a higher level of confidence in that
> theory.
>
> Joe Anderson
> _________________________________________________________________
> More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live
> Messenger.
> http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?
> ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh
> _instantaccess_042008
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.0/1381 - Release Date:
> 4/16/2008
> 9:34 AM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.0/1381 - Release Date:
> 4/16/2008
> 9:34 AM
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: