Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
No, I agree it doesn't exclude the possibility of the daughter being married. Occasionally, evidence is found which shows that a daughter was married, even though she is named in her parent's will by her maiden name. However, in this case not only is there no evidence that Elizabeth Newsome was married in 1711, there's no evidence that she ever married. The absence of evidence doesn't establish that she DIDN'T marry, but since there's no evidence who she might have married or who her descendants (if any) might have been, she's genealogically irrelevant. Like a lot of women, sadly. The blanks in most people's family trees are where the names of our foremothers ought to be.
Many people have tried to identify the wife of John Pace of Middlesex, so far without success. However, John Pace's line is otherwise quite well documented, and is one of the most interesting of the 17th-century lines, it seems to me. Thanks to Gordon Pace's extensive research in the English parish registers, coupled with the DNA results, John Pace has almost certainly been traced right back to his 1665 christening record, in Shropshire, England. See http://www.pacesociety.org/DNA/johngeorge.htm
Quite an achievement for Gordon Pace and the Pace Society DNA study.
James
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/pace/messages/3957.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|