PACE-L Archives

Archiver > PACE > 2003-05 > 1052068022


From: "Seamas" <>
Subject: [PACE-L] Carolyn Parkman's message re: Amy Pace
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 13:07:02 -0400


Dear Carolyn, Thank you for your message. I really appreciated it. I looked and looked at what you had to say before responding. You're right, I was confused, thoroughly! However, after staring at what you sent me, I believe I untangled the lines and possibly arrived at an understanding of what has occurred. I knew there was some kind of controversy surrounding an Amy Pace- but I thought it just concerned whether ''my'' Amy, born circa 1708, and wife of Thomas, was a Boykin. If I understand your facts correctly, I'll attempt the following synopsis: there was a younger Amy Pace, born around 1749, who, as daughter of Richard Pace , eventually married a Mr. Strickland; and her descendants have sometimes been confused as to whether she was a Boykin because she had the same first name as a much earlier woman Amy, wife of Thomas. Is that right? The dates certainly suggest that she would have been too young to be the wife of Thomas. Rather, she would instead have been a conte!
mporary of Thomas's son Nathaniel, but was not his sister. Instead, she was a distant cousin, who, as the daughter of Richard and Elizabeth and granddaughter of Richard Pace and Sarah, was to one day in 1764 marry Solomon Strickland. How interesting. And how interesting too, all the confusion a simple name such as Amy caused Pace researchers all these years! Had the parents we've been discussing realized that someday about 250 years later their descendants would be this confused, perhaps they would have given their daughters different names! Thank you for your help. Nice to meet a ''Strickland'' Pace cousin. Best regards, Jim Doherty

This thread: