PACE-L Archives

Archiver > PACE > 2003-05 > 1052239464


From: "Roy Johnson" <>
Subject: Re: [PACE-L] John of Middlesex
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:44:30 -0500
References: <LOBBLHDGJEPNIJEICNFLKEDPDLAA.jon.pace@mindspring.com>


Jon, you are right. But I see a positive side to the speculation also.
They have noted some other similarities, such as given names, which also are
significant. The given names of the Shropshire Paces show many commonalities
with the children of John of M but not with the children or Richard II.
This is not proof positive but it is added evidence to strengthen (but
strengthen does not mean prove) the connection to John of M.

So it is wise to continue to look at the Shropshire Paces to see if there is
a good candidate for John of M, and to pursue that trail by seeking
documentation. This is the main purpose of DNA -- to point, not to prove --
and to give directions worth pursuing as we research the documents.

This is a very valid point, and thanks for bringing it up. The point is,
all remains speculative until (a) we find documentary evidence one way or
the other, or (b) we have many more submissions to go by.

I hope the Pace Society report this summer brings us many more submissions.
And I think this surprise matchup proves my earlier point that the wider we
can cast our net, the better. There were some who wanted to only pursue
John of M and Richard descendents only until we solve that problem, but
since we don't know for sure who John of M is, it is wise to get as many
submissions as we can from as wide a background as possible, as we never
know who may turn out to be related.


Roy




----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Pace" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: [PACE-L] John of Middlesex


> The speculation about possible new knowledge about a potential origin and
> lineage for John of Middlesex is interesting but may be premature. Has
anyone
> considered the following?
>
> The DNA results obtained to-date seem to show a group of four (4) who
share a
> common ancestor. Three (3) of these claim decent from John of Middlesex
and
> another has documented a decent from Shropshire England. The results do
not
> show who that common ancestor may be.
>
> There is a single person, #6281, who claims decent from John of Middlesex
whose
> DNA results show he is NOT part of the above group. He is depicted on the
DNA
> Results page as Group 1. The above four are depicted as Group 2.
>
> Who is to say which Group is TRULY descended from John of Middlesex?
>
> Is it not possible that #6281 is the only one TRULY descended from him?
>
> How strong is the evidence of the three (3) above who claim this decent?
Is the
> evidence for #6281 stronger?
>
> What happens when three (3) future participants fall into Group 1?
>
> Can we make any firm conclusions about his origins or lineage on so small
a
> group?
>
>
>
> ==== PACE Mailing List ====
> Check out the Pace GenConnect Boards where you can post or peruse Pace
Bibles, Obits, Bios, Deeds, Wills, Queries, etc. Bookmark this URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com
>

This thread: