PACE-L Archives

Archiver > PACE > 2007-02 > 1171400356


From: "MAC" <>
Subject: Re: [PACE] Frederick of Wales
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:59:16 -0600
References: <BAY124-W43FEF9FECEA76996A961DCAB900@phx.gbl>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Janders 45" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [PACE] Frederick of Wales
>
> I would like to hear comments from the many who are more competent genealogists than I am about what constitutes documentary evidence versus what is merely family legend. . . >

I wouldn't claim "more competent", but I have been researching my family for almost fifty years:

> 1. The Dempsey Pace bible . . . states that his parents were Frederick and Elizabeth Pace. This is the Dempsey Pace who died in Clarke Co, AL, in 1864. I am willing to believe that he knew who his parents were.

To quote Elizabeth Shown Mills from her book, EVIDENCE, the most reliable informants are those who have firsthand knowledge.
And Timeliness adds to the document's credibility. In the case of Dempsey Pace's Bible, he should have known who his parents were and the names and birthdates of his children (assuming the records were recorded at the time or soon after each birth). It's hard to prove "timeliness", but can be disproven if the Bible's Title Page, for instance, showed it was not published until many years after the children's births. This is the best evidence we have for "Frederick Pace" and I see no reason to doubt the Bible record at this point.
>
> 2. The biography of William Pace published in 1889 in "Biographical and Historical Memoirs of South Arkansas" . . . I am willing to believe that he heard his father tell the story of his grandfather, where he was from, and when he came to North America.

This evidence is a bit less reliable than the Bible in that William was two generations removed from Frederick of Wales, was about 80 years old when this info was given and quite possibly had some memory loss. This falls into the "family legend" category and appears to be the earliest mention of Frederick "of Wales". It may or may not be completely factual, but should not be simply rejected.
>
> 3. The biography of Dr. J.M. Pace (son of the above William) published in 1892 . . . tells essentially the same story . . .

This evidence gets a little dicey because J.M. Pace is yet another generation removed from the elusive Frederick of Wales and as the son of the above William, may be simply repeating his father. Had he had a different father, his story would have been more acceptable. And not too many people really know the names and birthdates of their grandparents and great-uncles. Maybe he had this stuff written down and referred to his notes. Please notice that the date of birth of Dempsey apparently differs between his statement and that of Dempsey's Bible record, however. As with his father's story, efforts should be made to confirm or disprove his statements.
>
> 4. The Rev. Timothy H. Ball, minister, educator, and amateur historian, in his "A Glance into the Great Southeast, or Clarke County Alabama, and its Surroundings from 1650-1882">

I'm really not that familiar with The Rev. Ball, though I have read portions of his book. The value of his info would vary among the people he interviewed as well as his own veracity and skill. I think his statements would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.


> I would like to hear the opinions of others as to what constitutes valid genealogical evidence and what weight we should give the above sources.

All the above would constitute "genealogical evidence", but all genealogical evidence is subject to change. (Remember the adage that the only thing a will proves is that the maker believed those kids were his.) I personally would place the value of your evidence in the order you showed, tentatively accept (but not embrace) it and continue searching to try to prove or disprove the statements.

M.A. Causey


This thread: