PACE-L Archives

Archiver > PACE > 2007-02 > 1171412095


From: "Roy Johnson" <>
Subject: Re: [PACE] Frederick of Wales
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:14:55 -0600
In-Reply-To: <000601c74fb1$e1925da0$2e3ed7d1@DFZHXS21>


Good suggestions all! I need to do another rewrite and cite these sources,
maybe in a link.

I have never been a proponent of "Proven" or "Not Proven" as identifiers of
the level of evidence. To me it is a sliding scale, from speculation to
near certainty. Rarely can we consider something proven "beyond a shadow of
a doubt" they don't do that even in court--it's "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Scientists use three categories:

Hypothesis: An "educated guess" based on very few known facts. Example: My
mother told me we were descended from Richard Pace of Jamestown. That's
enough for a hypothesis. (It was wrong.)

Theory: Having a condiderable body of evidence behind it but not enough to
say "proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

Fact: Proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even a theory can be a weak or strong theory, depending on how much evidence
there is.

I believe this is beyond hypothesis, in the area of theory, and even then,
to me a pretty strong theory, given that the one piece of primary evidence
(the Bible) and all of the secondary sources agree. We could even add in
that William named a son Frederick--not much, but an additional straw added
to the total.

For me, on a scale of one to ten, one being speculation and 10 being fact, I
would give it probably a 7. But the best way is probably to present the
evidence and let folks judge for themselves.

Maybe I can make another revision tomorrow. Thanks for all of the
suggestions.

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of MAC
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:59 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [PACE] Frederick of Wales


----- 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


-------------------------------
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: