William the Conqueror, King of England - Hunting William the Conqueror's DNA

Started by Justin Swanström on Monday, July 22, 2013

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 121-150 of 255 posts
Private User
7/28/2013 at 5:04 PM

Justin most of what you wrote is over my head but I think the gist is exactly the same as I thought it to be unless I'm phrasing it wrong, which is most likely. I try, I'm so sorry if what I say it any misleading fashion.

1) Samuel Rice's descendant's DNA shares enough characteristics with Edmund Rice descendants to suggest there is a common ancestor at some point in the past.

2) However they differ enough to believe they do not share common paternity with Edmund Rice.

3) As Samuel Rice is not listed in records as a son of John Rice b 1624 the way to prove he is is to compare DNA with descendants of the recorded son of John Rice, John Rice, ll. However a descendant has not yet been located, and Dale had previously indicated this was a minor question (I agree with him on this).

4) I do not see descendants of Richard Rice of Concord in the project.

7/28/2013 at 5:04 PM

Again Erica,

If the Dedham Compact was incrementally signed 1636 - 1652, then that answers most of my objections (as I said). In that case, John Rice almost certainly signed the Compact at the same time as the other men who were admitted on the same date. And, that means his 1649 marriage is the best surviving evidence about his age. If he is thought to have been 23 in 1649, then the chronology is flawless.

It sounds like there is some question about whether there is a record that a John Rice took the oath in 1642 at Framingham. No matter. John Rice of Dedham would have been only 16 in 1642, the earliest age at which is would be possible that he took an oath. I don't see that anything would be gained by finding that he was earlier at Framingham, since many settlers at Dedham were earlier (or later) at Framingham anyway.

I would be very cautious theorizing that John Rice came from Dedham in Essex. Even if a core group of early settlers came from Essex (1636) we're seeing John Rice not documented there until 1649.

I have ancestors in Dedham, Mass. who came from elsewhere in England, and ancestors from Dedham in Essex who settled elsewhere in New England. One of them, Thomas Bayes, was a Selectman at Dedham in 1636. Geni shows him born in Dedham, Essex, but he is thought to have been born in Hampshire.

Of course, there are apparently theories that would connect John Rice to other Rice families, and it might be that one of those theories leads to Essex, and having been led to Essex the connection between the two Dedhams seems stronger -- but it's important to remember all along the way that theories are only possibilities.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 5:15 PM

Cross posting -

1) Yes, the chronology for John Rice fits fine and the Geni profile has always been accurate it seems, with what's been known.

2) Yes, townsmen signed in batches in Dedham. I believe that's also true of other "townsmen" in other towns.

3) Yes, there was an Oath of Fidelity at Framingham (different wording from the more radical (?) at Dedham, I believe). It's easy to write a date down wrong, but it wasn't hard for me to find a book referencing it. The Oath was 1646, and Henry Rice was a signer, the only Rice. At a later signing Edward Rice signed, no John.

4) the only John Rice I've seen reference to in early Massachusetts is John Rice of Dedham & his son John Rice ll.

5) i have no idea where he came from in England. If it were my ancestor though I'd start looking with the town of Dedham in Essex on the Suffolk border.

7/28/2013 at 5:18 PM

Okay, back to genetics for a minute.

My apologies, Erica, if you think I'm arguing with you because I think you're arguing with me ;)

Everything you said in your last message above is absolutely correct.

The only point where I'll disagree, and it is a very strong disagreement, is our different opinions about finding and testing a descendant of John Rice's son John. Without that triangulation, the idea that Samuel was a son of John Sr. seems to me to be the most common newbie mistake in colonial genealogy -- Oh, they had the same name and they lived in the same town so they must be father and son.

It's only my personal opinion, but I've seen so many of these leaps of faith proven wrong by DNA testing that I've become an evangelist for taking the time to test.

Just hypothetically, what if a descendant of John Jr. were tested and turned out not to match either Samuel or Edmund? Or turned out to match Edmund exactly? The whole landscape of the question would be changed.

It's my habit to confront and neutralize any potential conflicts as soon as possible. I don't want to have even the smallest risk that I might waste years of research because I didn't deal with the big questions first.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 5:28 PM

I had raised the Samuel Rice record question to Dale a while back, there's also an unrecorded daughter or two, it seems a little odd when Dedham records seem pretty good. But the dates work fine also, maybe there are John Rice property transfers & probate records. I developed a good case for one of his daughters being assigned the wrong husband based on property transfers many years later.

Im just trying to help, these records are hard to read and interpret, and there's a lot of bad info in trees, and I curate the John Rice profile.

7/28/2013 at 5:44 PM

Dale,

I'll add my voice to Erica's on the question of "why it couldn't be a story for a different ancestor?" My personal experience is that family stories more than a few generations back are commonly attached to the wrong ancestor. That's one of the reasons genealogy newbies have so much grief.

Casting around for a nice simple story from my own background --

One of our family traditions is that ancestor James Howery was a fur trapper in the Rocky Mountains in the 1830s. I worked sooo hard to prove or disprove that. Frustratingly, none of our distant Howery cousins had the same tradition. I was beginning to think my dad invented the story.

Eventually, like Erica, I gave up on the surname search. And, bam! Almost right away I discovered that the tradition was originally attached to ancestor Asahel Lomax. The cousins on his side all knew the tradition (and many had embroidered it in different ways).

The only reason I didn't find it sooner was that I wasn't working on that line and didn't press anyone for info on it. The confusion was all caused by simple confusion about who someone meant when they said "Grandpa was a fur trapper".

7/28/2013 at 7:56 PM

Most excellent reasoning all around! I heartily applaud your investigative skill, of which I am only beginning to Appreciate::::) If you Will allow, My presumed ancestor John Rice & Ann Hackly had only four surviving children that I've come across thus far: Samuel, Mary, John Rice, Rachael Rice....Im not doubting the I1 Haplogroup for Samuel and therefore for John 1624....I fully expect that to be validated.....I wouldn't know who to look for if it isn't a RICE.....? How do I let go of My only connection to Perrott and the Laundress story of the Princess Mary TUDOR....none of which I had a clue about before 2 years ago....simply did not know of it.....I am where I am thus far following your keen sense of logic and Historical awareness of the PURITANS....all of that makes perfect sense.....including why EDMUND would resist the sin on his life represented by the Cuckhold Child of East Anglia....Being John RICE born exactly in the time span when Thomasine Frost was not having EDMUNDS child....My father's story thus comports with History and that was virtually unknown to me in January....The story as we are contributing to it ARISES out of the MIST of Time to break through our self imposed logjam of unknown Paternity's....WE don't know who EDMUNDS father is but we have uncovered enough DNA linkage to see that the person in question lived after 1200 and 1593 along the RICE/ ap RHYS or Frost Path....Which incidentally includes the Margaret BAKER story....My story is thus far proved reliable and Im sticking with I1 Haplogroup no matter where it leads....And Im pretty clear that the Perrott story previously untold because of INSIDER information is going to cause a great deal of RE THINK.....Break throughs are born on the back of tedious reading and research which is all my life has consisted of since October 2012....and for the forseeable future I have so much to digest....I am eternally gratefull.....I don't know what name I would look for however since I am a RICE and THE RICE's who Married into the King lineage is of EDMUND RICE DNA so cannot be mine if I've understood your many cogent comments....The Eastword movement of John toward his eventual Wife and Father in Law makes perfect human sense to me, especially when you consider that arranged marriages within the Puritan community was like unto the gentry class in ole ENGLAND for quite differnt reasons! That is reasonable is it not? Edmund and Hackley had dealings, and made the match after Tamzin's son arrives due to Captain John RICE's sudden arrival with 16 year old in tow? Why not my story? Why do you imagine a stranger Rice 1636? Of the two stories mine is FAR, FAR more compelling and logical.....We just need the book and page number for 1642 Framingham Oath.....Then we can move forward on all sides....If it's there, he's Tamzin's son and if it's not then we have a different time frame for his first Oath swearing to 1650. REMEMBERING his I1 Haplogroup and Y DNA comports with other TUDOR men of Wales....Royal Recognised or NOT, we have data that supports full WELSH blood as the Story of John Rice II of RICKERSON & Katherine Perrot fully demostrait....YES? DCR 1948

7/28/2013 at 8:31 PM

My Mother's Chalfant lineage goes back to the Beacleaux seat 40 miles north of London whence the Lyon's of the Queen Mother Elizabeth is descended.....The Rudimentary story my mother told me about before her passing at age 96 in 2006 was the That the Emund Mortimer figure Duke of March was father to the Nevils who are the mother of Woodvill, Elizabeth and Edward IV and the RICHARD III debacle....None of which we would have known but for the internet and conversations here. The story I was given by Samuel Rice my father"
You are descended from Royalty, and connect to every crown in Europe"....THE STORY only comports with the laundress of the FIELD of CLOTH of Gold and William Henry 1521. That's the only scenerio that can possible cover the statement.....That's why I cannot let go of it.....nothing else makes logical sense....and thus far the STORY is proved by recorded Historical doccumentation, that I've followed....Thus I have no way to let go of the 3 fact that led me to John RICE 1624 as the son of TAMZIN and PERROTT1600. How do I represent this as other than it was given to me? I cannot! I don't have the breadth of historical knowledge to CONJUR a more startling and RADICAL than what I have presented....I say we have a spectre at work among all that want's the story known, it's 500 years after the fact more or less and the players are long, long gone....I simply must keep reading and pushing/ and proding if you will......DCR 1948

7/28/2013 at 8:59 PM

Dale,

I think one of the important details here is that the Rices probably don't come from both Wales and East Anglia (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex). There are many unrelated Welsh families who have the surname Rice (more usually Price, both from ap Rhys), and there are unrelated East Anglian families who have the surname Rice from a different source.

Colonial Massachusetts was overwhelmingly settled by Puritans, and most of those (some 60% were from East Anglia). However, Wales and the English counties adjoining it were an important secondary source of immigrants. When immigrants are known to have come from Wales, there is usually an East Anglian connection -- a minister from East Anglia who served a Welsh parish, for example.

It's Erica's argument (I think) that John Rice in Dedham almost certainly came from East Anglia, and you should look for his parents there. I have quibbles with her over this and that, but I don't disagree that if this were my research project that's exactly where I would look.

However, John was not among the earliest residents of Dedham, so I can see the argument that he might have been Welsh.

Reading about Perrott ap Rhys, you can see how overwhelmingly the family and its estates were concentrated in Wales and the southwestern counties of England. A few relatives in London, but no one up in East Anglia. Of course not, aristocratic society of the time was heavily focused on their rural lands even when members lived in London. They made their fortunes in London, then returned home if they could. If they were younger sons they bought estates elsewhere, but with the Perrott ap Rhys family I see no evidence that anyone bolted for East Anglia. Perhaps you have other evidence?

One of the things that strikes me about the narrative you've gathered together so far is that it incorporates each apparently conflicting piece of information into the story. For example, the Rices end up in both East Anglia and Wales, however unlikely that might be. You are trying to link to both Edmund Rice from Suffolk and still keep Perrott ap Rhys in Carmarthen (Wales). In fact, the truth is much more like to be either / or.

The DNA so far suggests that the connection to Edmund Rice is reasonably close, which matches Erica's theory of an East Anglian origin.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 9:03 PM

Dedham MA was particularly studied, did you know that?

http://www.amazon.com/New-England-Town-Massachusetts-1636-1736/dp/0...

I feel Im just repeating myself, Dale. I do not doubt the story, I do not doubt Plantagenet ancestry, I hope you find the connection.

But you are asking me to accept that a pious, god fearing Puritan mother of 8 would have an affair with a welsh baron and pass off that child, do you really think that was the character of Tamzin Rice?

Private User
7/28/2013 at 9:16 PM

Justin if you read a little further into Dedham Vital records you will see a quite striking amendment to their original Covenant, it is dated 1658 if I remember correctly.

They voted to allow a NOT Puritan family to settle in the town. (the beginning of the end of utopia ...) (joking!)

That says, of course, that everyone PRIOR to this amendment WAS Puritan.

Now not everyone in Colonial Massachusetts or even in Dedham was from East Anglia of course. But it does say that every "townsman" of Dedham was known.

My working theory is that he arrived from England around 1644 at age 20 or so, went to Dedham because he had a connection (he is not recorded in any other town), that connection is from England, because Dedham MA was a theocracy possibly a church congregation connection, so those are the names to look for congruence with. I do not know what church records, (congregation lists) if any, are extant from either location, but that should be easy enough for a family researcher to ascertain.

If anyone runs across Richard Rice the help would be much appreciated, i know next to nothing.

7/28/2013 at 9:42 PM

Dale,

One thing you said somewhere is this rambling discussion (which is spread out over half a dozen threads, I think), is that Perrott ap Rhys received a grant of arms from Queen Mary Tudor. Is that right?

That gave me pause. Saying that a coat of arms was granted by a monarch is a convenient shorthand, but in fact English arms were granted by the heraldic officers of the Crown under authority from the crown.

The Welsh were also notoriously resistant to English heraldic control. The Welsh have their own heraldic tradition. Almost the entire northern Welsh gentry belong to one of the 15 "noble tribes", so they just use the arms of their lineage and don't "demean" themselves by letting the English tell them they can't.

A Welshman of this time who received a new grant of arms would have had to be any absolute nobody with no link, however spurious, to any ancient family. It's hard to imagine a Welsh man of this generation admitting such a thing, even if it were true.

This is also a period in England when "new" families were acquiring arms for the first time. A little bribe here or there, and the heralds were willing to pretend that the arms were ancient, or to fudge a pedigree here or there.

So, the idea that Perrott ap Rhys would have received a grant of arms is a can of worms. Not that he didn't, but we need to see what that really means. I think it is likely that this is a misunderstanding and that the essential idea is that Perrott ap Rhys appeared at one of the English heraldic visitations in Wales and had his ancient arms confirmed by authorities.

I haven't followed up on any of this, but I did come across a website that says Perrott ap Rhys belonged to the tribe of Einion ap Llywarch.

http://histfam.familysearch.org/getperson.php?personID=I63507&t...

From this source, it does indeed seem that Perrott ap Rhys appeared at a visitation, and that the arms confirmed to him show that he claimed membership in the tribe of Einion ap Llywarch.

What is significant is that this is a different tribe than the Tudors, who claimed descent from Marchudd ap Cynan. If this data comes from the visitations, then Perrott ap Rhys specifically swore under oath that he was a paternal descendant of a different family than the Tudors, and was able to produce evidence to prove it.

If so, this shows almost beyond doubt that Perrott was not himself a Tudor. Welsh law treated illegitimate children very leniently, so if Perrott was a Tudor we would see it in the visitation, even if the details were obscured for political reasons. Furthermore, the local gentry would have set up a huge outcry of fraud if he tried to pass himself off as a member of another family. The inheritance of land was connected to membership in these tribes, so claiming the arms would have been tantamount to a claim that he should have a share of his neighbors' lands.

Now, perhaps you are not saying that Perrott ap Rhys was himself a Tudor. If so, I've misunderstood. My grandmother used to say that no one ever tells you anything until you're wrong -- and then to show you're wrong, they'll tell you everything ;)

Private User
7/28/2013 at 9:46 PM

Dale you are saying there is a time frame when Edmund Rice was not with Tamzin / there is a gap in recorded children. I'm not sure I know what you mean by the 1st, but the 2nd is easy. She may have had children during the gap, but they are not recorded in extant or available records in England, and / or they did not survive to adulthood. In this day & age we don't think as much about the losses in infancy.

7/28/2013 at 9:57 PM

No arguments, Erica, except to say that many Welsh were also Puritan. I have ancestors in Dedham. I've read some of the studies, but not with any particular to detail. I also have Welsh Puritan ancestors, also settled in Mass. I see the old immigrants traipsing from town to town, and my overall view is that people settled in an area, then if they didn't quite fit in or the opportunities weren't good enough they found a better place.

My ancestor Thomas Bayes was one of the Selectmen 1636 at Dedham. He didn't like it, apparently. In 1643 he was convicted of "mutinous and turbulent speech". He moved on. Went to Martha's Vineyard, submitted to the Mayhew government, but nevertheless participated in the Dutch Rebellion there.

For so many of these families, it's just chance whether we have an earlier record in another town.

I can easily agree that John Rice was a Puritan, and that he came to Dedham about 1644. Did he come directly? I don't think there's any way to know, at least not until someone finds evidence of his origin. Then, his origin will cast light on his life just before Dedham.

For all we know at this point John Rice could have been a convicted pickpocket from London, deported to Mass., and sold to someone in Dedham who hoped to redeem his immortal soul.

For me, all options are open ... until they're not.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 10:16 PM

Well it's Dale's ancestor, after all, so his scenarios to develop. I'm just a beginner at this too.

7/28/2013 at 10:35 PM
7/28/2013 at 10:48 PM

This sources describes the ancestry of Perrott ap Rhys in part as follows:

"About 1490, Alice [Martin] married David ap Rhys, a natural son of the
illustrious Sir Rhys ap Thomas, K.G., of Dynevor, by a daughter of
Gwilym ap Harry ap Gwilym Fychan, a landowner of Court Henry in
Llangathen, Carmarthenshire. On his father's side Sir Rhys came from
distinguished lineage tracing to the British prince Urien Rheged, and
through his mother descended from the same stock as the Tudor
dynasty. Henry VII owed much of his fortune at Bosworth to the
partisanship of Sir Rhys whom he loaded with honours and appoint-
ments, while his son, Henry VIII continued to extend friendship and
favour to "good father Rhys" as he termed him. Owing to his en-
thusiasm for unconventional dalliance, Sir Rhys became father of a
considerable number of natural children most of whom found no
difficulty in marrying aristocratic wives and founding families of their
own. Among these was David ap Rhys."

http://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000020932107629

This article then goes on for many pages giving the descendants, including Perrott.

7/28/2013 at 11:16 PM

Dale,

With respect, your parents' stories don't seem very sensational or very specific. And, I disagree with you that the particular story is the only one that comports with the tradition.

Your mother's story: "The Rudimentary story my mother told me about before her passing at age 96 in 2006 was the That the Emund Mortimer figure Duke of March was father to the Nevils who are the mother of Woodvill, Elizabeth and Edward IV and the RICHARD III debacle".

Half the users on Geni could say the same. I am not at all remarkable in having six descents from colonial immigrants with ironclad descents from the Yorkist and Lancastrian branches of the Plantagenets, including some from the Mortimers and Nevilles. I have another six or dozen that are more doubtful, but still possible. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of people in Europe and America with the same lines. Edward III has rightly been called the "Father of the Middle Class Englishman".

And your father's story: "The story I was given by Samuel Rice my father'
You are descended from Royalty, and connect to every crown in Europe'".

Same thing. Most of us can say that. We're just not as special as we think we are. If you're descended from one king or prince, however far back, you're descended from every royal family in Europe and you're related to every modern royal.

I often think it would be fun if people started posting, "I'm not descended from Edward III, and I know all my ancestors back to the 1300s so I can prove it".

;)

7/29/2013 at 12:31 AM

Okay, for the 5th time on GENI: William ap Rice son of Jonnet ap Rice daughter of AlswynMartin ap Rhys and Daffid ap Rice son of Sir Rhys ap Thomas and Jonnet Mathews.....gave birth to a son in March or Early April 1521..She is known collectively as the BEATRICE figure.......That person William was married twice: first to Eliz. Latimer = John Rice II and Katherine Perrot =Thomas 1570 and Perrott 1600. If the story my father told me about Tamzin is true....John Rice 1624 is Perrott's Son by Tamzin....AND PERHAPS RAPE is unheard of back then but it takes about 3 minutes to occur....so how and where they got together is not my problem it's yours. Capishe..."IT CAUSED A HUGE FAMILY ROW among the Rice's....That's all I can tell you....so if you can prove it ain't so....show me! Im willing to go there.....thus far have damnation by "It's not logical, isnt' in the vicinity.....Perrott was a scoundrel of sorts....How can I get inside his mind? You are presuming way too much....and I don't have the information yet, but rest assured I'll find the evidence....it's all proved out so far....
My mother repeated what she knew and that was 8th hand....no suprise, but it was never ever discussed with we kids....it's only at the end of her life and she was remarried by then for 30 years that it even came up....so I regard that as deathbed testimony....and no I will not disregard it! It's just a tiney sliver what's here, and it's real....
I conceed Im likely I1 and therefore If John Rice 1624 is Samuel's Son then he's also I1....The Chips fall where they may....it traces back by historical doccumentation back to the Laundress and the FIElD of the Cloth of gold 1520 with all the prime players in recorded history.....so you see it's not me having the problem adjusting to the realities prompted by historical investigation.....Im following the leads you have provided ....Today we don't have to prove anything but that John RICE is my ancestor and we have the test in hand to do that....and the only person in HISTORY that has a Laundress in the middle of it with the PEDIGREE I have described is Henry VII or HENRY VIII which inform the STEWART LINES and therefore the other descendent lines branching out to the monarch's of EUROPE. So kindly back up and imagine that Im Right and you are wrong....now what say you? DCR

7/29/2013 at 12:36 AM

That should READ SAmuel Rice is John's SON above....then John and Perrott are I1....well suprise suprise, we have I1 on the coast of TENBY and Pembrokshire....It's your leads that brought me to the conclusion....that means back up the line the most improbable of all is that HENRY VIII and HENRY VII and EDMUND and OWEN TUDOR are all I1.....that would be of interest yes? DCR 1948

7/29/2013 at 12:54 AM

NO! The only grant of a coat of ARMS was to WILLIamHenry ap Rice 1521 of the houshold of PRincess Mary proved by her household accoutns...the Title and Arms were granted by the powers that be with the QUEENS own insgnia on it, HELLO?? The pomegranite belonged to her Mother katherine of ARAGAN whichi CODE for you are my !/2 brother, you and I know it but it's our secret.....the KING of ENGLAND never knew because Jonnet ap Rhys Jenkins was a nobody....lalundress and some sort of bargain wast struck no doubt....Lands and offices were granted to Beatrice and Daffid ap RICe along with William....1521...that's why the family was able to live the comfortable life they did after Queen Mary died....This is all on line data, I have seen it all and recorded it because of the necessity of proving it to a skeptical world.....I can only point out the obvious....ya'll are the experts and Im not giving an inch....because you led me to these conclusions....one and all.....Last January all I had was the Princess mary Houshold accounts which prove she paid Williams way in life and rewarded him during the Assention crisis....Yes she did....so you can say Perrott is not related to Henry Tudor, why then did she lend her mother's Pomegrainte to William on his coat of arms May 2, 1555? It's a wink and nod to her secret 1/2 brother is my positon....The Coat of arms are listed in Marble at the Curch of Mary the Vergin in TENBY WAles where I will photograph each one .....and will pay close attention to WILLIAM ap RIce 1521 who is listed on the tomb! Which belonges to Thoams ap Rice 1570 wife Margaret Mercer who died in the childbirth....how now does a poor person afford 12 ft long x 8ft high carved mable relief sarcofigus with all the famlies, all the children listed back to William 1521? That's at least 200 lbs sterling back then or about $350,000 in today's money.....fyi DCR 1948

Private User
7/29/2013 at 2:01 AM

I am no doubt going to make mistakes here because I'm not clear on timelines for the Perrot story, but it seems there might be something simple.

Perrot had known sons? Trace those lines, find living descendants, compare DNA.

Private User
7/29/2013 at 2:54 AM

I guess the other thing I am not following is why the Tamzin in the story has any relationship at all with Tamzin Frost, wife of Edmund Rice. There is more than one Tamzin in the world, just as there is more than one Rice.

You are so extremely fortunate to be able to trace back to a 1st arriver to Massachusetts, most of us never get anywhere close. I am sure if you let go of some forced points the story will develop more logically & organically.

Private User
7/29/2013 at 4:38 AM

Erica, I though you , like me were back to the beginning of Mass. and Maine.Of course in my case I am also back to the beginnings of Frencg Canada.A lot of us can trace back that far. Frost was in both places as well as N.H. Now I don't know about Tamzin. What town again is that that you all have been talking about.Dedham. maybe I can try poking around a little. I will have to back and decect everything everyone has said.The story is very intersting. I like a good hunt. Maybe I can help and maybe not. Afterall you people so far more educated then I but maybe a fresh eye..I think there is a small burial gounds up in New Castle( Portsmouth area) of N,H. It's a big name up there. A lot of families were moving back and forth from N.H. to Mass. Mine did a lot of that.

7/29/2013 at 8:32 AM

Help me out here, Dale. My mind is reeling.

I have no problem with your theory that John Rice of Dedham was an illegitimate son of Perrott ap Rice. It hasn't been proven but, as Erica says, Perrott had other sons. Easy enough to find those descendants, test them, and compare their DNA to your line. It won't prove the story, but it would make it more credible, and give you a firm foundation to show that John Rice did not come from East Anglia.

Where I start balking is your account of "the Beatrice figure". William ap Rice was the son of David ap Rice and Alice (or Alson) Martin, the heiress of the Martins of Rickeston manor. She later married Thomas Bateman of Honeyborough.

In your story, if I'm understanding correctly, Alice Martin the wealthy heiress becomes a shadowy "Beatrice", a washer-woman impregnated by Henry VIII at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Is that what you're saying?

David ap Rice who married the Martin heiress was an illegitimate son of the famous Sir Rhys ap Thomas, a Tudor cousin highly regarded by them. Sir Rhys was even a Garter knight, probably the most prestigious honor the English kings can bestow. But that's not Perrott's Tudor connection??

I refer you again to the article linked above.

http://welshjournals.llgc.org.uk/browse/viewpage/llgc-id:1041698/ll...

"Rickeston and Scotsborough: A Study in Family History" by Major Francis Jones, a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries and Wales Herald Extraordinary (1966).

Francis Jones could be wrong about the details, of course. He might have been missing some information. But, the fact that he was an FSA means he was an eminent scholar. The fact that he was Wales Herald Extraordinary means that he was an officer of the Crown, part of the English College of Arms, a professional genealogist with specialized knowledge of coats of arms and noble genealogies.

The line as it appears on Geni does not match the known facts, which might be contributing in some part to the confusion. Geni does not properly identify Alice Martin. And, it shows her son William as born 1500 instead of the 1521 necessary for your chronology. It shows "Beatrice" born about 1470, which seems to be accurate for Alice Martin (who married David ap Rice about 1490), but in your chronology that would make her 51 when William was born -- rather an aged washer woman, and perhaps not quite as comely in 1520 as she once was.

Another problem is that you have taken the historic William ap Rice and given him the additional name Henry. This would be a remarkable historic find, because the English and Welsh of this time did not yet use two given names. The practice began, haltingly, later, in Elizabethan times. I do seem to remember that there is one instance this early, or maybe almost this early, but it was litigated through the ecclesiastical courts and determined to be not allowed.

I suspect you might be adding the name Henry so you can identify him with a different man. I suspect a Henry Rice who received some kind of pomegranate arms from Queen Mary.

I'd be interested in the details of this award by Queen Mary, but I think you might be over reading the evidence. It is an old heraldic practice for kings to grant some part of their arms or one of their badges as a heraldic augmentation to people they wanted to particularly honor. Rarely does it mean there was a blood relationship. The Spanish kings granted a pomegranate augmentation to men who particularly helped with the conquest of Granada. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that Mary would use it to honor men who helped in a similar "crusade" against the Protestants.

Lots of confusion to clear up.

Private User
7/29/2013 at 9:00 AM

Erica, a lot pritain women and men including ministers had affairs.They were not as goody goody as we all think. They often got in troublr for this behavor.Told not to leave town and to wear a n a or whatever asround their necks and if they did leave they;]'d be branded for all to see. Then there were the ones who were kicked out or head off into wilderiness with there forgiving spouce and children , where they could start over .These things happened! Happened a lot more then one would think.By the way William the Conqueror wasn't Plantegnet. it was his son henry's daughter who married into the Plantagenets.Hence making the next line Henry the 2nd father of Richarf the lion Hearted and John Lackland by Eleanor ,and all his ill. children including William Longspree, part of the Plantagenet family group.

7/29/2013 at 12:31 PM

You missed the BEATRICE FIGURE was determeined not to be Alswyn or Beatrice GARDINER Rice but the DAUGHTER of Alswyn and DAFFID ap RICE JONNET ap Rhys /Jenkins: born about 1498 or 1500....MS. Jenkins is the likely Beatrice figure...she is the right age and the child she bore is the William ap Rhys 1521 figure....These people are obfuscating the the true nature of William Henry....recognised by Queen Mary as her blood....that's the CRUX it's never even been known before this discussion because it was insider infor that by deduction Kris Stewart identified that Alswyn would be too old.....it's her DAUGHTER: The JOnnet figure named for the Paternal GRANDMOTHER JOnnett Mathews! That's what I think happened at this point....Remember I don't know who what where when or how.....I just have the occupation and now the pedigree to explain the statement....DCR 1948

7/29/2013 at 12:50 PM

The Name Henry or Harry is used to describe William in the text of the Houshold accounts of Princess Mary Tudor....thus I dubbed the Person William Henry/Harry ap Rice 1521....the William Rice 1522 is likely the same person mis placed into the family of Griffeth ap Rice and his 14 year old bride Katherine Howard Aunt to the two beheaded Queens of Henry VIII.
The Burks Peerage states flatley there is no one named William or Mary Rice in the Estate of Katherin Howard, Lady Bridgwater....There is a Mary Born 1530 to Jonnet ap Rice/Jenkins and her elder brother William 1521, and stated eary on in the discussion were WRONGLY assigned to Griffeth and Catherin Howard-RICE by some visitation or other.....The William ap RIce figure is the same one as in the HOUSEHOLD ACCOUNTS of Princess Mary Tudor and she was only8 or 9 when he was born....so quite natrually he became part of the Houshold structure...you can read about it if you like. Just Google Household accnts of Princess Mary Tudor....August 1638 is the last entry I found for William's Education and Table EXPENSES fyi. DCR 1948

7/29/2013 at 1:03 PM

Lastly: The son's of Perrott are interesting in that they comport with the James RIVER trading post Captain John RICE near OTTER Lake in the Wilderness of Virginia 1645. There is a Thomas born 1635 who is brought over by RICE HUGES address ????? that comports with the Trading post....and in 1675 or there abouts a John Rice was found naked and straved by persons who arrived at the TRADING POST....IS that John Rice my Perrott? Trader John is listed as 1615-1688....I think he was the long lived Perrott ap Rice 1600-1688, using his dead Cavillier Brother's name all these years to cover his tracks in AMERICA....The figure John Rice Hughes arrived in a Merchant Ship and sold it to establish the TRADING POST and that's why IM interested to see if the POLANDS are blood relatives of known descendants of Nicketti and Trader HUGHES>>>This is a Huge story, and right now Im concentaiting on the European/English protion 1400-1645 which includes our very special John Rice 1624 born in obscurity and intentionally clouded Paternaty for A REASON....That's my journey and knowing more of Perrott's kids is useful, and they are listed as children of Margaret Middleton Perrott's wife... who died incidentally 1710 just in time for Thoams Rice of VIRGINIA with 12 children by MARCY ANNE HUGHES to return to ENGLAND to settle his mother's estate.....????These are all avenues to pursue but so far this is a little like herding cats....please forgive my metaphore....DCR 1948

Private User
7/29/2013 at 1:09 PM

Private User

Of course your points are correct.

Dale is tracking the English ancestry of John Rice, of Dedham

He suggests that Thomasine Rice (Frost) the wife of the rather prominent & documented Edmund Rice could be his mother - born in England, by a man other than her husband.

I'm thinking that there is no particular reason to think this.

Showing 121-150 of 255 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion