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 241-270 of 443 posts
8/1/2013 at 3:09 PM

Dale. I think conflated is the right word. Confused would be another. So far, it looks to me like these are different families. Genealogists have grabbed one, then grabbed another, then come up with idea that they must be the same family even though there's no evidence. Not every William Rice is related to every other William Rice.

If you think there's a missing Tudor prince to be found, then you've already misjudged the way to research a question like this. A missing prince might emerge from the evidence, but not from smashing all the families together into a single family and insisting that he's one of them.

If you're looking for a Tudor prince? What's wrong with John Perrot? He fits the bill. He's probably related to the family of Perrott Rice. The only problem is that his mother was a baroness, not a laundress.

Another thing to remember when you look at something is that these people were not just modern people dressed in funny clothes. Their society was very different from ours, and they were extraordinarily more class conscious. You see great nobles with grand titles like Chief Butler and Earl Marshall, and imagine that ever butler was some kind of noble. Not so.

The laundresses at Greenwich Palace were peasant women, who had to work for a pittance. To the extent that they had a chief, he or she would have been under the supervision of a many times sub steward. There was no great and honorable post as Great Supervisor of the King's Laundry, occupied by a genteel woman. No, not at all. Even if there had been, it would have been a man's post, not a woman's. And, that man would have been so far down the totem pole that he never would have been able to marry into the gentry.

When Henry VIII's father wanted to humiliate the pretender Perkin Warbeck, he put him to work in the scullery. Even if the poor had been royal, that effectively put an end to any aspirations. Not just because he was defeated and captured, but because it placed him so far down the social scale the he could never get back up.

You're looking for the laundress' family among the gentry. That is never going to work. As the Paston Letters make clear, a manorial family would never tolerate a daughter marrying out of her class, not even to a prosperous steward. The Paston daughter who defied them was cut off from her family and her inheritance. She was, quite simply, dead to them.

It's not beyond reason that Henry VIII had a night of passion with a laundress, although more likely 10 minutes. Maybe the laundress went to her grave swearing it was the king's son, but given the sluttish reputation of laundresses, it's unlikely anyone but her mother would have believed her. And, you can bet that if she noised that around the palace, she would have been whipped and fired for spreading such lies. No manors or royal preferments for her son, no secret deals, or doting royal half sisters.

8/1/2013 at 8:24 PM

Dale,

Here's the deal. You are looking for a secret Tudor prince who has a connection to the Rice family.

You don't like John Perrot because he wasn't a Rice. You thought it might be Perrot ap Rice, but that didn't pan out, so now you're looking at other Rice families. Now you're on to William Rice 1521.

What you're not seeing is one very basic fact -- you're not going to find a laundress married to a gentleman, with a royal child. Alice Martin wasn't a laundress. She was heiress of a manor. Beatrice Gardiner wasn't a laundress. She was the king's cousin. In Tudor times you'd have been whipped for spreading a slander that a woman of their class was a laundress.

These aren't two different Rice families with two different stations in life. They were two different Rice families with the same station in life. One family had court connections, the other apparently didn't, but they were both gentry.

If your family story requires a laundress, then you are looking for a man surnamed Rice whose mother is hidden from history. If her name is known at all, then she has no background. Her parents are unknown. They weren't gentry. They did not have even a single manor. They had no connections at court. They had no land at all, unless perhaps they were cottars with an acre or two.

I think you are missing one very key element to society at this period -- parents simply did not let their children marry out of their class, and they certainly didn't let them marry anyone who could not support a family.

You are thinking of modern corporate execs who can marry a stripper, with only giggling in the background. A medieval man didn't have that luxury. Status was about not having to work for a living. It was about deriving an income from rents and offices, however humble.

A wife had to bring money or lands appropriate to her family's status, or she wasn't worth the bargain. A husband had to have an estate sufficient that a father could feel his daughter would be cared for, materially at least.

Yes, there are famous examples of royal wives who were the daughters or widows of simple knights -- Katherine Swynford, Elizabeth Woodville, Jane Seymour -- but notice that they nevertheless were at least from knightly families. And, there are hundreds of cases of gentlemen who were willing to marry the daughters of rich tradesmen to get the money -- but notice that those girls had to have money.

Marriage was a business transaction. Without money, there was no point. And, it was not so harsh at it seems to us. In a world where aristocrats lived on inherited capital, you had to marry other people with inherited capital. If you truly cared about your children and wanted them to have successful lives, you had to see that they were properly established.

No gentleman was going to marry a laundress (or a stripper), and no woman of a gentle family was likely to fall so low as to become a laundress. And, if she did, no man was going to redeem her. Why would he? She would have no money. Moreover, medieval people thought that children's character was formed in their mother's womb. Marry a laundress, and your children would be ne'er do wells.

So, in my opinion, you can stick to the laundress story, or you look for a connection somewhere among the gentry. You can't do both.

8/1/2013 at 10:37 PM

Great explaination: AND that's exactly what I mean by being mislead by names and palces in the RICE community....there were a lot of em....The Laundress is exactly the sort of low level romp that paid off big for the BEATRICE FIGURE....and from that figure...that I must conclude is not Jasper's GRANDaughter exactly for the reasons you cited....So this figure, inherits Manor's from Queen Mary and so does William 1521 and the Barbara Fuller RICE who becomes the Queens attendant....The only possible reason is the relationship her Husband William has with Mary Tudor....I fully expect now, after sorting through the possibilities that His Church affiliation and Catholic Connections get him thrown in Jail.. by QE I ...This is now sounding more promising.....We still don't know who BEATRICE is but she must have been born around 1495 to 1502 or 03 in order to draw the King's attention. Im content that the family who sought out John RICE in AMERICA the Jonnet MAthews must have some part....but I can't be sure unless there is a Beatrice Matthews or connecting family as the WARES come to AMERICA Looking for Elizabeth RICE....So the question is why and do they have a William WARE or WADE that Beatrice & David leave their mannors to. As I said early on, I think it was a bargain struck to keep the Child Quiet and that supported Mary Tudor.....I have read that the Coat of ARMS and the Manor House were specifically for the purpose of helping Mary Tudor durning the Assencion Crisis.....I Thank you....It seems Perrot may carry the genetic Material via Mary BERKLEY that could link back to the story but we don't know yet, whether Katrin Perrott is a grandaughter or niece to sir John Perrott....Kris Stewart was pointing at some discrepancy in dob's but Sir John's Son by Cheney is also a John Perrott and Katrin may be his daughter....That seems plausable and likely. DCR 1948

8/1/2013 at 10:57 PM

Barbara Fuller/Rice and William ap Rice 1521 are allegeded to have no surviving children and hense leave their Manorhouse at Medmehamshire to another nephew named William.....We have William ap Rice the ONONION a brother to Thomas ap Rhys 1570 who is listed Wrongly as a female, and the site acknowledged the ERROR. Meaning that the Missing Tudor PRINCE story evaporates wtih the DEATH of William 1521 and his widow Barbara Fuller Rice disposes of the Tudor Manors left to she and William by Mary after William dies....We have that date as 1588, July. I will seek the names of the WARE and Mathews lines and Williams born to them about 1580 that the SILENT PRINCE endows.....He's dead and gone and burried leaving the story as you say in the Lineage of Perrott via Kathrine Perrott nee Rice to evolve into the story I received.....I can handle that.....DCR 1948

8/1/2013 at 11:06 PM

This must be the STory LINE!!! The Tudor Prince is kept silent, and dies without an Heir....but leaves a manor house to a cousin or Nephew, the ONONION? William ap Rice 1580 of the Bateman's and that inturn leaves the Story given to PERROTT and his children the story of being related to every Monarch in Europe....via Katherine Perrot Rice....not the LOST TUDOR PRINCE but his cousin. I can believe in that outcome. Big ole cirlcle of people and places....though not as high flyin as the ORIGIONAL it's still one heck of a TALE.....I'll see what I can find of the Medmenhamshire Manor ca 1555 to 1580....DCR 1948

8/2/2013 at 10:04 PM

So Justin: Since we know Alice ap Rhys/Bateman was not the waher/ assistant to the BEATRICE figure, then it seems we are left with the anomous woman who is married to a son DAFFID ap Rhys of Jonnet Mathews and Sir Rhys ap Thomas....another 1/2 cousin. I've been following William 1521 since I first found him listed in the Princess Mary Household Expense accounts in February this year and have referred to him non-stop...so your characterization that I was not happy with John Perrott....as a possible explaination is FALSE....In fact I stated above that He's likely the figure my FATHER was speaking of.....but referred to the Lavendar as a way of drawing attentin to a STORY.....I was completely baffeled by the two Davids and DAFFID. But we have that sorted out now, and indeed my Katherine Perrott does indeed Mary John Rice II son of DAVID and Alswyn.....I did not have that clear until yesterday....I've also determeined that the PRINCE TUDOR died Childless, see Barbara Fuller/RICE and William Rice in the service of PRINCESS Mary Tudor/and Queen Mary....Women of the TUDOR COURT seems to be fairly certain that he, William gave his Manor house to a cousin or nephew also named William....so there the stroy ENDS about the MISSING TUDOR PRNCE....We aparantly have no connection.....leaving us with the Perrott born to Thomas ap Rice and Margaret Mercer of the TENBY Monument and that leads back to Sir John Perrott and the cousin line or John Perrott is actually the Grandfather of Katherine and John Rice II exactly as you predicted......The exercise may have been mind madening but it seems to be clear now that the STORY about the connections to ROYALTY is about the second hand connection that Sir John Perrott had with the King via Mary BERKLEY...... Which is good, because I feel the hunt is finally over....and now all I need a doccument that shows TAMZIN RICE & John RICE are mother/son.....That's a stop at STEADHAM, ENG. and the Church there. I need to see if the Reference is Latter day SAINTS or an actual Baptisimal Certificate for John Naming a Mother....YES? DCR 1948

8/2/2013 at 10:14 PM

Lastly: The accomodation that the BEATRICE figure of lowy birth strikes with the Princess Mary is to keep quiet and just go about life until Mary can reward her silence....After the Kng is dead and after Edward is DEAD, the new Queen can reward the William ap Rice 1521 figure as she cleary does with the Patent of Nobility and a Mannor House in Steadhamshire for supporting her through the ASSENTIION crisis as he clearly did....His tangle with Elizabeth the I after Mary's demise and being a Pope's man was nearly fatal and after being arrested for holding Mass as the Women of the Tudor Ct. presents he retires and makes his Will out July of 1588. You note that the William married to Thomasine Minn/Myall also dies in 1588....so that's most likely a coincidence. Im completely comfortable now with how the Field of Cloth of Gold figures into the Rice family history....prior to Perrott 1600......so Onward to find the Paper trail to TAMZIN....DCR

8/2/2013 at 10:35 PM

No. There is still a massive confusion on Geni between different Rice families, and different branches of the ap Rice family.

Moreover, the Catherine Perrot who married John ap Rice, of Rickeston, was not a granddaughter of the John Perrot who was supposedly a son of Henry VIII. That Catherine and that John were about the same age. At best, they were distant cousins.

Catherine was the daughter of John Perrot, of Scotsborough. He was son of William Perrot, son of John Perrot, son of David Perrot, son of John Perrot.

The John who was supposedly son of Henry VIII, was legally the son of Thomas Perrot, of Haroldston, who was son of Owen Perrot, son of Thomas Perrot, son of Thomas Perrot, son of Thomas Perrot.

By my count that means "your" Catherine Perrot and the famous John Perrot were at least 4th cousins.

8/3/2013 at 12:03 AM

Dale,

To help sort out these different lines, I made profiles for William Rice, MP, his wife Barbara Rice, and their known relatives.

William's ancestry is unknown, except that his mother was Eden Saunders. He doesn't seem to be connected to any of the Rice families we've been talking about. He settled property on his nephew William, but that William was dead without issue in 1596.

8/3/2013 at 12:43 PM

I also added a profile for Beatrice ap Rice, her husband David ap Rice, and their only known children Mary and Harry.

This is the laundress. She had her husband were indeed loyal servants of Queen Mary I, and she is perhaps the right age to have been the mother of William Rice (above), except that she wasn't. William's mother is known to have been Eden Saunders.

The ancestry of this David ap Rice is unknown, but he can't have been related to any of the Rice families we've been discussing. He was a "yeoman of the chamber" -- in other words a servant. In contrast, someone like William who was a "gentleman of the chamber" would have been from the gentry class, essentially a paid companion. William, a gentleman, got manors from the Queen. David, a servant, got a decent salary and a little extra money now and then for clothes.

Mary's household accounts show that Beatrice and David had these two children. No others are named. Queen Mary seems to have been godmother to their daughter Mary. Not unusual with royals and their servants. And, Mary paid some of the expenses of Harry's education. Also not unusual. Mary paid when Harry was bound as an apprentice, which tells us that he went into trade somewhere. In other words, no career at court for him. Then both Mary and Harry disappear from history.

8/3/2013 at 1:35 PM

LOL: JUSTIN, I hedged my bet above saying thaat Kathrine Perrott was a cousin to Sir John Perrott 1525 because I heard it but dind't understand it....so now it becomes a 3rd hand explanation for Sir John's relatedness to the FAMILY of Thomas ap Rice and Perrott ap Rice 1600. It's interesting that you finally found the William, Harry and BEATRICE figures who got me going down this path after all these months of my trying to fit the pieces together and haveing a GREAT CHEFS SALAD of people on my plate: as it were! This is soo not fun right now, but I said we would turn every stone over....and so far we have thanks to you! Beatrice 1500 in service to the queen has property so there must be records....The William of Barbara Fuller's marriage and death without an heir was one I was ready to pronounce the Missing Prince....but still no cigar? I'll re-read your comments....DCR 1948

8/3/2013 at 2:13 PM

Justin: The GENI machine just traced my 5th great aunt Mary Eastman married to John Rice 1624 great great grandson SAMUEL RICE brother JOhn got that? THE EASTMANS trace to Sir EDWARD SEMOUR the King EDWARD's UNCLE and his Laundress may be whom we are lookinf for? I don't know: Sameul Rice& Mary EASTMAN Rice to Her father EASTMAN toMorse Barnard to Morse to Morse to Morse to Josiah Cleavland to Mary Cleveland to Mary Bates Farewell to Henry Farewelll to William Farewell to William Farewell to Katherine Farewell to Edward Seamore 1st Duke of Sommerset....fyi: Now this is certainly a family of nobody Puritans desendant from John RICE & ANNE Hackley that's attracting a lot of attention from Europe don't you agree? My Point is, as unlikely as we all agree Perrott ap Rice and is Fling with TAZINE may be she doest trace back to Margaret Beaufort and these people know it!!! They have come looking for the RICE FAMILY! THERE IS A REASON, yes? DCR 1948

8/3/2013 at 3:00 PM

I haven't seen the evidence that this David became a wine steward, but if he did, what does it matter? A wine steward is still a servant, still separated by the gulf between peasants and gentry.

You ask if William could be your Secret Prince. Sure. He was the right age, about. He "claimed gentle birth but his ancestry is unknown". And, if he needed a coat of arms (I still haven't seen evidence of the grant), then we know he didn't already have one, so we also know he wasn't related to any of the other Rices we've been talking about. If you want to build your theory on this William, then you might be right that the pomegranate in his arms could be a significant point, as well as the manors the queen gave him.

You go back and forth, so I can't tell if you've firmly given up Perrott ap Rice, but if you haven't, I should add that this William was not Perrott's ancestor. These are mutually exclusive theories.

Don't be distracted by finding links with "nobody Puritans". Half of Geni, myself included, have links through those thoroughly middle-class Puritans back through the gentry and into the highest ranks of English nobility and the Plantagenets. Families rose and fell within just a few generations. There are hundreds of examples of very plain immigrants who were 1st and 2nd great grandchildren of very eminent people. Split the family wealth enough times among younger sons, and pretty soon their descendants were just run-of-the-mill gentry.

If you're interested in details, look at Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. He had a younger brother Edmund. Edmund's daughter married into the gentry and his great granddaughter emigrated to New England. Thousands of people in America descend from her, me included. That doesn't turn all our other Puritan ancestors into gentry ;)

8/3/2013 at 4:50 PM

NOT ARGUING FOR THAT JUSTIN: - ) Perrott and this man Do not connect, I can clearly see that NOW! I believe he does indeed fith the description and has all the attributes of a PRINCE born to a Laundress without portfolio, and in need of a patent.....FITS and that's all well and good. I understand that my PERROTT is still the man o interest on many levels more interesting thatn a missing PRINCE actually.....so if his mother is TAMZIN ????? she clearly does connect to the Margaret BEAUFORT LINE and that brings us to the rest of the DUKE of March and the EDMUND MOrtimers....all still true. AND the Perrott family is now in 3rd place by cousin catherine or 4th I think you put it....so the how of the story is coming into focus....REMEMBER, Im the one with no information and just names that have to be excluded....Someone around this Laundress is somehow connected but I will not likely live to see whom....LOL I give on that. Your acknowledgement is however PRICELESS to me....and I think to other's as well, we shall see. The no nothing be nothing John RICE is according to some just a yoman farmer in the new world......I have higher hopes than than for John RICE 1624....My investigation is only about 25% complete so I have many miles to go before I sleep,......miles to go before I...........ZZZZZZZ DCR 1948

8/6/2013 at 7:03 PM

Hey Ho!!!! Breakthrough: The family Rice have women who marry into important famlies and Rachel Rice Doliver is the line which leads back to the Cromwells, and Joan Tudor, therefore back to Tudor HEN!!! What's very important Justin for me, is that the Sweets are in this Pedigree and mary back into the RICES down about Edward Rice Great, Great Grandson of John Rice 1624 & ANNE Hackley....Thankyou Erica!! You said they would lead back to the Deep English/Welsh connections and Rachel certainly does that....Her brother also reaches back in time to the LeStrange Family and De la Pole's....Very cool and Powerful machine here at GENI....I sent my 37 marker Y DNA test in on Monday, so perhaps will be back before I leave fro ENGLAND on the 7th of Sept...Again, many many thanks to Justin, Erica, Ms. Judy, and others who have been gentle in guiding my trail blazing.....maybe more like slash an burn.....LOL anyway, I regard this story of the Tudor Prince an inside family tale that never got out of the family until I blabbed it all over the place.....and the really interesting stuff is That the X chromosome is clearly in charge of the facial representations: I.E. they come from our X on both father and mother's side....My Father's children are cleary represented by the2 Plantagenant,3 Tudor, faces. which is 5/7 children following this method of facial phenotyping. His father gave Strong Stewart, and Stewart lines, because that was the closest female genetic material from his Grandmother Foote via Churchills....Andrew's 1832 Father would be Wm. Jr and Granddad ANDREW is the spitting 10 thgeneration cousin? of H.Tudor VIII. Which skips a genertion to my brother ANDREW who also looks like H. T. VII....My BROTHER SAM however throws one of each Valois, Tudor, and STEWART. Im clearly Tudor in face and so is my daughter....my son is clearly his mother's native people son. These are forensic observations as a police officer and ID of remains by skull shape, there is clearly something going on with the gateway gene keeper......Just sayin....the 90% of DNA some call junk is clearly important on many levels...See Russian Television artile on DNA communication!!! Fascinating to say the least...I posted it on my FB blog page I tried to link it but couldn't Judy has seen it perhaps she could transfer it for all to see! DCR 1948 Nebraska RICES

Private User
8/6/2013 at 7:16 PM

I'll leave the "facial recognition" stuff to the science heads, but I do want to give a "thumbs up" on looking into the Dolliver line. I''m particularly proud of that one because Rachel Rice's marriage to Samuel Doliver is proved by property records for her GRAND children, which I found very interesting.

Rachel Dolliver

As always, carefully scrutinize the links in each generation for accuracy.

But .. (cautiously) ... You're getting somewhere now!

8/6/2013 at 7:44 PM

Thanks Erica: The Sweets reconnect to The Rices and that's how the DNA gets from Joan Tudor to we nebraska Rices....I had forgotten that my mother had said the Cromwells were in the mix....and being focused on my local experience I connected to a gril I went to school with....Sharon....never dreaming that My mother was talking about William Cromwell and the Oliver faction driving the Revolution....Curious she never ever mentioned Tudor. Any way, that was a thrill to see GENI do all the links back to Tudor HEN...which is what she was referring to "THE HENS" justin cleared that up, she would not have known that it meant OLD. I went to school with a FREDDY HEN and that was in 1955 so my references were all local....so closed was my experience....LOL it's a wonder I can speak let alone do research....Cheers DCR 1948

8/7/2013 at 6:05 PM

Ms. Erica, My earlier reading led me to believe that Elizabeth Hall and William Rice Sr. were connected to the Elizabeth Fooote, and John Churchill and Arabella Churchill line....Is that correct? There should be an additon to the Lineage of Elizabeth Hall so that we connect if so? Thanks DC RICE 1948

Private User
8/7/2013 at 8:59 PM

I'll have to look at where the intersections might be - I've mostly concentrated on the Connecticut trees for these families. Can you give me names & dates for where you are particularly interested?

8/7/2013 at 11:22 PM

William Rice Sr New YORK Dutchess Co. b1761 Elizabeth Hall / Rice ca 1765 to 1770. Also Dutchess Co.NY Wm. Father = Edward Rice 1700 he was 65 when Wm. was born, so Eliz. could be 2nd wife born later. Edward's Wife = Cahirity ? Believed to be a SWEET but we did not have her last name....fyi DCR 1948

8/7/2013 at 11:24 PM

Sorrry about the Typo: Chairity unknown possibly SWEET. DCR

8/8/2013 at 12:12 AM

Justin: You refer to EDEN Saunders as the Mother of William ap Rice? I see where a Saunders is listed as the Mother of Ladies in waiting to Queen Mary Tudor....is this a possible assistant to Beatrice the right age to be the delight of the Kings eye in 1520? If so we may have our candidate for the William ap Rice 1521....the question then is why would he go by the name of RICE? Paramour of the David Rice 1540 who died? Not sure what you were driving at.....where does it say EDEN Saunders is William's mother? I check Women of the Tudor Ct. and read every Saunders story, Sorry If I seem THICK on this! DCR 1948

8/8/2013 at 7:16 AM

Dale, for Eden Saunders as mother of William Rice, see History of Parliament Online -- http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/ri...

8/8/2013 at 9:47 AM

Thank you J. S.: The Saunders connection looks to be the "Candidate", for the vessel of the Kings dalliance, and I suppose the vagueness of paternity is perfect guise for subtrafuge....My initial impulse was to Blame Beatrice for everything that happend....I will see if her name surfaces in relation to the Household of Sir Rhys ap Thomas and Lady Eva (f) Gwillian 1520. The Rice's are so closely associated with the CROWN that nothing could suprise me about their "SHARED" interests.....Thanks again...DCR 1948

8/8/2013 at 11:56 PM

Lastly: Perrott ap Rice, son of Thomas 1540 a JP at TENBY: FAKED his own death....This is inside family information and the papers filed in Wales by his father Thomas were to allow his son to escape the service to the Kings's ARMY whence he had just lost his other son Captain John ap RICE b ca. 1603.....The use of the Name Captain John RICE HUGHES is a perfect cover for the person known as TRADER Hughes on the James River in Virginia along with his native companion Nickietti. The males that descend from that line should match my Y DNA if I can find one....But the Polands may have information by a female descendent...If you hear of anything from them regarding the SWEET family they tie back into the RICE's at EDWARD and CHairity....fyi The Story of TAMZIN and John RICE will have some real legs hopefully in a couple of weeks....I intend to file for recognition of Perrott ap Rice as the biological father of John RICE of DEDHAM I1 Haplogroup, and that would correspond to the Data collected so far for the ANcient Perrotts at Goggerdan. FRENCH extraction, no doubt but melded into the I1 bloodline by marriage and taking the Family name as some have done for land retention.....My ancestor's trace directly to Joan Tudor and Wm. Cromwell. As my Mother told me before passing. She mentioned the Marche's and Edmund Mortimer and Cromwells,but nothing about Joan Tudor....The Geni machine has done me that great favor. Thus the connection to Royalty comes down proved from the Family's who married into the RICE's in AMeRica at Ware, SWEET, and Dollinger lines with the daughters of Samuel Rice son of John RICE 1624......So the Direct male line is not proved but the Female lines are 5 deep and counting...the last one being Churchill/Foote/to Mary Hall and my father's great grandmother married to Wm. Rice Sr 1761 fyi.....It's all in the FAMILY so to speak as you suggested in the beginning....but the Laundress Story still haunts. That William does not Connect to Perrott we know that....But who this nephew is of Wim. 1621 and what he did with the inheritence Im still looking for that story so I can rest....DCR1948

8/8/2013 at 11:56 PM

Lastly: Perrott ap Rice, son of Thomas 1540 a JP at TENBY: FAKED his own death....This is inside family information and the papers filed in Wales by his father Thomas were to allow his son to escape the service to the Kings's ARMY whence he had just lost his other son Captain John ap RICE b ca. 1603.....The use of the Name Captain John RICE HUGHES is a perfect cover for the person known as TRADER Hughes on the James River in Virginia along with his native companion Nickietti. The males that descend from that line should match my Y DNA if I can find one....But the Polands may have information by a female descendent...If you hear of anything from them regarding the SWEET family they tie back into the RICE's at EDWARD and CHairity....fyi The Story of TAMZIN and John RICE will have some real legs hopefully in a couple of weeks....I intend to file for recognition of Perrott ap Rice as the biological father of John RICE of DEDHAM I1 Haplogroup, and that would correspond to the Data collected so far for the ANcient Perrotts at Goggerdan. FRENCH extraction, no doubt but melded into the I1 bloodline by marriage and taking the Family name as some have done for land retention.....My ancestor's trace directly to Joan Tudor and Wm. Cromwell. As my Mother told me before passing. She mentioned the Marche's and Edmund Mortimer and Cromwells,but nothing about Joan Tudor....The Geni machine has done me that great favor. Thus the connection to Royalty comes down proved from the Family's who married into the RICE's in AMeRica at Ware, SWEET, and Dollinger lines with the daughters of Samuel Rice son of John RICE 1624......So the Direct male line is not proved but the Female lines are 5 deep and counting...the last one being Churchill/Foote/to Mary Hall and my father's great grandmother married to Wm. Rice Sr 1761 fyi.....It's all in the FAMILY so to speak as you suggested in the beginning....but the Laundress Story still haunts. That William does not Connect to Perrott we know that....But who this nephew is of Wim. 1621 and what he did with the inheritence Im still looking for that story so I can rest....DCR1948

8/8/2013 at 11:59 PM

Sorry John Rice II 1540 to son Thomas ap Rice 1570. above. DCR

8/9/2013 at 12:03 AM

William ap Rice 1521 not 1621 DCR

8/9/2013 at 12:10 AM

Im betting that the Tudor Hen male line 1256 is such an I1 sub group back before 1066....Since Rhys ap Tudor joined forces with Powy's Princes Gwenllian F Rhywallen and became THE PRINCE OF WALES of South WALES he's the one mos tlikely to be carrying the ANCINET I1 haplogroup...That's all that makes sense out of Laundress Story and Henry VIII. Yes Im 50-50 being wrong and same for being right....YES?

Private User
8/9/2013 at 5:33 PM

Dale C. Rice I do not see parents for Mary Elizabeth Rice anywhere I am afraid.

Showing 241-270 of 443 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion