Henry VII of England - Haplogroup I1 is the likely subclade of the Tudor Dynasty

Started by Dale C. Rice on Monday, July 8, 2013


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 1-30 of 187 posts
7/8/2013 at 2:31 PM

This family which Hails from Wales has a rich background of Plantagenat family with the deepest roots going back to William the Conquorer of Normandy, France....That blood line is demarked by several groups of people the most prominent being Scandanavian and German groups...www.eupedia.com>genetics>Haplogroups outlines the percentages at about 33% for Scandanavian. Steming from a line of Danish Kings. This group, I1 is a subset of the Giant F Haplogroup and that means the R1b1a2a subclade of The Stewart Dynasty is a more recent arrival than the William the Conquorer of 1066....Thus Henry Tudor is liekly to have this as well, with the area in Wales that he is from having from 5 to 10 % of the Population in this group, meaning it was a rare group for WALES...exactly what one would expect to find in the Aristocracy.

7/8/2013 at 2:37 PM

Hi Dale
This is so interesting
Henry VII is my 3rd cousin 15X removed and Willaim the Conq is my 24th great grandfather.
I will look and see how we are related.
You can check out my tree.
Daphne Beames

7/8/2013 at 4:36 PM

Judy, How truly AMazing that your lineage comes down the Female line to Thomasine Frost/ RICE and onto the Sons.....I am so happy to know this! As you may know, the controversey over Edmund's Parentage still rages on in the ERA, so the lineage you describe is passed Maternally to sons of Edmund without quarrrel? I do hope so, my life will be ever so much easier IF I don't have to find all this myself....REinventing the wheel as it were.....Im so honored to Know of anyone related to my personal Favorite Margaret BEAUFORT the King Maker and Endower of Queens College and Oxford......What a BRILLIANT and Spiritual person she must have been....I Salute you Dear Cousin....It's an honor to be on the same page! so to speak.....Dale C. Rice 1948 of the Nebraska Rices

7/8/2013 at 7:52 PM

Hi Dale, Your article caught my attention since my Mothers maiden name is Tudor, but her haplogroup (my mitochondrial DNA), tested out as K. Do you know if this is a common group in Wales? Thanks, James.

7/8/2013 at 9:13 PM

Dale, we need to think a little closer about this. Your terminology is backwards. The Tudors might have been I1, but I1 is not a subclade (subgroup) of the Tudors. The I1 branch of the human tree is some 20,000 years old. It is most common in Scandinavia. You can see a map here:


The R1b group is also about 20,000 years old. It is the most common haplogroup in Europe, but is now heavily concentrated in the "Celtic fringe" of western Europe. You can see a map here:


Both groups were in Britain in ancient times, so knowing a family's haplogroup doesn't tell us anything about the relative dates their ancestors arrived in Britain. Geneticists used to think that R1b was the original population of Celtic Britain and that I1 was a sign of descent from Viking raiders, but now that's all changing.

There are Stewarts who are R1b and Stewarts who are I1. Probably, the original stem family was R1b, although their descent from the Stewards of Dol in Brittany would make I1 a good guess.

There is no evidence yet what group the Tudors belonged to, but if they were native Welsh the best guess would be R1b, not I1. Certainly, if the traditional line for the Tudors is accurate then their many distant cousin lines would suggest that the Tudors are indeed R1b.

7/8/2013 at 9:23 PM

William the Conquorer is I1 according to the site I was on and quoted listing the outfall of that family as primary to the TUDORS....I1 is rare in WALES for a reason....it was the Saxon line from which Wm. 1066 began populating the English.....I1 is a Subclade of F and The Scandanavian Kings which the Valois and Wm. 1066 share the same percentages in their blood, why would that not transfer to the TUDORS? Im trying to explain to you that the family from which I descend and several hundred others have the I1 Haplogroup precisely because so did Wm. the Conquorer....and his blood infuses the Tudor LINE....R1b1a2a is the ancient Scotish haplogroup according to that site. How now do the FRENCH transform into R1b1a2a from I1?

7/8/2013 at 9:37 PM

James: According the site I investigated they RATE I1 as a major subclade of F and the others J K and about a dozen others are derivitave of the I1...Im not the person to ask....Im new at this but you can see for yourself by going to www.eupedia in blue letters iin the post at the top of the page to see your family's place on the chart....I would be interested to know where your family hails from? If wales she could be the descendent line of the UNPROVED Etheralda Line with Henry Tudor...they use the name Tudor but claim no royal blood, but they also have my main reference Wm. Owen Tudor of Wales...and he comports well with my John Rice 1624 DNA reconstructed from a Son in Conn. Both William Tudor DNA is on public display at www/Tudor DNA PROJECT and I would love to see your first 25 Y chromosomal results....If they begin 10 23 14 11 and end in 12 14 15 16 we should compare data sets for possible collaboration....We can prove the Tudor connection by a process called indirect proof in mathmatics....they proved the math of Space Time with this same proof....enough indirect persons carrying the same kind of data will point to the common ancestor which my Aural History and genilogical history says Perrott ap Rice is the FAther of John Rice 1624 and Perrott is the great grandson of the missiing Prince wm. Tudor born 1621 9 mos. after the field of cloth of Gold 1620...fyi

7/8/2013 at 9:46 PM

Dale, I think you're misunderstanding some key pieces of how it works. Haplogroups have nothing to do with "percentage of blood". If you are I1 then it is because all of your male line ancestors, father to son, were I1 for the last 20,000 years.

If you are I1, then you can look at a map and see how common I1 is in particular areas, and that will let you make some guesses about where your male line ancestors came from. If your recent ancestors (last few hundred years) are from Wales, then probably at some point your family came down from Scandinavia. But -- here's the trick -- you can't know when that was. It could have been during the Stone Age, it could have been during the Viking raids in the 9th and 10th centuries, it could have been after the Norman invasion in the 11th century, it could even have been with Flemish weavers in the 15th and 16th centuries!

William the Conqueror has no male line descendants today. We don't know his haplogroup. The best anyone can do is venture a guess based on families today that are descended in the male line from families that made wild claims hundreds of years later that their ancestors were descended from different branches of the dukes of Normandy.

We also don't know the haplogroup for the Valois. It is likely to have been G2, if they were indeed related through the male line to Henri IV and Louis XVI.

As I said earlier, we don't the haplogroup for the Tudors. There are no proven modern male line descendants to test. But, some families that claim to be paternally related to the Tudors are known to be R1b.

And, we don't know the haplogroup for the original Stewart line. R1b is a good guess, but it could have been I1.

When you say that William the Conqueror's "blood infuses the Tudor LINE", you are misunderstanding haplogroups. Unless the Tudors claim a direct male line descent from William the Conqueror, which they don't, the fact that they have some maternal descents from William the Conqueror is irrelevant.

The only thing that counts in haplogroups is the male line, because haplogroups are defined by mutations on the y chromosome.

7/8/2013 at 10:02 PM

My reading of history is acknowleded as incomplete but the Tudors intersect with with Rhys ap Thomas and they share a blood connection to the Plangegenats at the conjoined lines of Rhys ap Tewddr...and his wife Princess of Powy's Gwaladis ferch Rhywallen. He was the main law in WAles and the Plantagenat line derives from Edward I and on we go....The site I gave definately shows the percentages of Scandanavian blood for Wm the Conquorer...please review and then tell me what Im not gettng....The PERROTT ap Rice line is I1, we know this because John Rice 1624 is his son and proved and links directly to HENRY TUDOR....Im reconstructing this backward from the known blood we do have and compareing it to descendants both male and female and reporting the data here to debate untill we are all on the same page...The last time we chated you argued exactly the opposite to this line of thought, and insisted I could not possibly be related....WEll we shall see!

7/8/2013 at 10:26 PM

The Stewart Line that I am familiar with is Charles II proved R1b1a2a and his son the person known as James Crofts Scott the Duke of MONMOUTH is the KINGS son proved last January with the last 4 of the first 25 sites on Y as 14 15 16 17. His mother, LUCY Barlow as she called herself in the NETHERLANDS during Charles banishment, is the grandaughter of Catherine Howards son Griffeth 1525 whos daughter Mary married Sir Walter VAughn....The Plantagenant line touches the Tudor's and the Stewarts but most directly by John of Gaunt and Margaret Beaufort. I1 is what I have to work with and That's what the other Tudor line has as well....You say it doen't matter, but enough of us will show up one of these days to make the proof indiretly....See Captain John Rice 1600 brother to Perrott 1600...served and died in the English Calvary....when PERROTT went to America he assumed his brother's identity and took an Indian common law as wife...established the trading post on the James River 1645 and the children of that marriage are direct blood desendants of Perrott now changed to Poland....Once we have a third line of I1 and the Y chromosomes compared we will see if that is proof enough that my assertion is correct....You have no one to compare because until I showed up with 450 year old story told to me in 1979 no had ever heard of the Laundress of the field of the Cloth of gold and the boy born to her that was kept secret from the KING by his only legitimate blood daughter Mary....It's all coming together, one piece at a time, so we shall see if my 93 year olf father was right all along or not. Im pretty sure there will be plenty of interested readers once we nail this down, and I will be in STEADHAM to look at the baptismal record and see if TAMZIN is listed as Mother to John Rice 1624.

7/8/2013 at 10:39 PM

Dale, you need to be clear about this. I did not ever argue that you could not possibly be related. My opinion then, and now, is that you cannot prove it the way you are trying to prove it. I have great hopes that you will get a handle on the methodological problems and be able to tackle your project in a way that will get you a reliable result -- whether for or against.

The "traditional" Tudor line goes back in the direct male line to Beli Mawr, a legendary king of Britain, through his supposed descendant Coel (perhaps Coel Hen, one of the candidates to be Old King Cole). It's just my opinion, but I think the line is perhaps reliable back to Marchudd ap Cynan, of Brynffenigl (early 10th century), but probably no further.

So, if you are I1, and you think you are descended from the Tudors in the direct male line, then your hypothesis is that the ancient Tudors were I1 all the way back to Marchudd ap Cynan. And, your theory would require that this native Welsh prince be I1 even though Wales at the time was overwhelmingly R1b. Could be, but other claimed descendants of Marchudd ap Cynan are known to be R1b.

So, you have an uphill battle for your theory. There would have to be a break somewhere in your line or in theirs. Maybe the Tudors weren't really descendants of Marchudd ap Cynan, even though they claimed to be.

In this analysis, you have to firmly set aside any idea that blood percentages in the ancestry of William the Conqueror mean anything. Yes, we have a rough idea of his ethnic background, but it's not relevant to your project.

All native Welsh aristocracy belong to one of the "Fifteen Noble Tribes". The Tudors belong to the 8th Noble Tribe (Marchudd ap Cynan). You can read more here: http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/articles/wales/arms_of_the_xv_nob...

And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Tribes_of_Wales

You need to focus on finding whether other modern descendants of the "8th Tribe", who have an astounding variety of surnames, also belong to Haplogroup I1. That is, focus on figuring out whether I1 is a result that makes sense for the Tudors.

7/8/2013 at 10:56 PM

Dale, the Stewarts are irrelevant to your search. Yes, it made genealogical headlines when the Duke of Buccleuch tested as R1b. He is a male line descendant of Charles II, so assuming that the paper genealogy is correct, we can suppose that this Stuart / Stewart line was, like him, R1b. It has to be proved by triangulation, to rule out the possibility of a "non-parental event". And, so far, so good. It's checking out back to the 13th century. See: http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10858.5;wap2.

That still doesn't tell us whether Alexander Stewart (died 1283) was genetically linked to his supposed 11th century ancestor Flaald de Dol, in Brittany. Maybe, maybe not.

In any event, it's all just an interesting sidelight if your emphasis is on trying to prove a family tradition that you're descended from the Tudors. No where, not even in the wildest genealogical speculations I can find, has anyone ever suggested that the Tudors and Stewarts belong to the same male line.

7/9/2013 at 12:04 AM

I did not say that, and plainly that is confuing what Im illustraiting....The Stewart line tests one way because they do not descend from Wm. The Conquorer the Tudor's on the Other hand do descend from him and he is I1 according to what I read and understood....My brother's test is 32 Scandanavian 19% E.European and 9% unknown according the the DNA test conducted by Ancestory.com....a low level test that cost $49....The Bulk of the DNA at 42% was English, Irish....no suprise there....He's also going to be found to be I1 because we are proved back to John Rice 1624. The Story my that was handed down to me from grandfather to grandson to my dad is that Henry Tudor's son by the Laundress Beatrice whom ever that turns out to be is William Henry 1521 the direct Ancestor of Perrott and John Rice 1624....you do your investigations any way you wish....I will come at this from a comopletely differentl angle with at least 3 sources of DNA DATA and that will prove that the faces in my family along with other genetic unique qualites are no coincidence....IM not ready to claim Im a descendent, but my plan to prove it is well underway....

7/9/2013 at 12:34 AM

PS: The reliability FACTOR is such that my 96 year old mother who passed in 2006 Reported to me that we were Related to two very important familys, she Named the HenS!!!!! and the Duke of March who is Edmund Mortimer....In tracking that family line I find indeed that they trace to the TUDORS....now my mother did not go past the 8th grade formal education and received her GED in about 1960....But one thing she would never ever do is mislead me....She knew of the family's deep historical past but never spoke of it once she remarried.....I never ever heard of any of these people until I started my own research and in 3 years this is where we are....You believe that no one knows the haplogroup, my method supposes we know because we have proved I1 with John Rice and Wm. Owen Tudor likely desendent of Ethelralda and Henry Tudor....WE have that much and the Y chromosome data on both men....If I can get the same iformation on the Poland family, who are curators of John Rice Hughes on this site....Im betting they have the same DNA....because the story is identical and my Perrott's Brother was CAPTAIN John Rice Hughes of English Cavaliers....The Story of the TRADER Hughes fits perfectly...even identifying the WELSH family from his descent....But Perrott told everyone he was SCOTTS....why? because he didn't want to be found....The same family connects to My Perrott 1600 and as expected Mr. Pollard lools amazingly like me at age 18....This is one step a time, coming as is from the pages of history, and family's that connected but don't know it yet....My job is to keep track and provide DNA evidence that is reliable, my test will be 31 markers and my sisters are doing a Mitochondrial test....It seems my purpose in life to illuminate this page as best I can with the tools at hand, and I expect no quarter on the facts....It has to make sense....IF I am I1 and John Rice is I1 and Mr. Poland is I1 and we all have the same Y chrom. data sets that means that PERROTT ap Rice aka John Rice Hughes the brother of PERROT a CAVALIER as all the stories tell are of the same family in looks and blood alike....Once I have a third line nailed down as in Williiam owen Tudor of the Ethelalda lineage Im ready to tell the story. And the doccumentation will be in Modern Science terms and there will a great discussion and lots of publishing/ and writing to do, Im sure.

7/9/2013 at 12:36 AM

Dale, you're still missing the point.

The later Stewarts do in fact descend from William the Conqueror, as do the later Tudors. The early Stewarts and the early Tudors do not.

Percentages of ancestry don't mean anything when you're looking at yDNA haplogroups. Someone's ancestry could be 99% Navajo, but if they are I1 then their paternal line is European. No matter how many generations pass, the haplogroup of the male line remains the same. No matter how much they intermarry with other lines, the haplogroup of the male line remains the same.

You are I1. So is your brother. Your dad. All your direct male line ancestors back 20,000 years. If you think your male line line ancestry is through the Tudors, then all of the male line Tudors would also be I1. You won't get a different result just because one branch of the family is descended from William the Conqueror and another branch is not.

The problem you face is that there are male line descendants of male line Tudor cousins who are R1b. So, the question is why do they have a different y-chromosome than you do? If you are all male line descendants of the same ancestors, your y-chromosomes should match. Either you all have to be I1 or you all have to be R1b. If someone is different, then their male line is different.

7/9/2013 at 12:45 AM

I understand that and conceed that....That's my aim to show the late addition of Wm. the conquorer is I1 as I gave the site that explains that....Im not a bit confused about that....But there is no other male Tudor lineage that Im aware of that tests R1b1a2a that's purely a STEWART effect....The Tudor Blood is FEMALE in the STEWARTS of 15 and 16 century....so previous to 1066 Im not going to address...I will stay on the tack of HENRY TUDOR tracking Wm the Conquorer....What you are suggesting is that Tudor men do exist with R1B1a2a and I don't know that at all.

7/9/2013 at 12:49 AM

The cousins would have to trace back to HENRY, and there are none. Thus the only viable line of interest is John Rice II son of William HEnry 1521 to my PERROTT ap Rice all of it including Henry would therefore have to be I1, the cousins do not trace diretly to HENRY. No one does except possibly the EDWARDES....I have no data to compare.

7/9/2013 at 1:12 AM

The cousins trace back beyond Henry. The Tudor dynasty takes its name from ancestor Maredudd ap Tewdwr (English: Meredith ap Tudor), who lived in the 14th century. He was a 12th great grandson of Marchudd ap Cynan in the 10th century.

There are more distant male line cousins than anyone has ever been able to count.

Most of the claimants are R1b, some in different branches. Some supposed descendants, a small minority last I heard, are I1, again in different branches. As far as I know, no one has yet undertaken a project of triangulating them all to identify the probable line (as is being done with the Stewarts).

7/9/2013 at 9:33 AM

I would like to raise an issue that might have some bareing on how this seemingly contradictory dataset of I1 vs R1b may be at play....Since I clearly am not a geneticist this is a probative question to see if it sparks a question in your mind as well......We are talking about classifications of genetic information with some sites having lowere numeric values in the count and some have more segments and some sites have almost no variation over time....because they are NORMATIVE one Dose of Male DNA the counts appear to fall into the R1b1a2a a Subclade of I1 a subclade of F. The possible explaination is Unique to the Henry Tudor Story itself as it relates to the Joining of TWO sets of Henry Tudor DAta sets in the persons Thomas Ap Rice 1570 father of Perrott 1600 and John Rice 1624 BECAUSE THEY ARE DOUBLED by Father side and Mother's side both delivering identical DNA at each site, causing the counts to be shifted toward I1 and away from the Subclade R1b1....Is that clear? My thought was, we may be looking at the uncorrected values because of that system in use would not normally assume the doubled data set? Just a thought to explain why the Tudor cousins would appear differently....It's the same data just more of it in the cases of John, Perrott, and Thomas ap Rice.....?

7/9/2013 at 2:07 PM

In Reviewing the Phylogenic tree of Haplogroup I1: Dated Jan. 2013 there is a very close proximity of the Continental/Britan sub clade known as I1a4a & the West Germanic which is closer to Ancient Stewart line readings on Z131 as I1b1.....The Proximity of these two groups seems fairly reasonable to assume that the Bllood analysis of Tudor/ Rice could both fall under I1a4a and be distinct: YES? Continental/Britan = William the Conquorer 1066 and ancient Stewart would accomodate I1a4a as we see in Charles Stewart I1b1a2a.....YES?

7/9/2013 at 2:10 PM

I1 subclade is not descriptive enough to exclude Tudor....Does the John Rice 1624 reconstruction go farther than I1.....hopefully so, because that's not enough data to do determine much at all. on a cursory reading of th info.

7/9/2013 at 7:50 PM


Everyone I've ever talked to has a lot of trouble understanding, but I promise once you get it, you'll really get it and you'll see how simple it is.

You and I are men. We're men because we have a y-chromosome. We inherited our y-chromosomes from our fathers, who got them from their fathers, and so on back to the dawn of time.

There is never any mixing with a mother's line. So, no. There is no way for the DNA to be doubled, or combined. The y-chromosome shows the direct male line, and only the direct male, all the way back.

When there is a mutation in a man's y-chromosome, he passes that mutation along to his sons, and to all his male line descendants. About 20,000 years ago there was man who had a particular mutation that we now call I1. All of his male-line descendants have that mutation, so whenever a test shows that someone has this mutation, we say that he belongs to Haplogroup I1.

There was also another man who lived about the same time who had a mutation that we now call R1b. Same thing. All of his male-line descendants are R1b.

There is never any overlap between I1 and R1b. A man belongs to one or the other (or to some other group) because all of his male-line ancestors belonged to that group. If you think about it, this makes sense, because every man in that chain of generations inherited the same mutation on his y-chromosome from his father.

The bottom line is that if you are I1, then every one of your male line ancestors for the last 20,000 years was I1. And, by definition, every one of the male line descendants of those men is also I1.

7/9/2013 at 8:25 PM

I'm not sure I understand your two other questions, but here's an attempt to answer what I think you're asking.

Each of the major haplogroups has subgroups. For example, I1a4a, I1b1, and I1b1a2a are subgroups of I1. All of these groups are thousands of years old. All of them are spread throughout Europe, but more concentrated in some areas.

You can never figure out exactly where in Europe someone was from just by knowing that they were I1a4a, I1b1, or I1b1a2a. The best you can do is look where the male-line ancestors of modern men lived to see where those groups were concentrated.

For genealogical purposes, haplogroups are (almost) irrelevant, except to see if two men might have been related through their fathers' lines. Members of the same haplogroup have to be related (by definition), but usually it's so distantly that it's beyond the genealogical time-period.

There are two times when it makes sense to look at the haplogroup.

First, if two men belong to different haplogroups then they are not paternally related.

Second, If two men belong to the same haplogroup then they are related but you don't know how closely. Could be tens of thousands of years ago. To figure out how closely related they might be, you compare all the values of all the markers for men in the same haplogroup.

The haplogroup helps you weed out the people who look like they match but who really don't.

So, if you are I1, the first thing you do is whatever testing you need to see if you might belong to a more specific group. Maybe there is no subgroup, and you end up plain I1*. Or maybe you find a subgroup and it turns out that you belong to I1a4a, or I1b1, or I1b1a2a, or whatever.

Once you know your most exact subgroup, you can compare your marker results with other members of the group. It's controversial, but you can get a general idea of how far back the relationship might be. For example, if you match 64 out of 67 then you are probably related some time in the last few hundred years. If you match 67 out of 67 you are probably fairly close relatives.

These numbers are just examples. There is a dispute about average mutation rates at specific locations, and about whether this kind of analysis is even valid on an individual level. But, the basic idea is good. The closer the match, the closer the relationship. The more distant the match, the further back the relationship. In fact, most matches aren't very close, so the relationship goes back before recorded history.

7/9/2013 at 10:58 PM

Okay, not much mutation going on in I1 then huh? Since that is John Rice Dedham we know for certain all his son's are that group....no miscounting on site or doubleing of the data sites//// I actually preceived that while asking the question, but needed to hear the answer.....So your prediction of a subclade Tudor descendent from the Female side surfaced yesterday and I left you a note, he's looking to see how his Richard Tudor connects to the big picture and his subclade is R1b1, but his mother is actual TUDOR descendent....hope that helps you and me to triangulate....I Know the mother does not contribute Y but it's still an interesting coincidence that he saw my post and came forward which is the whole point of myTrolling to see if others come forward....He has a very interesting and very Tudor shape to the skull and eye formation...so will be interested in what you find. I advised him to contact you, because Im too new at this would likely mislead him. just fyi DCR

7/10/2013 at 10:46 AM

Just to REFRESH the discussion about John Rice 1624 his Y DNA profile is 13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 14 12 28 15 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 28 12 14 15 16
Blood Haplogroup Identifeid by reconstruction is I1 (I would want that recheked if My haplogroup is different). My Brother's DNA analysis shows the results N2G= 42% or English/Irish 9L9B 32%= Scandanavian 3F2U 17% =Eastern European and the unknows are listed at 9% under 358Q. Thats from Ancestory.com....I don't have a kit number....it's what my sister ORDERED...I am testing on a 31 site Y analysis and the sisters said they would the Autosomal test... The Person Wm. Owen Tudor has been taken down from the Tudor DNA site I got his data from, I can still produce it and since it is also I1 very few differences there does appear to be some definate relatedness as they are one step apart on 4 sites. with John Rice being shorter segment lenghts on all but one site. so 21 of 25 is fair relatedness as I know understand these things...not great and not direct lings but some level....sadly there was no date given for Wm. Owen Tudor...Im supposing he's from the Ethelalda lineage, because the rest of the Royals would be from Owen Tudor via Jasper or Edmund?

7/10/2013 at 10:56 AM

The Laundress Character being identifed as BEATRICE female grandaughter of Jasper Tudor may be the person who my father's story was really about....Jasper being the Uncle to the Kings of England Ireland, Scotland France etc. Her age presents a problem because she would be old their standards at 34 or 35 during the Field of Cloth of Gold....The Daughter Jonnet ap Rice born about 1500 slightly earlier would be exactly the right age at 19 to 22 years old in 1520....She also is listed having a husband and a daughter Mary 1530. The William Henry Figure I have focused upon could be her son as well but both children were in the house hold of Princess mary Tudor in the Welsh Marches from 1521 to 1538 and beyond for Mary because she was 8 years after William Henry....My family Connects to the Thomas Gardner or Steven Gardiner who were brothers to BEATRICE.....through my ancestor Rebecca Mills married to Samuel Rice. The very distinctive droopy right eye lid says yes but I will disregard such things for now....The Perrott stoy which comes diretly from the person William Henry ap Rice 1521 is hard to let go. He connects to the EDMUND RICE Story as well, but Im not here to promote EDMUND.....TAMZIN and Perrott have to remain the focus and how they got a 14 year old from EAST ANglia to Framingham Ma by 1642 when he was 16 is My story....fyi DCR 1948

7/10/2013 at 10:27 PM


You are right that this other Tudor descendant doesn't help the picture any. He's not a descendant in the male line, so he doesn't even help us triangulate. It's just a coincidence that he's R1b. Something like 50 or 60% of western European men are R1b.

In the I1 group on FaceBook there is a discussion right about a claim that Scottish patriot was I1. Someone thought his ancestry was Welsh, and someone else commented that if he was Welsh it is unlikely he was I1. Someone else pointed out that his distant male-line ancestors were Norman, so I1 would make sense. It's another interesting question, like this one. I thought of you.

There are hundreds of Tudor descendants on Geni. Perhaps thousands. I'm one of them, descended from Jasper and perhaps also from Edmund. I'm not a male -line descendant so it's unlikely there is any trace in my DNA.

If you go back even five generations, the odds of you sharing DNA with a particular ancestor start dropping (except for direct male ancestors and direct female ancestors). If someone living today has a Tudor shape to the skull or eye formation, it's a coincidence, not a legacy from their Tudor ancestors.

There's an interesting article here:

7/10/2013 at 11:14 PM

Thank you, I will check out the ARTICLE....My being stuck on the facial similarities is because there are so many in one family and across 3 generations....Where I come from the liklihood of a statistical coincidence at that level with the liklihood of a ttrue connection to the Tudors, is a very big assumption....I know....Remembering that i have assumed the story to be about a Laundress and not a King is the part that still stuns me...Have you actually looked at My Father's picture next to James the first? My daughter is the spitting imiage of mary TUDOR. No Joke, I would agree that a mongrel dog can look like something it is not....but the pedigree through Perrott to Thomas to John Rice II of RICKERSON and Katherine Perrott to William Henry Rice 1521 of the houshold of Princess Mary TUDOR in not the average pedigree....You must remember, I didn't set out to prove any connection at all, it has landed in my lap, one piece at a time unlocked by the internet in my daily searches....Two years ago I did not know who BEATRICE was or for that matter Jasper Tudor....But there they are...all lined up in the Family of Perrott ap Rice 1600. Just kindly do me a favor and go to the family pictures section under my name and look long and hard....The double gangers are all of that quality and better....and there is no explaination for it other than genetics....REALLY!

7/10/2013 at 11:41 PM

The answer to my situation is that the I1 stock being very broad in its scope can accomodate the recouring DNA messages from the main line TUdors of which we have two known and then we have Matriarchal additons to that line at Rebecca Mills to the Plantagenant line, a second contribution from Stewarts at the Mary Hall line tracing back to Arabella Stewart, and the final contibution also maternal is the Earls line tracing back to the Valois/Wm the Conquorer.....Tudor + Tudor squared if Beatrice is involved =Thomas Rice, Then Perrott Rice then John Rice 1624 and at 3 different times in sequence we add Mills/Platagenat, Hall/Stewart, and Earls/Valois on top of the male Baseline of Tudor all of which occur at generations 3 for me at Mary Hall Rice generation 5 from me with Earls/Valois and generation7 with Mills/Gardiner/Tudor again we have in one family 3 or 4 Tudor genetic contributions and one each for Stewart and Plantagenat from the mother's side.....Not 14 generations out...that's just the template of my ANCESTORY....These women sought out my lineage by name and by purpose and that is no accident of genetics.....The Results I say are stunningly remarkable doublegangers across my grand father, father, and our children. I do not yield on this, we have a .04 occurance here to finally expose the story of missing prince William Henry ap Rice (TUDOR) and the pictures will cement it once we wrap our minds what has taken place that is aparantly unique in the world of GENETICS....If you have a contact that you trust we need to get this information in front of them....along with the photo doccumentation I can provide....The Valois doubleganger image is so complete in every detail...that even they will be scratching their heads....so that's six doeses of Royal connection, none of which I knew about before last week. FYI

7/10/2013 at 11:52 PM


You might find a more enthusiastic audience in someone else. I've never been a fan of that kind of thinking.

I look like my dad. Everyone says so. The resemblance even startles my poor mother sometimes. One of my half-brothers also looks like my dad. The resemblance used to startle his poor mother. But you wouldn't even guess that my brother and I are related -- we look like our dad in different ways, but we don't look like each other.

Even more than my dad, I look like my dad's father, even though my dad and his father don't look much alike. How can that be? Because I also look a little like my mother's grandfather.

It just happens, luck of the draw, that the features I inherited from through my mother from her grandfather combined with the features I inherited from my dad in a way that coincidentally makes me look like my dad's dad more than I look like my dad. And we won't even mention all the relatives who think I'm the spitting image of my mother's uncle ...

We all have stories like this. One of my step-dads looked like actor Carroll O'Connor ("Archie Bunker"). One of my great grandfathers looked like Edward VII. One of my cousins looks like Pancho Villa. That doesn't mean I'm going to go looking for genealogical connections to any of them ;)

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but when people play these "look alike" games, my opinion is that they see what they expect to see. They see the resemblances without seeing the differences. And, they forget that features from both sides of the family are constantly churning each generation.

Showing 1-30 of 187 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion