John Rice, of Dedham

Started by Justin Durand on Sunday, March 30, 2014
Problem with this page?


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 31-60 of 1194 posts
4/12/2014 at 12:29 PM

This family were the Stewards at Windsor Castle for HNERY VIII. They lived in two nearby villages. The Twin girls born to this family by "Unknown Chalfant" were ELizabeth and Lucy 1541. We have Chalfants in My Maternal linkage, my mother's grandmother, 1822 ca. I will see if there is further linkage.

I understand this is not the family of JOHN RICE 1630 but the linkage is getting to be curiouser and curiouser. Thought you should see it and then move it if you prefer. DCR 1948

4/12/2014 at 2:41 PM

The travels of John Perrott:

Born 1572, in Ireland.

Records between then and 1623 missing, probably because he was on holday in China.

Returned in 1623 to Ireland and went to Virginia.

Records between then and 1656 missing, probably because he was on holiday in India. Around 1656 returned to America (but to New York) in time to meet the first two Quaker missionaries in America. Was so inspired by them that he took the first ship to Ireland in order to preach (I think trans-Atlantic voyages then took about six weeks, but perhaps longer).

In 1658 went to Rome. His health vastly improved in prison. Back in England in 1661. Off to Barbados, his health further improved by another spell in prison, in 1662. A further holiday trip to Jamaica, where he is alleged to have died (but my suspicion is that in fact he made the first expedition to the Antarctic, for the sake of his health: archaeological investigations need to be made to see whether he reached the South Pole two and a half centuries before Amundsen).

Magellan and Drake had nothing on him. (Incidentally, Magellan did not circumnavigate the globe; he died before completing the journey. The first man to do it was one of his crew, who came from Indonedia or the Philippines).

4/12/2014 at 4:38 PM

Ha! Well there is no proof he was born there....nor that his mother was who we all thought she was...including the wife of Sir John Perrott. Thats just a made up affiliation. Now whom do you suppose Wm. Chalfant could be? besides a cousin to ole Henry VIII? They were seated at Chalfant from about 1,000 onward, so an older Pedigree than Tudor? It gets ever more curiouser, and curiouser. DCR 1948

4/13/2014 at 6:55 AM

Father Sir John Perrott Received Castle Carew from Queen Mary before her death November 17, 1558 which means his occupation of the Castle only 5 miles from the Home of Perrott ap RICE is likely continueous until his attainder 1590 or 91. John Parratt II = age 18 at the time the Castle is escheated back to the crown. Would have come and gone from the 10,000 acres in and around Carew and Havorford West. Thus, we should assume this a family of great means and travel ability, so the Blank periods you refer to Mark are not completely blank.

Born Waterford Ireland 1572
Grey's INN 1586

At Carew 1590 age 18 Father attained
At Havorford West 1599 age 27
Perrott ap Rice born 1600
Marriage to Prunella 1614-15
Birth of Richard 1616
Birth of Robert est. 1620
Emigration to Va. 1623 With Prunella and Robert & RICHARD
Death of Prunella ca 1625

Piracy Perhaps?( worked for various unsavory monarchs at odds with Elizabeth I who did not like or engage his services. Low Regard left him few legitimate options. Invovled in trade in Barbados some slave and Rum with Boston and obviously has his own vessel from what ever was left of Sir JOHNS ruined estates. (THERE MUST BE COURT RECORDS)
Prunella Dies in Virginia 1624 est.
Remarriage to Elizabeth 1625
Birth of Daughters in Va. 1626 Thankful
1628 Blessing (Family Record may have some doccuments)

Return to Havorford W . 1629 August Salvadge of French Merchant Vessel
9 months later Baptismal1630 May 02, of John RICE @ North Walsingham by Margaret Rice
Various Merchant activities : Most of it unsavory and looked at as Piracy.

Pirate of Goods

4/13/2014 at 10:09 AM

There is a plausible John Rice born 1572, prepared to be a lawyer (14 years old seems a little early to go to Grey's Inn, but people certainly went to Oxford or Cambridge at similar ages, so I think this is possible) and was in Haverford West in 1599 and 1629.

What is inherently implausible is that he was the immigrant to Viginia in 1623, or that either of them are likely to have been John Perrott the Quaker. The immigrant arrived aboard someone else's ship. Very few immigrants returned (it was different in Barbados where fortunes were made almost from the beginning).

Of course there will be court records available, if you bother to look; the UK National Archives have summaries of most if not all court records online. I can't remember off-hand if they include the lawyers' names as well as litigants and defendants, but they might do.

North Walsingham is in Norfolk, isn't it? The other side of the country from Haverford West. What on earth would the Haverford West John Perrott be doing there? He's not there for merchant activities, that's for sure; it's too small.


4/13/2014 at 10:58 AM

The merging to two stories seems likely to me. First the Spelling of the name Parratt which links to my Family at MAYO and Steager/Seager is directly from the UNKNOWN Perratt of Barbados that has been sighted, but the author did not say they were unrelated to the Quaker, it just not known to be related.

Perratt is the named by my father in the tesimony which is a name of a nearby River where the Perrott family settled early in England. The John RICE of 1572 I have not seen those sites yet but that would explain the merging of two segments of this combined revelation.

The Perrott DNA project is quite clear that there are only 3 of us known to have I-1 Haplogroup so all will turn on identifying the parentage of these other two. I will do more testing this week, or at least pay for SNP analysis and try to also get to 67 markers for a definitive answer. DCR 1948

4/13/2014 at 10:59 AM

sorry cited not visual sighted...DCR

4/13/2014 at 11:05 AM

SCARFONE family of Italy is in my father's testimony as ancestoral, and the time spent by the Quaker Perrott in Rome for 3 years was in Bedlam, mostly where they were allowed family-time with their visitors. No comment from me, it's just a very disturbing fact. Clearly the man had much to regret from his past as both Pirate, bon-vivant, and innate scoundrel....I say that the Scarfone DNA match that I have is part of this story. We simply don't undertand all the circumstnaces yet to see how this all fits together. We will undertand in time. DCR1948

4/13/2014 at 11:16 AM

PS: Mark, John Perrott was not in North Walsham except to atone for the birth of a child we all know as JOHN RICE of DEDHAM. THe child was cristened far from tenby, and Margaret was likely put up with a cooperating family there and cristend the child. The French Merchant vessel that was being salvaged in Havorford West, the home of Perratt II after losing Carew CAstle is where he conducted his business there as a well known and respected family. Afterall, his father Sir JOHN PERROTT 1528 left a huge tract of land to the city of Havorford West which is now part of their Air Port Facilities. He got the embarassing child mother out of TENBY and North Walsham is off the RADAR for the Pembrokshire community at large is how I see this. His arrival in 1623 with two sons and his wife PRUNELLA is likely a function that the craft he had at his disposal was too small to make the Atlantic Crossing and chose, because he could to pay for all their Emigration costs to Virginia where the family no doubt had interests. They were not penniless, he became that over time. DCR

4/13/2014 at 1:16 PM

The Below lineage of Richard Perrott is not the son of John Parrett 1572 this is theR1ba2 line of PERROTT's which are of known French extraction. The point I would like you to see and understand is that the Perrott DNA project has identified this line as seperate from the Son of Sir JOHN PERROTT 1528. DCR

4/13/2014 at 4:03 PM

I.m sorry, Dale, but I thought for a moment that you were beginning to be interested in records and where they might take you, rather than records just as they may support where you want to go. There is a world of difference. Ending up in a different place from what you expected is interesting. You should try it.

The Member of Parliament biographies which I use for a lot of my work on Geni quite typically, in the Tudor period, start with something like "There are at least three people called X.Y. known to have lived in [Z county] at this time. This member has been identified because....".

Perrott (or Parrott, or other variants) was not an uncommon family name. There is no reason to suppose that they were all related. If you look me up on Google I think that you will find about four pages of a Mark Dickinson who is an American astronomer before eventually getting to a fairly mad site which claims that I was in the British MI6. Google Dale C Rice and you will almost certainly get a lot of other people before you finally reach yourself. If you automatically assume that all internet results are equally plausible, then you are following the same "logic' as has led some idiots to equate John Perrott (b. 1572) with John Perrott the Quaker.

The internet (like all systems of recorded knowledge) allows mistakes to be repeated again and again, and people to assume that they must be right because they find them repeated from (apparently) different sources, when actually they come from one single source. "Rootsweb" I have found useful from time to time, when it gives serious detail (for example, property deeds. I find "Stirnet" much better, but you still find errors (or omissions) on that. Not even Wikipedia entries are entirely reliable; in fact, quite often not. Just apply an investigator's logic to every relationship. Trying to prove your father's understanding of your ancestry is not an investigator's logic.

No-one arriving in Virginia in 1623 could already be said to have "interests", i.e. pre-existing land-ownership. The number of settlers there at this time was so small that the number of ships which could have gone there for trade was minimal (or non-existent). The parallel then was with Norse Greenland, which had a visit from one ship from Norway each year. As the population of Virginia grew, so did trade (tobacco, at first). But the first ships, and in 1623, must have returned empty.


4/13/2014 at 5:01 PM

I have copies of Land transactions for John Perrott in Barbodos, and Virginia Thankyou. My interest is see if there is a chance that the story is correct. I have the DNA and family relationships that parallell the actual relationship which is denied here on GENI. You think John RICE is connected to no one. I say he is. It's a matter of finding out how. The subscriptions for the Virigina Plantations were bought in ENGLAND not Virginia, so persons forked over sums in advance of sailing. Being Crafty, I suspect John Perratt II who emigrated with wife Prunella and two sons paid for their passage aboard the PROVIDENCE...actual records in the LIBRARY of congress and I have copies of that coming next week, I hope.

I am very interested in seeing if it can fit together. You and other's have told me from day one don't bother. Well so far all is well with the testimony, my understanding is and was faulty....Im working hard to accumulate the evidence for ammending it one way or the other. But first we must look and then seek to understand. Sir I have a 100% conviction rate for Driving under the influance in two jurisdictions, prosecuted felony charges for institutional burglary and won. I won't present the case before it's ready to be told....until then I hope you understand that not knowing what other's know is what drives the investigation forward because once you cite the problem I can then look for the answer. It is not a mutually exclusive proposition I am prusing. It's the same stratagy I have used from day one to Organize this effort. Kind Regards...still in the hunt for the Truth...Even if it means revising the understanding as I have on numerous occasions. DCR 194

4/14/2014 at 11:17 AM Please note that the 3rd paragraph names Charles Churchill as owner of these properties and then sold them. I have linkage to Anne Chrchill and Elizabeth Churchill Buck as previously mentioned...Ann was married to Deacon Samuel Rice and those children if there are any presently unknown.

The reason for the posting at all is because the William de Chalfante named in this community was part of the household staff of Henry VIII and had service named according to the Geni algorythem as at Wiindsor Castle.

4/14/2014 at 1:50 PM


Just a matter of fact. There were (in essence) two kinds of (senior) household staff - i.e. not counting the people who worked in the kitchen, the laundry-maids (!) etc - of a royal household at this time. The first set were the people who moved around with the King. They would be quite intimate with him and potentially very powerful as a result, even if the TORs of their official duties (such as wiping his bottom) did not include giving political advice: if he trusted them, he'd ask them anyway.

The second set were a result of the King having several residences, and moving around. At his various residences he had to have some people permanently stationed (or living nearby) to keep them maintained, or to be ready to get supplies at short notice if he decided to visit (kitchen staff etc would probably travel with him, but they needed the ingredients bought by the time they arrived). The steward at Windsor Castle was basically in charge of logistics in case the king decided to stay there.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Henry VIII used Windsor Castle much (although he must have visited it a few times because it has the chapel of the Knights of the Garter). Just because it is now one of the principal residences of the Queen, don't think it has any continuity as such. In essence it was "restored" by King George IV while he was Prince Regent, and its role as a principal residence dates from then.

4/14/2014 at 2:33 PM

This is just in FYI: Henry V is named as the most distant ancestor to a Tudor descendent given as I-1 Haplogroup. I will not disclose the name. I find that the values as forwarded to me from the TUDOR DNA project as follows. 13 22 15 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 14 8 9 10 11 24 16 20 30 12 16 16 16 10 10 19 22 14 14 16 20 22 37 12 10. No more than 2 steps different than John RICE of Dedham & 29/37 markers are one step.

The test seems to confirm my suspicion that Tudor was influanced by Henry IV when he had them cornered in Wales 1400. His wife was dead and he extracted concessions from them when he let them go. Owen Tudor appears to be the result.

Oh I know, I know...the evidence does not prove it. It simply points toward that. You clearly understand the meaning so I won't tell you. The other I-1 Tudor values are here, again from the Tudor DNA project. most distant ancestor is from Norway 1833 13 23 14 10 14 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 22 16 20 28 12 14 15 16 10 10 19 21 14 14 18 20 34 37 12 10, and are one step difference 31/37 markers. The Archer was the father of Edward IV and Henry the V seems to pass along the DNA That Owen Tudor supplies to the rest of his descendents.

Since I am not the historian you are I hope you find this new data to useful. I said from day one, that we have pieces that don't yet fit together but in time will yield to the search. We now have evidence that my mother's line of CHALFANT's are directly descended from the twin daughters, Lucy and Elizabeth Chalfant born1541. I did not understand what twins had to do with anything in 1978 but I have some inkling now. My Paternal ancestory reflects Tudor DNA as suspected for some time now, and my mother has passed along MT. DNA J- with origination in CENTRAL SPAIN, if you get my drift. I am not making any assertions here I am laying out before you why my 9 family members look the way they do as I started out here 15 months ago. We are narrowing the sequence of subsequent refreshing DNA as I guessed at last year now that we have my Chalafante line linked to the Churchill and Tudor links.

May not be good enough for you, but I hope you will now look. DCR 1948

I am pointing you toward the evidence, and if you cannot see it yet, then I guess we are done here. I can't do what you can with this data. Only experts can put this together so please don't ask me to.

4/19/2014 at 6:17 AM

Sir Owen Tudor

Direct Blood relationship to Sir Owen Tudor which is another route to Tudor and proof the Primary relationship was and is correct. John Rice 1630 and his children are blood relatives to the Tudor Kings by inductive reasoning on at least 3 branches. The 1978 Testimony is 100% accurate. DCR

4/19/2014 at 1:05 PM

How can it be 100% correct when it has changed so often? What's happened to the laundry-maid?

4/19/2014 at 4:44 PM

Mark, my theory is that John Rice was the illegitimate son of Ambrose White / Witt / Wyatt, of Glemsford by Margaret Rice. His descendants have spent 400 years trying to cover it up by inventing this other story.

Sorry -- couldn't resist ;)

4/20/2014 at 2:22 PM

If you can swing an exhumation of Henry VIII or VII or Rolland De Vellville I think all your doubts would evaporate. You all are splitting nonsensical hairs over the Father of John Perratt II 1572. The story was garbled due to awful nature of some of the details Mark. I think we all know that. The Godfrey linkage is but one. The rest combined mean this family was sought out Like I said way last year and roundly laughed at. The testimony was was my recollection that was at fault....I have clearly owned that from day one. As you find the household staff on my mother's side of the family is also involved you have some Idea of the proximy the family had to the TUDORS. We shall see. DCR 1948

4/21/2014 at 2:51 PM


I'd take out my spade tomorrow and dig them up, if I did not know that if the results went against you, you would insist that Henry VIII had had the bones of the laundry-maid put in his alleged grave, and wandered off to America early to find his seventh wife among the Indians.


4/21/2014 at 3:26 PM

13 22 15 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 14 8 9 10 11 24 16 20 30 12 16 16 16
13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 29 12 14 15 16
13 23 14 10 14 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 22 16 20 28 12 14 15 16

R1B Stewart/ reconstructed Nicklas II Romanov''
13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 29 17 9 9 11 11 25 15 19 *10 *151612

13 24 14 10 11 14 * 12 11 13 13 29 17 9 9 11 11 25 15 19 * 12 161612

Mark: i have respect for you. You have completely missed the point of my search and I am conducting it. I will not instruct you. The above Values are Tudor I-1 Values and illustrait what I belive to be happening. The Common ancestor appears to be one ROLLO of Scandanavia about 910 AD and occupier of Normandy France. The Parallel subsequent division of the two lines is in play here, or so it seems. Justin will most likely disagree, but even so that's how I see it.

My stratagy works. I just put up my ancestors, also staff to the Tudor King Henry VIII. Royal Physician Wm. V Butts my 9th great grandfather to the Tudor Court. This is now a matter of finding all the lost pieces to my puzzle which some do not believe....not a problem, you believe what you will. DCR 1948

4/21/2014 at 3:42 PM

Dale, if you knew how to interpret those numbers you wouldn't have published them.

4/21/2014 at 4:06 PM

I don't know what you are referring did not say. Good day to you. DCR

4/21/2014 at 4:08 PM

Until a certain someone made it imppostible to communicate here on Geni we could have had a discussion. I suppose it's not in anyone's interest to talk further. DCR 1948

4/21/2014 at 4:30 PM

Dale, I think you truly might be happier on a website like MyHeritage where you can have your tree look exactly as you want. Now that you've slowed down the discussion and started adding profiles, with notes about your theories, I'm afraid you might be on a collision course with other users who do not accept your theories. It's easy to see how you could end up being suspended for vandalism.

I know it's hard for you to hear, but the genealogy community has rejected your theories. That doesn't mean you're wrong (although I think you are). It means that you don't use the methods you would need to use to get respect and attention. In the end, I think you will have to see that you cannot continue to force your theories on a group that doesn't accept them and now no longer wants to hear them.

4/21/2014 at 4:33 PM

I bring information for examination and lay it before you. The Butts family was linked because the Ellis Family is mentioned immediately above Wm. V Butts and that's my DNA profile which links to the lower level. I can't do what you want unless you talk to me. So talk here or talk there. You all are in charge. DCR

4/21/2014 at 4:50 PM

Dale, this is what I mean when I say you can't force your theories on someone. You can't force people to talk to you. You have to be nice to them.

Over the past year you've had a consistent pattern. Someone tells you something. You tell them they're wrong, offer no proof, then you do a little happy dance because you're right and your story is proving out exactly like you said. And, you seem not to hear that you're the only one who thinks you were right about whatever it was.

As time goes on, more and more people get offended and just walk away.

And now that so few people are still listening, you're taking your message out of the discussion and into the profiles. That's just going to make people even madder.

You really need to ask yourself what you want to accomplish by staying on Geni. How it is helping you (or anyone else) to keep telling people you know the answer so you don't care what anyone thinks?

4/21/2014 at 4:56 PM

I brought Buttes to the discussion table. Aparantly someone does not like it and so I learned that You don't think anything I do is correct, yet the people of the testimony keep popping up. The only vandal I know is gone. He went by a letter of the alphabet. If Butt'es is off limits even with my DNA in the Ellis file and a disclaimer, I wonder what passes muster? Nothing apparantly, because someone does not like the view I represent. I have done nothing wrong except not cave in.

Im not forcing you to do anything, and no one has removed anything from the 240 files added since I got here. If you want them gone, I suppose that's doable....but why punnish someone for what they think is true and right? That's seems very much like the star chamber and inquisition to me...DCR

4/21/2014 at 5:04 PM

I have a dozen or so additions to the Rice/Cookston Chalefant side of the you want to see them here or do you want me to add them to My tree...I can take my tree private if that's what you're suggesting. Im only here because of Kris Stewart's advice last your and your reinforecement. So should I take it all private? If that's what you wish I will ofcourse comply. DCR 1948

4/21/2014 at 5:25 PM

I don't want you to add them anywhere. You can't add them to "your" tree without adding them to "the" tree, which is everyone's tree. And you're not going to get any feedback by entering them in a discussion. Not right now, anyway.

I want you to think about your goals before you continue. What are you trying to achieve? Why are you on Geni? Why is it important to you to talk to genealogists even though you don't like or respect the genealogical method?

Showing 31-60 of 1194 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion