John Rice, of Dedham

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

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 91-120 of 1194 posts
4/29/2014 at 11:02 PM

http://books.google.com/books?id=topBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1153&lpg...

Middle of page Names Sir James Perrott of pembroke and his brother John 1580, Son of Sir John Perrott. Pg 1149 right after Humphery Perrott. DCR Brother of James =Mother Sybile Johns?

4/29/2014 at 11:05 PM

James Perrott is born 1572, not John Perrott who is born 1580 according to the above doccument. The linkage to Sir John Perrott of Pembroke and the matriculation to Jesus College at age 14 establishes the relationships? DCR

4/30/2014 at 4:22 AM

You do realize Oxford says Sir James Perrot died s.p.

sine prole Without offspring Frequently abbreviated to "s.p." or "d.s.p." (decessit sine prole – "died without offspring") in genealogical works.

4/30/2014 at 7:39 AM

Thankyou Ms. Erica: No I did not know what that meant. The link however is that John Is named as his brother, born 1580 not 1572 as James is named. Since we know Sybil Johns is the mother of James and now John that would be significant...... Would you agree? DCR

4/30/2014 at 2:52 PM

Dale,
When Einstein postulated his (first) theory of relativity, he specified at least three experiments which (if they gave the results he predicted) would allow his theory to be accepted as a likely hypothesis. Even if the experiments confirmed his predictions, he did not claim that his theory was actually proved. He did however accept that if any one of the three experiments gave results other than those which he predicted, his theory should be accepted as false.
Genealogy cannot (I think - at least now) be equated to hard science like physics. But the approach should be the same. If we think that two people may be linked, what would be more likely to make the linkage "true"? Equally, what would make it unlikely, or disprove it altogether? A coincidence of names proves nothing one way or another.
Mark

4/30/2014 at 3:09 PM

The 1580 date for "brother John" may refer to matriculation date, not birth date. Nothing is said about maternity for either.

4/30/2014 at 3:49 PM

Dale, it's important to learn to read and understand biographical entries like this one, especially the parts that seem difficult or cryptic.

To help you a bit with these, here is an expanded version:

Perrott, (Sir) James, of county Pembroke, a knight’s son [equitis filius]. Entered Jesus College [Oxford], matriculated 8 July 1586, aged 14. Student of Middle Temple 1590 [that is, he was studying law], as 2nd son of John, of Carew, county Pembroke, knight. Wood says, “a natural [illegitimate] son” (his father was lord deputy of Ireland), of Haroldstone, county Pembroke, knighted in July 1603. Member of Parliament for Haverfordwest 1597-8, 1604-11, 1614, 1621-2, 1628-9, county Pembroke 1624-5. Held office in Ireland. Died without issue [s.p.] 4 February 1636. Brother of John 1580.

Perrott, John, of county Hereford, a knight’s son [equitis filius]. Entered Broadgates Hall [precursor to Pembroke College], matriculation entry under date 28 April 1580, age 15. Student at Gray’s Inn 1583 [that is, he was studying law], as 3rd son of John, of Carew, county Pembroke, knight. Brother of James 1586.

No suggestion in this source that this John is illegitimate.

4/30/2014 at 5:26 PM

Yes, I comprehend the James was age 14 in 1586 when he entered Jesus College. That means he was born 1572....often confused with Perratt II birth. The date of 1572 belongs to James. The 3rd son entered to study in 1580 so he was born 1565, brother to James. I read that to mean James and John are legitimate brothers. Ergo the mother is? I read the Knight to be Sir John Perrott of Carew (castle) Pembrokshire. I agree that the illegitimacy issue is without cause by this language.

The reason I found this entry was I was looking up William Perrott, who was the prelate and Organist...no contest that James died without isssue as I suspected.

Thus first son of Sir John Perrott is Thomas, second son is James and 3rd son born 1565 not 1572 as I had thought. Oxford names the 3 known sons of John PERROTT and names that James represented Havorford west. etc. My question is, does this pass muster as proof that John, the 3rd son was the BROTHER of James born of Sybil Johns? DCR

4/30/2014 at 5:49 PM

It just occured to me that since William Perrott was listed, then he would be the first son, of 3 brothers yes? Thomas being the son of Anne Cheney was not referred to in the Oxford notation. Oxford university could be querreried on this I suppose. Is that in order to make this a certifiable link? DCR

4/30/2014 at 6:09 PM

This James and this John are brothers, yes. Legitimate brothers, no.

James' mother was Sybil Jones (from other sources). This source does not doubt he was illegitimate. Instead, it is carefully reporting the source. All sources agree that Thomas and William were the only legitimate sons. And, if James was a son of Sybil Jones he had to be illegitimate.

John was also illegitimate (from other sources). His mother is unknown. She could have been Sybil Jones but there's no evidence. This John also died without issue (from other sources).

This John is not John the Quaker, whose date of birth is unknown but is probably closer to 1630.

There is also another John fined £2,000 in the Star Chamber 1637. No one seems to know who that was.

We've been over this before. Please remember that under Welsh law illegitimate children had more rights than under English law. There is nothing odd or unusual about saying James and John were the 2nd and 3rd sons when they were illegitimate and had brothers both older and younger.

4/30/2014 at 7:08 PM

okay, thankyou.

5/1/2014 at 8:49 AM

Upon reflection of the dates of KNOWN Perrott male issue, I too conclude that John Born 1565 to Syble? Jones-Perrott is not the person many have labeled the "Quaker". His birth is 100 years prior to his known death in Barbados. So which Perrott is he?

There is a GLARING omission in the children of Thomas Perrott born to Katherine Devereau who's grandmother was Henry Tudor's mistress. He is un-named in her biography, and passes only as "an alleged son who pre-deceased his father" in reference to Thomas Perrott himself. That spells disassociation to me. Why?
And why are there DNA matches among the various illegitimate Tutor/Tudor males which are not supposed to be there. He would have been born more correctly about 1595 to 1605 and his exploits have come down to us today as John Perrott the Quaker. The reason no one wanted to talk about him was his disgraceful behavior before being "Saved". This is an arc of investigation that will have to go very lightly as the DNA signature is in many places it should not be. DCR 1948

5/1/2014 at 12:24 PM

Dale,

At least you've accepted that all these John Perrotts are not the same. I wish you'd accept that behaviour which you might find dsgraceful may not have been viewed as such at this time. A little bit of piracy? In some places, perfectly normal, though the government did try to suppress it (difficult, in places like Cornwall where the people who were supposed to suppress it normally got some of their income from a bit of piracy themselves). An illegitimate child? Accepted as perfectly normal. As, I suppose, it was; given not only normal human foibles but the fact that virtually no-one chose their first husband or first wife themselves, and might well thoroughly dislike their spouse. What was disgraceful was refusing your parent's choice of wife or husband for you (it sometimes happened, and often led to disinheritance).

Mark

5/1/2014 at 10:49 PM

Yes Mark, seeing the Oxford notations gave me something in print to make a reference that I could trust. The logic was inescapable once we had John born in 1565 and not 1572 which is when James was born. Interesting how the various internet sites had that twisted. Upon awaking this morning, I had a much more clear picture of the people and their lives to examine. DCR

5/2/2014 at 11:09 AM

Dale, now you see first hand why many of us are urging you to locate proof of your claims. We just might turn you into a genealogist yet ;)

5/2/2014 at 1:40 PM

I like the paper trail, really I do. Im just naieve enough to believe what I see on Geni without question. That's changing rapidly. All of my findings began and ended here....so now seeing a Oxford doccument I could trust helped me re-evaluate the dates. Still, the John Perrott who became known as the Quaker looks for all the world to be a DISOWNED person born to Thomas Perrott, legitimate son of Sir John, and Dorothy Devereau....she links through her mother Lettice Knolleys to KAtherine Carey. I am looking for baptismal records and their location at the time of birth. Working back from Sir Thomas time of death and Dorothy's remarriage Im not clear when he was born but certainly after 1580 to 1600. Im just reading files now. DCR

5/2/2014 at 3:19 PM

Never belleve wnat you see on Geni - or anywhere else! - without question!, (And I think the same goes for your father's story, got from a remarkably well-read mother. But more or less everything people accepted as knowledge in those days has undergone revision, sometimes massive).

I do wish you would listen to us more. But not without question. If you start unquestioning belief, I think I should hit you with a "Nigerian letter" ("I have lots of money derived from corruption. I need to launder it through some proper bank account. Please give me details of your account, and I'll give you commission of 10%"). Invented in the early 1990s and people are still falling for it in droves.

I am 100% sure that your father was totally sincere in his story. I am 99% sure that he got it from his mother (who must have been a remarkable woman, for him to have remembered so much). But I think her source was, in effect, a confidence trickster. If I can give you an example of the cod genealogies produced in America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there is (or was) on Geni a 6th Baronet Hungate (died in England, unmarried, in 1749) who someone equated with a Hungate who died in Virginia witha few sons. It cannot have been an accidental mismerge; most of the English ancestry is true (with a couple of minor errors), But the American genealogy deliberately suppresses the Baronetcy titles, although it keeps everything else, because if it gave them the fakery would be obvious.

Mark

5/2/2014 at 9:43 PM

Dale, there's a lesson here. You were believing what you see on Geni even though several experts were telling you it wasn't reliable reliable. You were bitter when it was changed and you accused other users of engaging in a conspiracy to suppress your theories. Then you spent months arguing about the different John Perrotts, only to discover in the end that people here on Geni were right from the beginning.

When you're just starting out with genealogy, it's helpful to understand that there are people with more experience, who can spot the obvious fakes, chronological gaps and geographical discontinuities right away. Instead of arguing, it would be better if you asked questions and tried to understand what they're seeing.

At this point, you're doing a lot of work on the Perrott family, but none of it is getting you any closer to connecting them to John Rice.

5/3/2014 at 6:23 AM

The Hard Evidence of the Oxford Doccument was the first Paper doccument that I could understand, and the the outfall is that we now have the Date of Birth of the Perrott Family connection to John Rice of Dedham and the testimony of 1978. The hard facts are these. JOhn Born 1565 dead by 1665 certainly , if not before. I now believe he died in Indian Territory on the James River near Otter Lake. Virginia. How does the DNA signature I have uncovered, get into the Tudor Affiliated Phillips Lines/ which is a 36/37 match? With links to John Phillips?

I did not understand the Testimony and spent a year trying to make the pieces fit. Now The cronology does fit....per the testimony...and itt iwas staring all of us right in the FACE.

Actually, The testimony joins the factual and chronological history of 2 men, not one Which we all agree to that I think. The other life takes off in a new direction here in America. And the son becomes a new person in the Quaker movement. That's all I will say, because anything more will sound argumentative....and I don't want to do that. But there is a perfectly logical reason Scarfone, Phillips, Tudor, White, and ap Rice & John Rice connect in the Y values as they do. (see White to Perrott Marriage in Wales). The Southern DNA signature follows the Fatther and Son into Cavalier Virginia, & onto Barbados to the Mayo and Steger marriages. My line is left in New England under the care of Minister Allin as both your research and the Testimony affirm.

Robert, son of Sir Thomas Perrott & Dorothy Devereaux, was dead at age nine and is not part of this, The other Perrott's are R1b and cannot be in this specific group of persons. James , son of Perratt II & Prunella is part of the DNA that the Family Tree project has identified with mine.

So while I admit to a certain hard-headedness you will have to wait for my final version to see how the testimony of 1978 amd the facts uncovered here ultimately resolve. They do in fact merge and dovetail into a coherrent chronology with a REDEEMING American story in Part II. In the words of a very old hymn "I once was lost, but now am found". Dale C. Rice 1948

Private User
5/3/2014 at 11:21 AM

Not ms Saylor but Mrs Linda J.

5/3/2014 at 1:00 PM

Thankyou for the correction. DCR 1948

5/3/2014 at 4:13 PM

Dear Dale.

I think it will be a very "Amazing Grace" if you are found where you expect. But if you find yourself somewhere else, that is alsdo an amazing grace.

Mark

5/3/2014 at 5:06 PM

Thankyou Mark. DCR

5/4/2014 at 1:26 PM

If this is relaible lineage through the Butts lineage, I would like to advise my family of this linkage. Thankyou DCRhttp://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Mary+I+Queen+of+...

5/4/2014 at 6:10 PM

Dale - your link got "stuck" so I don't know which Queen Mary you have "connected" to and what that "relationship path" indicates.

Let's be careful about terminology here.

What is a lineage:

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/genealogy

1. A record or table of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree.

2. Direct descent from an ancestor; lineage or pedigree.

3. The study or investigation of ancestry and family histories.

So - a relationship path - a connection - would not be noted as a "lineage," only the direct child > parent > parent

5/4/2014 at 6:34 PM

Dale, let's take some time so you understand what you're seeing.

1. The link shows that you and Mary, Queen of Scots are both descended from Edward I of England. He is not listed on the link, but you can find it very easily. First, notice that the path is all blue. So it is a blood relationship. Then, look for the place where there is a sibling of your ancestor. Tracing back from you the line goes to Joan of Acre, then the next step is her sister Eleanor. You are descended from Joan, and Mary is descended from Eleanor. So, click and look at their father (if you don't already know). It's Edward I.

2. Is the link plausible? Sure. The experts tell us that just about everyone living today with English ancestry is a descendant of Edward I, and about half of them can trace the connection with a little effort. So, congrats! You just joined the club of several thousand Geni users who are descended from Old Ed ;)

3. Is the link accurate? Dunno. Your job as a genealogist to figure out whether there are any problems with it. There are people on Geni who've given you a lot of help because you're a newbie to genealogy, but you're at a point now where you're starting to take some responsibility for your research. It would be asking quite a bit to expect someone else to go through your line and verify it. A specific question here or there, sure, people will help. But vetting a whole line? Not likely.

5/4/2014 at 6:42 PM

Looking at the line in just a little more detail, I see that the user who entered this line of duplicates confused Mary, Queen of Scots with Bloody Mary. I merged the line, so now you will need to re-calculate the relationship and post a new relationship path.

5/4/2014 at 10:16 PM

YES, That's why I brought it to your attention. It seemed, off balance or out of Kilter that I could not identify and I don't expect anyone to do my work for me. I just wanted someone to look at it to see if was generally correct. As it turned out it was not correct...and you made a crucial correction...That seems to be my contribution, finding erroneous links to the Tudor/Perrott and Butts lineages. I know what to do and am doing it...when I have a question I bring it up for examination as above. Regards DCR

5/4/2014 at 10:22 PM

Thanks Ms. Erica: I can't show you what was the direct linkage to Mary Tudor as I found it because it was a mistake, and Justin has remerged the two files to give a more recognised sequence. I would not have brought a multi-color line to be looked at unless is was one color change of significance to my issues. DCR

5/4/2014 at 10:50 PM

Justin, this linkage appears to be correct but I can't tell if it hangs together in much the same manner as did Butts to Mary Tudor, Queen of England.
Col Francis Godfrey, MP

http://www.geni.com/path/Col+Francis+Godfrey+MP+is+related+to+Willi...

This looks reliable to me but as we see this is more a marriage relationship rather than a direct Blood relationship. The Godfrey's are numerous in the family line of Rice.

Showing 91-120 of 1194 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion