John Rice, of Dedham

Sorry, missed the push pin and then share this path above on Col Francis Godfrey, MP. Here it is.

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Col+Francis+Godf...

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Sir+William+de+C...

http://www.geni.com/path/Sir+William+de+Cheney+I+is+related+to+Siby...

William Cheny to Sir John Perrott to Sons James, William, and John via the proved mother of Sir James and William Perrott. The linkage to the Perratt II or John Perrott II is becoming ever more clear. YES? DCR

Perhaps, perhaps. But I think you are still too trusting. If people put up rubbish on Geni, it is still rubbish, no matter how much it has been reported. A tree that goes (no name, no name) does not look teribly reliable to me (although I supose it is conceivable that someone left something in hid will to a great-grandson without mentioning the intermedate generations - not very likely, though:what would you think of the inheritance being automatically being accepted legally under such circumstances, or of the inheritor not having to ptove his ancestry in a way that would heve left detailed records?)
Mark

Sir Owen Tudor
http://www.geni.com/path/Sir+Owen+Tudor+is+related+to+Sibyl+verch+R...

Reverend Richard Edwardes, I

John Phillips

Mr. Dickinson:

The above links establish the Owen Tudor Linkage to Sir Joh Perrott and Sbyil Jones & Richard Edwardes. But what you don't know is that two of my DNA matches are for Phillips. One is 34/37 markers 1 step, and the other is 12/12 exact, but the 12 for 12 is important because it names John Phillips as most distant ancestor and the other Phillips match has a one step mismatch 6th marler. DYS 385 of the first 12 markers. See the Y DNA below.
Indeed as we Clear and disconnect the odd file with no written Proof, it simply means we have no proof, it does not mean that it is not a VALID connection. That's Ms. Erica's explaination, The Churchill line has reappeared via another branch because this is an extensive interconnected FAMILY known to the TUDOR kings/ Queens. You have seen Arabella Churchill's link to Rice via Godfrey?

See, Tudor descendent most dist. Ancestor HenryV. is first, then J.R./DCR then JPhillips 12/12 and JPhillips 34/37 then lastly the markers for Edwardes descendents, Pocohauntus Davis. I also have a descendent from Necketti a cousin through the Pollards that is testing and will share results here.
13 22 15 10 13 14 11 14 11 14 11 28 14 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 30 12161616
13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 29 12141516
John Rice 1630 immediately above.
13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 John Phillips Exact Match
13 22 14 10 13 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 29 12141515
11 10 19 21 14 13 16 18 35 35 11 J PHILLIPS 1806
13 21 14 10 13 14 11 16 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 30 12141516
13 22 15 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 16 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 28 13141516
(Last one is Isaac Pocahauntus Davis, Native American of N.C. and, believed to be ggrandson of Perratt II 1565 who died near OtterLake on the James River aka as John Reece Hughes) Died 1655-56, Perrott ap Rice's, Son Thomas ap Rice 1638ca , brought to Va. by Reece/Hughes and listed in Va. History of earliest arrivers/ of Cavaliers & settlers. The associations are what they are, I found each of them seperately and they knit the story together of the 1/2 Brother and sister of Perratt II and Anne Phillips as the testimony of 1978 asserts.

We have cleared out 7 or 8 branches of RUBBISH as you call it by the disconnects, which made these connections appear. FYI DCR 1948

http://www.geni.com/path/Arabella+Churchill+Royal+Mistress+of+James...

Edward Rice is my 3rd great Grandfather. These are the connections which have appeared without my input at all. The link is the Butts family and others which have been veted many times now. The testimony is becoming more an more clear...it was my recollection and telling of it that was at fault. DCR 1948

Dale I think you're still not understanding what a Geni linkage means.

Arabella Churchill, Royal Mistress of James II is my 8th cousin 11 times removed - all blue, unlike yours.

That means that Arabella & I have a common Ancestor detected on Geni, Some 9 generations above her, and 9 + 11 generations above me.

Your link shows that there is a path, but not a common ancestor.

My common ancestry may or may not be detectable through DNA testing.

Dale, once again I urge you to take some time to learn about yDNA before using it for analysis. You are making many fundamental mistakes in your analyses. I don't mean to be unkind but you often sound like a Flat Earther trying to explain why the Sun really does revolve around the Earth no matter what the experts say.

You have four matches to Phillips families: 12/12, 23/25, 24/25, and 34/37. None of these are particularly good matches.

The 12/12 match descends from a John Phillips. No dates. No place. Nothing to identify him as a particular John Phillips, yet you've chosen one you like. The one you've chosen has known ancestry, so we have to wonder how you know this is the right guy but his descendant is still in the dark about his descent from the Phillips baronets. Also, you ignore the very strong warning from FTDNA that a 12/12 match is probably meaningless if the surnames don't match. You are right that there could be a reason for the different surnames, but you don't do anything to establish a connection. You're just guessing.

The 24/25 match has no ancestry information at all.

The 23/25 match descends from a Joseph Phillips who was born in c1790 Poland! These two 25-marker matches will also match the same guy at 12/12 and will be a close match to your 24/25 guy, so this one shows you that all three of these matches could be Polish rather than Welsh. Further, you make a very fundamental mistake here. You don't notice that the two 25-marker matches have tested 37 markers. At the 37-marker level they no longer match you. In other words, the 25-marker matches are just garbage for your purposes because more detailed testing has already eliminated them.

Finally, the 34/37 match descends from James Phillips, born c1806 in North Carolina. We've been down this path several times before. You are ignoring the obvious -- his ancestry is unknown. A more detailed comparison of his matches shows that he is a closer match to a group of Phillips families from Northern England than he is to you. And significantly, you do not match those other families.

For these reasons, you can rule out the 25-marker and 37-marker matches to Phillips. They don't mean what you want them to mean. And they give you enough additional information to put the 12-marker match into the "probably not" category.

Again, I really hope you will take some time to understand yDNA before trying to use it to argue your theories. We been over all this many times, but you're still getting it badly wrong.

dna is not genealogy

There is also a problem with your Edwardes analysis.

There is a lot of debate about whether Rev. Richard Edwardes was an illegitimate son of Henry VIII, but we can approach the problem another way.

A Geni user told you yesterday that the descendants of Richard Edwardes belong to haplogroup R1b not I1. You seem to be ignoring that, so I did a quick check this morning.

The Edwards DNA project does indeed show an Edwards family that claims descent from Goronwy ap Tudor, who was Owen Tudor's great grandfather. And, they are indeed R1b.

This information changes your analysis.

You already had some major problems with your supposed Edwardes connection. You found Edwards families in your I1 haplogroup but you yourself didn't match them. That should have stopped your analysis right there. Then you had the additional problem that you couldn't show that any of the I1 Edwards are descended from Rev. Richard Edwardes (except a guess that they could be).

Now you have an additional problem. The Rices and the descendants of Rev. Richard Edwardes cannot both be descended from Henry VIII because they belong to different yDNA haplogroups. We still don't know whether Rev. Richard was an illegitimate son of Henry VIII but if he was, then your Rice (or Perrott) ancestor was not. And, you have the additional problem that the Edwardes claim is more plausible because they are R1b, which most experts think is the most likely group for the Tudors.

mr Swanström
dont get upset or angry for those word i am writing PLZ
but i need to step in

illegetimacy is only in English vocabulary and defenition

its like to me an way to bypass a credibility or refute automaticaly somting from a superior view behind a pretended knowledge in the way your using it.
woman dont give birth to illegetimate children..

illetimacy from the english nobility or royal or.... view is about blood to blood =AP =father =PEDEGREE i have say those word before
and it to give empower power of the root blood its not genealogy at all its a chosen asociation and for this woman are not needed///// from pedegree ap male father english view!

kid dont eat a certain colored m&m candy at certain age and they beleive its a good reason
but at the end they eat all the candy XD

dna is not genealogy

“The things that would come the closest to being some part of me are the things that I learned not by looking at genealogy but by listening to my grandmother’s stories about her ancestors,”

do it remember somthing mr Swanström?
martin

plz let us dream a bit if we beleive a long past lie let us beleive it
its the game of life WHO ARE WE?

Martin, I agree, and I disagree.

Illegitimacy is not just English and not just American. It is a legal condition in most cultures. You are right that it doesn't change the blood relationships. It just tells us what records to look for.

You are right that DNA is not genealogy. But DNA can help us find errors in our genealogy. And it can give us new clues.

I don't blame anyone who wants to believe "a long past lie". People believe what they want to believe. There's no way to change that.

But, if someone tries to prove the lie is true, what then? I think that when someone comes to a genealogy website to find proof, they don't want to just believe their story anymore. They want to make everyone else believe it too. And they might find out the story isn't true. Very sad. Maybe it would have been better to go on believing and never know the story is wrong.

i happy your not mad XD

we all related sir and you know it i know your view ..les vrai enjeux...it mean the real thing it wont make any diference on that level ..i mean in here on geni

no one is under Oaths. its only writing. if a time come to proof with all legal paperwork and detail ...you know and mr RIce know its a diferent level and geni work wont aply we all agree on this!!! if not ...i am sorry to tell to anyone it wont work that way
mr Rice proceed in a diferent way of genealogy yeah we can debate long time but in a time he also gona need to get real records real things if not.... back to case one get records but if he found a trace we cant discouraging him ...us..

mr Rice one sugestion from me go find records real act form the base your father mother g,d g.m and up

you already find evidence of your testimony ok clear
climb that tree now somwhere somplace it exist a trace if not well you need to continue until you got real thing

its like a disney land genealogy atraction no ofence made here
we are not our ancestor we have surly a good relation geni profile but its not a valid legal ..........claiming in my own view

have a nice day gentlemen

note; in my family few Seigneur i dont have much avantage.
loll

The discovery of Historical connections to a testimony can either encourage the hunt, or discourage the hunt. As I find the discoveries I put them up. All the indicators are that the story of Phillips blood line is part of this family are new to me. I cannot be expected to know what you know Justin, only that I have to find the understanding of all the pieces. I do not question your authority in the field of DNA, I simply have to wait for further data analysis to make a conclusion you jumped to a year ago. That the testimony was incorrect in details and therefore FALSE. It was my telling of the story which was incorrect and therefore you conclusion is premature. I am still hunting all the linkages, and belive you to be premature in your conclusion. We are not disputing facts, we are disputing METHODOLOGY and therefor the Conclusion. I don't mind that we are in opposite camps over this...It has driven the entire 15 months of investigation. This is how I find the numerous false links that are here on GENI that someone has been cleaning up. That is a service to the community....DCR 1948

Dale, we are disputing both facts and methodology. It's been obvious for months that your Phillips and Edwardes links are disproved right at the start by the same evidence you are using to claim them. Now there's further evidence to discredit the Edwardes link.

You can say that I'm jumping to conclusions, but what you really mean is that I'm doing a very simple and basic analysis that you should be able to do yourself by now. You don't have to wait for further analysis to know that two DNA samples do not match.

Yes, Ms Erica, I know it's not all blue at this juncture....I am pointing to an affiliation which directs the Flow of blood lines in my direction....I did not prove the flow of blood Im showing how the deep affiliations are close enough to be a possibility for deeper digging as the Testimony of 1978 points out, we should not be dismissing the story, I have to look more deeply at were and how the facts unite with the testimony.

It would be nice if we could agree that my postings are not meant to change your mind....they are meant to illuminate the path I am on and where there is a dead end to go back to that juncture and test the System. You have corrected many GENI associations by this method of my questioning the relationship paths. Again, I say it is a service to the Geni community. DCR 1948

Well Justin: I missed the R1b thing aparantly along the way. My data set was from 6 months ago, I did not know they were disproved or I would not have put up info in the first place. DCR

Here's the research landscape as it exists right now:

1. You have four Phillips matches, but three of them can be disproved just on the face of the available data. The fourth is still a remote possibility, but it is unlikely because the other three are bad.

2. You have zero Edwards matches, so there was never any reason for following that trail. Your Edwardes theory has now been presumptively disproved by an Edwards DNA sample that claims the same line but does not match you.

3. You have left the Rice DNA group and joined the Perrott DNA project but you have no Perrott matches, just other Perrotts who belong to the same I1 haplogroup.

These facts do not add up to proof that you are not a descendant of Henry VIII. What they tell you is you're following the wrong trail. You won't get there by looking for Phillips and Edwards, and you might not get there by following Perrott. Something is very wrong. It's time to re-evaluate.

Having now seen the R1b statement on the other tread Justin, we cannot discern if the silence of the party to whom the DNA results were sent constitutes affirmation. That's a logic issue, and proves nothing unless the facility sends her confirmation and we KNOW that the brother is an unbroken Edwardes Father to son unbroken linkage. Silence does not equal affirmation as I have been told many times here. DCR

I clearly understand that I am working on the Perrot FAMILY linkage. No one is going to dig up the King for me and prove Sir John Perrott's linkage to him. Where is the statement that the Edwardes line is unbroken from Dr. Richard Edwardes to the brother of the writer on the other thread? She did not say it was unbroken father to son to her brother, or we would not be here in dispute any longer. That would mean for certain there is no Henry VIII, Tudor DNA at work from Henry VIII. It means the Tudor connection is FEMALE blood linked through the Borden family and De Vellville/ Smith and Robert FychanTudor lines if any all. YES? DCR

No, silence does not equal affirmation but we're no longer in a position of depending either on silence or affirmation ;)

If you read what I wrote above you'll see that I didn't wait for an answer. I went to the Edwards DNA project for an answer. Go see for yourself. There is an Edwards family that claims Goronwy ap Tudor as their male line ancestor.

They could be wrong. In a DNA project anyone can claim any ancestor they want. But, this is the Richard Edwardes line.

We could argue about whether Richard Edwardes was really a son of Henry VIII, but harder to argue that Richard Edwardes' descendants are wrong about being descended from Richard. Maybe they aren't, but their claim is certainly more plausible than randomly choosing people with the surname Edwardes and claiming they are Richard Edwardes' descendants because they belong to your I1 haplogroup.

In short, you're now in a position where you would need to show that they are mistaken about their ancestry. Are you thinking cage match Rice vs. Edwardes mano a mano? ;)

I would like an answer to know if the writer's brother is an Unbroken line from Dr. Richard Edwardes to the writer's brother on the thread you are referring to. That's all. If there is a female Edwardes in linkage that means we can't say for sure the family meets the DEFINITAVE example you have cited many times here and elsewhere.

You shaped the discussion, we cant' abandon basic logic without knowing the answer. I know you want me to yield, this is how it's done....Can we please answer the question? DCR

Dale, you know as well as anyone that you can't force another user to answer a question. And, as I've explained already ... that user's answer does not change the information at the Edwards DNA project. Two different avenues of investigation, although in the end they might be the same person.

http://www.geni.com/path/Orson+Pratt+Greer+is+related+to+Rev+Richar...

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+John+Edwardes+of...
http://www.geni.com/path/John+Edwardes+of+North+Petherton+is+relate...

If GENI is correct then we have the loop from Fychan ap Tudor to the Edwardes line defined here and then onto the RICE's. Another, secondary finding which could not be without the family connection at Sir John Perrott and Sybile Jones connection to John Perratt II. These affiliations are all blue. It's all in the family so to speak. DCR

I believe you have the right idea, Lloyd. These are fragments of lines. When the direct ancestor is postulated and calculated there is no blood line to speak up.

Good point, LLoyd. I think it's also worth noting that relationships at this level (9th cousin, 15th cousin) are nothing worth writing home about. I'm related to probably half the curators and a third of my collaborators in that range.

Dale is my 12th cousin, Erica is my 10th cousin, and Lloyd you're my 9th cousin. Martin falls just outside that range, at 17th cousin. It's not close enough that we'd recognize each other on the street ;)

13th cousin from my mom and 15 from dad XD

When you block the Primary route, all you have left are the tangential relationships...so we get what you all have allowed to be put in. I think now that it's simply best to acknowlege that no matter what relationship I put up based upon the testimony you will find a way to discount it. This is what I mean by the relationship being formed and the secondary lines show up anyway. I get it. I'll look for the piece of paper you want, but the story was true then and it's true now.....or these lines would not be here. I am ready to concede that Tudor I-1 haplogroup is not the one that is historical....but it's very unfair to not post the Father to son descendency. I will now shift the Tudor linkage to the female line. DCR

Dale, from you to father > father -> father all looks pretty good, spots where it could be tightened up.

So your "quarrel" comes down to:

You have not presented a case for the parents of John Rice of Dedham that has convinced your peers.

By all means build out the maternal lines, they are as important. Delighted to see the focus.

Yes, i will work on the female connections. This is who Geni says I am today: http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Robert+I+de+Nevi... http://www.geni.com/path/Robert+I+de+Neville+is+related+to+Sir+Jame...

This is the linkage that should surface if we find that John Perratt II is the son of Sibil Jones and Sir JohnPerrott. This is the first time I have been able to express where I believe the TESTIMONY actually leads. Tall order to find the doccumentation, but before one can find such doccuments one must have some Idea where to go looking. YES? To that end, anything that supports the relatedness of John Perrott 1565 is greatly appreciated. DCR 1948

Sir Owen Tudor is my 5th Cousin 16 times removed according to GENI, without Sir John Perrott 1528 or his alleged son John Perratt 1565. This would be a secondary link without the Father of John Rice 1630 being known. That's why it is disappointing not know the Edwardes line is Father to Son from the present back to Dr. Richard Edwardes son of Agnes Blewitt.

http://www.geni.com/path/Sir+Owen+Tudor+is+related+to+Bryan+Mathew+...