John Rice, of Dedham

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

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 151-180 of 1194 posts
Private User
5/8/2014 at 12:08 AM

Dale C. Rice is Maven's 16th cousin 3x removed (maybe)

Dale C. Rice →
S. Rice (his father) →
A. Rice (his father) →
W. Rice (his father) →
William Rice (his father)→
E. Rice (his father) →
Sarah (or Mary) Rice (Earl) (his mother) →
Hepzibah Earle (Butts) (her mother) →
Thomas Butts (her father) →
Giles Butts, Jr. (his father) →
Giles I Butts, Sr. (his father) →
Anne Butts (Bures) (his mother) →
Anne Waldegrave (Bures) (her mother) →
Sir George Waldegrave (her father) →
Margery Waldegrave (Wentworth) (his mother) →
Elizabeth Wentworth (Howard) (her mother) →
Henry Howard (her father) →
Sir Robert Howard of Stoke Neyland (his brother) →
Katherine Howard (his daughter) →
Margaret de Neville, Baroness Cobham (her daughter) →
Thomas Brooke, 8th Lord Cobham (her son) →
Elizabeth Brooke (his daughter) →
Sir Thomas "The Younger" Wyatt, MP (her son) →
Sir George Wyatt (his son) →
Rev. Hawte Wyatt (his son) →
Nicholas Wyatt (his son) → [this link is suspect – he is undocumented]
Mary (Damaris) Welsh (Wyatt) (his daughter) → [also suspect,may not have been Nicholas' daughter]
Robert Welsh (her son) →
Jemima Edwards (Welsh) (his daughter) →
Ensign Edward Edwards (her son) →
Mary Waters (Edwards) (his daughter) →
Edward Edwards Waters (her son) →
I. Waters (his son) →
L. Helms (Waters) (his daughter) →
H. Helms (her son) →
T. Helms (his son) →
Maven B. Helms (his daughter)

5/8/2014 at 12:11 AM

Geni says: "Dale C. Rice is Sir John Perrot's 7th cousin 12 times removed!"

That means that 13 generations ago there was a common ancestor 9 generations above that. (7 + 12, then step up 1 each to find the parents). So 22 generations ago lived a person - male or female - who you are descended from, and also John Perrot was descended from.

This sounds plausible enough.

I don't know how that helps you build a tree.

Private User
5/8/2014 at 12:23 AM

Oh by the way Dale:

William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke is Dale C. Rice's 21st great grandfather.

He's almost everybody's 20th-24th great grandfather - talk about successful propagation! :-D

Private User
5/8/2014 at 1:28 AM

"Geni says: "Dale C. Rice is Sir John Perrot's 7th cousin 12 times removed!"

That means that 13 generations ago there was a common ancestor 9 generations above that. (7 + 12, then step up 1 each to find the parents). So 22 generations ago lived a person - male or female - who you are descended from, and also John Perrot was descended from."

The somebody appears to have been William the Marshal - he was Sir John Perrott's 9th great grandfather.

5/8/2014 at 2:45 AM

If you look at the careers of most medieval figures, you will conclude that the ideal of chivalry was most conspicuous by its absence. William Marshal is one of the few exceptions; genuinely chivalrous. And he was successful too - again, a nice person being successful is rare.

5/9/2014 at 10:27 AM

Thankyou Ms. Maven: The Sir John Perrott 1528 affiliation is shown on GENI as a secondary linkage....meaning that since I can't put up a doccument of proof that Sir John Perrott's Son John Perratt 1565 is the father of John Rice 1630 because it's a family testimony, and my siblings faces mean nothing in the way of proof...At last Count there are (9) of us . Which is proof enough for me. I cannot see him, Sir John, any other way, but this secondary linkage.

When I started my search I predicted then that these affiliations would show up as proof of the Primary assertion, but so far I am standing alone and have taken serious public abuse from my betters. Thankyou for noticing this link to the person I believe to be my 8th great grandfather. Dale C. Rice 1948

Private User
5/9/2014 at 11:31 AM

Not everything in genealogy can be proved. Some things you either believe, or you don't - and one side is never going to convince the other.

5/9/2014 at 3:36 PM

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Charles+Churchil...

I tend to believe too much here, but this is just too splendid not to share! My Great, Great Grandmother is Marie Chalfant and my father's testimony links to the Town, near Windsor where the family it seems has known Steward responsibilites to Henry TUDOR.

This is reason enough to LOOK....and be amazed for many reasons other than PROOF of something I am not trying to prove...Im merely trying to understand the depth of the testimony, it's veracity is already proved to my satisfaction. Thanks again to the marvelous Geni Machine. I find more of the History of my family. DCR 1948

5/9/2014 at 5:46 PM

Maven, I really like your point, "Not everything in genealogy can be proved."

That should be on a plaque above the desk of every genealogist. The sign above my desk currently says "Cheerful and Helpful" but I just might change it.

Your point goes right to the heart of what it means to collaborate on Geni. It's just not possible that 1000 people will agree about everything. Something can be false even if 1000 people believe it, and something can be true even if 1000 people don't believe.

In our collaborative world, it's not worth getting angry when people point out a problem. If the evidence isn't there, we thank them for the feedback, then go look for more evidence.

5/9/2014 at 8:14 PM

Yes Maven's point is sorely in need of being adopted and understood by all.

My Family connection leads to a Steward at Windsor by the name of CHALAFANT of CHALFONT, or perhaps it does not. What is particulary encouraging is the CHURCHILL linkage which was once disconnected from my line, now reappears with more of them and for that I am Happy, Happy, and Happy. Have a nice day Lloyd3.

5/10/2014 at 1:54 PM

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Hugh+De+Beaucham...

In my intermediate/beginner level of inquiry it helps to know where to begin a search for paper doccumentation. This link above is not proof, but it tells me where I can find the references to verify the line, YES?

Then tell me, with UNKNOWN being the source or point of Reference where would you begin to look? I chose to look in England and WAles, and some demanded I look in Ma./ USA. My entire effort here was to answer objections to those who posess the knowledge that I do not have....and letting the epitheths fly against the shoal of my determination.

5/10/2014 at 4:13 PM

Dale, no matter how advanced you are the best advice for any genealogist is start where you are, not where you want to be. You're stuck in Massachusetts. That simple fact should be driving the rest of your search.

Have someone take a look at that Beauchamp line. The top three generations are fake, and the fourth is a guess.

5/10/2014 at 6:34 PM

Thankyou . I do what I do and I finally hit a wall that could not be rationally disputed. I proved to be a person of my word, yielding when I saw no other avenue. And I did say all along I would conceed when I found that point.

The Edwardes line is that point, but only because there is no way find out if the R1b1 is unbroken Father to son from Dr. Richard Edwardes.

The testimony is what it is and I care not what you think. My mistakes are mine and in the open for all to see....I hide behind nothing, and gave full access to Justin exactly so that charge could never be raised, that I was tilting the information in my favor. I would think that if I-1 is now ruled out as TUDOR bloodline or even Perrott for that matter, it would be news worthy here....So the finding of Provisional R1b1 Edwardes is just that....a second candidate after Henry Carey that may support that Haplogroup.

If you cannot imagine an answer other than what some one else has imagined, you are no leader and certainly no investigator that can see outside the box that has been constructed by ohters that seek to contain you. DCR

5/10/2014 at 6:47 PM

Dale - there is no "box to bust out of" right now.

As you build your tree from yourself backwards there are ample opportunities to be creative in looking for clues, but that creativity, like all acts of imagination, is based on a knowledge base. And you accrue that knowledge base by accruing facts and details.

Think of it as iterations. You're currently stymied (perhaps just in your thinking?) on DNA test results - because "you" put it in a particular box. (!!!)

So leave it for a bit, go work on other lines, as you are doing.

I have a promising chain of proof building to Kings & Queens. It's not ready. So I don't worry about it, I work on all those other ends instead.

Pick one and start documenting your way - backwards.

5/10/2014 at 9:45 PM

Dale, here's the bottom line -- neither the Edwardes family nor the Rice family have a documented descent from Henry VIII. You can't both be Tudors, but their claim doesn't disprove yours and your claim doesn't disprove theirs.

Think about that for a few days. There are more implications that you're seeing.

Private User
5/10/2014 at 10:01 PM

Probably just as well NOT to be descended from Henry VIII, if the old SOB was Kell-positive! That causes all kinds of nasty problems, similar to but WORSE than the infamous Rh factor!

5/11/2014 at 12:55 PM

Happy Mother's DAy to all the Community: I hope you have the opportunity to greet and be greeted by loving family, and rejoyce in the glory of the power of heart-felt love and affection. That is the celbration I chase, not names....but relationships that convey the essential feature of Humanity. The simple act of kindness and love for others. D.C.Rice 1948

5/11/2014 at 2:43 PM

Thank you, Dale. Happy Mother's Day to all.

5/11/2014 at 6:56 PM

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Matilda+Maude+Qu...

History is what it is. Modern sensibilities are offended more readily for sure, but whatever the wellspring of our histories, they are all joined. A well meant greeting returned thusly is a tragic misunderstanding of all and everything I am seeking.

Good Day to you, and the sour disposition please do keep as it is truly unwelcome on a near HOLY day of REFLECTION & rememberence. DCR

Private
5/11/2014 at 7:41 PM

Unknown Profile very intresting post on henry viii thanks.. I went to look at it to take my mind off the user in the room that people continue to give a platform to for his blatantly annoying behavior.. I so wish people wouldn't feed the trolls on here just creates more drama...

5/11/2014 at 8:02 PM

Michael, I can report this problem to Geni again but they already know about it.

5/14/2014 at 10:28 AM

http://www.geni.com/path/Margaret+Beauchamp+of+Bletso+Lady+Welles+i...

My ancestory is linked to Beauchamp as well as Tudor is on more than one speculative line at Margaret Rice ca 1618, mother of John Rice 1630 . We do know the actor's names, and their DNA profiles, and that the famlies connected in WALES per the testimony of 1978, so calling me names as both Lloyd3 and MM on H have done so above on Mother's day seems very childish to me. The Rebuke they heaped upon me and my search says all I care to know of or about them. They dishonor themselves.
http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Maredudd+ou+ap+B...

5/14/2014 at 2:49 PM

Look, speculative lines are speculative lines. They should at least have more than one source which is plausible. If Margaret Rice is born circa 1618, she is hardly likely to have been the mother of John Rice born 1630. At this period I do not think you have marriage contracts of children so young (and anyway when there were such contracts they were consummated at later dates). While today you do have 12-year-olds bearing children, this was unlikely to be possible in the early seventeenth century Child-bearing age has gone down over the last few centuries.

5/14/2014 at 3:04 PM

Anne Waldengrave is my 10th ggmthr and 7th cousin to Sir John Perrott via his mother Mary Berkley-Pugh.Anne Bures

http://www.geni.com/path/Henry+V+of+England+is+related+to+Anne+Wald...

http://www.geni.com/path/Mary+Pughe+is+related+to+Anne+Waldegrave?f...

5/14/2014 at 3:06 PM

Mark: it's the testimony of 1978 that Im following. She was a child, that gave birth, and I've said so out loud since August of last year. It is what it is. DCR

5/14/2014 at 4:03 PM

There have actually been studies done to try and ascertain when (at what age) it was "physically possible" for a woman to carry a child to term, in various historic periods and locations. Of course there is "always" a range with no absolutes, but the studies support Mark's point.

In Tudor England the age was substantially (by several years) older than it is today.

5/14/2014 at 4:05 PM

Dale - I would be asking "what was the definition of child in the source?". That definition has "changed" over time.

5/14/2014 at 5:07 PM

Obviously she carried a child to term and deliverd it. You are focusing on minutia when the story is clearly my father was telling all of us something you all resist. John Rice is a fact, so is his mother, and according to the tesitmony she was very young. We don't have a doccument that says she was born 1518, Perhaps Perrott and Margaret littleton were early to be married. The point is John Rice is now linked to my ancestory and the story is more than speculation in my view....DCR 1948

5/14/2014 at 5:13 PM

I am on my search for the disenheritance of John Perratt 1565 named in the doccuments above as being at Greys Inn ca 1583. We have the DNA profile of Tudors/ Tutors/Phillips and Rice's and now the much vaunted Russian TSAR carrying a version of the DNA signature but as an R1b1, so there is a common ancestor in the mix for all of this and Henry V and other's are out there to be correlated. Im on the hunt whether you agree or not. Relax, I'll post what I find so you can shred it. DCR 1948

5/14/2014 at 8:19 PM

Dale C. Rice

Knock it off.

You raised the claim that a child was impregnated by a nobleman quite some time ago.

As a woman, I asked myself, "is this even possible? Could it have happened to me? Could it have happened to a "me" of an earlier era and different location?"

I knew the answer for myself & those I know. I researched the answer for the Tudor era. So did others - and that research was presented to you both in summary form and original form, so you could read for yourself and come to your own understanding. Do you not remember the article about Elizabeth l?

Yet you've come back to making the same assertion.

When yet again the summary and yet again another restatement of the summary was not only ignored, it was mocked out by you (see your post http://www.geni.com/discussions/134239?msg=940758 as example), yet more detail and an excellent source was presented, in hopes you would actually "read the data" and come to a better concept of life for a Tudor era woman.

Instead you picked on the presenter.

Read the links.

Lose the attitude,

Showing 151-180 of 1194 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion