John Rice, of Dedham

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

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 181-210 of 1194 posts
5/14/2014 at 10:55 PM

I am unmoved by YOUR drama L3: I celebrate the life of an ANCESTOR and you mock the day set aside for reflection and rememberence. You are no superior sir....not at all. Indeed, It is I who am embarrassed for you.

Margaret Beaufort gave birth at 13....how now? Did she live and prosper? Quite so.

John Rice 1630 fits that testimony exactly, which is why I am here, to protect what was true then and true now.

I hope you reflect upon the spirit you convey to me and other persons looking for their answers among the shards of glass tossed at those who do not yield. Whatever: I expressed a Mother's Day wish, and this is what you return in your kindest moments of reflection? Mother's here and those around the world would be deeply sadened by your display.

D.C. R. 1948

5/14/2014 at 11:19 PM

Ms. Erica: This is interesting, the nonsense of Mother's Day is over...The women who married into the family line at Dedham and later carry the real power to the English Ancestory my father spoke of as reflected here. DCR

http://www.geni.com/path/Charles+Edward+Stuart+Bonnie+Prince+Charli...

5/14/2014 at 11:21 PM

Dale

What year was Margaret Beaufort born? What was the usual (mean, median, mode, average) age of mother for delivery of first child in that year? What was it, by contrast, in 1620-1630? What variations are there by region? By ethnic background? By class? All of these factors affect "the fertile period."

And why is it that her story is so well known? Could it be because it was the exception and out of the ordinary? Could it be because the behavior of her legal husband was scandalous? Is there any other case that is known, and in the Tudor era?

5/14/2014 at 11:22 PM

Rice is Charles Edward Stuart "Bonnie Prince Charlie"'s 11th cousin 7 times removed! Is utterly and completely meaningless.

5/14/2014 at 11:27 PM

And BTW Margaret Beaufort did "not" live and prosper. Her reproductive function was destroyed by the difficult delivery that almost killed her.

They "did" have doctors in England even then. It was "certainly" known that it endangered mother & child to be so young, and if there was such an accident, steps would have been taken if affordable and knowledgeable of.

Private
5/14/2014 at 11:47 PM

erica you should know by now that aruging with a person who has renounced the use of reasoning is like trying to adminster medication to the dead.. and further more i've blocked dale because of his behavior and yet every time some one comments i get dale and this person has commented in this useless waste of time in my news feed even though i've allready unfollowed this many times!!

Private
5/14/2014 at 11:49 PM

the more we feed the trolls the bigger the problem becomes..

Private User
5/14/2014 at 11:54 PM

As genealogical monomaniacs go, Dale is a relatively well-mannered example of the species. There are a few, including right here on Geni, that are MUCH worse.

Private
5/15/2014 at 12:02 AM

i think Erica Howton and others would have a problem with removing him though and Private User you are right there are a few maniac out of control curators on here.. sadly...

5/15/2014 at 4:53 AM

madam Howton

doctor was not the word at this time...the real definition is Apothecary i have translated into englsih for your bene fit of under stand in
i lost my few inglish this morning i just wake up///

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apothecary

martin the frog

5/15/2014 at 5:16 AM

Rather a host of medical professionals, including physicians, surgeons, apothecaries, midwives, and even barbers ;)

5/15/2014 at 6:44 AM

4) Presumed superiority? No. It is not presumed, Dale. I am definitely Your superior, here, just as everyone like Justin is My superior, here.

plz remove that gentlemen for geni site=Lloyd3 ban ip

a man that dont see other as an equal or stand for role in a non juridiction by engaging once again role in a purpose of personal should be remove

5/15/2014 at 6:52 AM

Careful folks. I'm not anyone's superior, here or anywhere else. We're all just fellow researchers with expertise in different areas.

5/15/2014 at 7:41 AM

we can debate on this one mr Swanström /it is just i am not willing to play my card public exept if need or aksed. i do remember from another discussion i asked for a name phone number and adress from a W that i think hes Lloyd3 i wish proof hes my superior i am ready to SERVE

mr Swanström i do respect you and beleive my words i am not play mind or words tricks i can make the diference between alot of things and you know what i am talking and we agree
we can have stormy words facto! but now som1 try to using you as a shield or a ofensive i cant let do that go
in a context those word are very bad

mr Rice have an ancestor story ...well who among us dont have a litttle story that not reflecting at it best?

i got few ancestor that dont have the best story .like other i prefer the Seigneur blondeau X2 yep 2 Seigneur in family and proven !!!!!!!

but the bad story one ancestor is part of historical events who gona judge me? or the ancestor?

alot on context for a history 12 years old giving birth
its not a good for a moral point of view but mr rice at this personal level have nothing to do with this event its hes family or not

so reading
4) Presumed superiority? No. It is not presumed, Dale. I am definitely Your superior, here, just as everyone like Justin is My superior, here

do you know what Juridictions means Lloyd3?
sory if my word are not so good this morning i did not breach in the peace

i am a man of peace

5/15/2014 at 9:13 AM

The exchanges above are the response to the Good Wishes I expressed for Mother's Day. The response is perfectly clear. LW3?

I see that there are grand and expanded egos on the baisis of years of deep learning. Sadly, the Ego's on display have moved your good, common sense aside, and cast a debilitating pall over my simple gesture of good will. That takes some guts and more than a little HUBRIS to suggest that my search for the source of information related to me has NO meaning.....Ofcourse it does have meaning for me Ms. Erica.

The information came from the line of affiliations all the way back to Henry 5th, and Bonny Prince Charles is a part of English History and came down to the Rice's of Ma via the family linkage I put up. The flow of information is key to understanding how my Father came to his understanding & testimony.

Your methods of analysis are scholarly and admirable. I have no quarrel with your methods. Most here want to quarrel with me over my methods....fine. My good wishes stand, despite the Star Chamber qualities expressed by persons who are old enough to know better. The shame belongs to you.

The issue of Authority is interesting to consider. In any debate format from High School one should know that establishing a final Authority to weigh the evidence and pass judgement has not and will not be a part of something as personal as MY SEARCH. This is not high school, and many of your comments reflect a level of childish vengence because I do not give in to your BULLY manners.

That just does not work with me. I can be persuaded by silence, and sorrow, and the need to protect the family names of person's involved in my search...But since it's all public record now, the weighing of that burden belongs to me. NOT YOU. I knew when I began this effort more than a year ago that these comments would come....I anticipated that. I will bring daylight to this family story originating in WALES in ca 1640, where my Roots are deep in the area's Norman History, & the Cromwell's of the ENGLISH CIVIL war period are key to understanding what happened in my view.

Good Day, I have work to do and a family tree to build off line. DCR 1948

5/15/2014 at 11:22 AM

"alot on context for a history 12 years old giving birth."

My "guess" is that there might be a person in the Rice family story this belongs to. That's what happens with family legends. They become disassociated, on the memory of the person hearing the story, from the person, time, and place it actually goes with.

That person cannnot have been the mother of a John Rice born between 1620-1630.

Women of that era in England did not have children at their age 12.

So no woman of age 12 could have been the mother sought to be identified.

Private
5/15/2014 at 3:48 PM

it would make sense more if she were 15-16 it's rare but it's been known to happen.. but 12 that's a bit of a stretch

5/15/2014 at 5:08 PM

That was well stated. Thank you.

5/16/2014 at 4:45 AM

I particularly like this piece: "Everyone has an Opinion about this or that, but when the Facts over-ride the Opinions, then the Opinions cease to matter."

In genealogy we rarely have facts about relationships. It's more subtle than that. What we have instead are documents that state "facts", then we form an opinion about whether to accept or reject the information.

A lot of the arguments we genealogists have center around this fundamental problem. In general, we've agreed to accept things like baptism records and deeds as being truthful records, but we can still disagree about whether the John Smith in that record is the same as this other John Smith.

And we're all agreed that family stories aren't worth much unless they're 1st or 2nd hand accounts, but we can still have wide differences of opinion about how much trust to place even in a 1st hand account.

I think in the end it often comes down to a familiar problem -- everyone has freedom to believe what they want, but if your evidence doesn't convince a genealogically sophisticated audience then all you have is a personal opinion.

5/16/2014 at 10:44 AM

A problem about Google and the internet is that they spread falsehood just as quickly as fact. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that truth, in so far as it can be ascertained, eventually overcomes falsehood no matter how often it has been repeated. (But, as Keynes said "In the long run we are all dead).

I tend to accept as "fact" a relationship which is asserted by two different family pedigrees in the Heraldic Visitations. Two nearby families which had often intermarried may well have checked the pedigrees which they were going to give to the heralds against each other, and ended up both (apparently independently) giving the same erroneous information. And, of course, someone who is shown as "died unmarried" tends to attract strange women (or men, depending on gender) like a dog attracts fleas.

5/16/2014 at 10:51 AM

No arguments here. I'm fairly cantankerous about accepting almost anything as a real fact. If there's documentation, I'm generally willing to accept it as an apparent fact and to operate as though it's true, while still preserving my mental reservations ;)

5/16/2014 at 2:04 PM

http://www.geni.com/path/Elizabeth+of+York+Queen+consort+of+England...

http://www.geni.com/path/Adrien+Comte+d+Orléans+is+related+to+Alexa...

http://www.geni.com/path/Elizabeth+of+York+Queen+consort+of+Englad+...

It is only a simple observation that the Kings of Norway/Denmark may prove to be the DNA link between Romanoff and French/ English lines as I-1 Haplogroup is the earlier arriver and developed before R1b1. Whatever the sequence turns out to be the Geni linkages are fascinating and worth verifying at a later time with MONEY in hand. DCR

5/16/2014 at 2:39 PM

William "the Conqueror", king of England

Since we share Y values with the Stuarts, and Romanoff's of two different Haplogroups it would be instructive to have commentary which illuminates when the seperation likely occured. DCR 1948

5/16/2014 at 2:47 PM

Sorry, Dale. I really don't want to get into that discussion with you. Maybe someone else will take you up on it. In fact, this discussion is so much a re-hashing of the same arguments that I'm going to Unfollow for now. If we find a way to break out of this cul-de-sac let me know and I'll come back.

5/16/2014 at 3:23 PM

Not to worry: It's all voluntary, I am pleased that at least there is a modicum of reason to believe there was a common ancestor to the Romanoff and English Kings with the values I put up some time ago. I thought the Geni linkage to the Common Grandfather in Normandy and Russia would be of interest. But aparantly not. I am still on the hunt for the disinheritence of John Perratt II 1565 per the 1978 testimony anyway. DCR

5/16/2014 at 3:51 PM

Mark: Please find the linkage to my father's testimony here. "You are descended from a long line of English KIngs and related to every crowned head of European Royalty." I had to take a second look today when Geni put this linkage up. He was right then and aparantly right now. It is the reason I would not give up on my method which seeks to link the classical method of geneaology (paper) to the new science of DNA and being able to access the Push Pin DATA links on Geni is revolutionary in my view. Regards Dale C. Rice 1948 6th ggrandson of John Rice of Dedham and 25th great grandson of Wm. The Conquorer.

5/16/2014 at 4:35 PM

Isabel of Scotland This would be the Scottish link to the Stewars? In any event, my reason for staying with the testimony is vindicated, and I don't resent the doubts, they drove me forward, and that was the entire point of staying on the path I chose. DCR 1948

5/16/2014 at 4:36 PM

Sorry: Typo, Stewarts?

Showing 181-210 of 1194 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion