John Rice, of Dedham

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


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 211-240 of 1194 posts
Private User
5/16/2014 at 4:51 PM

EVERYBODY with a pinch of English ancestry is descended from William the Conqueror one way or another, ALL by mixed male-female descent (which will not show up on any or our current DNA tests - not on Y because no direct male line of descent, not on mtDNA because he wasn't female, and not on autosomal because it's way too far back for a clear signature).

The jury's still out on his actual Y-DNA group, but the odds favor it being some variety of R1b (because it's so very common - 50 to 90+% across western Europe). Still, odds are only odds.

Was very disappointed to learn that early reports were wrong and the Bourbons were boring R1b after all. I hope we find out that the Plantagenets were something more interesting.

5/16/2014 at 5:34 PM

Hi Dale, It's been a while since I checked in to see how you're doing.

Here is my lineage to some of the people you're mentioning.
William the Conqueror is my 25 great grandfather.
Matilda Flanders van Vllanderen, queen of England is my 25th great grandmother.
Adrien, Comte d'Orleans is my 36th great grandfather.
Alexander III, Romanov is my 16th cousin.
Isabella of Scotland, Countess of Norfolk is my 24th great grandmother.
William "The Lion", King of Scots is my 25th great grandfather.

The Bourbons are distant cousins. I don't think that they are boring.
I am a direct descendant of the Plantagenets. Henry I is my 26th great grandfather.

My DNA is R1b1a2. So you don't have to be I1. Hang in there.

John Pat

Private User
5/16/2014 at 5:46 PM

The Bourbons weren't boring, but their Y-DNA haplogroup is. It was Big News when they were thought to be the exotic G2a3b - quite rare even in continental Europe. Then some spoilsports tested some living Bourbon descendants, and it turned out the early results were WRONG.

Maybe somebody better recheck Thomas Plummer, of Anne Arundel just to make sure *his* early results weren't wrong....

5/16/2014 at 6:51 PM

Thanks, JPM: we have an interesting linkage at Captain John Cooke. I have a great load of COOKSONS that I have yet to put up, and I am wondering if there is a marriage/DNA link somewhere along the line. You have stellar Ancestoral Ties, Im just now getting aquainted with those which may be mine. As all have been very clear to point out, nothing on GENI proves all that taking it all with knowledge I have an expensive job ahead to prove it. I think the Thing which drove Perrott ap RICE out of wales was the penchant for Beheading the Royals of the Time, ie Charles Stewart. Even an illegitimate line with unproved linkage must have caused real concern...we shall see. Somebody belived that John PERROTT was a likely son or there would not be so much written about him in that regard. Im just happy to find John Perratt II listed as a son on the roles of Oxford & Grey's Inn. That leads me to why was he DISOWNED and Disenherited? Those doccuments are most likely in Wales or London and that's where Im headed now. Cheers to GENI, DCR 1948

5/16/2014 at 6:57 PM I did not post the correct linkage above. This is news to me DCR

5/17/2014 at 4:46 AM

Dale and Justin and Maven are simply, WAY too, COOL!!!! (*means it seriously and in no way sarcastically.) I can´t wait, to see, where this discussion (and Dale´s Journey´s) lead! Great thread! Great Job- in- progress, Guys and Gals! <3

5/17/2014 at 6:51 AM

I may add, Erica and Lloyd, to that previous shout out, too! ;-) <3
*I had only been referring to about the past 4 frames, of the thread. read further back... now.
You´re all doing it! never easy to collaborate... and always a sensitive thing... working together on individual and collective passionate family things, too.
You´re all doing a great job... being open, honest and mature about the whole opinions vs. fact discussion etc.

Private User
5/17/2014 at 7:58 AM

I just consider it all Natter - talking about anything and everything, relevant and not. :-D

5/17/2014 at 8:05 AM

I understand what you mean, about the "mania" and the Tudors... and about being the A- hole... when trying to help, as well...

However, I do think it´s pretty darned cool... that he´s going for it... gung ho... you know, to all of these places... of family origin etc.... and well, a slight touch of obsessiveness AND a bit of bitchiness/self- righteousness..., seems to be one of those traits... in these nasty little lines... somewhere, doesn´t it. #rhetoricallyspeaking
:-D #GottaTakeTheGoodWithTheBad #OrTheBadWithTheGood . ;-)

5/17/2014 at 8:12 AM

I supposed your right i guess.. I I have a few mormons\undeage mariages\slave owners\historial figures I guess some do not want to believe that their lineage had some African ancestry or were descended from less then honorable people and I haven't heard one denial or regret except from one or two persons who I know to be very prejudiced and who consantly try and break that connection on here..

5/17/2014 at 8:26 AM

Big WOW... *Shakes Head* *Gasps*
Yep, sort- o´- kind- o´- what I was getting at. ;-)

5/17/2014 at 9:20 AM

Michael McCann:
Your participation here on Geni on my proved 6th Great Grandfather's Thread regarding his arrival in America is not something you are forced to participate in. Your participation in my journey here on Geni is utterly voluntary. So you are at liberty to stop participating and commenting on my search for my roots and their antecedent lines.

You come here and smear me with your opinion when It's my search that brought this thread into existence? I am determined, and focused to find answers which YOU characterize as obscessive but you sir are not in the final 20% of your life as am I. So kindly lay off the personal analysis which you are clearly not sufficiently trained to do. This is a Spiritual Journey for me that MANY have DISRESPECTED, & Which I am devoted to doing before my EXIT from this plane of existence. I am focused and " going for it", exactly because no one has the forewarning of their own death. So, take your observations and filter them through my eyes and sensibilities and be Cool or be gone. I do what I do for my family and children who grew up without such information that could have changed the choices we all made along the way. Presumably you can understand that much.

If you have complaints you can register them with GENI, but so far they have noted that my journey in collaboration with the PROS here have brought an entirely NEW line of Perrott's & Rice's into the World-Wide TREE which is helpful to others. If it's not of interest to you why do you inflict me with your disrespect?

I am who I am, and if that's too much for you handle without resorting to terriblie personal observations then kindly disassociate. You get back what you serve up in the first place from me. Dale C. Rice 1948

5/17/2014 at 1:58 PM


One thing I do understand is that as people get older they want to pass on what they know (or think they know) to their children. In my own family I can see rpeated attempts to research the past family history, and where in some cases the results (if any) were subsequently lost.

I also understand the desire not to leave business unfinished. The obsessional streak in me makes me hate leaving an important goal unattained (ironic, considering that my profession made me change countries every 2-4 years). But the reality is that all of us depart this world with a lot of unfinished business, and in genealogy there is anyway no finishing line which is attainable.

However important your father's testimony is to you, don't let it take over your life. No one thing should. My interest in (or, as my wife would think, obsession with, genealogy) is no longer just in finding ancestors - and, precisely because of this, I do find them. Take a break from your Quest from time to time. If you've started taking an interest in "paper" genealogy, do an apparently unrelated family when you can't make progress on your own. My garden forces me to have other daylight work anyway if it is not to become a jungle. You think tomatoes don't have a genealogy? In the States, and most of Europe, probably not; there are restricted numbers of varieties which can be sold, and many of them will not give viable seed, which is convenient for the companies which sell seed. But where I live it is different. You take the seeds from the tastiest and healthiest plants.

Private User
5/17/2014 at 2:34 PM

Ok , lets try a little reason here. Dale , Mike has a right to his opinion as do you and others. He is right , you do do tend to go on and on in long eloquent , over worded, sentences, that if cut down to normal person's language ,might make better reading . However, I deduce from what you state that you have a family story, which you truly believe in and you have every right to. A lot of people are poo pooing you but you never know , stories are often true. I have stories in my family ,and as far as I am concerned they are true and I will, more then likely go to my grave saying they are true. unless otherwise proven wrong.

5/17/2014 at 2:47 PM

Thanks Mark: I use the same method in my seedling tomato's and I use the water/rooting method. Very snappy little minitures because they taste so divine in the desert! My father hand selected the seed corn and my Uncle, a WPA artist well known in Nebraska and Wyoming did a portrait of Dad doing just that, selecting the largest and straightest row of seeds in the dried ear for next years seed. I garden, maintain a helathy relationship with my children and partner in life, go to movies and free time is spent reading.

My measureing stick for progress is very different from the opinions expressed here. They want results that can be quantified and counted and logged, and coppied. My recollection has been uterly reorganized since discussing it here with all of you and many, many names popped up which led to lines of relationships. Prime example, the sister of Sarah/Chairity White ca 1632-34 was Phoebee White-BRAMAN. Until I saw her name and that I had used the mnemonic device to rember it in the future: I lived on Brayman St. In Salem when I made my visit. I now can put the pieces together in a manner I could not 15 months ago. And part of the testimony is that the Grandfather Perratt II was Disenherited.

Thankyou Judith for speaking up, I could not recall who had told me that previously so I did not pretend to know, but I can see now that you shared that 6 months back. The age 12 was derived from the age of Perrott born 1599-98 his date of marriage to a slightly older Margaret Littleton by 5 years I think, and the age the mother could have given birth was 12 or 13 as did Margaret Beaufrot. Upon close examination you will find that Margaret ap Rice ca 1618 is recorded as being a single person paying a hearth tax for 1 hearth in Pembrokshire and pledging 5 shillings for the Church, that's from Pembrokshire JOurnals on line page 29. "Alive in 1660 at the last visitiation." Born in 1618 meaning her mother was 23 or thereabouts when Margaret was born. And you will also see that two sisters were born to the Margaret littleon in 1650-60 and she did not remarry. Go figure how a dead man has children after he disappears 1641? Is it proof? No, but leads me to conclude that the testimony of Perrott ap Rice 1598 son of Perratt II is fully, 100% accurate. As stated before, my yardstick for measuring progress is not your standard method. Cheers. I am off to the Library and going back to Pembrokshire in 2015. DCR 1948

5/17/2014 at 3:08 PM

I still do not trust your genealogy (as you will not be surprised to hear), But,every now and again, I love your sources, Hearth tax is beautiful, I bet you woud never have got this without our skeptism1\

5/17/2014 at 4:34 PM

EXACTLY MY POINT Mark, that's what I mean about staying true to the story to deal with the objections. and now the story is coherent. I would very much like to see whom you think John Rice of North Walsham is and did he have a single line of ancestory to The tudors? I do because of who his fatther was and all there at least a dozen such connections in my family. So there you are. Sir James Perrott was a well Known Puritan in Havorford West and likely was the person (brother to the disowned John Perrott 1565) who arranged for the placement of the child with the Allins of North Walsingham. just fyi. DCR

5/17/2014 at 7:07 PM

Lloyd3 is Henry VIII, King of England's fifth cousin 15 times removed.

5/17/2014 at 7:12 PM

Useful chart, Lloyd3.

5/17/2014 at 7:28 PM

Are you related through your mother's side as well?

Private User
5/17/2014 at 7:59 PM

Well, if I am a 2nd cousin 15 times removed , I don't think I am close enough to count as related. I'm so distant it doesn't really matter., in a legal sense.

Private User
5/17/2014 at 8:01 PM

I don't find it useful. I find it confusing and mind boggling!

5/18/2014 at 1:49 AM

Personally I'm relieved that I'm not a direct descendant of Henry VIII. ;)

Private User
5/18/2014 at 3:06 AM

Linda so am I. I am so far away ,as far as I am concerned it doesn't matter.

Private User
5/18/2014 at 3:13 AM

You want to show me a chart that explains just where 2nd cousin 15 times removed is in the picture and maybe all this foolishness would make sense.As I said it's too far away to count as anything really related. All the charts you have shown us , still make no sense.I would have to take the chart with all 15 times removed and 2nd cousin on it and put a name on each one before it would make any sense to me.

Private User
5/18/2014 at 3:21 AM

I got the fact that James Taylor my great grandfather 7 time great grandfather 's 1st cousin would be my 10th times cousin . That's simple ti figure out but how 2nd cousin comes into it makes no sense. Only my mother's or father's 1st cousin would be my 2nd cousin. That's plain and simple. Are you trying to say example my James Taylor's brother's line would end up 10 times 2nd cousin.? So who cares.We are so far apart by the time you make it sown to me we could all marry each other at his point. I am using James Taylor because he is one of my direct lines to King Henry 2nd and William the Conqueror.

Private User
5/18/2014 at 3:24 AM

I love the fact that you people make people related via someone's husband or wife. That's no relation except by marriage. There's no blood line in there, unless when you trace back you can find another connection.

5/18/2014 at 4:22 AM

madam Loubris i like to know what in a legal sense mean to your point of view or other can explain

as my frog say evryone have figure easily i am french so i do not understand what legal sense mean into usa .

Private User
5/18/2014 at 5:34 AM

You are not a relative if not related by blood to a direct line. or legally adopted. A spouses family is exactly that their family and only yours by marriage. No real relationship times back, cousin, is not a close relationship. Technically you may be related but if it came to getting legally married after 2nd cousin anything goes.By the way my father's family was French background and he hated being called a Frog! Never bothered me but he hated it.

5/18/2014 at 6:21 AM

Cousins are still blood related. They are just not ancestors.

Showing 211-240 of 1194 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion