The Needle in the Haystack: finding matching DNA for John Rice of Dedham, Ma 1630 son of Margaret Rice ca 1617-18

Started by Dale C. Rice on Thursday, July 3, 2014


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

This discussion has been closed by an administrator.
Showing 1-30 of 318 posts
7/3/2014 at 9:18 AM

My effort to uncover the likely father of John Rice 1630 my 6th ggrandfather (HAPLOGROUP I-1 M253) settled upon the person John Perratt 1565, Named by my father & raised in the household of Sir John Perrott 1528 and Syble Johns/Jones (AS NOTED BY OXFORD UNIVERSITY ADMISSION TO GREY'S INN 1680). His Brothers, William Perrott and Sir James Perrott had names attatched to the BIOLOGICAL father Sir John Perrott (alleged son of Henry Tudor). They and the WHITE family are concentraited around the PERRATT River in England and seem to be heavily intermarried. R1b1 being the dominant Perrott group, and I-1 being represented in the ANCIENT White family with ties to the Rhys ap Twdwdr line. (my closest DNA match at 37 markers is Allan White with 2 steps variation.)

THE RESEARCH, shows that the most likely DNA for any child of Henry Tudor and Sir John Perrott is R1b1. Eliminating them from the biological father hunt. Since we know that I1 haplogroup, My grandfather's and mine, is a more ancient Clade (evolved prior to R1b1) then we are also looking for the SCANDANAVIAN line which most likely settled in Northern FRANCE, where the Family Tree DNA reports that my line is likely to have originated & then spread to the Channel coastline of England.

I find that Rollo, was active in Northern France about 800AD to 900AD and his descendent's line makes it's way to the Cochranes and Phillips lines. This needs to be fully investigated and established before I can make the assertion that the Father of John Perratt II 1565 is of a Rollo descent. At the moment it seems more likely than not, but I have not proved it. That's the most information I can provide at this time.

I have only one Phillips match at 37 markers but have 6 or more Cochranes at 37 and many more at 25 markers on the Y chromosome. The link below, expands that match considerably in my view. Justin may disagree, but there is remarkable uniformity among the Phillips DNA I-1 M253 matches. So the Father of John Perratt II is most likely to have a COCHRANE (cousin by Marriage to Tudor) and PHILLIPS (Daughter line of Sir John Perrott 1528). We already know that Picton Castle Phillips is R1b1 meaning that the Testimony of my father of a 1/2 brother to 1/2 sister co-mingle is where the I-1 blood group entered the Phillips Line. (IT would be useful to know if they were exclusivly R1b prior to 1600 and then the I-1 blood group Phillips line takes hold after that time period.

The Sir Robert Dudley line likely connects to both families above as it traces through Sutton-Dudley to Northern France. Justin Thinks it should be eliminated from consideration but re-reading the text of the DNA analysis shows they do not have anyone connected to the FRANCIS Dudley line who has tested yet and the ones that have tested are not yet positively linked to Sutton Dudley and Sir Robert. and are therefore are UNGROUPED sinGletons, part of a diffuse but possibly related group of persons Named Dudley. Until we establish that Robert Dudley's DNA is positively known and it's values on Y chromosome, he has to stay in the mix for now. (If I have missed a vital part of what you based your opinion on Justin you will have to re say it, because I don't read the site as saying what you said. Oliver Dudley New Bern NC is 5 or 6 steps out, so perhaps there is a linkage to the Phillips line here.

7/3/2014 at 9:19 AM


7/3/2014 at 9:32 AM

PS: THE History of Parliment shows that Queen Elizabeth I Tudor daughter and Boylyne Mt.DNA descendent was laying in for 5 days on November 22, 1565 9 months after her prolonged visit with Sir Robert Dudley in February 1564. The question asked by an ambasador to the Court was answered by Lord Burleigh as: " suffering from a Seasonal affliction". We will not know if the Queen was resting after giving birth or was ill with a cold for some time. This little investigation makes no claim to solve that question.

The mt. DNA side of the Rice family shows J2a1a with an origination on the central Iberian Pennesula. The Tudor DNA could only be represented thusly if the Mt. DNA came from Mary Tudor, not Elizabeth Tudor. So the testimony of 1978 flies in the face of what is known as true in World History. Whatever the outcome, this surely demands better investigation than I am able to summon to the cause. Respectfully DCR

7/5/2014 at 7:55 AM

In the search for the source of INSIDER information regarding the Tudors a recent connection to the Stevens lineage also connects to the Tudors as shown above. Sir Wm. Gardiner is likely the knight who slew Richard III under the banner of Sir Rhys ap Thomas of Wales and Bosely Field. Sir Wm. married Helen Tudor and their daughter "BEATRICE" is likely the same person who served Princess Mary Tudor for 38 years as her Lavandar. The initial story That began this investigation was a child conceived at the Field of Cloth of Gold and born to Beatrice's staff woman, SAUNDERS in March 1521 comes down from this INSIDER connection. That's the route the information took to my father's testimony in 1978. The Boy, William ap Rice was part of the household of Mary Tudor and was rewarded with manor homes, and his own Hearaldic patent which included the Queens Pomegranite. That has been discovered here on GENI during the earliest part of the search for the TRUTH. Now we have the most likely path of that information worked out here in the above citation.

7/5/2014 at 1:41 PM

You may recognize the NAME as a venue of information handed down to my Father, which has been shared here and hooted at continueously for 26 months. But if you have a better source of information, then do share it....please. The man is my first cousin 12x removed, not known until today, July 5, 2014.

7/5/2014 at 2:20 PM

To those of you who may not know of my search, it began with a conversation with my father 4 months before he passed away in February 1978. He was fit as a fiddle then so I regard the CONVERSATION as testimony to be truthful, and to the best of my knowledge, the information came down to him from his father and grandfather before him. I have no PAPER TRAIL to prove the assertions he made but we do have DNA and I am using that to selectively analyize the likely players in the mystery : "WHO IS THE FATHER OF JOHN PERRATT?". The above links at Phillips, DUDLEY, link to my proved DNA matches at Chochrane & Phillips. The lines have been looked at Carefully, but I am in disagreement over the EXCLUSION of the Dudley's by an expert here on GENI because all the Dudley DNA project has so far are unaffiliated persons to the Proved DUDLEY line Francis Dudley and/or Sir Robert Dudley, named my father's testimony.

Since I can't rule out Robert DUDLEY as a candidate as some assert, I am leaving that open for now. as the father of JOHN PERRATT II born November 19, 1565 9 months after Robert Dudley was in close proximity to Elizabeth I. Here's the Evidence in DNA for you to see for yourself, then go to the family photo's and see the faces which derive from such a beginning as the Testimony says. The First is mine and is within 3 steps of the projected DNA values on Y chormosome for John Rice 1630 of DEDHAM, Ma. and father of the the SAMUEL RICE of Ct. line.

13 22 14 10 13-14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8-9 8 11 24 16 20 29 12 14 15 16 15 8-9 8 11 24 16 20 29 12 14 15 16 11 10 19-21 14 13 16 18 35 -35 11 10 (37 marker test beginning with DYS393 ending at DYS 438)

Family Group 12 on the PHILLIPS line establishes that they are indeed Part of the Cochrane (cousins to Henry Tudor) line and myself & John Rice 1630 of Dedham. You will see on the first 25 markers there are only 3 1) step variations and all of the Phillips line in the above froup end with my 35-35 CDY marker and 11-10 markers at DYS442 and DYS438 (markers 36 and 37) of the test I took last September.

If Mark or Justin can look at these men to see if the fit into the descendents of ANN Phillips (Perrott) after 1600 then we would then know that they are part of the non- Picton Castle Phillips which are R1b1.

7/5/2014 at 7:16 PM

John Stevens, I is the "top" of the known Stevens pedigree.

The family was a yeoman / husbandry family of Caversham in Oxfordshire.

No associations with Court ... Acting ... Poetry ...

7/5/2014 at 7:22 PM

This lady represents to coming together of Shakespeare's Stratford on Avon cousins with the Stevens

Esther Stevens

About 1675, in Andover MA (north east - check maps). Not particularly near Dedham.

7/5/2014 at 10:09 PM

Lloyd, your hostility to the true events which took place in Late October 1977 are 3.3 months before his death. It was the only we ever discussed this, and I tell you his mind was sharp. Your interpretation is skewed by virture of your hostility. Now if you have some other question I'll try to answer but you will be put on notice that how ask the question is how you will be answered.

The point which you seem to be trying to impy that I am Wm. Shakespeare's cousin is a faulty intprepretation of what I said. The language permits me to include my UNCLE as my link to SHAKESPEARE as evidenced by the words Brotherinlaw, which he was to my father. No need to get uppity because my case is strengthening. My Phillips information is INSIDER information, not known to you or anyone and yet my father knew of the 1/2 Brother to 1/2 Sister co-mingle in 1900. The DNA is backing the testimony and that's the thread I want to convey here. Please don't make a mockery of my search...I have done nothing but defend the Truth contained therein. Now you will have to live with derision you have cast since arrived.

7/5/2014 at 10:20 PM

Ms Erica: The information in circulation within the family of Shakespeare is hardly knowable at this point in time. The point I am raising is that there is a family linkage to Shakespeare which was not known before unless you are able to discount the family stories by some other means, this is the venue for the insider information as well as from the BACON affiliation and Lady West, also connected to this same family. That's all Im trying to establish. Now we have a whole bunch of Phillips that need to be examined and I leave that to Justin. DCR

7/5/2014 at 10:25 PM

Sorry, his Death was February 1979, so our converstation was Late October 1978, not 1977. DCR

7/5/2014 at 10:46 PM

Opps: faulty wording on my part in the first blush of finding out that my UNCLE is a first Cousin. The statement that Lloyd 3 makes is correct, I overstated the relationship in the blush of that finding.

So Shoot me. Im just solving a 460 year old mystery from the new technology just advanced by others here....and if I get any more HELP from some people here....I will likely have to call the Shrinks!!! Egad, even my horoscope says not to "Think outloud, as it's likely to cause confusion today: LOLOL" Can we please just stay with the topic at hand?

The Phillips/Cochrane DNA link is indiputable and Justin has seen that, but has not yet seen the group I linked above i.e. Family Grou 12.

7/5/2014 at 11:59 PM

Dale - I'm only average at math but as a literature major I was required, at a very good university by very good professors, to study Shakespeare for two semesters. Naturally that included examining the biographical evidence.

Whatever fiction you think might be true about Shakespeare, the actor, playwright & theatrical impressio is just that: fiction.

And his cousins who immigrated to America were of similar, ordinary middle class background to him.

Since they originated in a "different" part of England from the Stevens, it is not likely the Stevens & Barkers knew each other before the marriage in Massachusetts around 1675.

Since the part of Massachusetts the Stevens were in was different from the Rice family, it is unlikely those two families knew each other before meeting & homesteading in Montana in the 1930s.

There is only whatever respective family stories were shared between families at that time.

Hope this helps.

7/6/2014 at 12:00 AM

Sorry - typo. Impressario of the Globe Theatre.

7/6/2014 at 5:01 AM

of 1978 above not on 1978.

7/6/2014 at 5:12 AM

We are discussing the DNA evidence of the Cochrane-Tudors/ & Phillips/Rice -White famlies on this thread, and where that set of Y values may intersect with the Phillips line of Picton Castle which is known to be R1b1. This requires the expertise of persons other than myself so unless you are at Justin's level of knowledge I will listen but not accept your view on DNA until I have cause that you know as much as he.

7/6/2014 at 5:27 AM

Ms Erica: The joining of FAmilies of 1675 would naturally get around to FAMILY History. The Avenue of information of a Family connected to Shakespeare is likely to have surfaced along with the Gossip of the age. For example, the story that Queen Mary's child was stolen, and was not dead upon birth, or that she had a child at all, would likely have come up.
That too was part of DAD's assertion, but which I never revealed as being too outlandish to bring up. Where does that come from? It may be part of the "telephone" effect. Who knows? The point of my Uncle's Kinship to Lady West and Shakespeare cannot be dismissed in my view. DCR

7/6/2014 at 6:03 AM

Sheffield/Saunders Linkage to John Rice 1630 DNA profile at Family Tree DNA shows remarkable similarity between the John Sheffield 1725 of Henrico Co. Virginia (the only Non-Saunders listed on the Saunders DNA site) and the group of men of the Sheffield name here. Who are all I-1 and M253 sorted. The link to Saunders shows the DNA profile my father's testimony pointed to from field of Cloth of Gold 1520 and Wm.ap Rice 1521, groom, then minor official of Queen Mary's administration who was given his own patent of Nobility May 2, 1552 and raised in the Princess Mary Tudor household, previously discussed on the first thread from last year. This is a conflict that Justin will have to resolve. The many
mysteries that eminate from this DNA profile shows much shortened Y values from other persons of note in England and which I view as an OLDER more dominant set of results. Many of the values are shorter than Wm. the Conquorer estimated values meaning that the line is ancient in England and may stem from the Viking Influence of Rollo in Northern France. Naturally, when there is this kind of variation only the highest skill sets can do the evaluation of these DNA Y values.

7/6/2014 at 7:28 AM

why this discussion is tag? its very interesting mr Rice

7/6/2014 at 7:41 AM

Dale, I can see you're having fun playing with the numbers and exploring Tudor trees, but as I've said before you will never find proof that way.

There's no analysis to do here, no conflict to resolve. It's meaningless to talk about dominance for y chromosomes. They don't recombine, so dominance never enters the picture. And, you can't reconstruct a phylogeny by choosing random families because you can't rule out convergence.

If this line of research appeals to you, there is only one way to do it meaningfully. You have to extend the paper trail for your particular matches. You have to trace the ancestors of your Phillips match and your Cochrane matches to see if they really do go back to the Tudor court. These people have come to a brick wall with their ancestors, just as you have with John Rice.

The matches could pay off, but the odds are against it. Your connections with them could be too far back to be meaningful. You need real research, not guesses.

7/6/2014 at 12:01 PM

The testimony said that we were related to all the Kings of England, and now here it shows Scotland to my Uncles 13th Great Grandfather. So the last time we got near the DUDLEY's you ruled them out because the data set was incomplete on Dudley. We did however locate Amy Robsart as an ancestor to ANN HACKLEY wife of my 6th ggrandfather. Are you still convinced that this Hackley does not connect? If there is a shot in 10 million I bet it's with ANN Hackley. I would be willing to work on ANN.

7/6/2014 at 12:21 PM

Once again, all the connections that were questioned were disconnected that led directly to Ann Hackley and Robesart. The Truth that has been thrown out because the paper was questioned means re-inventing the wheel....something that could easily have been done by working on the links in question. All that is left now are Marriage relationships....and not what people thought was true, which at times is just as important as the truth. Thanks loads for the HELP!!!

7/6/2014 at 12:27 PM

The proved relationship is to the WILSON line. That's been worked over a lot so I presume it's solid. This is way not what I was hoping to do....I don't like it one bit that work of other people on ANN Hackley has been tossed into the trash. That's tantamount to blocking the investigation and I don't particularly care if you are offended. You have destroyed a pathway to Robesart that could have been checked.....Lucky for me I printed that relationship off for the family when I saw it a few weeks back....Hope I saved a copy to start the search for the wife of John Rice is connected to Robesart.

7/6/2014 at 12:32 PM

Wilson-Rice to Robsart.....Here on Geni. Does someone want to disconnect something? Are still believing that John Rice 1630 just materialized out of thin AIR and dropped into the Puritan Village?

7/6/2014 at 1:45 PM

Now Where does ANN HACKLEY fit into this picture? She does, but I don't recall where. ANYONE?

7/6/2014 at 7:02 PM

Dale, I don't know who you're accusing of disconnecting your Hackley line but I wish you'd stop it. No one disconnected anything.

Someone suggested a Hackley family on the Isle of Wight. Someone else pointed out the Anne you wanted for your Tudor connection was a generation too early. Someone else found a later Anne with the same ancestry. And someone else found the Anne was married in England and having kids after your Anne was already in Massachusetts.

So, dead end. That happens.

If you remember, I agreed that the Isle of Wight Hackleys are very good candidates for Anne of Dedham. However, your Anne would have to come from another line, one without the Robsart connection. You immediately lost interest.

7/6/2014 at 10:16 PM

This might be a good point in the discussion to stop for a minute and think about how far our sense of family extends, both for ourselves and for our ancestors.

In our modern, mobile world I know many people who don't even know all of their 1st cousins. Personally, I know and socialize with my 1st cousins, most of my 2nd cousins, and even a few 3rd and 4th cousins, but I think that's unusual today. Even with small modern families that gives me a few hundred relatives who I know by sight and name.

If I try to imagine all my 6th cousins (say), the number would be huge. Maybe somewhere around 1 000. To me it would feel like half of America and a good chunk of Sweden. I don't know all of them and I wouldn't feel any particular kinship with them if I met them.

So, how does that correspond to the world our ancestors lived in? Most studies suggest that in Western Europe kin solidarity, as measured by wills extends historically about as far as 2nd cousins. Not very far at all. If one of your grandparents was a sibling of one of someone else's grandparents, you probably counted that person as a relative. Otherwise, not.

When we see these long, meandering links across many generations the first question I always have is whether this relationship would have been meaningful to the people who lived at the same time. The first piece I look for is whether they were 2nd cousins or closer. If so, there's something meaningful. But when the chain tapers off at one end or the other, it's hard to see why anyone would care.

The bottom line is that the relationships that are meaningful are to the people you know, not to the thousands of people who are technically related but who you've never heard of.

7/6/2014 at 11:22 PM

Justin: We are seperated by only 400 years or 5 90 year lifetimes. The distiance you are spaning is a very short period of time....long for one human being not long at all for a family. The point that I am making and have been ignored repeatedly is that the spread of information acorss 400 years is like yesterday. I don't know what Lloyd 3 is up to but it's not appreciated at all. These people exist in my direct family line and not his, and certainly not yours or my step brother. If you want me to stay here call off the DOGS.

7/6/2014 at 11:40 PM

Lloyd3: I don't care if you are the Queens are not welcome to speak to me about anything. I don't even bother with your corrections anymore. I am hunting for the key to Cochrane/Phillips/Tudor/and Dudley. Whom ever that person is is my bet for the father of John Perratt II.

7/6/2014 at 11:43 PM

Hi, gentlemen. I'm going to humbly suggest that we stick to critiquing arguments instead of judging personal character or accusing others of orchestrating anything. I know this topic is emotional, but try to not let it get the best of you. If you find that you can't post to this thread without it upsetting you, that might be a good sign to take a day or two off from it. Also keep in mind that Geni is a wonderful site for genealogists and it's not worth risking losing access to it because of a careless comment made in a thread like this.

Showing 1-30 of 318 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion