Henry VII of England - Haplogroup I1 is the likely subclade of the Tudor Dynasty

I am going with the Phenotype Expression of the creature, us included, follow the genetic message recorded on the genes by firture of 4 base pairs combining and recombining according to the mendal laws of expression...Recessive gene can be expressed as dark skin for a white couplbe but both parents must carry the receessive message. Further, the phenotypes are a one way street.....they express the gentic component but do not CAUSE the genetic component. Therefore, over time a recurring feature within a family that is unique is said to be genetically inherited...but did not cause the mutation in the first place....Thus Phenotypes are the secondary result of the gene's inherited. That's the conclusion I get from reading about Phenotypes.

Jennifer,

I really like your carrot analogy. People have different kinds of learning styles, but I suspect that most genealogists like genealogy because they learn best from stories and images. Give them the facts as a straight narrative and they're lost. They have to "see" it in action in order to understand it. Illustrating with marbles, or puzzles, or carrots help everyone see it.

Over the years, I've rarely met anyone who understands any of this without going over it, again and again. That's why I think discussions like this are the only way to do it. If we're not talking about how the science operates in individual cases, most people don't get how it works.

One story about myself that helped me understand some of it -- my eye color is unusual. Most people have their eye color arranged in spokes around the iris. Sometimes the spokes are fatter and sometimes they're thinner. If you look closely, you'll see that the spokes are actually different colors. It's only when you stand back that you get the idea that there is a predominant color.

The color in my eyes isn't arranged in spokes. It's arranged in a mosaic. There is white and black and different shades of blue. The overall effect can be blue or black.

In 6th grade we had to do a genetics project. You know the kind of thing -- "I got my (blue) eyes from (my mother)", "I got my (pointed) chin from my (father)", etc.

I had a hard time with that project because of my eye color. My mom has green eyes with the mosaic. (She claims hers used to be blue.) My dad had very pale blue eyes with very small spokes of white. (He claimed his eyes used to be green.) So, I was sure it was more complicated than we were being told. I argued with the teacher (and got an F for failing to understand the assignment and for being insubordinate).

Years later, I found out that geneticists had determined that eye color is much more complicated than they used to think. Ha! I was right, and I even figured it out in 6th Grade ;)

After I was tested at 23andme, I was browsing through their profile of me and found their conclusion -- "You probably have blue eyes". To me, that's a profound statement about the uncertainty that still exists. They know 15 of the genes that affect eye color, and still they can't be sure what color someone's eyes really are.

Dale, you're using a lot of complex language to say something very simple. What someone actually looks like is a combination of what the genes tell the body to do, as modified by environmental factors. That's all phenotype means.

My genes might tell my body to be 6'2", but if I didn't get the right nutrition at the right times in my childhood I might only be 5'8".

Beacuse I am a FOODIE....LOLOL I like the Pea soup analogy...Pea soup is mostly about dried Peas....but there are other ingredients...The Y chromosome for Plantagenant/Wm the Conquorer is the background or base ingredient on the Scaffolding that does not change...that's the recipe...the variables on the X woulde be akin to spices like grlic, tumerick etc. But the 44 other Chromosomes would correspond to Carrot, onion, celery.....If you construct the soup the same way on the Scaffolding of the Y Chromosome....you get a recouring number of chances to run across the basic ingreedients....lot's of Peas and very few other veggies....the effect of the combinations are stunning flavors, that cause people to keep coming back for more PEA SOUP....be it money prestiege or Power....these Chromosomes from Churchill/Foote Or Earls/Plantagenat or Gardiner/Tudor are added ever 3rd generation across 10 generations....We still have Pea Soup....but small additions that are now in the mix....last one 108 years ago or 3 generations to my specific ancestory soup.......The Expressions of certain features have been there all along and keep getting passed to the Male Y chromosome groups.....and the females in slightly less direct fashion....the descriptions Im using as an idicator occur because that's what the main ingredient is in pea soup is Male Y DNA the scaffolding upon which other expressions in the famly represent but are not the cause of the expression....they simply coexist with the Y in greater probibility and therefore combine in ways we can see more redily....I don't look like anyone in particular....But Im clearly genertically my mother's son....proving the recombinant idea....When a face does surface within the family that is MONARCHAL we should say that it is a funtion of gentic expression of the rest of the recipe....not a function of X or Y.....and did not cause itself to be expressed....expression is sim;ly a matter of the opportunities for that combination.....Therefore, Limited ingredients by virture of Marriage selections limits possiblites and increases the chances for a certain expression to occur.....It's Random but random within the soup! My Grandmother added her XX to the soup but was not picked up as a phenotype expression of the gene's contributed....the reason is because for 400 years the soup recipe has been dominated by a related bunch persons from long ago who find compelling reasons to agree to form the genetic expression I have described....It's not meaningless that people look like their ancestors, it means the gentic message is there in enough frequency over time to keep recombining . You can suggest, demand, and I would agree that one person in 25 is not significant....8 persons in 25 is statistically significant to this argument and say they are coincidental is to miss the point of something larger at work here.

Except that the y isn't a scaffolding for anything. It's one of the minor spices.

Better yet: the y is the kind of bowl you pour it in -- but not even the color or shape of the bowl ;)

Dale,

What Jennifer and I are suggesting is something a little different. (Jennifer: correct me if I'm misinterpreting.)

We're saying that people fall into some broad "types". We might not think about it, but most of can spot these type categories. So, maybe there is some kind of master organizing principle.

People who are fair are almost always uniformly fair. Their eyes, their hair, their skin. It's not so completely random that someone with Irish skin and freckles will get black hair and black eyes. Not even if those genetic components are right there in their immediate family.

People with sharp features tend to have all their features be sharp. Chin and cheekbones, and usually also a bony build. You don't often see someone with a sharp pointy chin but flat cheekbones.

What I think you're not seeing is that if you chop that carrot in half, and each half in half again 10 times, then you throw a random piece into the soup, it's not going to make a spectacular difference if you get to throw in four pieces instead of just one. You've still only got a few pieces in a pot with thousands of other pieces of carrot.

Okay, then Pea Soup likes that bowl, and socially keep trying to find ways to merge with the soup....the comibnations occur because of the the frequencey of opportunities presented....that these persons across time seek out for purely personal reasons, reflect the belief that there is something useful about being in that particular bowl....The Plantagenant bowl seems to have a keen following among the ladies....so to speak...LOL Im really not trying to tell you anything....you do know that right? Im trying to pull the whole story together and get it described properly leaving room for MYSTERY....or the underlying power of DNA recombinat theory....I know, Im a hopeless romantic trying to play mendal and Frances Crcik at the same time......LOLOL not even remotely possible! don't pay attention to me....Im wallowing now. Ha...Happy Sunday Everyone....life is great...and it's ReALLY,RELLY hot in Palm Springs Ca. Enjoy!
Since the Current theory relegates Y DNA to a minor role....some hormone at the right time to turn all we female zygotes into males....yes I know we have the Y chrom. form the beginning but perhaps there is also a master switch on Y not understood for it's ability to give marching orders to the rest of his marching buddies.....? Maybe, Y does more than is recognised? Just an outsider thought tossed into the light of discussion. Have a great day!

Yea, but Pea Soup has to live with the problem that all those ladies only have a tiny bit of what he wants. And, if one of them has the right combination of money, beauty and brains, he'll probably take her even if she has less of the Plantagenet ancestry than the others.

In fact, in the end his only criteria is likely to be if she'll have him. And -- the fate of men everywhere -- if she has too much money, beauty, brains, or Plantagenet ancestry, she'll be able to strike a better deal somewhere else.

;)

I'm a bit of a contrarian, so here's something to think about.

If someone has royal ancestry but isn't a king or queen, then their ancestors lost the game.

Embarrassing, really. They didn't make the right marriages, they weren't good enough at politics, they squandered their money, they didn't kill their cousin, they lost an important battle, no body liked them, whatever.

If someone has royal ancestry and a noble title, then they got a consolation prize. Nice, but not really the same.

Look at Margaret Beaufort. She parlayed her illegitimate descent from the wrong branch of the Plantagenets into a crown for her son who belonged to a family of Welsh nobodies. Whatever you think of her methods, that's a woman who wanted a crown and didn't let an accident of birth get in her way.

Now look at Margaret Pole, her younger contemporary. There's a woman who should have been able to grab the crown half a dozen times for herself or one of her sons, but she bungled every opening.

So, when I see someone boasting about royal ancestry I always want to ask: "If your ancestors didn't care enough to grab the crown when it was (arguably) within their reach, why do you care so much about it now?"

Me, I blush to admit it.

Well, you know it's not the ancestroy that Im interested in....It's proving that the story my father held on to for 90 years was true.....That's it. Period. I hate the Tudor's....I despise their methods. I do also adore Margaret Beaufort......And if possible, I would love to prove it, without HENRY VIII or Bloody Mary. They are persons of such horible character that can hardly stand the thought....so if no Royal Blood to them....all the BETTER in my book....I have to marvel at the Power granted to persons of that bloodline however, because they had such complete dominance and that would feel mighty nice second hand even 450 years after the fact. My quest is about the STORY being a TRUE story....one that can be shared if it is TRUE.....How glorious would it be to reveal that Ole Henry had this hidden son by a married laundress in far off Wales that never gave a second thought to, except for the fact she was good as a Lavendar and made his shirts smell like Lavendar....The irony of his futile search for an heir ended with utter failure....but over here, in tiney Tenby is the budding line of Males who throgh Male after Male numberin in the Dozens if not hundreds? You gotta say that's a very rich premise....besides which, no has thought it up so the novelty becomes quite a story....Combined with the founding of America and a trading post on the James River 1645 with living descendants down a seperate lineage is just more than I can resist. So, no, for me it's the simple proof that a hiddent son escaped Ole Henry and his crowd of advisors to live out an DREAM on their own terms....That's the story Im after....fyi no blush for me at all. DCR 1948

PS: sorry about the missed spelled words, my vision is blurry today and I don't catch them until it's too late to correct.....I can spell, I just type really fast for me, by touch and don't see the mistakes.....fyi

I have found a DNA test for $179 that gives 37 Y chrom. results and a mitochondrial DNA result that by itself runs $50 and should take us back 15 genearions or so.....That's good enough for the present level of inquiry I think....We can always expand it later if need be....I will post the Haplogroup and anything of interest by Sept 1 hopefully. DCR 1948

Dale, for what it's worth, I think it would be very surprising if every single one of the Henrys DID NOT HAVE sons by various laundresses, married or not. Most of them didn't bother to keep their illegitimate children (especially the sons) hidden. That's where the "Fitz" prefix comes in...

The story could be true. I happen to doubt it for many reasons, one being that gender is determined by the father and he appeared to be unable to sire a son strong enough to survive childbirth and infancy. A basic understanding of statistics, coupled with a careful reading of Henry VIII's biography, says that the odds are tremendously against him being totally unable to father one such son within ANY of his many marriages and acknowledged illegitimate children, but able to do so in the case of one unacknowledged child. It's an interesting story, but perhaps it might be time to turn your boundless energy and determination in another direction. Just think how much you could accomplish doing genealogical research rather than pouring so much time and energy into fruitless speculation!

Having said all that, I should say that I have benefited a great deal from these DNA discussions, and I believe you absolutely have the right to speculate all you want, lol! Good mysteries are one of the great good fun things of life...

Dale, whichever way it turns out I'd bet you'll be the one to go down in history as proving it or disproving it. In my book that's more impressive than any royal descent. I value my own genealogical break-throughs far more than I do any line of descent, so I can understand that part of your quest.

Having said that, I agree with Jennifer that the Tudors seem to have been genetically weak. Owen Tudor had a bunch of sons, but Edmund, Henry VII, and Henry VIII all seem to have had problems. Probably their Valois ancestry. Catherine de Valois was perhaps not the best choice for the Tudor matriarch, even though she gave them their start in their rise to power. And, not just the Tudors. Her son Henry VI and grandson Prince Edward don't seem to have been very healthy either.

Yes, I agree! The recent info I read said Henry's condition made his women allergic to him after their first child together....His daughters did not suffer from congenital problems or deformites but he carried some awful mutation that caused his son's to be weak...If you look carefully at the portrait of Edward VI...You will see the artist had him stand facing one direction but had him twist his body back toward the Artist and then look the same direction ast the lower portion....this coverd his spinibifida, you can also see his eye sockets do no align and the left socket is lower, and the cant on his nose is not vertical, but tilted leftward by abour 3 to 4 degrees off vertical....Henry, his father carried that deformity as well with the right side of his nose clearly more verticle and a spreading of the nasal tissue to toward the left.....causing sleep apnea and sinusitus because of the misalligned septum.... The one comment you made about haveing a gentic message to be taller but thawarted is exactly what happend to me....Rather than bone growth, I worked so hard in the fields that my energy was spent and nothing much was left to grow the bones in my legs....so I stopped at 5 foot ten instead of catching my lazy -ass brother who got to sleep all he wanted in his teen years....while I was out pulling prune tree roots out of the ground for a farmer I cleared 10 acres of trees, and his son helped me one day out of 30 that it took.....so his son did not have to....I did learn to work hard and only later learned how to work smart, but the FARMERS were great fans....I can tell you! LOL...The great barrel chest developed by the time I was 16 throwing bales of hay at the stackers and I could buck them 20 ft across the field to the stackers because i had walked up to 15 miles every weekend caddying from the time I was 10 to age 14....So my growth was in deed stunted by labor...We had good nutrition for most years....As i look at the combinations of characteristics that seem to have fallen en mass on my family....I keep saying: "The pieces are too small and spread out over time, yet the cluster of options are slanted to one side....It's a very unique set of circumstances that we will get our collective minds around one day....As I expect nothing but I1 Haplogroup, I will be content to simply retell the story as Historical Based Fiction....and label it so....The story, never told is discovered day by day and genetic piece by piece....Any woman capable of getting a crown for her son, and endowing Queens College and Oxford, Is a woman I want to be related to.....Also check the story of Arthur Tudor and Gruffed ap Rhys married to Catherine St. John....THEY WERE VERY,VERY CLOSE. So close in fact that Arthur Never consumated his marriage with Catherine of Castile.....Hmmm? I had friends like that also....just saying. Goodnight and many, many thanks. DCR 1948

PS: A year ago I reasoned that any man who was useful to the King as Sir Rhys ap Thomas was to Henry VII would likely be rewarded, with great offices and estates...and the their children would be considered to be close friends...WELL, all of that turned out to be EXACTLY the case....mind you I had no clue nor had I been told of any of the primary relationships ever!! I started with two names: Perrot Rice and John Rice TAMZIN and the occupation Laundress! That's all I had to start my investigation....the rest up to now has surfaced on it's own over the last two years....So no vested Family story was ever passed to me until 1979 when at age 93....dad says....." All your ancestors were Kings in Wales and England...which makes you related to all the Kings of Europe" at 27 That simply did not register....3 years ago I bought a copy of the Rhys family crest referencing Rhys ap Tewdor. The rest as you have seen is all internet reading and our times together here on this site.....so Im literally a novice with determination to clear the Orchard as it were of all the roots and branches untll we have clean clear ground in which to replant! Blessings to all....DCR

Awesome story Mr. Rice! I hope you get this all sorted out.

Thank you Ian, your remarks are most welcome.....I noticed you had merged a file on the Gordon's they are a prominent member in my tree as well. My Father carried the name Gordon as his middle name, brother Jay Gordon named his son Gordon.... I need to review their connection...to see exactly where.....but believe it is the Edmund mortimer, the Duke of march....Cheers! DCR 1948

According to Geni, I'm related to Tudors and Gordons both as well as just about every king and queen in Europe. Just can't find a path to you yet?

I'm related to Judy Rice and other Ric's on here as well, you must need to get one of your lines a lil farther or merge something for us to connect? I have been looking.

Well, right now I can't prove that the connecting ancestor Perrott ap Rice 1600 is the father of my Ancestor John Rice 1624 of Steadham England. I have an aural History that connects him to Tamzin Fronst-Rice of Steadham/ but Perrot being of a different Class sturcture is deemed to be too far afield for the relationship to be likely.....Hmmmm? No paper so no linkage. My only hope is that Tamzin Frost Rice's names appears as the Mother of John Rice 1624 of Steadham in the parish Baptisimal Record....If she is, then my Aural history completes the circle and hopefully the administraitors will allow all the connections....MY ancestor Perrott is the direct blood descendant of William Rice 1521 born to the Laundress Beatrice ap Rice or her maid Jonnet ap Rice of Sir Rhys ap Thomas household....and connected with Henry VIII at the field of the Cloth of Gold 1521....Beatrice worked in the household of Princess Mary Tudor and did the Kings Laundry until he died 1545 and Queen Mary's lennins until her passing 1558. Perrott is Williams 3rd great grandson and I would be his 14th. My discussions on this site are about finding the haplogroup that i and John Rice 1624 belong to meaning that Perrott and William have to have the same as the presumptive father Henry VIII....Perchance do link through a female or Male line? The story my father told me 1979 would change history books....so I cannot be seen as being a loose cannon with delusions of grandure....This has to be proved by the laws of genetics....I would be very happy to share other genetic conditons that have surfaced in my family besides the astonishing faces. Best Regards DCR 1948 of the Nebraska Rices.

I'm pretty sure that its my Prater family that connects me to everything so far! I can't seem to get my Winton line back past Ulster, Ireland. Seems to be hard to find records for the Winton name once so far back.

Do you know your Haplogrooup ? Mine is most likely I1. Common in continental Europe but rare in Wales as I would expect in the Nobility lines of Perrott/Tudor/Etc. Again, they don't know what Henry Tudor's group was, so my story is just conjecture with interesting historical connections at this point...I was assuming that the Wm. The Conquorer Line of i1 would be at play here so I would be withing the target....other's far more knowledgeable than i say Wm. Isn't for sure either...but he does Hail from the Area of normandy where I1 is comon.... The groupings are determined by very specific counts of genetic information so aparantly there is no room for mistaken counts and errors of categorizaion....I1 is I1 and differs from I1b etc. We hope to triangulate and prove the haplogroup but that requires others with similar DNA to respond to my, shatll we say interesting sub-plot to the History of Henry Tudor.
DCR 1948

You may want to check the dates for Ulster since john Perrott 1625 was the Queens man in Ulster prior to being attained for treason and sent to the tower....He was Lieutenant Govenor of Ireland I think and wherever a Tudor male is (VIA Mary Berkley) Children are sure to follow....DCR

My family has the Tax records of 1740 Londonderry Ulster, Ireland for John Winton. I believe we came Via England or Scotland before this. I also have Goodspeed History documents stating that my 4th Great grandfather was of Scotch decent. Just finding Winton families from Scotland to piece this together is the road-block so far. I'm pretty sure we are from Scotland because of the Cunningham, and Montgomery, marriages back into the family once we reached America.

Seems lots of families all from the same area of Lowland Scots all traveled together Via Ulster, Ireland and to America. This is what makes sense.

Here is links to my 4th grandfather Stephen Winton and John Winton the Immigrant, My 7th Great Grandfather. Pvt. Tennessee Militia Stephen Winton

Lieut. John Winton

Ian - I enjoyed reading your Winton profile "overviews," I got a sense of your ancestors from them, and your caring. Thank you.

Ian, I saw two possible connections: King which would trace back to my cousin line with EDMUND Rice....but couldn't get beyond the two names on pg 20 and the Brownes....Which i did not follow through....you have a huge contengent in 18th and 19th 20th century....lots of hard work I can see. The Gordon's would be much, much further back and may connect to the Brownes....we should check that....nice talking to you.... DCR 1948