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

Erica, No problem its fun making them and learning!

Dale, I dont know anything about my DNA type. Pretty sure NO Winton's have submitted to a DNA test for geneaology.yet.

Heres the earliest records of Winton's I can find in Scotland.
Alexander Winton, of Andat
Alexander Winton of Andat, and the parish of Tarves and the lands of Cocklarachie Circa 1400's

Thomas Winton of the Winton's of Straithmartine Scotland by Aberdeenshire circa 1600's
Thomas Wintoun/Winton

Then the only Wintons I can find records of before this period is of course, Alan de Winton fron Winton, East Lothian Scotland that married the Heiress Margaret de Seton. Circa 1300
Sir Alan de Wyntoun, of Seton

And then before these periods it goes way back to Winton's from Winchester England and Wales Circa 1000-1200
William de Wincestria de Wincestria/Winton

Now I just got to figure out if any of these connects to my John Winton circa 1700 Ulster, Ireland......lol

The closest are the Winton's of Straithmartine/Strickmartine/Kirkmartine Scotland circa 1600's.....Around Aberdeenshire, Scotland

So does anybody have any ideas on this puzzle? I would like to figure this out before my father dies, and definitely before I do? lol

Yah, the Ulster Plantation is kind of a black hole there for 100 years or so, isn't it. :)

One way to get past brick walls is to find a good source and run with it entering profiles. Risk: none of them will prove out to be "your Wintons." Reward: there are somebody's and on Geni they will be found.

Ugghhh they just keep disappearing and reapperaing here and there and all over the place. And then there is the Setons of Winton Conspiracy name changes and stories to hide the 5th Earl of Winton when he was running from the Jacobite rebellion so the queen didn't quarter him and display em-lol Has to be in here somewhere, now my family when they come to the states was already a military fighting family as John Winton was a Lieutenant for the Pennsylvania militia, and I will almost bet thats why we were in Ulster was to fight against the Catholics. So I wonder where they would have received this military training at? Then William is a petriot for the American Revolution and his sons fought n the War of 1812 and the Cival War and it just keeps going to my grandfather in the WW2. I have noticed this pattern :)

Be it maide kende til al men by thir present lettris me Wilyame of Leslie of Balquhane knycht bailze til our Souerane Lade the Quene of the regality of the Garvyach til have giffin heritabil state and possessioun til Jonn of Winton of the Andate of half the landis of Drumdurnoch with the pertinentis lyande within the forsaide regalite efter the fourme and the effect of our Souerane Lordis the Knyngis breves dereckyt thar upon til me and this til al that effeyris I mak it knowin be thir my present lettris In the witnes of the quhilkes til thir my present lettris I haf set to my sele at Wardris this xxiij dae of the month of Maij the yer of our Lord ane thousand four hundredth fyftie and thre yeris befor thir witnes Jorg of Lesley Malcome Mortimar with utheris sundrie Sir William Leslie was one of the jury in the assize held before Alexander Douglas Sheriff 1453 Balquhain Charters No 623

Beleive this charter is dated 1453 Number 623

That 15th century prose is a ah......hard to decipher....reminds me of Chauser's Prologue to the Canterburry Tales. At one time I could recite the first paragraph but now down to one or two lines....beautiful to hear when spoken fluently Im sure...DCR 1948

Ian, finally got to your Gordon Family....looks like we connect at Gordon/Dunbar and Kennedy. I only saw this series of persons one other time on Judy Rice's ancestory and my Mother's recollection of the Duke of March being Edmund Mortimer....The Stewart's climb into the arena down line as well and ofcourse the Tudor's via Margaret and James III ? Anyway, I can't make offical connection just yet since I have to find a paper trail from John Rice of Dedham 1624 & Anne Hackley of the Puritan enclave there back to the Perrott ap Rice line of Tenby/Carew Pembrokshire line. Do you have a current or even an older photo of your face or father? Would be fascinated to see....we have a lot of doublegangers in the Rice's of Nebraska, which is what brought me to the possible conclusion that something real was going on in my Father's fantastic story....Your actual proved line is very important Im sure....to the connection of the family to the rest of Europe and thier ruleing family's...Best and Kind Regards DCR 1948 If you can get to my page I have posted interesting double gangers on my family photo page...fyi

Ms. Erica, Mr. Swanstrom, Ms Ashley: I want to refer you the new master study of 10,000 Europeans whos facial morphology has been studied and applied GENOME WIDE and concluded: The Human FAce is controlled by 5 LOCI not thousands as I understood.....and that my term "Master Switch or Master set" of Genes is at Work in every case......

SEE: PUBMED http:www.science.com/newsarticle.facial morphology. Dr. Manfred Kayser of Erasmus University Rotterdam conducted the study and found that the sites at Loci: PRDM16 PAX3TP63 C5orf50 Col17A1 are the control mechanism for the development of the human face.....

Thus, I would submit the phenotypes are not a fuction of thousands upon thousands of ancestors at all, but likely to combine with those which are most current in the Family Gene POOl.....causing the rise of certain REPEAT Features to pass from one generation to the next. For the purpose of Identification between the members of a family or Tribe so as not to marry too closely to the source of the Genetic Material.....Another study cites that semians can recognise their Family members in the same manner humans do over time and space. The concentraition of such recuring genes in the 108 year time span operating in my FAMILY involved the DNA of 3 generations or couples....meaning that 3 times the 5 loci are in play times 2 sets of DNA for a total of 30 genes are at play....The Concentraition of the Faces i described to you is Prima Facia evidence ot the Very premise being offered by Dr. Kayser in his Landmark DNA analysis.... What I tried to express to you was the face is controled by very few genes and my family may be a prime example of that finding. The double blind study on the Rhesus Monkeys was also validated by showing them different pictures with a neutral background, and they were able to select their relatives by visual ques which they clearly understood. DCR 1948

I believe the carrot cut down each generation to tiney slivers does not apply here, because the piece that is successful in the combination is subsumed by the dominant or strongest genetic message....In the case of Tudors through Thomas ap Rice 1570 the genetic message has been doubled on both the father and the mother X & Y Chromosome and Tudor X leaving more DNA that favors the newest DNA that is the More dominant among the 5 genes that control our faces. Thus two sides of the 5 sites have Tudor at both sides cut in half each genertion until the newest set of DNA arrives which battle for control of the outcomes as Tudor/Stewart Tudor/Plantagenant Tudor/Wm.the Conquorer or Tudor/Chalfant Buccleaux in the case of my Mother's ancestry....Each 100 year cycle is refreshed by the newest set of 5 sites but always against Y Tudor. I hope that is clear.....Best Regards DCR 1948

Ms. Judy Rice posted the pictures in question on the genral page...have a look! I would value your assessment based upon the 5 gene loci information....DCR 1948

Dale,

I think you are over-reading the article. The study does not say, "The Human FAce is controlled by 5 LOCI". It says they have identified 5 loci that influence the appearance of 5 of the points typically used in facial mapping.

First, here is a better link to the article (A Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Five Loci Influencing Facial Morphology in Europeans): http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal....

It's important to read this article against a general background of debate about whether it will ever be possible to map the human face using DNA analysis. One school of thought has said that there might be too many different genes involved and environment might play too large a factor to ever predict someone's appearance just by looking at a DNA sample.

You can see an acknowledgment of this debate in the introduction. "Facial appearance has a strong genetic component." And, "The general morphology of craniofacial bones is largely genetically determined and partly attributable to environmental factors." And, "Some craniofacial traits, such as facial height and position of the lower jaw, appear to be more heritable than others." Notice the conservative phrasing.

What this study did was choose five points on the human face that are used in facial mapping, then look at five genes to see how well those genes would predict the placement of those points.

The study does show a correlation, although results were mixed. Most of the discussion in the paper centers around a discussion of the results. For example, the authors say the most robust result was PAX3 locus but in two groups it "failed replication".

In other words, the study has shown that these five loci are part of the mechanism that determines the places of five points on the human face.

It's clear that these aren't the only five: "The limited number of landmarks used in this study cannot capture the full range of the complex 3D shape variation in the face." And, it's clear that there are other genes involved even for these five points: "our data also highlight that the high heritability of facial shape phenotypes (as estimated here and elsewhere), similar to that of adult body height [53], involves many common DNA variants with relatively small phenotypic effects."

In the end, you can see that the point of the study is that facial characteristics actually can be mapped from DNA: "In spite of these limitations we have been able to demonstrate that a phenotype as complex as human facial morphology can be successfully investigated via the GWAS approach with a moderately large sample size."

The point is not that these five are the only genes involved in determining the human face, nor is the point that they are some kind of master control.

When I was looking for a better link to the article above, I found this one too:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198142/ (Genetic determination of human facial morphology: links between cleft-lips and normal variation)

This is an earlier (2011) paper. In this paper, the complexity is even clearer.

Their results were significant, but fell short of an absolute answer: "A genetic prediction model explained 2% of phenotype variation in nose width in the German and 0.5% of bizygomatic distance variation in the Dutch cohort."

These numbers seem low, but the authors explained, "Although these numbers appear low, they were driven by few signals (eg, 17q22, 15q13, 2p21, nose phenotype Essen, additive model). When compared with body height, for which a recent study found ca. 3% of the variance explained by ca. 20 associated SNPs, these numbers seem comparable. We speculate that the human face is determined by a large number of genes whose effects are spread over multiple subtraits, making it potentially easier to dissect genetic contributions to facial morphology as compared with body height."

Part of their conclusion was that "our study represents the first approach to understanding genetic control of facial morphology, demonstrating that predicting facial distance traits from genetic markers is not nearly as straightforward as it is for human eye and hair color, and that further genetic research will be needed to identify predictive genetic markers, which could achieve the accuracy needed for practical applications such as future forensics."

Out of all this, the part to focus on is their statement, "We speculate that the human face is determined by a large number of genes whose effects are spread over multiple subtraits".

The publication I referenced is Jan 2013 covering 10,000 Europeans and mathmatically included the entire Human Genome by D.r Kayser of Erasmus University. So all I can say is the question augers toward my common sense view that the control mechanism uses the DNA that is nearest to the Fit before allowing a merge........The Tudor Dominance in the Material at hand is so dominant that new material is not selected for the DNA merging of traits over time.....PS My father was 60 when I was born, his father was 60 when He was born.....so 120 years in the generation from grandfather to grand son.....less mixing of the genetic code over time = the facial concentraition I've described. This huge span of time is a function of viablity + longevity in the Rices of Dedham/Nebraska line I would submit....fyi DCR 1948

No, it augurs just the opposite. If they know five genes that play a role and they're excited about finding more, it means there are going to be many more. Both articles explain the complexity pretty directly.

Nowhere in either of these articles is there an idea that something is operating as a control mechanism that evaluates fit before allowing a merge.

It's still all just random. Even these five points are going to recombine randomly (and even more importantly, independently). And, when you consider that more points are going to be discovered and that there are going to be dozens of other genes that will also be discovered to have an influence on each point, we're still exactly where we were -- cutting the carrot.

I think you might still be confused about number of generations. You're still talking about it terms of years, which has nothing to do with anything.

One of my great grandfathers was born 93 before me. He could have been born somewhere between about 60 years before me to about 120 years before me. It wouldn't make any difference. What matters to the DNA is that he's my great grandfather.

Now suppose he had a particular gene I wanted to track. In the normal course of events, he'd have two copies of that gene, and his wife had another two copies. Any of their children would have a 50% chance of getting the copy I care about. And each of their children would have a 50% chance of getting it. And each of their children would have a 50% chance of getting it.

Bottom line, my chance of getting that gene would be 12.5%. Of course, the reality is that I either have it (100%) or I don't (0%). If I have it, the odds that any of my children will have it are back to 50%.

Now, suppose my parents were first cousins. They each have a grandparent who was a child of my great grandfather. So, each of them had a 50% chance of getting the gene, and each of their children (my parents) have 50% of that (a 25% chance). And, I'm inheriting half (12.5%) from each parent.

So what are my chances? We'd need someone who knows statistics to do the math. (Remember, I dropped that class.) A statistician will have a more precise answer, but the easy way to see it is that my chances aren't gong to be far from 25% (the sum of the 12.5% from each parent). The cousin marriage between my parents didn't get me any kind of spectacular improvement of the odds. Slightly better, yes. A slam dunk? No.

In your case, if you are five generations from Thomas Rice (whose genetics you don't know) and he is five generations from Owen Tudor, then the chance that you will inherit a particular gene from Owen is less than 1%. The cousin marriages way back there will increase the odds, but not much. You're still less than 1%.

Now, multiply that by all the different genes involved in facial appearance. Maybe you beat the odds on a couple of them, but you certainly won't beat the odds on all of them.

Dale, many people who are unfamiliar with the laws of statistics think that if they're rolling dice, if they've rolled one five times without a six coming up then it's absolutely sure to come up on the next (the sixth) roll. They bet on it and they usually lose. The reason casinos are able to stay in business - and turn spectacular profits - is because most folks do not understand statistics.

Every single time you roll a die, you have a one-in-six change of rolling a particular number. It does not matter how many rolls it's been since that number comes up, the odds do not change. The die does not have a "memory" of what has been rolled. On the first roll or on the 101st, the odds of rolling a six are exactly the same.

And this applies to genetics. If your Tudor ancestor had a carrot that represented one particular gene on one particular chromosome, the chance that he passed it to his child in your upline is 50%. If that child did not get that gene, you don't have it.

If that child got the gene, the chance of him/her passing it to the next generation in your tree is 50%. If that child didn't get that particular gene, you don't have it.

And so on, thru the generations. Each time, there's a 50/50 chance of your next ancestor inheriting the particular gene you're interested in. It's obvious that the odds against YOU getting that particular gene from your remote Tudor ancestor is overwhelming. The fact that you want to find evidence of that inheritance doesn't help it be there.

That particular gene is only ONE out of FIVE genes that might affect ONE PARTICULAR ASPECT of your facial features. For each of the remaining four genes that affect THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT, you have to go back and roll the die again - for each generation. Just for the purpose of really understanding how this works, why don't you get an actual die and try it out? Five rolls for your eye color - at least (although research seems to be indicating that there could be more, maybe a lot more). Five rolls for EACH GENERATION. If there are ten generations, that's fifty rolls. Each time, a roll of 1, 2, or 3 means the trait was passed on. Each roll of 4, 5, or 6 means it wasn't.

Now try that for chin shape. Ear location. Nose length. Shape of tip of nose. Shape of bridge of nose. Width of nostrils. Width of bridge. Are eyes close-set or set far apart? Brow shape, width, location. And so on.

If you actually do this experiment, you will see that your proposal is impossible under the laws of genetics. Of course, as you mention, perhaps other systems might come into play (magic, wishful thinking, alien gene-sculpting), but for the purposes of this discussion, only our current understanding of genetics is considered...

Maybe this would be easier if we look at it a different way.

You've said that Owen Tudor is 10 generations back. You have 1,024 ancestors in that generation (2 to the 10th power). Statistically, you inherited about 1/10th of one percent of your DNA from each of them.

You've said that you have four descents from Owen. That is, he shows up as four of those 1,024 ancestors in that generation. (Maybe, you're also adding a 5th descent through your mother -- I don't remember seeing that one before). So, you get a multiplier effect. With all those descents, you inherited about 1/2 of one percent of your DNA from Owen Tudor.

This is us cutting the carrot.

Now, remember that the five points identified in the article you posted are just five of the hundreds of points it would take to create a 3D model of a face.

You can see how unlikely it is that you or anyone else in your immediate family inherited enough of Owen's DNA to fully replicate his face in a modern descendant.

Sorry, this sentence should read "Every single time you roll a die, you have a one-in-six CHANCE", not "change"...

Jennifer, you're great at explaining! I thoroughly enjoyed your post because once in high school a friend challenged me to roll the dice as a way of modeling whether I inherited any of Gustav Vasa's DNA. We cut classes and worked at it for hours, until we got caught. I never did get a sequence that let me have any Vasa DNA. And, in the end, I don't think the principal believed our story that we weren't gambling ;)

Thank you for your kind examples of probability: I don't as rule gamble because I have taken college level statistics....The Problem with your example is that it ignores the restricted nature of the pool of genes that are being allwowed in past the gate keeper genes, apartantly on 5 locatoions for the Study I have sited. We do have 1024 ancestors behind Owen Tudor, agreed but they don't all have equal chance of getting past the Genetic Gate keeper. Look for yourself....we are here, and fierce in our Countenance that has nothing to do with my mother or my father for that matter in terms of looks....We are repeating what has come down to us from the past....Ms. Judy has seen this, please see her comments. My desire is to understand the Process of DNA distribution and the mechanism by which some are allowed to merge (they have the Password) and the rest do not) the chances of our looking like 10,000 others than the people who are likely in our history is nonsense.....The family history suggests and the recent additions prove that it is Tudor, Plantagenant, Stewart, and Perrot....each of these family's aparantly have the pass word to get past the 5 gate keeper genes described by Dr. Manfred Kayser. I will contact Dr. Kayser and describe to him the factor's I 've described to you....I would expect he will want some blood from all of us and that we will fit into the schema he illuminates....While I am not a geneticist and have rudimentary understanding of statistical outcomes and mean, median, and modal results.....I will not yield on my insight.....thanks, we just have to have a difference of opinion here. I have no problem accepting your input.....but there seems to be a blockage about my presenting you data that goes against your past reading/training. The schema you present says all possibilites are at play and Im saying point blank , NO, that'w wrong. DCR 1948

Thanks, Justin! I love learning and teaching through analogy and metaphor. It's storytelling, and who doesn't like a story?

Dale, I could be totally wrong, but my understanding of a gatekeeper gene is that it BLOCKS inheritance, not facilitates it - but I could be wrong. Please know that it's not my intention in the least to denigrate your efforts. On the contrary, your absolute determination to find answers is really inspiring! That doesn't mean we're always going to agree, but you seem fine with that and so am I. I have a great deal of respect for someone who continues in his mission no matter what the obstacles!

Dale, we might indeed have to disagree for now, but first ...

Where are you seeing a reference to gatekeeper genes in Manfred Kayser's paper? I'm familiar with gatekeeper, caretaker, and landscaper genes from cancer research, but there the terms seem to mean something different than you do.

Gatekeeper genes control cell division, so they go into action when there is an injury but don't let the cells go wild multiplying. Caretaker genes control the number of mutations. Landscaper genes control the cell environment that encourages or inhibits growth.

Dr. Kayser doesn't seem to be talking about anything like that, nor about something else that controls which cells get into a person's genome. The authors mention several times that they examined only the common European variants. I don't see anywhere that they looked at preferential inheritance of those variants. How could they? Their study was about recruiting subjects then matching each subject's DNA to their face.

There are also RecLOH mutations. If two copies of a gene are very similar, a copying error might make them identical. This also happens in yDNA with multi-copy markers. That is, if I have 13 repeats at locus 385a and 15 at locus 385b, my son has a chance of ending up with 13 repeats at both locations. I don't know whether anyone thinks there is a caretaker gene involved, but the net result is the same.

But I don't see how RecLOH mutations would achieve the result you're looking for, either.

Hello Ms. Jennifer, we welcome all fair minded persons to the cean fresh light of day.....As a proponent of the Gate Keeper theory: I just made that up, as I have no idea really....the form that you describe would indeed block some genetic information from being accepted.....most likely to prevent a defect from attatching itself. So I welcome the idea....don't have the slightest clue how it works but does make good sense....I believe the counter-intuitive is at work here....we know some sort of screening goes on with face or we would have noses all over the place without recogniton that it belongs in the middle of the face. So clearly something is giving a master directive.....In the case of my family a series of phenotypes have been expressed across time that include startling resemblences to our Ancestoral History....Thus i do not think I am on shaky ground to say: The genetic message has been received and acted upon in sufficient number at critical points of development that demonstraits a subset of features is being powerfully expressed even after 500 years of marriage. THAT is reasonable....what is utterly unreasonable in my view is that this could occur without genetic information being passed and that means there has to be a connection we cleary don't know about yet. The Good Dr. has provided the schema and background for further investigation....And further, to suggest these profoundl look alikes could happen without DNA is something akin to 7 Billion to one.....That's not at work here....in my view. DCR 1948

When My asian looking son came into the world I had no clue that the French had been over run by the Mongols. That event left its mark as a recessive gene in my bloodline. No recessive gene = normal round eyed European....as is my lovely daughter....Completely non Asian through the eyes.....We can see it, measure it and judge it to be so....meaning the 3/4 of my Wife's DNA that is not Native American was the gene that connected with my non recessve gene= normal or normaltive European spacing, and shape.... We say she fits the the Modal expression of eye shape because it's the shape that occurs most frequently.....Eyes typically are in allignment horizontally but not in the case of our Ancestor Henry Tudor....see his bust and paintings....See Edward VI born with spinabifida, and a skin condition related to scab formation....which came down through DNA from one William CRAGH Rice of 1100. Which somehow got passed through to the Tudor lineage. My point being that the conditions and others for Prophuria, a genetic neurologic condition that all the Rice men test positive for in my family came down through a recessive gene that my Father Carried, but did not test positive for....and the recessive gene my Mother Carried from her Father.....Behold, we have that lovely conditon. The phenotype expressions are not simple chance because the concomitant conditons that came with the physical resemblences are genetically encoded and refreshed by various X's along the way who are women who married into the Rice Family after 1624.
This is not the same chance thay you or anyone else can muster because it takes a blood connection for all these people to appear with these odd conditions....and my reality is that the language of description is of this set of features is not your language....but Im describing a conditin of reality that mere chance cannot replicate with out the DNA from the Tudor/Wm. the Conq. Bloodline. However we describe this subset of features they are clearly unique in the world and point at a system of recognition/receptivity not yet described in the DNA literature to DATE. I know this is outside of the main line of thinking but I have to go with it or else the STORY of Perrot ap Rice does not allow for any of these conditions to exist across 8 persons in my family....Inductive reasoning is what we are left with after Deducing the variables of the story....If it's not TRUE.....we could not have these conditons or faces in these numbers....Statistically as a probibility. NEGATIVE PROOF.

It's an interesting idea, Dale, at the very least! I would need to see the photo/painting comparisons before I could buy in, as I'm sure you understand. In the meantime, all I have to go on is my understanding of current genetic theory, which is adamant that what you're describing could not be happening... To be really honest, I'm trying very hard to keep an open mind but it does occur to me that a lot of what you think you see is probably because you *want* to see it. The human mind is tremendously powerful in filtering our senses to match our expectations...

The "screening" that controls placement of body parts IS real. It's another genetic function. In addition to the several genes that combine to determine the width of the tip of your nose, there are other chromosomal combinations that control *where* your nose is located on your face. Artists go by the general rule that our eyes are located halfway down our faces (on the vertical plane) but police sketch artists know that there is tremendous variation in where eyes actually appear. And sometimes the genes that control placement DO get it wrong - babies ARE born with parts that are incorrectly placed. The reason we don't see it often is because there are also many different "self-tests" the embryo performs from the time mitosis begins - if there are too many mutations or they are too "wild", the embryo spontaneously aborts. The worse the mutation, the earlier the miscarriage.

Therefore, your theory that the same mysterious thing that prevents odd or mutated placement of facial features MUST ALSO be allowing your family phenotype to trump the laws of genetic inheritance cannot be correct. There is no one controlling thing giving a "master directive" (in your words) - there are a tremendous number of bodily systems all busily checking and re-checking the genetic code itself, against replicated areas of code, to ensure that nothing varies too wildly, and all controlled BY THE SAME CODE that you think is being ignored.

In other words, you're proposing a security system that would allow a burglar to defeat it while continuously checking its programming against a master copy of its code and finding no major errors... unless that burglar's name is The Wizard of Oz, it can't happen that way. Unless there is magic involved, what you're proposing cannot be.

Have you ever seen that cartoon, I think it's by Gary Larson, that shows a scientist at a chalkboard? He's got both sides of a complex equation all written out, but instead of an equals sign in the middle it says, "and then something magic happened". It's funny because it perfectly explains the very human tendency to want to be extremely rational right up until the point where logic and reason are about to disprove what we very badly want to prove. Emotion takes over and we "create" some magic in order to avoid the result we don't like - we use our imagination.

With all the respect and goodwill in the world, Dale, I truly believe that's what's happening in your case. It's not that I don't believe in magic - it's that what you so badly want to prove with genetics CANNOT be proven that way. It can only be so if there is magic involved. And that's not such a bad thing, is it? I'd much rather be from a powerfully-magic family than from from one that simply looks alike on a scientific basis...

My page is open and the pictures on display there tell only part of the story. The Inductive Reasoning is where we go after deducing that these multiple conditions are not possible by chance without genetic direction.....That's my point....And The Premise is valid because we have historical fact plus the Aural history to connect the families....See for yourself...they are in the Public view if you go to my page. fyi

If I had a piece of Paper that said Tamzin Frost is the mother of John Rice 1624 that would still not connect my blood to the Tudor/Plantagenants and none of the conditions that I have described can be fully explained without the FATHER: Perrott ap Rice.....Genetics is clearly at work here and yet Im being told the genetic expressions are not valid because someone says it's statistically impossible....WELL, look and see for yourselves....I only discovered the Physical Resemblences last year as part of the investigation....We can't look the way we do by chance....one or two perhaps but not 8 of 24 births in the generation since the Stewart Blood was mingled with Y Tudor. utterly without a statistical chance in holy heck.....But we do have the genetic story that explains the HOW we look the way we do....and that's the only reason Im challenging the people who won't look. Judy Rice my cousin on here looked....she agrees with me....For goodness sakes......It was my job to pick people out of a crowd as a Police investigator after seeing them for a few seconds....I don't imagine anything, and I've never lost in Court. LOL I can't speak the language you all have mastered but I know the proof is in the blood....some here arguing the proof is in the blood but not your faces....HELLO....we got the faces from the blood DNA and the Skin/neurological conditions....well beyond Chance. That's what is so Alice in Wonderland about describing my case....You can't get to this many faces and conditions by chance in 2 generations without guidance from DNA....END of STORY. YES?

No, it's not.

Dale, you're not a geneticist, and that's fine - you know a lot more than I do.

But let's take just one genetically transmitted issue - say, porphyria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyria

Porphyrias have been detected in all races, multiple ethnic groups on every continent including Africans, Asians, Australian aborigines, Caucasians, Peruvian, Mexican, Native Americans, and Sami. There are high incidence reports of AIP in areas of India and Scandinavia and over 200 genetic variants of AIP, some of which are specific to families, although some strains have proven to be repeated mutations.

=======

It would, I believe, take a crack medical team, on the top their game, about 5 years to isolate & begin to determine "where" & "how" you family's tendency to have it came from.

There are too many pieces of the carrot to use the current DNA ancestry tracing technology to prove your theory. It cannot be done that way.

I am not delusional, I am an experienced investigator and when it leads to a dead end you go around it to the next issue.....Clearly, if you don't see what I see that's fine....But if you won't look that is just not good faith and presumes a level of hubris I would never assume....Without Perrott and the Tudor Bloodline being added to by various women marrying every hundred years or so none of this would have occured.....And I would not be wasteing my time trying to speak a language I clearly don't know. But Im willing to try because the FACES are compelling.....so unless you have examined the pictures I have provided and gone to my personal blog on FB to see the rest of my case then that's the same as not being willing to examine the case....you must see the basis of my conviction and judge with an open mind....This is no coincidence. that notion is simply too dismissive to respect. It's my hope to convince you to look, if not oh well....I labor on with inductive reasoning having discounted all other causes for such anomolies....As I said early on, you are demanding a level of proof that is reserved for a Capital Crime.....Beyond any doubt......What I have already proved is the PREPONDERANCE of the EVIDENCE point's to Perrott Rice as the father of John Rice who's mother was TAMZIN Rice. If I lay the data and show you all the photo's....there is no way that our family history is not what my FATHER said it was.....Not Miraculous, Not MAGICAL but in fact reliant on the DNA of the last 450 years. THIS is blood based....your arguments convinced me of that........the numbers are too great over too short a span to be chance. WE simply part company here. DCR 1948