Rice Pudding Part 2, Quest For Truth

Asked and Answered W: it's been ammended tonight with the current investigations findings. I have added disclosures as to my opinion and not being a Professional Geneaologist. So now what's your point. You want to make up an agenda from a blog from last March when you were not part of this discussion? The Ammended version is fine in my view. You'll have to retype it again old chap....DCR

PS: w, when you get tired of typing my old views, perhaps you could do something useful with your time....you continue to show yourself as a venal and petty person. Are you going to bore us some more? Let's see how far you want to take this. I have no problem owning my mistaken ideas from last March in 2013...the disuccion at hand....ie PERRATT II is the father of JOHN RICE 1630 by Margaret ap RICE 1618. Do you have an objection to that assertion?

Justin Reported on another thread here on GENI that Phillipe IV of France had R1b Haplogroup. I find that extremly interesting because the Haplogroup for Tudor is unknown and the Plantagenents should be R1b after Edward III. The test for Richard III will be a very important result for this debate. If it's R1b then we have a track backward to Phillepe IV. If it's something other than I1 we have an NPE to examine. DCR

Ms Erica: I found this site and you may want to Book Mark it on the Norman Families of England. (Not your specialty but may be a good reference to start), It only went through the letter P but still some names worth noting. it's a FYI piece and future reference. Im looking for the section of same doccument which has Roche. DCR http://www.1066.co.nz/library/battle_abbey_roll2/battle_abbey_roll2...

Thank you, Dale. Yes, it's an excellent site, well done.

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Elisabeth+Hought...

Different spelling for Howton? FYI only DCRDeborah Dean The Deans are very deep in my family so Allen of Sudburry caught my eye. fyi DCR 1948

Also Just going back over the Whites of Ma. versus the White DNA of N.C. the Ma. whites do have a William White, but the connections are at Borden to Saunders and Mayo. I have Saunders to my mother's family now tracked to her sister's husband Gordon Mayo Saunders which was a suprise. I did not meet her. Gordon Mayo Saunders

This has to be understood eventually, so I am tilling that ground again. That Saunders connection goes back Joan Saunders 1531 of Essex died at Plymouth 1647 age 110 + yeas old. That's an amazing span. So Mayo, Fox, Saunders now located relative to the testimony. DCR

Wow this is amazing. Over 3000 posts. Well I guess the journey continues. It has been a very interesting time following this so far.

Dale,

Thank you for the consideration, but the name change (or drift) from Houghton to Howton apparently occurred before my ancestor (of the North of England) immigrated to the USA.

My family has long since been proven UN related to any Houghton family in USA.

Yes Bryn: I had to go down a lot of blind alley's and then turn around and go back to the beginning and start over. It took 9 months to get most of the details in order which allowed me to remember more of it in correct sequence. I had garbled quite a lot because it was so awful to hear, and I kind of shut down the worst parts...so that took the longest time to remember. 1) That the person known as John RICE 1624-30 was born to Margaret Rice age 12 in 1630 and 2) That the father of Both Perrott ap RICE and John RICE 1630 is the same person John Perratt II 1572.

That clairity did not really come together until late October after I got back from Wales. The rest of my early work was guess work and it's mostly wrong, but not without a hint of the truth. I'll get it right one of these days.

In the mean time thank you for your observations from time to time. It's all going to be fine, and will have two choices to present to my family...One more likely than the other, but I will present both the Justin: Not likely scenerio and my verstion which has always posited a belief that it come from true events not shared before. They will have a choice to make and decide for themselves when I get Part I done...hopefully later this year. DCR1948

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Margaret+Beaufor... This is my direct blood link from Edward Rice's mother's of the EARLE lineage back to Margaret Beaufrot. Another secondary proof that the Tudor's and the Rice's had close ties. The Parent of John Rice 1630 is a downline link believed to be Perratt II from and unproved son of Henry Tudor. DCR

Okay, I cannot correct the above assertion which should read this is a marriage affilitation and not a direct blood affiliation. Why can't I correct my m own comments? Sometimes they need to be taken down and re-worded to reflect the actual relationship....Just wondering? DCR

Geni discussions have no "edit" function.

If an assertion should be rephrased after discussion / further research, just rephrase it and post again. Date & time stamps make clear it's an evolution over time.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Margaret_Beaufort

"Taken into the care of her brother-in-law Jasper, at Pembroke Castle, the Countess gave birth on 28 January 1457 to her only child, Henry Tudor, the future Henry VII of England. The birth was particularly difficult; at one point, both the Countess and her child were close to death, due to her young age and small size. After this difficult birth she would never give birth again."

"Margaret was born at Bletsoe Castle, Bedfordshire, on 31 May 1443 or 1441 ... The year of her birth is more uncertain .."

=======

Margaret Beaufort was an instrumental character in the recent television drama, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2372220/ "The White Queen."

http://www.geni.com/path/John+the+Quaker+Perrott+is+related+to+Dale...

Is this fiction W? If so why don't you tell Geni to correct the FALSEHOOD? My Father's testimony is that Perratt II is the father of both Perrott ap RICE 1600 and John Rice 1630 by Margaret Rice 1618 age 12. If you have proof that he is not such a person of relatedness to my family and my search, please provide it. My assertion is founded on the testimony of a brilliant man who died with all his intellect in tact and fully functioning, and he outstripped my ability to recall all the names of the family. So You call the story fiction if you like....but will not change the course of HISTORY already gone by by 400 years. Please do go on. DCR

These secondary lines are there because the first or primary lineage is correct. John PERRATT II 1572 aka John : The Quaker Perrott, is my 7th great grandfather. Which leads back to the undoccumented claim of his father Sir John PERROTT 1527 son of Mary Berkley-Pughe paramour of Henry TUDOR. That is not too hard to belive given the family affiliation of Rhys ap Thomas 1447 of Bosworth and his sons marriages. If you think you have a better candidate field him w.....you are the wizard of words and definitions so whom do you propose has a better fit? DCR

By Geni do you mean the collective users who have contributed their research efforts to end up with:

"Dale C. Rice is John "the Quaker" Perrott's great grandson's wife's half brother's wife's husband's brother's wife's 6th great nephew!"

And also

"John "the Quaker" Perrott is Erica Isabel Howton, (c)'s fifth cousin 10 times removed's husband's great grandfather!"

We both have "links" and relationships on Geni.

Geni does not assert anything other than "follow the links."

John "the Quaker" Perrott is Linda's 10th great uncle's grandfather.

I'm not surprised, southern gal! :)

Dale wrote:

"....you are the wizard of words and definitions so whom do you propose has a better fit?"

That would be like asking you to "find for me" my unknown ancestors.

How many $ are you offering and are you prepared to live with: "not known at this time?"

I had cousin-ancestors defrauded by "professional" genealogists. Instead they learned to do the research for themselves. They made mistakes, eveyone does, and they "also" learn to live with changes in results based on advances of the last 50 years.

:)

Clearly Ms. Erica, that was a Rhetorical question I posed. The person who w wishes to discredit is me for being too generous and radical in my pursuit of my goals off-site. w is being insulting at every possible level to the search which I and others have dedicated ourselves to here....so if he wan'ts to belittle me, he is also belittling the people and system which led to my conclusion of late October, that John Perratt II the Quaker, is the person my father's testimony was talking about.

His smear of that search belittles everyone and the Geni system in my view. That was my only point. His behavior here, is self-evident...I consider his taunts as a reproach to the privlidge extended by Geni and other users. I hope they end his harasment soon. DCR 1948

And if others do not support your conclusion but do not wish to be engaged in an argument, then ... ?

Silence says a lot, too.

I have no problem with what others think about my search. It is my search, and the silence does not discourage me, because I do not regard silence as HOSTILE.

Once we know what the Tudor DNA haplogroup is, then I will happily dissconnect my assertion from a direct Tudor Ancestory via sir John PERROTT 1527. Then we will have only the testimony and my assertion leads inescapably to John PERRATT II the Quaker and his father as being I-1 Haplogroup. Remembering that Plantagenent is proved R1b as Justin provided simply means that Edward IV was not Edward III son by blood. He ofcourse retains all his titles and the lines which extend from him are still Royal by everymeasure.

My point being: If he captured the Tudor Brother's in 1400 in Wales, then that does not exclude a NPE for Owen Tudor's Possible I-1 Haplogroup. That's why this need exploration by professionals. I am simply stubborn enough to keep pointing at the Haplogroups as extremely important for the Search of Edmund Rice 1594 Paternal link...it could be more Royal than anyone heretofore knew by virtue of the new DNA science.

Now, I will agree that I am in your face about looking. I demand the right to look and speak to what may be an Historical finding by virtue of Geni discussion and better minds than mine looking at this capture of Tudor men and possible women in 1400. We must look at all the evidence, we may have a great bit of news to make right out of such a discussion as has occured here for the past year. I continue to be inspired by the site and what it offers. DCR 1948

I do not agree that you are looking at the evidence correctly for your ancestry, but every time I try to assist, there is no "listening" and reflection back. So you take the subsequent resounding silence for agreement to the assertion, which it is not. It's simply we've run out of ways to assist.

G'day Dale, I have been following this discussion on and off for some time now. Just a curious interest. I notice that you have an interest in Sir John Perrot (1527?- 1592) (?). Have you read "Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy". by Alison Weir? (could be worth a read). Alison Weir says in her foreword "...It has taken me more than 22 years to research this book. Throughout this time I have consulted countless books and articles in various libraries, visited sites of interest, and revised the manuscript at least 8 times. It may seem strange, but despite the fact that there are numerous and detailed books on the British Monarchy, and even on royal genealogy, there is not one that gives a complete record of all the members of the various royal houses and families. To obtain such a record, I have had to research each person individually, cross checking the facts where possible from alternative sources , and rechecking against new works as they were published. I have used original, contemporary sources for verification wherever possible".

On pp156-157 under 'The Tudors", it says: "...Henry Vlll also had he following illegitimate issue:
By Elizabeth Blount (1502? 1539/41), daughter of Sir John Blount of Kinlet, Shropshire, afterwards wife of Gilbert, Lord Tailboys:
1. Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset (1519-1536); he married Mary (1519?-1557), daughter of Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. HE WAS THE ONLY BASTARD ACKNOWLEDGED BY HENRY Vlll.
By Joan Dobson or Dingley:
2 Ethelreda or Audrey (d.1555); she married John Harrington, and had issue.
By Mary Berkeley (?):
3. Sir John Perrot (1527-1592) (?)
By an unknown mother:
4. Thomas Stucley or Stukley (1525?-1578) (?); he married Anne Curtis. It is highly unlikely that Henry Vlll was the father of Thomas or Sir John Perrot...

I hope that this has helped you in some way.

Good luck with all your research. Like me, just keep plodding.

Kindest regards,

Rhonda

"It is highly unlikely that Henry Vlll was the father of Thomas or Sir John Perrot."

From Alison Weir.

Now the thing to do is check the reputation of the source.

What! My my my, you two do go on, don't you. I am unfollowing again.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VLPcySmwMOQC&lpg=PA165&ots...

Mary Boleyn: The Mistress of Kings By Alison Weir page 165

Thankyou Ms Gray: Your comments are Kind and welcomed.

I don't care any longer whether Sir John Perrott 1527-28 is the Kings Son. It came up in context to understanding what my father's testimony meant: "Like a Prince but not a Prince". I determined the only person that one could reasonably concude he was talking about was Sir JOHN Perrott. As it turns out...his birth to Henry Tudor's alleged Mistress was taken seriously for a very long time. But it has no matter here except that he fathered John Perratt II the Quaker by his mistress Syble Johns and that is whom my father named as the Father of John RICE 1624-30. So I am relieved to be seperated from the Tirants of England.

So "THE Quaker John Perratt II" is what I have been led to here on GENI. That's what I refuse to yield on. The curbside analysis of my intent is tiresome and boreing, for sure. w is the 23rd letter of the alphabet, big deal.

Ms. Erica: I have always taken your comments seriously, but I cannot become what you insist I become overnight. Every time I post a link of interest someone wishes to knock it down. I am going forward with my search as it has yielded the prize of my entire attempt here, which was to recall the conversation accurately and investigate the assertions.

If the proved links to John Lackland via Perrott ap RICE 1600 to the King of England are not enough to prove the accuracy of the 1978 testimony, then there is nothing I can add that you or the community would finally accept the simple truth that a Quaker Perrott is my ancestor. I don't want into the Royalty Club w occupies....I don't even follow his linkage to this effort except as he affects others here on my search.

Ms. Erica: You know I have taken all your work seriously and thanked you prolifically. We can assume the DNA is leading to the Z58 community occupied by Perrott, Phillips, White, and others...How are we to explain this if not the John Perrott connection? It's a simple question with a complex answer which others will have to answer, I simply know that I continue based upon reliable testimony and will not yield on the Perratt II linkage. Happy Sunday. enjoy this linkage and ponder why she is in my proved ancestory even though we have no direct link except the ones already named. Susan Veil Berkley via the Arundells. DCR