Rice Pudding Part 2, Quest For Truth

Mark: Not even sure what you are referring to but surely that's got to be a TYPO? Don't know. DCR

You're not uncovering anything. You're speculating. You've been speculating since Day 1, and have consistently refused to do much research one way or the other. We've said it a hundred times at least - you have proven absolutely nothing so far except that you really like to be provocative and really enjoy seeing conspiracies and sexual-misbehavior everywhere.

Over- Ruled: Argumentative, not part of the proceedings, Kindly rephrase counselor or shift to an observation that contributes something to the discussion at hand, ie PERKINS, CHARITY RICE, Perratt II the Quaker and his progeny in the Virginia Colony. Otherwise I have noting elese to direct to you. DCR

"People are people now as then". But "you shoud be able to separate the people of the times from the people of more recent times".

It's a bit contradictory, Dale. People are very malleable, but no doubt we all have much the same sub-conscious instincts. Perhaps if we were brought up from infancy in a society where (as an example) cannibalism was considered normal, we would become cannibals. Behaviour is rarely genetically determined. Again, to take the same extreme example, we can see Polynesian societies, all descended from the same small groups that spread out across the Pacific, some of which practised cannibalism and some which were extremely pacific and bewildered when more warlike distant cousins arrived on their islands, took over, and ate or enslaved them. See Jared Diamond's books; he's a fun read.

So if your ancestors wanted "a bit on the side" it was a question of upbringing, opportunity, and consequences. If you believed that you would certainly go to Hell if you gave in to your desires (or even recognised them to yourself), that your neighbours as well as God were snooping on everything you did, and you knew that adultery would result in being branded with an "A" on your forehead, you were rather less likely to give in to your instincts.

Mark

The Transcription Error is hard to understand because it is repeated by the persons who put up the Woolhouse / Wodhouse but clearly they were talking about Arundel to Woodhous. I did not catch that. My point being the Rice's and the ancestor lines are very, very ancient and meaningful. My father obviously thought so. It's a little hard to hear that it means nothing or very little.

In any event: I am glad you see that people are people...that was my point, but was being roundly accused of somehow taking liberties in understanding that Quakers and Puritans were people too. We do have a Conversion experience in John PERRATT II the quaker or his son and that seems to have begun a new chapter.

The DNA of my lineage in Virginia and the Carolina's seems to follow the same path of settlement of JOhn Perratt II and that is the named person of the testimony so I will not labor at this except to say there are dozens of people who match with Histories and people of the Testimony on the DNA site. That's coming along very nicely despite those who say I've done and proved nothing. Thanks for your observations, I'll have to look at WOOLHOUSE...who knows may go back to the Wool merchant MERCER's of Margaret Mercer and her family in WALES. DCR

The history of midwifery & birth control is still an evolving study, but from what I've looked at, births in the period 1600-1640 were more planned than not.

Note to our followers;

Dale is neither the Administrator nor the Moderator of this discussion.
He has no power or authority here, regardless of how often he chooses to try to make it appear so.
Dale is the student, not the teacher. And he is NOT a good student!

Despite his being very rude, disrespectful, arrogant, and insulting, we here have chosen to continue trying to help him separate fact from fiction because we are interested in finding the truth about Dale's ancestry.

This was meant to be a Quest For Truth, not an exercise in futility.
Hopefully you are learning something about how genealogy works (and how it doesn't).

-W
(Rice Pudding Part 2, Quest For Truth
Started by W on Friday, October 25, 2013)

I do get that it's part of a larger story Justin: I do get that. Now we have two choices to make. My father's testimony of 1978 was true or it was not true.
After a year here and more I stand with TRUE and Have shown you the links some of which are disconnected. it's fine that you think it's not true, but I have many many links to the past lines as DAD said and you have produced one JOHN RICE 1630 born to a Margaret Whom I claim. So my mission is 75% complete on the first half of the story. THANKS one and all for the parts you have played in unraveling this mystery...the DNA and Files online out of Virginia should link Perratt II to my RICE line very soon as a secondary line joins ranks with the PRIMARY line of JOHN RICE 1630. DCR

Dale,

That's just more delusional B.S.
This is a Quest For Truth, not a quest for wild speculation and assumption.

It's fine that you don't see what I see. I believe someday, when I done with my project it will become crystal clear that your system is the ANVIL upon which I have hammered out the lines which connect to the "Like a Prince but not a PRINCE" story. I actually don't think my father knew it was Henry Tudor's bastard son, that was the source for the JOhn RICE 1630. But for what ever reason, I don't recall him ever using that name. I did mark the names PERROTT and PERRATT. Those are persons of the "BOOK" if you will, meaning the testimony. I will put it down for you in balck and white one day. I'll ship you a copy Justin just so you can say: "He never got what I was telling him." I will not every use your name in print just fyi. I am where I hoped to be actually. Your skeptical questions drove the search. I have what I came for. so THANK YOU! DCR 1948

Dale,

You do not have what you came for.
And if you do, you lied to us about what you came here to get.

What you would do if you were an honorable man, is ask us all to forgive you, and apologize to the group who has been helping you.

Then, you would ask if we can start over, right here, right now.

Here are the questions you would ask us;

1) Is it possible that I am related to Royalty?

2) Is it possible that I am a descendant of Henry VIII through an illegitimate son?

3) Can and/or will you help me determine the truth about my ancestry?

typo

group THAT has, not group WHO has

Dale

It's fun for you to argue with history. It's not so much fun for me to feel "used as a tool" to construct an implausible scenario.

Thank you for the thought about "is this your Read family.". It's no more "my" Read family than "my" Rice family is yours. Yet all 4 are connected to each other and do show relationships to me and to John Lackland.

The math of "why that is" has been described over and over.

As you venture into Southern USA genealogy you will find another kettle of fish. Someone recently posted a comment to the effect that the New England arrivers "forgot" their ancestors and the Virginia etc arrivers "lost track" of their descendants. :)

You must approach it backwards, from current time to then. There are no extant vital records, and it takes far more experienced genealogists than you and I to sort through the land plats, survey lines, wills and tobacco sales that are the meat of it.

You do not yet have a feel for who is a good compiler, who isn't. I was fooled by the Harmon's site at first, too.

When you're at all interested in learning how to evaluate, using your critical thinking skills, let me know. But it's work and effort to do, learn, critique yourself, and collaborate on.

You are a delightful person Ms. jennifer: Misguided in your conclusions about me for sure, But delightful none the less. I was just tired of arguing, I hope you can understand that's my style of HUMOR.

And yes: I promise to include "Justin likely disagrees with this" But I won't risk using your last name. LOL if it's a best seller I got to be pro-active. Not likely anyway as there are only about 100 of us in the family these days. DCR

Without even thinking about it, this is my opinion on the questions pointed above. And take it as just that: opinion.

Here are the questions you would ask us;

1) Is it possible that I am related to Royalty?

Almost without a doubt.

2) Is it possible that I am a descendant of Henry VIII through an illegitimate son?

Almost impossible due to historic reasons.

3) Can and/or will you help me determine the truth about my ancestry?

We can point possibilities to English ancestry; actually that's been done. Definitive proof for any of us 1st arrivers to Massachusetts is in the future.

Until you are better Paid Ms. ERica: I salute you and wish you well. No one was used for anything other than what was stated. I fought for and found my John RICE, 1630 of DEDHAM. If there is ever anything come of this, I will remember all of you.

And just so you understand: I gave my car to my co-worker who's husband had stage 3 Cancer because her car could not make the trips for treatment. I went to fetch them off the grapvine at 11PM at night because they needed me. I gave her a price to pay for the car to preserve her dignity....knowing that if you give someone a gift they cannot repay...they will turn on you and become your enemy. I offered that to one here, and they could not respond in kind, so now I am their enemy....That's very hard to understand. DCR 1948

Dale - the "in kind" repayment would be in tree building, which is a concrete research skill you have not yet mastered. I have not mastered it yet either, I'm just further along the learning curve as a student. So you "cannot" as yet "repay in kind."

So you repay in other ways.

Being obsteptrous (misspelled word) is not one of them.

close

obstreperous

noisy and difficult to control.
"the boy is cocky and obstreperous"

Dale, I know of no blacksmith who threw the anvil in the fire and then after it was red-hot, pull it out, place the unworked piece of metal on it and try to work the metal.

Michael I hadn't even looked - we're 13th cousin whatever through one of my favorite lines, the brave women of Ipswich Massachusetts who survived accusations of witchcraft.

Perfect analogy, Michael! I'm proud to say we're 9th cousins: http://www.geni.com/path/Jennifer+Lynn+Young+is+related+to+Michael+...

Thank you W, JLY, & Erica.

Although Erica, I think we discussed cousin relationship some moons ago. However I think that was through a different line or lines. I do not recall (does not mean my memory is perfect :) ) Susanna North Martin in those discussions.

Justin, the winking smily face is nice too ;)

I'm not related enough to Susannah Martin. :(

"Susanna Martin so accused, spoke with flaming eyes
"I scorn these things for they are naught
But filthy gossips lies"

Thoughtless words about our colonial ancestresses could get them murdered.

Dale,

Please do not take that as an attack on your father's testimony or your quest.

It also is not a critique of your approach.

It is rather, pointing out an inconsistency between what you have said before regarding your (Dale's) approach and the "your system" you refer to. in that post.

You talked of inductive logic, creative leaps-of-logic or however you may wish to phrase it. The "your system" referred to in that post is traditional honest (not saying your approach is dishonest, but others 'using' the traditional methods have fabricated false genealogies) genealogy, which is based 100% on DEDUCTIVE logic.

This is a point you seemed to grasp a few weeks or a couple of months ago.

I think you must agree that if one uses your approach, one can not also say that they have used the other method as the "ANVIL upon which I have hammered out the lines which connect to the "Like a Prince but not a PRINCE" story"

Sincerely,

Michael

I truly hope you are able to achieve the full understanding of the context of all the names in your father's testimony you seek by whatever legitimate approach or method you use. Inductive logic is legitimate. It works in some cases but not all. I hope you can use the one that will work in the particular situation (read the word situation there as 'part of the story') you are working on at any given moment. But ultimately, if you do want to understand the truth of it and be able to pass that to the rest of your more immediate family so that they can know the truth of it, I believe that you must have sufficient evidence for the jury to return that verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Erica, I just took another look at the relationship path between us. Your accused witch ancestor was Rachel Vinson. My connection to her is more removed. We have to hop the pond and come down a different line. Susanna (North) Martin is my accused witch ancestor.

Justin,

You can take that cousin relationship and ... double it. (might have to add a 1x removed on the second one. I actually have 2 lines from Aqula & Ann (Wheeler) Chase. One line from their dau. Mary Chase married John Stevens Sr. The other from her brother John. That line carried the Chase surname down to my great-grandmother Winifred.

I think there's a generation difference though. The 2 lines came back together with Ebenezer & Sarah (Cheney) Chase, 1 set of my 4th great-grandparents.

Omg, Susannah North Martin is my 10thgrgr!!! Wow, all this time and I never knew - I have a witch, I have a witch! <happy dance> http://www.geni.com/path/Jennifer+Lynn+Young+is+related+to+Susannah...

And Rachel Vinson is my 3rd cousin x9!!! http://www.geni.com/path/Jennifer+Lynn+Young+is+related+to+Rachel+V...

Oh, frabjous day, I have TWO witches!!!

Erica, I also have Mary (Perkins) Bradbury as some great-aunt, twice. Her sister Elizabeth married William Sargent Sr. Line 1: William Sr. & Elizabeth (Perkins) Sargent, (Lt.) Phillip & Mary (Sargent) Challis, John & Lydia (Challis) Chase, Jacob & Joanna (Davis) Chase, Ebenezer & Hepzibah (Sargent) Chase -- Hepzibah Sargent from line 2 below), Caleb & FNU (Chellis) Chase, Ebenezer & Sarah (Cheney) Chase, Daniel Cheney & Malinda (Bissell) Chase, Franklin & Mary A. (Elliot) Chase, Joseph Thomas & Winifred Cordelia Erdine (Chase) Collard/Collord, George Watson & Clara Marie "Marie" (Collard/Collord) Brown, George Thomas Albert & Elli (Kramer) Brown, me

Line 2: William Sr. & Elizabeth (Perkins) Sargent, William Jr. & Mary (Colby) Sargent, Phillip & Mary (Tewksbury) Sargent, Charles & Hepzibah (Heath) Sargent, Ebenezer & Hepzibah (Sargent) Chase, same as line 1.