Rice Pudding Part 2, Quest For Truth

Just wait until you find even closer cousin marriages. It was a terrible Geni day when a 6th great grand father also showed as a 6th great uncle - and it wasn't an error. Ewwww.

Well, when you all pile on after the leader, it's instructive to note that in the barnyard....when a chicken has a speck of red blood showing...the rest attack and kill it. Congratulations, you have killed my interest in your Special kind of knowledge.... Ms. Jenifer, if you can find my words that said I wanted to be a geneaologist I would take your comments to heart. I did not ever utter those words. I said I wanted to find my linkage to a possible history that included a person like a prince but not a prince and see if JOHN Lackland, and a series of KINGS of England were indeed my relatives. W says they are, Im inclined to believe him and the ARENDALS seem to stretch into the -20 of early ENGLAND, So I am not guilty of your trumped up charge at all.

I have what I came for, and in trying to thankyou I recieve the parting blows of comfort of your glorious good will. It's a very odd way of saying Good Luck Old Chap...Carry on, Hip, Hip. The most you can say about me here is that I returned fire after holding my tongue, and demanded a cordial demeanor to participate with me.

I am content with what I brought to the discussion....clearly some are not contented but that's not why we began the work here. I will do what I can to observe your special kind of cordiality....It's nothing like anything I have ever received before and I've been in the NAVY and had street people thank me for being me. Just goest to show, you can't please everyone so might as well please yourself. I have. DCR

Dale wrote:

" I said I wanted to find my linkage to a possible history that included a person like a prince but not a prince and see if JOHN Lackland, and a series of KINGS of England were indeed my relatives ..."

It is true you never said you wanted to be a genealogist.

But there is only one discipline that can assert a pedigree & it's called "genealogy."

I prefer "family history" to be honest.

I've never known anyone that doesn't want it to be as accurate as we can make it, and that's "all" genealogy is, at heart. Nothing special or magical or requiring brilliance.

Just the work of it.

Yes, Jennifer, and as you will see, I've been saying exactly that all along.
B^)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit

"Bullshit (also bullcrap) is a common English expletive which may be shortened to the euphemism bull or the initialism BS. In British English, "bollocks" is a comparable expletive, although "bullshit" is more common. It is a slang profanity term meaning "nonsense", especially in a rebuking response to communication or actions viewed as DECEIVING, MISLEADING, DISINGENUOUS, or false. As with many expletives, the term can be used as an interjection or as many other parts of speech, and can carry a wide variety of meanings."

(ALL CAPS added for emphasis by W)

I have never presumed to be the leader, that's for others certainly not me. I only exerted the power that belonged to me as the investigator of these mysterious and powerful words spoken in 1978. Your counterparts or contemporaries, are reveling in the death of my public participation here. It's very hard for me to read.

They are fairly dancing around the stake that's been stuck through my person. Right here on GENI...where we allegeldly worked to uncover the truth. It is a lesson I won't soon forget I can tell you that.

I have watched this happen 3 seperate times....each time you left the discussion they immediately pounced to join in as to what JUSTIN said. I don't think you meant it to happen, in fact Im sure you did not mean it to happen, yet it did. I did not respond in anger, ever.

My anger was directed at the Mystery Man who prides himself on his devotion to you, and comes to your rescue when you clearly are in no danger from the likes of me for goodness sakes. I offered him part of myself as a token of friendship back in September, and was publically berated and nearly cursed. I take it as a sad impoverishment of a kind I will not put into words.

I am not now nor ever have preseneted myself as your KIND. I am simply a person who was looking for answeres, and you need to look at this in a few days when the adrenaline has left the WORD- lust. I dared to stand my ground in the face of GREATLY informed persons telling me to give up. That is my sin. I'll do my looking without help, as the help has destoryed my looking time for the last 60 days.

....How very much like SALEM this has been. DCR 1948

Wow.

Any Fair reading of the events of March 19, 2014 postings at 10:14pm through March 20, 2014 at 12:43 pm will show a polite and concrete exchange of opinion between Justin S. and Dale R. True to form W calles my ancestory" Bull Shi- " . Because of the misleading and eroneous statement that Justin made ref. the 2,431 12 marker 0 steps matches had no significance, and further remarks on my 25 marker matches, Mr. Justin's Characterization led to a series of attacks and exchanges that can only be charaterized as the the Leader throwing in the cards in frustration and the followers here, pileing on.

I don't care how you excuse yourselves, that's what you did with the sole exception of Ms. Erica. I expect nothing, and demand nothing. I simply must put this record aright and the misleading part of what you said Justin was that none of them mattered without further testing. I beg to differ. About 12 of them have geneaologies attatched and I have been through them all. They have the names of my ancestors among them and my father's testimony is yet again shown to be true and reliable.

You categorized the 25 mataches with 2 steps as inconsequential , yet that is where I found my 6th cousin and added his family to tree last month.

Therefore this entire outpouring of contempt for me and my method of family analysis , after even showing you where the PERKINS link came from, was belittled by you in a Cause to discredit me.

Not just my approach, but me as person as so nicely described by JLY. That's pileing on when the Reluctant Leader takes no regard for what is being presented in an honest attempt to find what is lost. The disrespect is not on my side, it's on your side and you are 100 % wrong in this affair for sure.

You did it, you said it, and now I am onto my reasearch which includes a Modal analysis of every 12 and 25 marker family name by state and the very recent understanding that the most prominent Secondary line of Tudor blood to my direct ancestor line vectors through the EARLEs to the Bordens. Charity is there, I should find her soon by the Shermans as it appears right now. I put up the link for all to see, I decline to put it up again. DCR 1948

Wow.

Dale,

So far as I can see you have been helped to trace your direct paternal ancestry to around 1634, which is about 100 years earlier than I can prove mine - or, frankly, expect to, unless the manorial court records for Whitfield, Northumberland, become publicly available and prove to be in a bit better order than the other Whitfield records, which is rather improbable (their rental records are almost random jottings). And in your ancestry there are leads to earlier connections in areas of England where records were better kept than in Northumberland.

You have a fairly formidable memory but memories are never perfect (even you have made mistakes in remembering names in this discussion). Your father told you in all sincerity what he had been told (I expect by his mother, who I think had probably read "In the Name of Rice" and believed it). Oral histories often tend towards the romantic/improbable. Some of what you have been told or inductively deduced may fit to records, opportunities at time and place, or social context. Other bits don't seem to fit at all. Most of the surnames involved are quite common. Doing DNA matches simply on the basis of surnames seems to me (if you will forgive me) spending a lot of money asking someone to find a needle in a rather large haystack.

Mark

Thankyou Mart: Having such an explitive used right after I posted all the DNA matches in My known family history was not only disrespectful, it was intended to ignite a general kind of disrespect fostered by W.

My observations are what they are, they are here for the world to see, and since I called attention to the sequence of events starting on March 19, at 10:14 PM between myself and Mr. Justin , which included the now Famous W: "Bull Shi-" explitive which was ignored, it is clear how this person is intentionially trying to sabotage my work here. No apologies are required as the now meaningless remarks have been uttered for the world to see. I dared to disagree with the authority and told him why and the remarks have been pulled down. Not a bit fair if you ask me....sort of like disconnecting links one does not like. DCR 1948

I don't disagree with you Mark, Im approaching the stage in life when shrot term memory does not work as well, I have owned that much publically. My family link to JOHN RICE of DEDHAM was known when I started. We calirified here that he was not and could not be the Son of Edmund RICE 1594. The only question yet to be proved by inductive logic is : does he share similar DNA to the other alleged bastard sons of Henry VIII. I say he does. Some here don't like that. Too bad, that's what my research shows and I will publish it and how it was determeined will acknowlege that it's a 60-40 proposition. 60% likely true and 40% chance of being false. The readers will decide and be asked to vote on the premise by private ballot along with the facial analysis of my9 family members who agree to participate. Then we shal see who is Likely correct and who is wrong. The DNA from Richard III wil be of great interest as it will point to R1b1a2a or I-1. We shall see. DCR 1948

mr rice you did not breach the peace . hope you bring light to artificial shadows ;-D

W and Dale, get a grip on it ! You two wear me out . The whole conversation is becoming baloney ( more polite version of what the two of you just said)

Isn't anyone going to do something about this?

Dale,

I am afraid I can't remember whether I have drawn your attention to this profile:

Sir James Perrot, MP

on which I have some work to do. I think he is the illegitimate son of your Sir John Perrott. He is quite certainly the right dates and place to be so.

In this (rather long) history of parliament biography, you will see that Sir John Perrott has indeed been alleged (posthumously) to have been an illegitimate son of Henry VIII. But only one author has been given in a biography which has, I think, 176 references.

Otherwise I don't think it supports your oral history of your family. If Sir John Parrott, alleged bastard of Henry VIII, acknowledged one illegitimate son (and paid for him to go to Oxford) why would he have gone to America (some 30 years after his supposed death) to leave another illegitimate son in a Puritan community as some sort of punishment for being illegitimate?

At least we have a reference to a John Rice who was subsequently alleged after his death (by one single author) to be a bastard son of Henry VIII. You have a reference which should show when and why this allegation was made, on which you can make your own judgements. Any further inductions or deductions make little sense to me. A John Rice who died (or even falsified his death) in 1592 can hardly have deposited an illegitimate son in Massachussets in the 1630s.

Mark

Yes, I know of James Perrott: The John RICE you speak of is related to a group of actors who surrounded the one and only Wm. Shakespear. My link is another generation removed from that. The Son of John Perrott is indeed James and RICHARD. But my line is the 1/2 sister of Elenore Rhys, married to the son of Griffeth ap Gruffed ap Thomas ap RHYS born 1508 and married to Catherine Howard, aunt of the beheaded Katherine.

The distinction is that John Perratt II born to Syble JOHNS, 1/2 sister of Elenore, was born while his father sir John 1527, was in service to the Crown in IRELAND1572, so his records are not where one would expect. He too attended at Grey's Tavern and had credentials enough to get clear of the POPE after his conversion to Quakerism. It is this illegitimate line of which I have been trying to direct this group to no avail.

His First wife in England bore Perratt II two son, one James and RICHARD also, and then he absconded to america about 1640 the same time that Perrott ap RICE started over. His conversion as a follower of George Fox occured in Virginia according to my reading. He then went to Barbados with his second wife, whom I have named previously, and has two daughters each marrying into the Mayo and Hales famlies of VIRGINIA where MAYO the son in law accrewed 2,000 on his behalf. That is the line I am claiming as the logical one in this MYTH. Thus all the DNA spread from Virginia South is of meaning and as stated earlier there are reported names from the testimony of 1978 in those histories on line at Family Tree DNA.

The significant find of yesterday is that a secondary link to my family is through the EARLES line to Borden, to Steven Gardiner to HelenTudor to Owen Tudor. Where my Charity fits into that schema is still clouded but I predict will soon be known. I appreciate your comments. DCR 1948

You can e-mail me privately if you like, I will give you the address here but only privately if you have any further questions or comments. DCR

Dale you wrote

"It is this illegitimate line of which I have been trying to direct this group to no avail ..."

That is not really accurate as I understand it, which is no doubt faulty & my own error in understanding.

It *has* been addressed; there have been multiple questions "asked & answered.".

Opinions "have" been rendered by a couple who are familiar with the era & environment. Again, I have a lot of trouble following your narrative (forgive me), but I'm pretty sure I have read that there are several improbalities and impossibilities which have not actually been addressed by you with "evidence."

Now --- I really, really, really refuse to get involved with this.

The area I can assist with now is southern USA *when they have arrived.* Not prior.

I do not have the qualifications to help you interpret your DNA tests better. But if you show a Y DNA "connection" to my 7th great uncle, Elisha Reynolds, as you do --- and I know for a fact his ancestry can be traced to medieval Kent & Devon, which I do --- then he "cannot be" part of your "Descent from Royalty" narrative.

So - Dale - how do you account for the DNA grouping being the same?

Dale C. Rice ment well when he started this thread however... I can't discern enough to prove anything.

Erica Howton i agree with you.. i really don't have the expertice to be of much help here let along interperet dna results. WAY too much of a learning curve for me on that..

Just another quick note to followers of this discussion for the purpose of keeping fact separate from fiction.

Dale C. Rice did not start this thread.

Don't really care who started it. It's gone to far.

W is correct above: he is the Original Poster (OP) and topic starter. In an un moderated discussion like this one, the Internet convention is to respect the expressed wishes of the OP as best we all can. Being "real life" conversations can meander around; that's part of the fun of it. :):)

Judy I know it can be hard when it's in the newsfeed but keep trying that "unfollow" button in the upper right.

Grandpa always said,
"A man who cannot recognize and respect the facts can never convince others to respect his beliefs and opinions".

http://www.geni.com/discussions/129552?msg=930587
How to UN follow a discussion

Note: the menu is now called "Research", not "more"

The technology is faster than the people on this one.

You know what? I just scanned through this discussion from the start, and I'm not really seeing it that way.

I am more seeing a continuing plea - almost a begging ! - to stay with the topic:

"Quest for Truth"

So - up to others to continue on with the search for facts.

But let's respect that as the topic, and the wishes of the Original
Poster.

We are assembling the pieces of a broken story. The fact that the pieces exist in History is the drive behind the Narrative. This has always been a 60 -40 proposition. As expalined many, many times before: the inductive part has to be used because we can't dig up the main characters at hand....

I am assembling the parts of that indcutive reasoning project, and therefore by defination all information is changeable and tentative untill enough is gathered to make some statement of REASONED conclustions. My problem is that people other than myself who are very, very good in the depth and breadth of their learning have made statements way, way too soon, that have derailed the assembley process.

All of the ancestory of Perratt II has become an intense area of examination and hopefully, down the road a ways, understanding will break through. So please give me a BREAK....This is PROVISIONAL research of facts that support the testimony, and if you don't want to follow it so be it. Goodbye! DCR

It would be great if we could just talk about Dale's quest itself, and not get sidetracked into he-said-she-said accusations.

For what it's worth, this discussion doesn't look anything like the true flame wars I've seen - in fact, I think that's what we've been trying so hard to avoid by limiting the discussion to how to research Dale's story, and avoiding accusations and name-calling.

i agree Private User for the most part until the last 2 pages. I am learning a lot of intresting stuff however.. and i thank dale for that.