Rice Pudding Part 2, Quest For Truth

I have read the notes on Chruchill, John: and it appears there is conflicting source information and only a possible cross connection to my line...Which I don't understand why it's still up.

My notification to you was about the RAdcliffe Churchill lineage. I don't know if it connects or not. I brought it up because on other sites, Radcliffe is used in place of RICE....so some connection I don't understand. DCR

w: the comments have long since stopped being of entertainment value. You should stop now. I have turned in this latest posting as evidence of your continuing harassment of a perfectly sound reasearch project by a perfectly determined grandson and son. You are making yorself a spectacle for the entire community....I urge you to stop doing this before you are banned from GENI. I understand we disagree on the meaning of these findings but you have not seen the rest which I have not put up. Please, stop and return to a civil tone of conversation. That's my last warning. DCR 1948

Dale - I do not understand the Radcliffe Churchill question, and if it involves England it is outside my scope for comment.

There is nothing conflicting about the source information for Rev John Churchill. What exactly is confusing to you?

Okay: let it go, I was referring back the the MELLOR to Miller which was part of the testimony on the site I provided. You said it's in error so Let's drop it. I can't explain it any better. DCR

mEllor E e = sound
mIller I i= sound
e=i same sound english or french
i am guessing on this one i am maybe wrong also...

Yes Mart: The spelling changed from Mellor to Miller here in America. When my father gave me the name he was using the old spelling MEllor, that's why the name stuck out on the Churchill line I posted.
DCR

Dale - let me try because I don't need this topic to come back for a sixth time.

There was a book called "Churchill's in America" written about 1900.

In it was reported the ancestry of John Churchill of the Plymouth Colony & Josiah Churchill of Weatherfield.

That information was erroneous and has been disproved.

The easiest disproof is with John Churchill of Stinsford, who married Eleanor Meller.

They had a son named John, who married Sarah.

As it says in the profile:

"Unfortunately for the submitters [of records to the LDS database], the Reverend John Churchill was (and is) quite well documented. Original church registers have his children's baptisms. Also, his will and probate have survived to the present day.

"He had three daughters and NO Son. In short, there are no baptism records for a John Churchill born in 1620 to the Reverend John - only false made-up claims."

Did you read that in the profile, Dale? Or did you skip it over because it's not in accord with the "testimony" of 1978?

Dale - you also wrote

"only a possible cross connection to my line...Which I don't understand why it's still up ..."

"Geni says" -

Rev. John Churchill is Dale C. Rice's 6th great aunt's third great uncle's wife's first cousin twice removed!

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Rev+John+Churchi...

Why in the world "shouldn't" that relationship be up? As far as I know it is correct.

The message does not say "this is your grandfather" or anything like that.

The computer found a relationship through various family lines, which is quite clever of it, in my opinion.

Dale - please do answer me about the Rev John Churchill profile. It is important to me that profile & tree information be presented as clearly and simply as possible to the Geni community in the profiles I curate, and if there is anything at all confusing, please explain what is and why and I will be happy to correct.

So - why is there a question? This Churchill line "daughtered out.". That is proven.

Or does it keep repeating as a topic because the "genealogy" conflicts with "the testimony" ?

What can we do about that? The calendar says it's the year 2014, not 1978.

My observation was about the Meller connection to the RICE's . It is upline and that line goes to Churchill which goes all the way back to Rockbear Churchill. That appears to be the link to my family but I can't tell you where yet. Perhaps this is where Cherity fits in. Meller to Churchill connects to the daughter of JOHN RICE. Thats what we have and a connection to ancient line of Churchills upline from Meller. I can see that plainly. My only point is that Meller is part of the testimony of 1978 and so it here on GENI as well.

Now, I am still hunting for where Charity connects to all of this. DCR

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+William+of+Rockb...

I find this path by going bacward from Meller to Churchill. The testimony was that Meller was important to the ancestory....I am looking more deeply at the Mellor Churchill children to see if there is any connection to a Charity. It's all open now and I can see it. DCR 1948

Dale let's recap.

1) so in fact, Churchill is only important to the "testimony" of 1978 because it's a reminder of the Meller surname, which is the one linked to your ancestry?

2) can you explain please how a person born in 1325 (William "of Rockbear" Churchill) would have any bearing on discovering the ancestry of someone born about 1735? (Charity (unknown) Rice)?

answer to 1) Yes exactly: It's significant because it relates to the direct ancestory...but I don't know how which is why I brought it up. Im looking for that connection just like I was looking for John Perratt II the Quaker. I didn't know he was a Quaker until we discoverd him burried in history.

2) Wm. Rockbear is significant because it goes to part one of the testimony: John Lackland is part of the Line from which the Rice's are descended. So this links back to Rockbear and John Lackland.

3) My ability to track language is just fine.... Thankyou. Having prosecuted felony drunk driving cases in my career I presented testimony at the 3 cases ever taken to trial and won them...meaning out of 17 such cases 14 plead guilty on the baisis of my written testimony, alone and the last 3 makes for 100% conviction rate, including Burglary, theft, petty theft and hundreds of cases where I had to make my case in writing. That's what I do, I paint a picture with words.
4) What I achieved here on GENI with absolutely no background in DNA Science and the methods of Geneaology was to Crack a nearly 400 year mystery using the principles of investigation and the superior breadth of knowledge of the followers here. I formulated the approach of useing the POSITVE or affirmative that the story was true in opposition to the process used here to find persons. That has yielded a near complete recollection of the conversation which I had essentially lost until we rebuilt it step by investigative step. Why do you ask?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_believe

"Make believe is a loosely structured form of role-playing that generally has no rules except to stay in character, and requires no specific props.
It is normally restricted to young children."

"Make believe play can reveal a great deal about a child's psychological state, perception of gender roles, home life and interpretation of the world that is around them."

Capt. Samuel Mayo

Ms. Erica: This is my Mayo connection, to which I have referred to as part of the REILABILITY of the testimony 1978. I will be checking each of the down line Mayo's to see what other connections they may have to Charity. just fyi. This was courtsey of cousin Mart who understood what I was doing and helped me to put this together. My father's testimony was correct from beginning to end and now we are beginning to understand it. DCR

http://www.geni.com/path/George+Fox+is+related+to+Dale+C+Rice?from=...

Ms. Erica: I have used the Fox Name repeatedly from the testimony of 1978 as being part of the story of my family. As I have posted the link to John Perratt II the QUAKER I don't need to again, but I thought you should see this link because it shows that my EARLE family and Fox families are connected by a relative named Thomas Cornell a marriage relatedness which shows the influance of Fox on the entire family as well as the Quaker Movement in GENERAL. MY Father's testimony of JOHN PERRATT II the QUAKER is part of this AMERICAN story and I keep hoping that someone of you will take seriously the VERASITY of the idea that prior to his CONVERSION the events took place I have related to you. DCR 1948

Michael McCann???? You just posted a comment about my search for Charity Stout at 09:12 this AM it was up and now it is gone.

You said we share a relationshp to a Penolopy someone? My question is how did you know I was looking at that file? I was off site for an hour following names from the testimony of 1978 and did look up Geni file for Charity Stout 1737? Do my searches show up here for you to see? DCR

Ms. Erica? Are my searches here open for public view? How would anyone know I looked up Charity Stout? What's the deal? DCR

I saw you were following them dale.. I Have some connections to that line.. But I am reluntant to help because every time i do mart and w make it worse.. I'm sure Erica Howton can help you find the settings to make that private

Yes they do show up for me to see.. And I only commented because i was trying to be helpfull I share a connection to that woman's great great grandma.. but i too am bowing out because every time i try and help some one it turns into a flame war because some one opens up with a smart alec comment...

Well, I don't mind really, I just was suprised to see something I did not put up come up in your post. The name was derived from about 7 different families of the testimony and I looked her up. Being born in N.J. kinda put the squelch on it as I have been roundly rebuked for such questions. Clear to everyone but me I suppose. Anyway thanks, I just didn't know anyone could look at my searches....kinda Creepy if you ask me, but I have nothing to hide, and encourage others to look at these newly linked files. I note a great silence from a lot of former MUD SLINGERS. DCR

dale, Penelope Stout i share a link to..
she is my first cousin 12 times removed's wife's mother one of my closer relatives.. from her to charity it would go johnathan her son Zebulon Bollen Stout, Sr his son chairty his daugther.. i see that ties into your rice line william rice sr i think.. intresting path...

Thanks Michael: I recognised the name BOLLEN from the testimony and when I followed that, even as a middle name, it led to Burroughs -Stout. Both Charity's....I look at every name, and every relationship and now it's beginning to pay off....

The Great Silence has ensued.....Ohhhhhh my. The chains of history are rattling some nerves aparantly. You do see the irony of my putting up the JOHN PERRATT II "The QUAKER" link after 2 months of being told don't bother. Well, the story is true, get used to it people....John PERRATT II is the father of JOHN RICE 1630....DCR

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

In case you missed it Michael, this is the secondary line of relatedness which has to be present in order for the PRIMARY line of Paternity to be likely true. With no such lines then the Father scenerio can't possibly be true...yet here it is. Cheers....we are moving onto find CHARITY. Odd that I was told to build out my tree on this side first, but not to bother with her....???? DCR 1948

illegitimates? Yeah I have some of those in my line that are thorney..
lol.. My earlyiest known douglas his father was said to be one related to james v and marion boyd but it was never proven and every time me or others try to connect to that we get rebuked.. a irish jamican line intresting i will have to take a look at that later.. I've got to go out to luck with my nephew and sis in law now i'll be back in a bit to look at that... I tie into that line too..
Erica Howton is the go to on colonel lines she might be able to tell more then i can.. past 1600 right now is a sticking point for me in many of my lines due to illegitimates and other issues..

Well Michael: Either the DNA matches or it does not. In my case, I have 4 fellows seemingly unrelated showing very similar values on the Y chromosome and that is in black and white. What is open to interpretation is what those values mean. Keeping an open mind is key...closing the mind is fatal to any investigation. My story was true, so to test it against the various theories thrown at it one must accept it could be wrong, but not likely.

If you have something related to Boyd it won't show up on the Y because she's female but the Stuart line is known to be R1b1a2a and the last 5 numeric values for Stewart the King are 12,14,15,16,17 as published two years ago on the DNA of his son by Lucy Barlow- The name she used in the Netherlands while having a son and daughter by James. Just fyi. DCR

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Henry+Jenkins+of...

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Susan+Berkeley?f...

Please note that the 53% liklihood of relatedness to Jenkins and Phillips are illistraited in these parallel descending lines which are indeed 4 generations from John RICE 1530 of DEDHAM as expected from the DNA match with Jenkins of some two weeks ago now. I was roundly hooted for saying so. So be it. Now that we have my John Perratt II the Quaker in sequence....we can see where the links were to Phillips, Sir John PERROTT 1527 and Jenkins- Saunders all within the required 4 generations of My ancestor John RICE 1630 of Dedham.

Henry Tudor VIII was known for wild sexual liberties and thrice I have reported and shown you the Laundress Story & of Field of Cloth of Gold and the Ethelarlad Maulte link to Harrington ancestor of RICE at Esther. possible grandaughter of HESTER Harrington. I understand it's disconnected for lack of a piece of Paper but do have those FACES, nine at last count....in my immediate family...

Here we have the detailed accounts of Henry Tudor and Mary BERKLEY Pughe...recently put up as unkonwn father of Sir JOHN PERROTT. As if any other Haplogroup is going to explain away my story....I don't think so. We have those faces remember? They come from the mingled lines of Churchill, Tudor, Philip IV of France LOUIS XI of FRANCE. They are within 3 generations of last refreshment of the Main line by my 2nd great Grandmother Hall to Foote to Churchill who descends from Margaret Churchill sister of Elizabeth Woodville if I've read the links correctly.

Ms. Erica: When you disconnected my line from the JOHN CHURCHILL who had daughtered out...it left in place the one back through the MELLOR line. That's why I think Charity is part of that linkage. Time will tell. DCR

Dale we need to clarify terminology.

You wrote:

Ms. Erica: When you disconnected my line from the JOHN CHURCHILL who had daughtered out...it left in place the one back through the MELLOR line. That's why I think Charity is part of that linkage. Time will tell. DCR

I did not "disconnect your line."

This is one world family tree that links "everyone."

"Your line," in genealogical terms, is only the direct bloodlines. Son > father > father (Y DNA). Mother > mother > mother (mtDNA).

Then there are other patterns (father > mother > mother > father).

But it is only **your** line if there is the direct parent to child link. All other links are cousins, in laws, out laws, collateral, etcetera.

The reason you are repeatedly distressed about the "cutting the line" (incorrect !) is because you have trouble finding the profile you were studying.

My answer to that is:

Keep better notes so you can see the profile & that part of the "we are all connected world family tree again."

Okay: My comment was that the unproved or disconnected line seemed to disconnect my linkages to many other lines, and I have not found them again. But fairly sure they will surface as we move forward. DCR

W: Clearly you found an out of date Blog, which I ammended last sept. so I did not yet have the Perratt II descendency worked out. Now that I know where the descendency comes from I will ammend that blog. You can call it what ever you like. I signed my name because I was trying to make people aware of this. Now, to your actions here....It's crystal clear you don't like my opinions or conclusions. Tough.

They are mine and I will post them as I like. I will for accuracy's sake ammend the 14th ggrandson statement which is dated last year in March 2013....Big deal, I was wrong about that and we've had a years worth of discussion and the rest of the BLOG is fine. You can object all you like, but since it's my name attatched you will have to pardon my opinion, even if it is mistaken from time to time. Capishe, w?