John Rice, of Dedham

http://www.geni.com/path/Charles+Edward+Stuart+Bonnie+Prince+Charli...

The Above linkage shows us that the Stewarts and The Rice's have linkage that extend back to Charles II, the Monarch supported by Thomas ap Rice 1570 against Cromwell, and we have a family story that says goods were stolen and taken to America at the start of the American experiment and coinciding with the ENGLISH Revolution and ap Rice/ Lort Brother's connection is a clue to these events. It's too soon to say how and why these lives over-lapped and why this was kept a family secret for the 93 years my father was alive. But then that's my view. DCR

Dale, this is the part of the discussion that's tedious for me and many others. EVERYONE connects to Charles II and Bonnie Prince Charlie, not just you. And our "job" here is most definitely NOT to understand how and why certain people connect.

Our job is to under IF the connection is meaningful. The only way to do that is put them in one sequence and look for the problems. If two men can't be the same, then they can't no matter how nice the story would be if they were.

http://www.geni.com/path/HRH+Princess+Louise+of+Stolberg+Gedern+is+...

If these linkages are True, then we have both sides of Stewart and the wife of Bonnie Prince Charles, linking to the ap Rice descendent we are all jointly studying. I hope so, at least. DCR

Two men switced identies and the younger one carried on and died in Barbados? The Elder one died as expected in the wilderness of Virginia. I don't understand the How or Why yet, but clearly we have more than one person....DCR

http://www.geni.com/people/Sir-James-Perrott-
MP/5295873606510050228
http://www.geni.com/path/Charles+I+King+of+England+Scotland+and+Ire...

If my ancestor is John Perratt II 1565 then he too is a 5th cousin to the King who was beheaded. Cromwell was looking for the remnants of Tudor/Stewarts, and they (in very good order, left the scene, disappeared, absconded with a vessel load of Goods. (The Sparrow perhaps?) In any event, Justin the story bares looking into. You are the scholar, I am the 8th ggrandson mucking around in your baliwick, and I don't presume to tell you anything. I just have a lot of questions that I hope we can answer and do a good service to those persons around the world who have come to a dead end on their family threads. Ms. Erica? Perhaps there is nothing here at all Im just a really imaginative person. Or, there is something here any serious student of History should love shred and see what's at the bottom of this 416 year old secret. YES? Good Day, I have lots to read. DCR 1948

Dale, I'm struggling to understand why you think the two men switched identities. I knew you thought that at one point, but we've had a lot of discussion and research since then. I think it would be hard to hold to that theory now.

John Rice, of Dedham was probably born about 1620-1630. He married Ann Hackley at Dedham in 1649, and apparently led a quiet, Puritan life.

John Parrott, of Nansemond was already an adult in 1623 when he came to Virginia, was married to Prunella / Priscilla by 1635, and disappears from records about 1650.

It seems very unlikely the two could have swapped identities at any point in their lives. If the Virginia John had decided to hide out in Massachusetts, there would be the pesky problem that he continues to appear in Virginia.

It might be easier to swap John Rice, of Dedham with John Perrot the Quaker because they were about the same age. Even then, it would be an odd way to go about hiding. You'd have Perrot hiding out in Mass. while his replacement was making the biggest public splash possible with a 1657 trip to convert the Pope in Rome and giving the governments on both sides every reason to do an exhaustive investigation into his background.

Remember too that Cromwell didn't need to worry about any ersatz Tudor bastards. It's a maxim of history that time wounds all unsuccessful claims. Cromwell has a real Stuart prince to worry about, a man with money and connections. He didn't need to worry about a nobody. And neither did the Stuarts themselves.

If your family story demands that John Rice be a man in hiding, you can find a much simpler story. Make him a previously unknown Perrott if you must, but then take him to Virginia with Daniel Gookin Jr. in 1641 perhaps intending to stay with "cousin" John Parrott, of Nansemond, then bring him up to Cambridge, Mass. before 1649 with the same Daniel Gookin. While Gookin is witnessing the will of Rev. Thomas Shepard and becoming guardian of Shepard's young son, you can have Gookin stashing the Perrott kid with Shepard relatives in Dedham under the name John Rice ;)

Justin are you becoming a fiction writer? :):)

To me it's simpler.

There is a family story about descent from Tudors. OK. Why not, could be.

But the person supposedly "with" this descent in Dale's family tree was "not" a Rice. Came in through another line. And since the persisting surname is Rice - a name found in both East Anglia and Wales (and Germany & Ireland etc) - the story got mixed in to the Rice Pudding.

Perrott ap Rice 1598/ faked his own death, becomes the Quaker? I can't tell yet. And I don't know his education would support that, but he may have been better educated than Pemrokshire Journals on line indicates.

John RIce 1630 stayed Put in Dedham and raised a Puritan Family. He's not in the equation after being deliverd per the testimony. That's the reason for the DNA spread in Virginia/Barbados and Ma.

There is written testimony of people who found a naked, starved, old man near the trading post on the James River in 1658 which would be the person known as Perratt II who is still hiding out for reasons unknown. But dies within 3 years of sponsoring a William or Thomas Price to emigrate to Virginia, 1655 on the Star, leaving the name of Rice-Hughes of, ???? Virginia as sponsor. Leaving one's father to starve naked in the Woods would indicate a fairly unhappy son with his grandfather's choices if he's Perrott ap Rice's son come over to help in the Indian Trade on the James River? Can't tell that yet. But we do have the same DNA signature of my family as it connects to the Pollards of Va. and the Native descendents carrying that signature says these people connected.

Rice -Hughes did in fact sponsor such a person, and there is Record & testimonoy based upon the people who stumbled upon the trading post in the woods, ca 1658, and the vessel(Salvadged in 1629 at Havorford WEST) made it all possible: is the means for both trade, and the means of transport back to ENGLAND. "The Sparrow" and the "Lepoard" were both part of the 1978 testimony, & who did Margarett ap Rice 1595, have two minor daughters alive in the 1660 peerage count, 20 years after her husband faked his death.

Margaret ap Rice 1595 never remarried, and has continued support for her life apart from her son John who initially inherits the estates, then passes to grandson, James ap Rice ca 1635, and finally James the great grandson is foreced to sell all of the lands to RICKSON, 1710. The person whom I thought was Perrott ap Rice, before the date of 1565 was confirmed, is in in fact Perratt II, his father, son of Sybil JONES.

We do have the Scarfone DNA match, and that comports with Z-58 links to the Phillips family, and the reason for being bannished/disowned is clear. It was unseemly and distateful even for the illegitimate to abuse young girls, or more exatcly, family trust boundaries were broken.

In Any event, the descendents of that person go onto Barbados, with a wife Elizabeth, (Prunella is dead so he remarries Elizabeth) = have two daughters who marry Mayo, and Steager, and the story of confused identity is passed along to posterity. The story is not yet clear, but it's time is now come to daylight for the first time since 1640. The Quaker John Perrott = Perrott ap Rice 1598, that's what Im working from now. DCR 1948

Erica, you should have stuck with your first guess ;)

It's all fiction. It's the Edmund Rice story adapted to John Rice, then elaborated.

If Dale wants to look for a way to connect John Rice to the Perrott family, he's eventually going to have to find a way to deal with the facts that are getting in the way. There's no better way to do that than to plot the movements of the major characters.

Dale,

I have to repeat that I am in complete agreement with Justin that John Perratt the Quaker and John Perratt the Virginia immigrant cannot have been the same man.

Nor can the immigrant have been the John Perrott (sixth son) whom I identified as a possible candidate, because I have found dates for his father and mother, and his mother died in 1572, But Justin's point is right. A farmer (brought over as a "servant") is unlikely to have prospered so much in a few years to have been able tp finance bringing over nine servants of his own. I had not thought systematically about the financing of these "settlements" alias land-grabs before. But they took money The settlers would have expected trouble with the Native Americans from the beginning, although the latter took time tp realise that these new arrivals meant that they would be supplanted, The Irish, of course, realised it from the start, because they were losing land that they owned or farmed. So you had to have, not just farm implements etc etc, but weapons, gunpowder. Some of the finance came from the families of the settlers. A lot came from merchants, who wanted a return on their investment. This means contracts. And while not all will have survived some may. Look at the money: one of the first rules of genealogy.

One other thought is the missionaries of the Society of Friends were quite well organized and were writing fools.

From what I know so far of my Quaker lines, it boggles my mind to think a "gone native" trader was a member.

I'm fascinated by this Trader Hughes (Trader ... Hughes). He could use a good old-fashioned clean up by someone with a bit of common sense ;)

"Trader Hughes" is the name of a man who lived in what is now Amherst County in the early 1700s. His first name is unknown, but some people think it was John. Others think he was the same person as a documented Rice Hughes. In the fashion of genealogists who don't know the answer he becomes John Rice Hughes in databases everywhere.

Trader Hughes is said to have had an Indian wife. Later versions call her Niketti and claim she was a daughter of Powhatan and sister of Pocahontas. There's no evidence of such a person and the dates don't work. She'd have had to be something like 80 or 90 years old. So, following the fashion of confused genealogists everyone, there's a quick sleight of hand and she becomes a "descendant" of Powhatan's brother. Great! Now she's impossible to disprove.

So back to Trader Hughes. Could he have been the documented Rice Hughes? Maybe. No evidence, but it could work. The origins of Trader Hughes are unknown. He is variously said to be an English cavalier or a Scot. Rice Hughes was a prosperous and prominent Quaker. His name suggests a Welsh origin. He had land grants on the York River in New Kent County 1652-1662 for transporting 13 people. Not likely he was living a frontier life as a trader 50 years later.

But, there is also a 1693 grant to a Rice Hughes. This is 31 years after the last grant to the earlier Rice Hughes. Even better, there is a 1682 grant to a Robert Hughes also in New Kent County for the transportation of 18 people. And, both the Robert and the later Rice were Quakers. The circumstantial evidence seems to show that the elder Rice was in New Kent County in the 1650s, had a son Robert who was there in 1682, and a grandson Rice there in 1693.

This younger Rice Hughes was in trouble for "misconduct" several times in the early 1700s. He was finally dis-fellowshipped by the Quakers in 1706/7. There's no direct evidence, but it's not a stretch to imagine that he became the Trader Hughes with an Indian wife in Amherst County in the "early 1700s".

The problem for Dale is that none of these men match the description of "a naked, starved, old man near the trading post on the James River in 1658".

The elder Rice Hughes was a prosperous man in 1658, busy building up his estate in on the lower James in New Kent County in Tidewater Virginia. As recently as 1657 he had the third of four land grants. In 1658 he apparently owned some 880 acres in one of the fastest growing areas of the Virginia Colony.

The younger Rice Hughes, the one who might have been Trader Hughes and had an Indian wife, was probably still a baby -- if he was even born. He hadn't yet been thrown out by the Quakers or established his trading post. And, when he did establish his trading post it was on the upper James River Amherst County, far, far inland in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

As Erica said earlier, this is the classic problem with family traditions. They mix up names and dates and even branches of the family. Dale might indeed have an ancestor who was somehow involved with finding a naked, starved, old man near a trading post, but whoever it was it most definitely was not Rice Hughes and probably wasn't Trader Hughes.

Virginia planters in Jamestown lived in a garrison. A Trader Hughes descendant some 50 years later? Sure. In 1650? He would have been dead in a day.

Not a Trader Hughes descendant. A Rice Hughes descendant who might have been Trader Hughes ;)

But I get your point, and I agree.

The problem with postulating that "trader" Hughes of the early 1700s with a native wife in the Indian Nation was even possibly a descendant of Rice Hughes is - how many arrivers by then?

My earliest known / proven Woolard (note: name evolution in the 1700s to Willard, so you can imagine how many false trails I pursued on that one) arrived 1623 with wife & child to the Tidewater area, transported by a Quaker fellow as a head right. No sign the Woolard's were "ever" Quaker themselves & the transporter's family daughtered out, nor was his Quaker affinity well tolerated by the Virginia powers that were.

Woolard's modestly farmed until hitting the migration trails. No one went alone into Indian territory in 1623.

I'm amazed by what I'm finding out about the cluster of Shepard, Tyng, and Gookins families in Massachusetts. I have a hard time believing there is any evidence to connect John Rice to any Perrott anywhere, but IF John Rice had some connection to John Parrott of Virginia (and that's a very big if), then this is probably the link.

Shepard isn't a surname that stands out for me. I usually glance past it when I see it. But, Rev. Thomas Shepard stands out. He was the 2nd minister at Cambridge, Mass., so he was one of the leading men in the colony and one of the emerging gentry. He died at the relatively young age of 43 in 1649. Three of his sons eventually became ministers and leading men in the colony.

Thomas Shepard's connections are interesting. He seems to have been a close friend, neighbor, and possible relative of Daniel Gookin Jr. He was also a 1st cousin of Edward Shepard, of Cambridge, whose daughter Elizabeth married Thwaite Strickland and was one of the original settlers at Dedham, Mass.

Daniel Gookin Jr. came to Mass. from Virginia. His father was the man who paid the passage of Thomas Parrott to Virginia in 1623. This Daniel went to Virginia with his father in 1621, returned to England with his father in 1631, then went back to Virginia in 1641, then to Mass. in 1648. He became a leading citizen, eventually serving as Major General (commander in chief) of the colony's militia 1681-1686.

Gookin had close ties to Thomas Shepard. In 1649 he became the guardian of Rev. Shepard's son. In 1655 Gookin married Hannah Tyng. The next year his former ward Thomas Shepard Jr. married Hannah Tyng's cousin Anna Tyng. In 1674 Gookin and his son both witnessed the will of Rev. Shepard's cousin (the father of Dedham settler Elizabeth). In 1677 Edward Shepard Jr. died. When the estate was settled in 1680 Gookin received a legacy. He also witnessed a deed to the widow.

I've already mentioned that Thomas Shepard Jr. married Anna, daughter of Capt. William Tyng. And Daniel Gookin married her cousin Hannah, daughter of his brother Col. Edward Tyng. Gookin's sister-in-law Rebecca Tyng married Gov. Joseph Dudley, step-son of Rev. John Allin, of Dedham.

I should correct myself & really should have looked up details but ... My recollection is that Jervais married a Quaker woman, well "after" 1623, and stood by her when "she" got in trouble for her proselytizing.

I studied that line a bit a while ago to distinguish from Ralph Shepard of Concord, my ancestor. As usual I'm on the less rich & powerful side of the same surnames.

NB I raised that 2nd wife of Rev Allin a long time ago as someone to look at! She was plugged in.

This little network of Shepard, Tyng, and Gookin families, along with the Gookin ties to Virginia and John Parrott, and the Shepard and Tyng ties to Dedham makes it very likely that IF John Rice had a connection to John Parrott in Virginia (it's still a big if), then Daniel Gookin was the conduit.

The Gookins came from Ripple (Kent), the Shepards from Elmsted and Mistley (Essex) and Towcester (Northamptonshire), and the Tyngs from Stanford Rivers (Essex) and London. There were strong ties between the Gookins and the Shepards. They might even have been relatives in England.

A few months ago we noticed that the John Ries, born 1629 in Mistley, son of John and Rachel, was the right age to have been John Rice, of Dedham (that is, he would have been 20 years 10 months when he got married). We also speculated that he could have come to America through a connection with Elizabeth Strickland (Shepard), one of the original settlers at Dedham. She was born at Mistley in 1621. One of the little sidelights was that John Rice named his daughter Rachel, which could have been his mother's name.

It looks to me as though John Ries of Mistley is still an attractive candidate for John Rice of Dedham. Maybe more so now if Dale is right that John Rice was originally in Virginia, and came to Massachusetts later.

If John Rice was connected with John Parrott, it seems likely he was connected in some way with the Gookins family, who then brought him to Mass. in 1648 (just a year before his marriage). If he was not connected with John Parrott, the dates still allow him to have come from England in 1641 then to Mass. in 1648 with Daniel Gookins. Either way, John Ries of Mistley is a logical candidate for John Rice of Dedham.

Back to Trader Hughes just briefly.

Erica, I take your point about the many Hughes men in Virginia who could have been the trader. The idea that he was the younger Rice Hughes is just a theory.

But for our purposes it scarcely matters, I think. Dale's interest is in Rice Hughes. Trader Hughes is 50 years too late, so he's off the table. No possible connection from him and his Indian wife to John Rice.

In genealogy it always seems to go like this. When you start the search the possibilities are endless and you see connections everywhere. As soon as you nail down a few facts, you're lucky to be left with anything ;)

What Rice persons are known to have resided in the Virginia Colony between 1641-1648?

Interesting question. Dale would have to do the research on that. It would be easy enough to pull the information here:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ricefamiliesinusa/

The Higgonson Rices of Virginia had a member who went North to New York. I reasearched this branch early because they had an ap Rice banner with 3 ravens that the founder of the family, Thomas Rice son Of Thomas Rice grandson of Edmund had in the family possessions. Thomas 1564 went back to England 1710-11 to settle his mother's estate( I always thought is was the Scottsborough land mess that James Rice had to sell to Merchant RICKSON), and never came back because he was allegedly killed for the settlement money he received, and tossed overboard, leaving his wife, with 13 children and her name was MARCIE ANNE. Hughes- Rice!!!!

( My grandmother marked my father prior to his birth to be a MINISTER, as the line of Rices in Va. had a series of important Protestant ministers of the Gospel) The mark did not take, dad stayed on the farm. One of my Uncles has the name Higgonson as a middle name, so this is the branch out of Edmund Rice 1594 & Tamzine Frost-Rice. The name Hughes is therefore a natural family affiliation. YES? DCR

Sorrry: Typo: 1654 not 1554.

http://www.geni.com/path/Anne+Higginson+is+related+to+Samuel+H+Rice...

http://www.geni.com/path/Capt+John+Rees+Hughes+is+related+to+Samuel...

http://www.geni.com/path/G+J+Floyd+is+related+to+Anne+Pollard?from=...

http://www.geni.com/path/G+J+Floyd+is+related+to+Samuel+Gordon+Rice...

And just for good measure: this relationship of Sir Thomas Perrott's wife Dorothy Devereaux, daughter in law to Sir John Perrott 1528 puts the John Perratt II 1565 into the family mix of Tudor on 2 sides: Lettice Knowleys , via Catherine Carey and the LIKELY connection to Henry Tudor, to Sir John Perrott 1528. This is all in the upline version of my family affiliation that is linked here on GENI without proving Perratt II is related at all. So the 2ndary links become the markers to the primary link is at Perrott and very clearly linked to Sir John's status to John Perratt II. If you still think the candidate from N. Walshingham is someone other than the son of Margaret ap Rice via Perratt II , then he has to also link to my current family set of affiliations. YES?
http://www.geni.com/path/Dorothy+Devereaux+Countess+of+Northumberla...

No. That's the point.

http://www.geni.com/path/Charles+Rice+is+related+to+Samuel+Gordon+R...

http://www.geni.com/path/Anne+Higginson+is+related+to+Charles+Rice?...

LOL. Here's the problem, Dale. To do that kind of analysis properly you have to find the connections among the ancestors of John Rice and Ann Hackley (not among their descendants), and the connections need to be very, very close.

Oh wait. You don't know their ancestors yet. Until you do, you're just spamming the discussion.

If you could find a lateral chain no more than say three generations deep and five or six steps long, you'd really have something. For example, if you could say John Rice's supposed father was John Allin's son's wife's uncle's son you'd really have something. Short chain, little depth.

Every time you post these long rambling chains you are screaming "failure" because you cannot yet put Perrott ap Rice in the magic Dedham circle.