John Rice, of Dedham

Dale

I guess I'll just say it again.

I have confidence the parts of your father's story are true.

I have absolutely no confidence there is a valid & accurate family origin story passed along unaltered for 400 years or more.

My bet would be the "shocking" bit is no more than 200 years.

My bet that is that the "lost Tudor Prince" fantasy is a mashup of various books. But regardless, I have little interest in it.

Tracing family history is interesting so I hope the proposal to pursue that on its own dedicated discussion reaches consensus.

Ms Erica?????? No drama, just seperate the discussion, I urge you to do that, Justin will likely agree with you. Respectfully DCR

It's up to Justin in my opinion. Since you're not interested in a true family tree for your family, I'm not sure why I should be. To enter 11 researched profiles is asking me to do your dirty work.

You completely misread me, I am willing to go there but only after I work through the father of John Perratt II. As per usual you and others disparrage my approach and my decision to work this first.

As you will later understand, you cannot get to the Father from your side, it has to be worked from Wales and England first. My opinion is never respected but I stand by the decision never the less. So let Justin decide then. No argument from me.

Dale I'm asking you to please do the data entry for the profiles found and researched on your behalf. Is that a difficulty?

Because I love the research and don't ask you to do what uninterests you in that area, but for me to the data entry "for" you is an undue and unfair burden. No other member of Geni I have helped researched for has ever "not" done their own profile entry, and "when" presented to them (so the researcher can move on).

Report this . . .

Dale,
When I wear shoes and socks, I put on my socks before I put on my shoes. Most people do, when they wear shoes and socks.
You can wear your socks over your shoes if you really want to,
but you cannot reasonably expect that people are going to agree with you that it is a good idea.

Dale, I'm annoyed to log on tonight and see that you are misrepresenting my comments to you. Let's be clear about this:

1. Neither you nor anyone else on Geni needs my permission to start a message thread or to comment on a message thread.

2. If I choose not to start a message string on your behalf, that is my prerogative. I am not your employee.

3. If you start a message string and no one comments, it is not my job to make them help you.

4. If you post your unconfirmed theories as proven fact, I will almost certainly disagree with you often enough that anyone following will not be misled.

5. If you post your theories in a discussion where they are off topic, I will ask you to stay on topic or be reported.

It does not seem difficult, but this is the 3rd or 4th time I've needed to remind you.

Justin

This discussion is titled

John Rice, of Dedham

So that is the topic. Descent is known but under documented; collateral lines are only beginning to be built.

His ancestry is not known & this is Dale's interest (England, Wales). There is a theory Dale pursues and chooses to focus on.

Should it not be spun off into another discussion so it's not distracted by the topic of John Rice, of Dedham?

Of course, since this is Dale's interest, I would think he's the topic starter?

Erica, I agree wholeheartedly. I started this discussion and chose the title. I don't think the different pieces of Dale's theories are exactly off topic, but I see a clear mandate to focus on John Rice. I'm not hearing anyone say they really want more Tudors in this discussion ;)

Dale, please start a new thread for the Perrotts or Tudors or however you want to focus your part of the search. We're not throwing you out of this thread, but it would be a good idea to let this one be more for the American side of the search.

So create a thread, Dale. I don't understand the point of the drama. Just be a good citizen of Geni. Don't spam other people's threads and don't make hysterical accusations whenever someone disagrees with you.

Dale. Stop. Let's cut to the chase.

I don't hate you. I'm not trying suppress your theories. I just disagree with you. There's a difference.

If you want another thread, start another thread.

Customer Service please close and thank you.. I might not agree with all curators but i don't go treating them like dirt which is what some one has done every time and this thread proves it.

Instead of closing the thread, let's try to get back to the colonial John Rice. Dale started another thread for the Tudor connection.

When I get back from vacation I plan to look at the Beekman book. With that and others, we have plenty of material still waiting to be consulted.

i am NOT a fan of the tudor line so he'll have to do with out my help on it he wants to continue totally wasting people's time and by now he's proven anything other then the tudors is not worth my time when i see him asking questions.. and yet he doesn't get that his behavior works against him... too bad for him on that

Justin: Here is some Geni information which underlies the pathway of the information my father spoke of. The Venue is impeccable, and please, don't tell me that the rest of the world is related to Shakespear as a first cousin. If you doubt the linkage, that's a GENI issue. Im just letting you and others here know that the INSIDER information was for real. Happy July 5 to all of Good Will. DCR

http://www.geni.com/path/William-Shakespeare+is+related+to+Samuel-R...

Dale I realized I did not understand what you meant about the links / telephone game / flow of information.

I'm not sure I have it entirely right now, yet, either, but I THINK you're saying

"Shakespeare was a contemporary and acquaintance of the (unknown) ancestor of John Rice of Dedham, and I know this to be true "because" of information passed intact from John Rice, to his son, to his son ... And so on from my father to me."

Is that a reasonable paraphrase?

YES

And more importantly, the Steven's Ancestory which connects directly to my FAther is a Brother in law to my father, married to Maude Belle Rice- Stevens. These people were part of a very selective group of descendents who sought one another out in America. (DISPUTED). Indeed Dad found my mother (descended from CHALFANTS) of the Windsor Castle Steward line of staff at Windsor by virtue of selecting her over a dozen or so local women, whom we have photographic proof of that, as they gathered for his 40th birthday and the picture shows him among the available females of Neleigh and surrounding counties all dressed in Summer WHITE cotton gowns of the time. She was selected to give care to grandmother who was an invalid after her stroke. Pictures are fothcomming and I put out the request today for them. DCR

OK. So let's continue with the plan

- "this" discussion for "descendants" & contemporaries of John Rice of Dedham; my focus on collateral line research

- "the new" discussion for England etc.

Sound good?

In other words, we should discuss the English origins of the Stevens family on the "new" thread.

Heigh, ho.

Except as an interesting academic excercise to show how things can properly be done, I'm not even sure why John Rice of Dedham should take up so much curator time. There must be hundreds of other cases where descendants would be a bit grateful for help.

As for Dale, I'd recommend (if I have not already done so) that he takes enough time off to read Hilary Mantel's "Wolf Hall" and "Bring Up the Bodies". Although they are novels, they give me as much insight as any history book an insight into how Tudor society actually worked. They are also genealogically and historically correct, although historians might have different views about motives, psychology, etc of the actors. The important thing is that Dale will have a laugh or two (which will do him good).

I found a genuine immigrant to America yesterday (to Virginia or Maryland, I suppose) from an Engish pedigree. But I suppose he must have died without issue: not many American Champernownes, and since his death was recorded in England, he is unlikely to have had children in America.

It may be idealistic, but biographies are hugely more important if you can fit them into the genealogical framework. What do you make of someone who was born a slave, ran away, was adopted by a native American chief, started a Baptist Church in America, became a slave again, ran away to the British during the American revolution, was evacuated to Nova Scotia on the recognition of American independence, started a Baptist Church there (which became multi-racial), went to Sierra Leone where he was one of the leading citizens, went off to London to protest against their treatment after John Clarkson was replaced as Governor, etc.

Now that was a Man. Contrast him with Zachary Macauley (father of Thomas Babington Macauley) who took over in Sierra Leone, who physically recoiled when he went to a black service when he heard that "God is Love" -no! God is Truth, and Law, and requires your Submission, to Him, of course, and also to Me (and his son's inheritance in India has some of the same characteristics).

Mark

Where's the Geni & profile tree of this guy (the good one ) ??

The point being made Lloyd, is that this is another vector of information from the first cousin of Shakespeare, as my father's brother in law. That's the only reason I put it up. Im over on another thread but thought some might be interested in how the story came down line to the present.

I don't allways agree with lloyd but i am in agreement I don'r want to hear about shakespeare or anything else from him. but we all know geni won't censor him or even listen to the support ticket i sent in with help from a pro friend that said blocking should prevent all contact.. he's proven to me he'll never change.

If you can't see of the flow of this insider information down to the present from the time of Shakespeare you don't belong in the discussion at all.

Dale - I thought we were agreeing to keep English side to the other discussion? That would "include" "flow of information" FROM anyone in England, if such a thing is possible; it would be the very first time I've seen it in immigrants to New England. All genealogy from the 1600s is based on written records.

My thanks for keeping topics focused.

I am now working on AMy Robesart to Ann Hackley on the other thread. Whatever I find I will post the conclusion here.

http://www.geni.com/path/Mary-Wilson+is+related+to+Amy-Robsart?from...

Disconnect if you like. It's here on GENI

Dale.

Please take the damned Tudors and Shakespeare out of this discussion, and start a new thread. The line I'm working on at the moment also contains a Perrott. But these things take time, 50 or so new people a day make up about 20,000 people a year. If God gives me another 20 years, that will make 400,000 people in England, which is close to the total population in 1400, so then they have to have duplicates merged. In twenty years time (it seems to me) really new research starts to take its place. Before then, it's luck,

Mark