John Rice, of Dedham

I don't think they are theories, they are my observations. I don't presume to teach anyone anything. But the shorthand version I use will one day be seen as valid to sort data sets. That's my belief. I am likely wrong, but you also do not know of my personal success at interpreting data that led to captures. I don't discuss what I once did for a living because it's not topical.

Now, I have put forward the names of family members within the inner-circle of the court and if you let go of the present and return to 1565, the person I identified (Dudley) is represented in my family heritage at leas 6 times before there was a break. Be generous, and be alert to the possibility that the piece that makes sense of all this lurking just under the surface. We are dealing with the slow remembering of my conversation. Likely one some will scoff at but Erica hinted at: My 6th ggrandmother, Ann Hackley was illegitimate and was matched with John Rice 1630 by their respective supporters. Kindly see Dorothy Allin birth of a daughter March, 1621 in England. Dorothy is the only name in the entire family history that my father said was taken directly from a prior ancestor. DCR

The above should read: In our generation of the female names : after ancestor above.

Dale -

I thought this is the Dorothy Allin, sister to Rev Allin of Dedham, who died in England? Is there any indication she had a child, anywhere in records? My recollection, which could be wrong, is that this family is decently documented given time, place & historical distance.

If this is indeed your working theory please describe it more clearly if you would, starting with the Geni link to her profile (not that relationship path which is not helpful to me).

Dale, it's been a long time now so let's recap just a bit.

When you first came to Geni, you were looking for a paternal descent for John Rice, immigrant to Dedham, Mass., from Henry VIII and a laundress at the Field of the Cloth of Gold.

You thought this was a family secret, handed down through the generations, and revealed by your father on his deathbed in 1978. It later turned out that your father had discussions with his genealogist / librarian niece in 1976.

The story, as you told it, is essentially the story of Joane Dobson, a laundress and supposedly the mother of an illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII, Awdrey Harington.

However, in your version the laundress was Beatrice ap Rice, who was a laundress to Queen Mary, and married to a groom named David ap Rice.

You thought they were the parents of William Rice, MP, of Boehmer, and that this Rice family was the family of immigrant John Rice.

With a little bit of digging over the course of several months, it turned out that the story was false, but a genealogy stringing these people together had been published in the U.S.

Further, this genealogy would have been known to your father's niece because she was a librarian at Stanford and their library has a copy of it. She wouldn't have known it was false in 1976 because the proof it was false came much later.

So, you turned from Henry VIII, the laundress Beatrice, and William Rice the MP to the family of John Perrot, also said to have been an illegitimate son of Henry VIII (although no proof). He was connected, distantly, to the ap Rice family at Tenby, so you decided that John Rice came from Tenby and was an illegitimate Perrot, from a line that was still descended from Henry VIII.

Then, when that didn't work out very well, you turned to your present theory where the Rices are descended from the Dudleys, who are illegitimate Tudors through Queen Elizabeth. But, the Dudley DNA doesn't match you, so you have a problem.

What I think you need to do at this point is consider the possibility that your dad got his story from your cousin in 1976 and that she got it from a published genealogy that was just wrong. Instead of finding more and more elaborate explanations for how the story could be right, join us in looking at the real evidence to see if we can find the ancestry of John Rice through conventional methods.

As a clarification - I have never, in all this time, suggested in any way that anyone was born out of wedlock.

There is a John Rice born 1630 Justin likes as a possible for you. I like it a bit less well because his age is younger than I would prefer.

What we all had talked about is that minister's & their wives function as informal match makers.

They would have been inclined to support a marriage between 2 young "working" people without parents who live close to each other & are both good Puritans.

The Rev Allin himself was of a far more educated class than John Rice seems to have been.

Dorothea Barker

Thank you, Justin

I believe this page describes the family of origin (haven't re read it yet)

http://archive.org/stream/genealogicalhist00hutc#page/n21/mode/2up

Dorothy Allin: posted on another thread with birth recorded in England to an Ann Allin March 1621-22. That was a Question not a statement of fact. This is not an argument but a question. My recollection of your assertion was that two persons could be put together by pastor's wives. If I overstated that I apologise ms. Erica... I am doing the best I can not being of the Geneaologist tradition, and there is no question of rank....The reverend descends from fitzAllen as near as I can tell. The Dudley's only came into play after I eliminated the Tudor King....in reference to the 1978 conversation. Has anyone looked at Ann born to Thomas and Dorothy Allin 1621?

Justin that is a perfectly sumarized journey that I have taken here on the Geni site. We started with very little of known facts, and you all have done the entire community a huge service in cleaning up the associated files to my floundering around here. Countless persons in the future will be in your debt as am I. DCR

"But the shorthand version I use will one day be seen as valid to sort data sets."

No. It won't. And I say that with a smile because I lived through the period when people thought that. It turned out to be a disaster, and I turned out to be right ;)

I was one of the first people ever to be tested by a commercial lab for yDNA for genealogy in 2000. For several years after, it was still very much a niche thing. All kinds of people thought it would be as simple as comparing a few values. I didn't think so. I got in some huge arguments about it.

Then, I few years later genealogy DNA started using haplogroups. I argued that comparisons are meaningless without knowing the haplogroup. Most of my chums thought I was nuts. No one cares about haplogroups; you just compare a few selected values.

It took a couple of years, but we eventually crashed though that barrier. Then people started to think if you know the haplogroup and a few selected values ... More arguments.

The bottom line here is that as a community we've been there, done that. The experts already knew 10 years ago that the methodology you want to use was a major fail.

Okay, it still leads to the DNA values of interest in the Dudley line which I have in my family. Ergo the Sir Robert Dudley link is not yet established. I got to this point using...so I think we are closing in on the answer using proved and an appartly disproved method. That's like coming to the top of the hill and finding the same load-stone of information. I have Saunders, and Dudley's both in the DNA profiles and here on Geni. It' got me here so lets just not be hasty.

Ms. Erica: here is the link on Dorothy Allen/Allin? provided by L3 site: The next querry is the birth record which says Ann Allin born March 1621-or 22. She seems to be a different ALLEN? Can't tell.

https://familysearch.org/search/collection/results?count=20&que...

http://www.geni.com/path/Gov-Thomas-Dudley+is+related+to+Samuel-Ric...

http://www.geni.com/path/Robert-Dudley+is+related+to+Gov-Thomas-Dud...

http://www.geni.com/path/Robert-Dudley+is+related+to+Samuel-Rice?fr...

One of the Dudley's was the partner of Jane Grey's sister. Which one I don't recall. Jane Grey's mother is a Tudor as well. This is why I think the story has legs. One of the Dudley's and a Tudor, don't know which one is part of this Parentage issue. Is it a waste of time? I certainly hope not.

This is the Ann Allin who died in England. Not possible for her to have been Ann (Hackley) Rice who died in Dedham. I had updated the Geni profiler accordingly I believe.

Okay, thankyou!

"Okay, it still leads to the DNA values of interest in the Dudley line ..."

No, Dale. It doesn't. That's the point you're not getting. It doesn't lead to anything, doesn't match anything, isn't a valid way to derive a match. It's a dead end, at least for now.

You are claiming that Francis Dudley's yDNA is not known, but of course it is -- as much as we can know the yDNA of anyone who has not been tested. As far as we know, he was the son of his father and his yDNA will be the same as the other Dudleys.

I see your point that it cannot be proven absolutely that there isn't some kind of Non Paternal Event in his ancestry, so his yDNA and yours could match.

Yes, that could be true. It could be true of anyone who hasn't actually had a test. But, once you open that door without very good evidence, yDNA can no longer prove anything. It all becomes just speculation.

The only way to overcome this problem is through triangulation, testing so many descendants and collateral descendants that the chance of error approaches zero.

But you have two huge problems right at the outset.

First, the only reason for thinking that Francis Dudley does not match the Dudley yDNA is your assumption that he must match you, and that match must be the clue to his and your Tudor ancestry.

Second, you are trying to show that he matches just a little, by using selected values from another Dudley that do match you.

So at bottom, you have a muddle. Francis should match the Dudleys but you don't match the Dudleys. So to make him match you, you're ignoring the problem of not finding a real match. But then to keep him on the hook, you're trying to keep a partial match as evidence of something.

Justin: I just didn't see that the UNgrouped Dudley's were descendents from Sir Robert or his father. Which ones are you looking at so I can get oriented. Like I said My family history shows Govenor Dudley is out there but did not see him as a direct blood son. Kindly refer me to the men you are speaking of and I promise I will look at them. DCR

Dale.

You ask "Is it a waste of time?". (My wife certainly thinks so). Sometimes I do too. If your only purpose is to verify your father's testimony, it possibly is a waste of time. But genealogy, if it is not simpy a matter of names and dates, provides a social history of areas and periods. I like to think that at least some of the people I enter will eventually have some reliable biography. And one can see how some profiles have developed over time (sometimes rightly, sometimes questionably, sometimes obviously damn wrong).

Mark

This is where the Phillips triangulation would become critical yes? If, as the testimony asserts the father of John Rice is also the father of a break in the John Phillips lineage which is R1b...then that's where we have a chance to see for the first time if the story is actually true. I have researched the Phillips of Picton Castle and the one lineage is absolutely R1b. DCR

Mark: Come, let us reason together. If the Phillips triangulation does not pan out I will yield. Bust since my Phillips line leads to a John Phillips of Picton Castle who is different from R1b Phillips we should be able to get traction somewhere along this line. Thankyou and your wife for the observation. We should be able to close this down once we understand the Phillips story which my father told....complete insider information that could not be dreamed up by the writer of the "By the name of Rice" .

Dale, look at the profile for Francis Dudley. Look at the profile for Gov. Thomas Dudley. Look at the Dudley yDNA results. There is no doubt that the paper trail connects them to the main Dudley line.

Yes they connect....Francis is a son that has not direct males tested thus far. I get that. Govenor Thomas Dudley is not unbroken male to male. There are other males in the lineage so I discounted that line completely. The women who link are going to carry their husbands Y values. YES?

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+Oakley-Dudley?fr...

This is an unbroken line to Squire Dudley son of Sir Robert and Lettice Dudley. Are any of them named in the Family Tree DNA ungrouped Dudleys? I don't know.

Gov. Thomas Dudley is an unbroken male line. The details about how he connects are up for discussion and debate, but not the line.

Squire Dudley and Francis Dudley are the only two lines that are directly unbroken...I have all the sons and great grandsons. Govenor Thomas Dudley is known DNA? or not?

Squire D. to William D. Deacon,Caleb D. Noah Dudley Daleb D. Jr. to Benjamin D. Then back over to the Squire direct sons at Lt. Joseph D to Wm D. to Samuel D to Samuel D. to Asa D. to Sas D Jr. to Asa D. II to Johnathon D 1827. Govenor Dudley connects through the Grey Female line...according to my reading. Any of these names should yield valid Y DNA values to compare.

http://www.geni.com/path/Benjiman-Dudley+is+related+to+John-Sutton-...

Dale. Please think it through.

I have, Govenor Thomas Dudley goes to the Brother of Sir Robert Dudley, which is Henry Dudley. I want a descendent of Sir Roberts sons through Lettice Knolleys or other wife....not a brother whose paternity is not clearly defined by DNA values that can be compared. Do we have another Robert Dudley line from another wife? That's been vetted?

I see what you're asking. You think there's a chance that the descendants of Robert might not match the other Dudleys. There's nothing wrong with wanting further verification but let me ask you -- why do you think they wouldn't? And, why would it matter?

In matters at this level of possible importance...like a link to a Tudor, I feel the work must leave no room for question. I suspect that the line to Govenor Dudley is likely to be the same, but it would be tragic to rule out the actual line if the person John Perratt II 1565 was in fact born in November 17, 1565 9 months after the audience with Sir Robert Dudley as the Court records indicate. Lord Burleigh said she was suffering from seasonal affliction. Fine.

Then there should be nothing to fear from looking at a triangulation of John Phillips to the DNA values of Sir Robert. That's why I think one would have to comb the names I submitted and a dozen others from his other wife to see if we get to within 5 steps over 500 years, match. My cursory search showed one of the Dudley's on file was only 5 1 step variation difference. Depending upon when that person was born the answer may be closer at hand than any of us prsently think.

?