Is it possible for GENI to hold onto records who have come into disfavor?

Well, I don't know what to say to the photo links. King Charles I comes up when I click on it. and the other is my father. My DNA match is 2 steps from Wm. Dudley 1609. That's a family tree DNA notification and is open of anyone to look at since I gave that out 3 years ago. The story holds more than water which you will clearly see when you view all the photographic evidence. The Sutton Dudley Line is what it is, I did not invent it, and Dr. Robert H. Dudley Claims this man in his pedigree to Sir Robert Dudley. Im not prepared to argue anything other than what Geni currently shows. Obviously, the links do not include my father's assertion about John Perratt 1565. We are working with the known DNA and at this point I can't say anything and am waiting for the Dudley site to chime in. Thank you. DCR

Sir Robert Dudley is a "different person" from WILLIAM Dudley of Guilford CT.

The images are attached, probably, to your own profile. Tag them to your father and make sure they, and the profile, is set to public.

The name Dudley may be common and confused, but the haplogroup remains I-1 on Family Tree DNA and Dr. Robert H. Dudley claims him in his pedigree to Robert Dudley. Again, I have asked the administrator to weigh in on this from family tree. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw01221/King...

https://www.geni.com/photo/view/6000000013463839522?photo_id=600000...

By clicking on these two sites you can drag the two photo's side by side for easy compare, side by side. DCR

Ms. Erica: Your point is well taken that Wm. Dudley of Guilford is not in the line which connectes to Sir Robert Dudley. But He does share a common Ancestor in John Dudley. My point is, that until I can see the line from Sir Robert to his son Squire Thomas Dudley I can't yet compare to the Specific line of Dudley's I have to use the Common ancestors at hand. And since Wm. Dudley is part of the Rice Story as seen here, we are using the best information available. As of yet, I don't have a fix on the DNA Y info of Squire Thomas Dudley. The circle draws ever tighter around the common ancestor of John Dudley to Sir Robert to Squire Thomas Dudley.
http://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+John-Dudley?from...

https://www.geni.com/error

William Dudley of Guilford is not related to Squire Thomas Dudley nor to Gov. Dudley. You do not have a genetic connection to William Dudley of Guilford as far as I know; you have a Geni path that is non blood.

I haven't been following this discussion but just skimming the discussion I want to make two points:

1) William Dudley, of Guilford has excellent documentary evidence for his parentage and he is not closely related to Gov. Dudley or related at all that has been proven. I have been corresponding with the genealogist who published most recently about William Dudley, of Guilford.

2) a 25 marker test is NOT at all enough to base a genetic genealogy claim on. You should do at least 67 markers. Someone could be off 2 markers out of 25 but off 10 markers out of 67. So, if I read your comments correctly, I think you need to consult with someone steeped in Y-DNA tests and get some guidance. Markers mutate at different rates so even with a 67 marker test you will need to understand which markers differ and why AND you will probably want SNP tests or even to upgrade to one of the new really powerful tests.

Folks, it would be kinder to Dale to let this debate drop. He's heard all these arguments for the past several years, but he believes he is a Tudor. He believes historians are wrong about history, genealogists are wrong about genealogy, and geneticists are wrong about how DNA works. You can't win an argument with someone who doesn't accept your way of finding evidence.

Thanks :)

Smarmy does not become you Justin. The point Is I have followed this trail for 3 years to the Dudley's and Yes I am going to do more testing. The fact that I am on the verge of circling the name of Robert Dudley due to the leads provided....is the natural evolution of the investigation. I dropped the Tudor connection when I found two likely descendents were R1b which lead me to the more controversial conclusion, that my father made. I will be quite happy to call it quits once I know the actual Y values markers 1-67 for the Squire Thomas Dudley. Since I share 23/25 for Wm. Dudley there is a common ancestor in the wood pile. This is now in it's final stages....and true to form some personalities cannot resist targeting me. Whatever. I know exactly what I am doing and have followed the adivce given on this site to arrive here. There are over lapping circles of DNA....and now I want to see one that is proved back to Squire Thomas Dudley....I don't think that is too much to ask.

Ms. Erica: The linkage to the Dudley's is not presently shown on Geni....I know that, but there is smoke in the air over the name DUDLEY and I won't leave this until I get to see the Robert Dudley Lineage on Y chromosome. DCR

FYI: The Dudley Family Tree site has a second person which fits very close to my own values....and is actually closer to John Rice of Dedham on one site. Since I don't know whom this person is or what family they belong to it is premature to say we are connected. At the moment we have a parallel or convergent form DNA values.

Once I can establish the correct John Dudley line to Robert Dudley and then onto Squire Thomas Dudley....I will then have some rational basis to compare the alleles and point to the Pedigree of my family and the oral history as giving us a possible solution. My method is confusing some because I work backward from a presumed Truth which everyone here would have discarded as unreliable. The problem is the facts support the testimony of Samuel G. Rice so most here would have thrown away the guiding light of this search. When there is no paper Trail you can sit and wait for the Universe to drop some new document in ones lap(and be at a dead end), or you can look in places foretold by the Oral tradition for those documents. That's how I found the OXFORD admission record for John Perratt II 1565 named by my father as the father of John Rice of Dedham 1630 and the person Perrott ap Rice 1598 also named as a son of Perratt II. In any event.....none of this investigation into Perrott/Rice/Pruitt which leads to the DNA trail of the DUDLEY family would have been illuminated without my persistent push to find the TRUTH. Each of us has played their part and I find it disappointing that some feel compelled to belittle others in that honest effort of TRUTH/FACT finding. DCR 1948

Go do 67 markers and then come back and report.

Dale, I will feel better about your Dudley investigations when you are acknowledging the "very" hard work put in to clarify the "unrelated" family trees on Geni.

Right now you are mixing them up, and that will mix "other people" up, which is really not fair.

- Gov. Dudley of Mass was of a Northampton England family. He was the son of Roger (most likely)

- William Dudley of Guilford Connecticut was of an Essex England family. He was the son of William (most likely).

- there is no known relationship between the two families.

- Squire Thomas Dudley is not known to me, to the family of William, nor to the family of Gov Dudley.

- geographically John Rice of Dedham MA has a faint connection to Gov Dudley's family; Gov Dudley's surviving wife remarried the good Rev Allyn of Dedham MA. This event was long after John Rice was married himself, if I recall correctly; still, as residents of the same small town they likely knew each other.

My most recent family tree finding is a 23/25 match to Wm. Dudley 1609. That's why Im still in the hunt. I was told that my DNA values would rule out the Suttons. Not true. The only files that were being compared were previously UNASSIGNED results. So no knowing where these other people fit was used as a disqualifier to continue looking. All relevent findings of family have been at the level of 25 markers, not 37 markers....and if you wish, you can extrapolate the results of the Suttons at Family tree out to 67....there is virtually no difference after marker 37. But I will do that test as soon as possible. DCR Thank you E.H and H.A.B.

Yes, the good Widow Dudley remarried a rengade Puritan preacher in Dedham out of the household from which likely came Anne Hackley who mother Dorothy Hackley Allin fits the J1a mt. trail to Spain. I have the print out in 3 reams of notes, and I' ll put it up for you. From memory, Ann was born in England about 1605 to James Hackley and Dorothy Allen-Hackley-Allin. In 1591 Sir John Perrott was giving cover to non-conformist puritan preachers at Carew Castle and serving his alleged 1/2 sister in Ireland. It's all very Puritan in the connections, and that's how a little 10 year old boy got to Dedham without incurring an indenture. If there were an indenture it would have surfaced by now. John Rice was a very special case in deed. But that's just my view, and I do not promulgate it as fact. DCR

Dale, I'm surprised at your violent reaction. I've read and re-read my comment, but I'm at a loss to understand how you think it is wrong. Over the past several years your entire quest has been to show that historians and genealogists are wrong about your line. You've been very strident in saying that when you have proved your line it will re-write the history books.

So, I think you must be upset that I said you think geneticists are wrong about the way DNA works. But, if so, that puzzles me too. I can't count the number of times you've explained your own theories about DNA and defended them strongly against the current thinking of experts in the field

Then too, you have been going from expert to expert. As soon as one of them tells you are wrong, you are off to the next. I don't imagine Dr. Kayser will be any different. If he doesn't give you the validation you want, you'll decide he's a quack, your story will change, and you'll be off again to find someone who does agree with you.

I think we can all agree you're a fine fellow and a good human being, but you have a uniquely person vision about your ancestry, and you're not going to find validation for it by consulting people whose opinion you don't value.

" Ann was born in England about 1605 to James Hackley and Dorothy Allen-Hackley-Allin."

Ann Hackley of Dedham, MA, who married John Rice in Dedham in 1649, is of unknown parentage. Her estimated birth date is 1628 - 20 years after 1605. Her mtDNA would be suggested by a straight daughter line. Where is the J1a coming from? You're on the Y line.

(I think I'll restrict my comments to making just this one comment that consists of me telling you that I won't be commenting . . .)

;)

The female ancestory information on line for Dorothy Allin is derived from J1a. I also know that Y does not carry this information. It is none the less interesting to me.

I'll put up the information on the birth of Ann Hackley to Dorothy Allen Hackley when I find it in my notes. DCR

Justin: The revelatory nature of this effort to understand what my father told me was based upon a conversation of 40 years past. Recollection being what it was some things stood out to me and some things did not. Having a facility to recall family names he gave me is just a fact of how I was taught to remember by using mnemonics and making associations. Of course the story has changed, exactly as I promised it would if something turned out to be untrue....which is why I left the trail of Henry Tudor as the main Y connection due to the R1b evidence you and others shared here. So true to my word I was then confronted with the part I found most hard to accept. John Perratt II was fathered by Robert Dudley and unknown female.

To turn the investigation in this direction meant ridicule and public outcry which you you have lead....like this is some Cosmic Joke being foisted upon the community. It is not a joke, it seems to be the case that what I tried to reject at the outset may in fact be true. Thus we are now at the point of Understanding that I have two marker variation with William Dudley 1609....and that means there is a common ancestor not too far distant if there is a pedigree to match. We are using INDUCTIVE logic with DNA and the pedigrees of GENI to close this once and for all. Your statements for the past year have been totally derisive and even the one I called you on is meant to deride my very serious effort.

What seems capritious to you is a shift in understanding of that information which lies with me and that understanding is what I have shared here. Anne Hackley was also an illegitimate child according to Sam Rice 1887....and I believe I have found evidence of that with Dorothy Allen Hackley in England about 1605, We will debate with respect what has been achieved here....and I know whom to thank. DCR 1948

My genealogy-crazy great-aunts paid a professional genealogist (at least they assumed he was a professional) a lot of money to research the family lines. They were given pages and pages of material "proving" a legitimate connection to Edward III. Unfortunately, either the information the genealogist used was old, outdated and inaccurate, or he decided to humor a couple of well-paying old ladies by telling them what they wanted to hear.

The line ran through Frances White Wells...and we now know that her mother *was not* and *could not have been* Lady Catherine Weston.

It is not even certain that she's got the right father, but lacking any better candidate, and with some odd possibly-supportive circumstantial evidence, I'm letting that alone. (Sir Richard White did have a first wife - one Anne Gray - and those connections ran in interesting directions by themselves, though not towards Royalty.)

I've had to break a couple of other long-established connections that turned out to be *wrong* - Nicholas Wyatt, for instance, was no son of Rev. Haute Wyatt (I suspect he belonged to a Devonshire family that had a Nicholas every other generation, and may have been related in some degree to Anthony Wyatt of Virginia, son Nicholas - but not the same Nicholas).

On the other hand, Y-DNA research turned up something I totally did *not* expect. Most Helmses are English - our line is not. Ours is German, from Airlenbach in the Odenwaldkreis - and related, we still don't know quite how, to one Georg Helm who lived in Winchester, VA in the second quarter of the 18th century. (His Y-DNA signature and my brother's are a very close match.)

So what do you do when your family traditions and the facts are in head-on collision? Do you keep your traditions and ignore the facts, or toss the traditions and follow the facts wherever they lead?

Well we are following facts gleaned from the story. I did not start with Dudley, because it involves the Virgin Queen. I am staying clear of the maternity issue because it cannot be devined at this stage without very costly and protected information. What I can say is the family Pedigree includes matches in Both Sutton and Dudley lines. See Joseph Dudley great grandson of Govenor Thomas Dudley of Ma. Born June 11, 1671. And the common Ancestor whom I share a 23/25 Y match in Wm. Dudley 1609. That's what I call smoke in the Air over the name DUDLEY.

If my Y 67 matches some other Dudley or Sutton it will be likely that we have a common ancestor in the wood pile. None of this was known 3 year ago but is known today because of my persistence in following the FACTS guided by the Aural History. That's how I came to understand what my father was really trying to say. He told me about the Ethelralda Story and the other Laundress story as insider information not likely to be known by a Hog Rancher of 1900. That's the proof....these are real people in history. Same with knowing the Robert Phillips born to ANNE Perrott Phillips 8 years before the Phillips Heir was not fathered by Anne's Phillips Husband and links back to I-1 Haplogroup as my father said. So the real Phillips heir, 8 years younger than his elder 1/2 brother Robert carries R1b haplogroup and that is now fact I can say myFATHER knew before anyone here did. The insider information is used to guide the LOOKING, but it's only the DNA which can prove what's real. That much I did get from our discussions, and I am following the SCIENCE not the methodology that some demand.....Unlike others, I am not at a dead end, and stand at the doorway to assist anyone who cares to enter a new room previously hidden from view for 447 years. DCR

Ms. Erica: My family presently connects to Gov. Dudley of Ma. Here under the present GENI linkages. The DNA evidence to Wm. Is apart from the Govenor but the name is used in the testimony of Sam G. Rice so now we have to await the markers and the family pedigree that includes Robert Dudley Earl and son Thomas Dudley, Squire.
http://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+Gov-Thomas-Dudle...

Dale, you are still not understanding some key pieces about how DNA works.

The patterns of repeats on STR markers can be used to rule out relationships, but not to prove relationships.

You've dismissed this key point many times in the past. From your explanations above, it seems you still do not accept mainstream DNA science.

Strictly speaking, you do not have a 23/25 DNA match to William Dudley 1609. If anything, you have a DNA match to a man who claims to descend from him, but that's not the same thing at all.

In fact, your match to him raises a number of awkward questions.

First, he doesn't belong to the right Dudley family. William Dudley 1609 is not known to belong to the Sutton Dudleys with whom you are trying to prove a relationship.

Second, you have no other close matches in the Sutton project, so you seem to be arguing that yours is the true Sutton Dudley DNA and the others are all from unrelated families.

Third, you have quite a few much closer matches than 23/25. At the 37 marker level you have ten 36/37 and 37/37 matches to the Cochrans and and several other surnames. At the 25 marker level you have 83 matches at the 24/25 level and hundreds of other matches at the 23/25 level -- to many, many different surnames. Those could easily be convergence, but if so why would you suppose that low resolution match to Dr. Dudley is not convergence?

Fourth, you have the problem that the Rice experts aren't entirely sure that your yDNA really represents the yDNA of immigrant John Rice. You seem to be a bit too distant from the other supposed descendant for comfort. It looks on the surface like there is an NPE somewhere between you and Joh Rice. That apparent problem is compounded because of your strong pattern of matches to Cochran men.

In addition to those four problems, there is also something a bit wonky about your match to Dr. Dudley. How did you find him? He doesn't come up in your list of matches at FTDNA. He doesn't appear to be a member of the Sutton project. So, it seems his results are either private or he didn't test at FTDNA.

There's also a problem if Dr. Dudley has tested 37 markers (as you imply). You'e tested 37 markets, so if there is a genuine match between you it should be much, much higher than 23/25. Are you leaving out the loss of the match at a higher resolution? Or has Dr. Dudley not yet tested 37 markers?

Dale, based on what you've said so far it sounds like you and Dr. Dudley will need to both do "the Big Y" in order to get a meaningful answer about your possible relationship.

You are in a part of the yDNA tree where convergence plays a major role in apparent matches. To see this, you only have to realize that you have hundreds of matches at the 25 marker level, all with different surnames.

By way of comparison, I have two matches at the 25 marker level, both with my same surname. And, the one that has tested more than 25 markers remains a match at the 37, 67, and 111 marker levels.

To get the kind of certification you're looking for, you need SNPs not just STRs.

No matter how much you push, any competent geneticist using just STRs and comparing your sample with Dr. Dudley is going to caution you that the match is almost certainly just the result of convergence.

And, even if it turns out not to be convergence, no competent geneticist is going to hand you a certification that you're a Tudor. If deep testing shows that you are Dr. Dudley share a common ancestor within the past 500 years, there is still the problem of identifying that ancestor. It's just as likely Dr. Dudley has a Rice ancestor as it is that you have a Dudley ancestor.

Dr. Dudley has advised me of only his Haplogroup. I-1. He did not share and I did not ask him to do so the particulars. Im hoping he will be found on the Sutton or DUDLEY family group by his own decision rather than my urging. Lastly, the one step diference of my Y chromosome results and John Rice is at DYS 449. That's all that I have been notified of so what you say about not matching is news.

Lastly: Dudley is a common name, we all know the numbers at this level are convergence as I have expressed many times here. What is not convergent is the testimony of Samuel G. Rice 1887 who named the consort of Queen Eliz. Robert Dudley as father of of John Perratt II. The advanced marker tests will help out a lot....I can swing that this month due to travel, and weddings and such are now over with. You keep putting words in my mouth that I am not saying. I am not a Tudor except by tangent. I can't claim that and I rejected that once I realized Tudor was more likely than not R1b1. Regards DCR

The Cochrens and Ellis Family anciently related. Cochrens and Dudley likewise may be related. We know that Ellis and Jenkins were once part of a similar kind kinship....so I am assuming the Chochran family and the Sutton-Dudley line must also link although I do not know where.

My cousin Harry Storm Rice whose line I found on Family tree descends from Edward Rice son of Samuel. As you know we don't have the last name for Charity Rice which I believe to be a DARBY, cousin to the Churchill line. In any event, we are hot on this trail and I expect to resolve it before April 2015. DCR

My results were 2 steps different at 25 markers to my cousin Harry S. Rice, living. He traces back to Edward and Charity Rice of Con. as well. If I am one step away at DYS 449 from 6th ggf then perhaps the NPE is prior to Edward?

Also to clairify: The Sutton project has grouped myself with a Sutton two lines above me on their site who's identifier begins with "h"....That person matches John Rice on DYS 449 at 28 repeats. They have tested out past 67 markers and there is virtually no modal difference beyond marker 37 and other Suttons on that site. Maybe it means nothing...by Im predicting that my test at 67 markers will follow the "h" Sutton currently listed as unaffiliated. Question is why is there no Squire Thomas Dudley son of Sir Robert? The Good Dr. did not test with family tree as you say. DCR

There is not a person I am aware of named Squire Thomas Dudley in the Gov Dudley tree or (unrelated to the Gov) William Dudley of Guilford CT tree.

Perhaps an old genealogy error? I would disregard.