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

Well now why would there be evidence of an NPE? You said the hiatus of 4 years for Edmund was normal....when she was dropping his children every 19months before and after 1624.

We have to look at this part of my father's testimony now that other explainations have been ruled out. If Perrott ap Rice's daughter was born some other time I don't know about that....you've left me in the dark for years on the subject...so why would you be suprised if the dates don't match? We were supposed to look together...but some wanted this supressed from the beginning. Now we have to look at it together......If you can't control your tongue you'll be reported MM/ MBH!!

Incidentally, folks, we now have proof positive from Dale's own mouth that he will cling to the fantasies his father was fed and in turn fed to him, *no matter how much* evidence to the contrary is presented, no matter by whom, no matter how reputable, no matter WHAT.

His ancestors could return from the grave and tell him it was all hogwash, and he wouldn't believe *them*.

His nth great grandfather has *JUST GOT TO* be a Perrott, because "Daddy said so". That's his *only* standard of "proof" - "Daddy said so".

Nobody here is doing any kind of super-secret research - it's all available online to anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of how to do an online search.

Priscilla Littleton's christening date and place (1604, Hopton, Shropshire) is on record. You can try to fudge her birth date a bit, but you can't fudge puberty - she would probably not have been having children any earlier than 1618 herself, which puts her daughter completely out of the running.

By the way, yes it is "Priscilla". There is no record of any "Margaret" in her generation, and no other daughter of Sir Edward Littleton available.

Nobody's been trying to "suppress" anything either. That's just the spoiled toddler sitting in his playpen and throwing a tantrum because 2 and 2 will not add up to 5.

Good for you Ms. Maven: I've been working with Margaret for 4 years....no correction or input from you until now....

We have to go to war with the Army we have...and until now it's been Margaret...so carry on if you must. But as a contributor to the discussion of INDUCTIVE evidence gathered over 4 years you are now a spoiler...not helping one bit. If the name has to change so be it....The Margaret I found 4 years ago was older than her Husband by 20 years. That means you all accepted that person....now you want to change the rules and call me names....???? Go for it. I stuck to the story all this time and it has yielded a mountain of Evidence including 19 Perrott's.

This thread has sure hit a roadblock on a detour far off in the wood,
but still, it's amazing that I just have to click on almost anyone on the parallel road of Dale C. Rice, to find a relative by marriage, making a
lot of Dale's cousins related to me.

Ulf: You are part of the reason I am fighting for the recogniton of John Perratt II. take a look here. see for yourself where you fit. My line fit's into the same line and I will not be told to shut up because someone does not like the history being discussed. Thanks very much. DCR

http://www.geni.com/path/Mary-Tudor+is+related+to+Ulf-Martinsson?fr...

Has it occurred to you, Dale, that you might have found a fictitious person? Of course it *never* occurred to you to check out the facts for yourself - the mythical "Margaret 20 years older" fit into your fantasy, so you just swilled her down, no checks, no verification, no nothing.

You're a FINE one to talk about "changing the rules", when that's what YOU do ALL THE TIME.

You're not doing genealogy (or for that matter genetics), you're playing Calvinball. http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball

The Benjamin Line are direct ancestors to Mary Tudor: Queen Consort of France at Louis XII. So please tell me how a non-person described by justin has relatives that are blood related to the TUDORS?

No self respecting Puritan would have made a match with a farmer unless there was reason. That reason is DNA...Charity Rice is likely the Charity Derby cousin of Elizabeth Church. That fits the narrative of 1978 and the DNA is exactly what I see in the faces of my father. So slay me for speaking out lout to the great PUBAHS here at Geni.

I came for answeres and Im getting them....you happen to dislike them Ms. Maven...too bad. The search goes on: with or without you. I won't tell which I prefer.

19 Perrotts and counting Ms. Maven: Different Spelling: Much the same DNA....you are wrong, and my father's testimony is right. That's why we are waiting for more DATA at 67 markers. If you can't make nice....please play elsewhere.

Ulf, Dale will NEVER get it through his head that people aren't trying to deny or suppress the existence of a "John Perrott II". Sir John Perrott, the Tudor courtier, was apparently a real horndog and had a bunch of out-of-wedlock children as well as in-wedlock ones. It would be surprising if there *weren't a John among them, and indeed there was one - just one, count it - record of such a person entering the Inner Temple (one of the four Inns of Court that all would-be lawyers had to belong to) in 1583. He was noted in the record as "third son of Sir John", without further comment.

However, that is the first, last, and only record of him, and it does not support, validate, or justify the entire fantasy superstructure that has been built around "John Perrott II".

19 Perrotts, multiple spellings, and NOT ONE CLEAN DNA MATCH. I'm not the extreme inside-baseball expert that Justin is, but I know how tightly things have to match before it can be said there is a "possible", "probable" or "likely" relationship. And I know when things don't and can't add up.

If A does not equal B, and B does not equal C, you have no way of proving that A equals C.

Dale, you came for egoboo and you're getting it in spades. And that's ALL you're looking for - not "truth", not "facts", not a "secret history" - just egoboo.

My bad for even bothering with you at all. :-P

Dale I'm her 3rd cousin. You doing it for me too ;)

http://www.geni.com/path/Arthur-Wilkings-Newkirk-III+is+related+to+...

Dale,

I really did not want to get into these mad discussions again, but did I not just read "No self-respecting Puritan would have made a match with a farmer unless there was good reason"?. What on earth were the Puritans on the Mayflower going off to Massachussetts to be, except farmers? Masters of Wall Street?

Mark

Hello Mark: Yes they going to be Land speculators: ie Wm. Penn who sold to all the incoming religious folk including my Chalfant line. They actually were on the same ship with him. They were going to try farming Tobacco but most importantly they were going to import their brand of Historical Garden of Eden with their rules...YES?

In the words of Justin: No father would let his daughter make a match unless it met the family criteria. THEY were still very conscious of the Class system of England so the Benjamins looked at the daughters of John Rice and found them acceptable....not because they were puritans but because there was a persistant belief they were down line of the Tudors in my view. See Tacinda's Williamson line and the Rice's.... Same for the Morse's same for the Earles, same for the Pembrook's....that blood line mattered and they spoke of it in the evening hours around fires across New England. Yes, they were proud to be free of TYRANY but some imposed their own kind of tyrany see witch trials of the Puritans. John Perrott the Quaker got of jail because he's believed to be a TUDOR! So we have to hold the judgements until all the information is digested and understood. What I have asked for from the beginning. Greetings to you WMLD.

Dale, I think we've reached a turning point with your crackpot theories. I thought something might be salvageable here, but you are advocating things that have been disproved, utterly and totally. You're in the same ballpark now as the poor fools who think they are sons of Jesus Christ or Alexander the Great.

I think the next step here is to see if we can get you removed from Geni and stop your vandalism.

Calvinball.

William Penn was not a Puritan, had nothing to do with Massachusetts, and was *way* over a half-century later. It's like saying "Apples are a vegetable because kumquats" - a total non-sequitur.

The rest of it is just babble.

That would be just like a man who is loosing the argument. The Tudor's are the most hated people on the planet in this area of study. You have proved it time and time again by trying to destory this inquiry. The results will still come back Justin. You have played Gotcha with the vulnerable who have a piece of History that you don't like. I will look for the Perrott who does match...Not one thing was out place until you all sent me a task that I should not have attempted. Big deal. If you never err...you never make any progress.

Im all in for waiting for results...why are you trying to short circuit the outcome...I've already promised to eat crow in public if the 67 markers don't pan out. What piece of this are you protecting and why?

The Chalfants got here with Wm.PEn...that is what I said....your debate skill is a non-sequiter response to what I was illustraiting to Mark, as reasons to come here. It was a reasonable answer to his question.

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+Arthur-Wilkings-...

Hello Art W. Newkirk.....glad you are following along. This is supposed to be an open discussion but some people are threatened by looking at histories in the broad daylight. They might not like what they see. Supression is always the last gasp of the Oppressor. Peace. Out.

Stevens, Crosby, Wing, and Hawes connect to your family Art Newkirk: My uncle is the 9th ggrandson of the translator of the Bible into English during the time of Anne Bolyne. It was her cause that Henry VIII broke with ROME.

Nobody wants to look at why the Perrott's are part of my father's story...too bad...because there could be real important news come out of that connection....When the powers start trying to direct an investigation you know one is getting too close to something they want to hide. Wonder what it is?

*I personally* have no love for the Tudors, but that has nothing to do with the mish-mash of nonsense that you've been trying to peddle as your family's "secret history".

None of the evidence supports your version - NONE of it. The paper trails do not. The DNA does not. History does not. Common sense does not. You keep trying to get us to play Calvinball with you (your rules, made up as you go along and changed at will or whim) and then berating us when we refuse to play.

Where you were before all this started was inside a fragile glass fantasy that was incapable of standing up to reality. It didn't, and instead of accepting it you keep trying to Crazy-Glue the fantasy back together.

I don't think you'll "eat crow" when - not if - the 67-marker Y-DNA test comes back negative for the matches you want. You'll just focus down hard on some tiny piece of it that *appears* to support your claim and ignore ALL the rest of it, or you'll find some excuse to throw the whole test out as "invalid" (a favorite Jacqueli Charlene Finley derailment trick, by the way).

Screaming and throwing teddy bears does not win arguments either.

Dale

You wrote: H-1956 Robert Sutton but you neglected to provide a link or a description.

All I can note is that the name Sutton is not Dudley, so it is impossible to answer any genealogical questions about this. I am not going to venture a guess as to what you're referring to.

You wrote:

"Well now why would there be evidence of an NPE? You said the hiatus of 4 years for Edmund was normal....when she was dropping his children every 19months before and after 1624. ..."

I must mention that the language used is a bit offensive to women. Last I noticed, we were not sows who drop litters.

Unless you happen to have the (non existent) records of her midwives, you can extrapolate exactly nothing from the minor hiatus in childbirth. If speculation were useful here a still birth is the simplest and most common explanation.

You three are interfering with a polite conversation I was having with Mark.

You are attacking my conversation, you have ridiculed the 3 year effort without serious cause. If there is anyone doing stuff intentionally obstructive it is you MM and Maven B. Helms. Why are you bouncing off the wall when I speak to W. Mark Woodman?

The crap you are slinging is utter garbage, not my search. The two of you need to go....REALLY.

I don't believe I can put you inside the Sutton DNA project MS. Erica....Justin has to look at that for you.

She had children every 19 months except when John Rice 1624 was born. If she was his son and not Edmunds By an NPE forced or otherwise it would explain the gap in child rearing. I stopped talking about this because you asked me to. Now there are too many John Rice's and Perrotts so it's best to go back to the beginning and stay with what was told to me. Perrott ap Rice 1598 son Of John Perratt 1565 was named as the father of JOhn RIce 1624. Simple and clean. Now if you don't want to discuss this I won't but I'll put it in the family doccument Im preparing for private use if I wish.

Sorry: If He was HER son and not Edmunds etc.

When the Geni staff looks into it, Dale, they will see that you mashed together four families that had no relationship, and that you created a horrendous mess that will be a long time in the undoing.

You can claim ignorance, but that just proves your incompetence.

There was one from Rhode Island, one from New York State (yours), one from Maryland, and one from IIRC Georgia. Anyone who did a little sneak-peeking on the trees - which any *responsible* person *would* have done - would clearly have seen that they did *not* belong together and would *not* have mash-merged them.

You didn't look. You just grabbed and mashed. (That's been your Modus Operandi *all along*, as a matter of fact.)

Somebody saw the mash-up and complained that one of *her* ancestors had been squashed in where she didn't belong - hers was the Rhode Island family, IIRC, and that got Erica involved. She was able to Unmerge the merges *YOU* made, and then made suggestions as to who should take which branch. I got Maryland because of my Anne Arundel connections....

Well, almost the first thing I found out was that *this* family should *never* have been merged with yours, *or* with the Rhode Island family (I'm not sure about the Georgia family because insufficient information). They were black.

There aren't a lot of black family trees on Geni (or elsewhere either), so I feel obligated to do what I can to get them sorted. I expect to learn a lot about black Anne Arundel, MD in the process.

And I'm *not* going to make anything up and connect them to Frederick Douglass or Thurgood Marshall or Benjamin Banneker if they *don't* naturally connect.

Dale,

1. Not because we disagree with you. Genealogy can be a blood sport as often as it's a genteel pastime. No one worries about that.

2. Not because some people think you're senile, delusional, or stupid. People can draw their own conclusions.

3. Because you're a vandal. Despite your solemn assurances to Maven, this is not the first time other people have had to go in and put a line back together after you've destroyed it. If you don't want to play by the same rules of evidence the rest of us do, you don't belong here.

Ms Erica: I can give you the values for H.1956 if that would help, but I can not post the project here for the world to see it. One has to Join and be accepted by the Project.

The point I was making was that the DNA alleles for that particular Sutton is precisely my and John Rice of Dedham. The values do not vary after marker 37 to 67 by more than 3 meaning that My values would be 6 single steps out of 67 markers and thus prove there was a likely relationship if the differences occured on fast changing markers. That's a 90% hit and that's inside acceptable as far I am concerned.