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

As far as I know, There are no Robert Dudley descendants listed. It's nearly impossible to tell from here because the families are not revealed. My comment is the Robert Dudley line is not represented, if it were the match should be apparent. Who are you looking at? What names/families? Im just looking at the ones who are DUDLEY that show the match I described. Don't you think we should find out who they are? I do and expect to.

Justin: I put up the latest Stevens to Dudley pedigree which you all say I didn't have before....now that I have discovered the Stevens/Rice NPE and their linkage to Dudley that's why my father was identifying them as the source of the DNA for John Perratt II. Geni shows the Branch from Dudley to Stevens and connects to Rice....The other is direct, Dudley to John Perrat II to John Rice. So as I understand it the triangulation has be from Dr. Robert Dudley of Fla because he traces back through Squire Thomas Dudley. Let us wait and see what turns up.

You can call the information fictitious but the match to Perrott at Lawrence is REAL and so is the Match to SCARFONE. That's insider information that was not ever available to you or anyone before this discussion took place...so history confirms the infomation he gave me. It was 1887-97 when this information passed from Andrew Rice to his son and then to me 1978. I didn't imagine it....it's here for the seeing. Just like The 1/2 sister information he told me about which is Robert Phillips born to Anne Phillips of Picton castle. He's 8 years older than the heir...but they are two different haplogroups....I say we have history to uncover : if you don't that's exactly why we disagree....I did an analysis of all the Dudley's on the 37 markers and up and found almost no variation after marker 38. All of them are like that. That's my observation, if John Rice is part of that unassigned group and we are all matched...then perhaps we should know those names. You have called the information I brought to you and others here meaningless....No sir, not to me and my family. It's my search for TRUTH, and I expect you to hold your conclusions now that I have drawn a circle around the single name my father mentioned....Robert Dudley. The family has the responsibility to weigh the evidence I have uncovered and will decide for themselves whether I heard him correctly or not. I did not start with DUDLEY because the implications were simply too much to bare, never the less here we are....awaiting the results which most here said would never come and said so for 3 years. Without the pedigree of Stevens to Crosby to Dudley it's all manure, right? The pedigree matters and it would be nice to hear you or someone say so. DCR

And, we're back to the same place. It's your family. You can believe whatever you want. There's no law against theories. But, if you expect to convince anyone else you're going to have to come to terms with what counts as evidence and what doesn't. You haven't done that yet.

I put the evidence up for a pedigree from Rice to Stevens to Crosby to Dudley YES? Is that a pedigree that we can agree is inclusive of the Dudley Bloodline? I say it is because there this is the downline proof that Dudley's were in contact with my family from the present to past. The Top down Dudley to Rice is a matter of triangulation and data which I have sent for. So I have done all that I can to show you what is developing right in front of you without PAPER. I got here by following the guides you published here on line. History records the Scarfone connection to Perrott and my father's knowledge of that is inside information which you continue to ignore even though based upon solid 23/25 DNA matches. If we find the DNA to be a match to Robert Dudley's sons then what will you say? I predict nothing.

We are going to look in detail at 67 markers of the DUDLEY line and triangulate with a known descendent if he will share his Y values. I don't know what else there would be for me to do since we have now 9 or 10 dopplegangers as living proof of the DNA that flows in our veins. DCR

Dale, I don't mean to be unkind but here's what your messages sound like to me:

"Of course the world is round, and because it's flat, trees in Australia grow upside down."

The above message is no exception. No one ever knows where to start pointing out all the problems in your logic. Many of us have tried, but you remain unconvinced by either science or data.

Michael, I don't think that's fair. It's not stupidity -- I don't think -- it's the difference between the kinds of people who like grand, romantic stories and people who like details and facts. The world is full of both kinds and we're all better for having the other kind in our lives.

My quibble with Dale, such as it is, is that he's trying to prove that his romantic story is true but doing it in a way that misuses the tools and concepts. It's not a good fit for any of us.

Thank you Justin: But, Please answer the question I posed 3 times now without a response. Is the Stevens, to Crosby to Dudley lineage a pedigree linkage which would transform the data set I've followed from Convergence to a verifiable subset of the Sutton-Dudley Y DNA? I understand I take liberties with my methods, but now that we are nearing the time when a REAL Dudley descendant may be able to shed light on my contention.......I would like to know if the 1/2 brother Stevens and subsequent children are within those scientific boundaries?

Dale, you've had the answer to that many times. You just don't like it, so you keep asking. You are misusing the term "convergence". You are misunderstanding the nature and scope of DNA connections. You haven't found a verifiable subset of the Sutton-Dudley DNA. You have 600+ potential matches at the 25-marker level but you are ignoring almost all of them so you can pursue a theory not supported by anything. Your Stevens connections look good at the 25-marker level but fall apart at the 37-marker level. You have no Crosby, Dudley, or Sutton matches, even at the basic 12-marker level.

In short, what you have is a nice story that was discredited by the facts almost as soon as you developed it.

Thank you Justin: We'll be in touch. DCR

The name Higganbotham is in the DUDLEY family DNA project and I recall it also being in the testimony of 1978. Can you bring that name up ? I can't seem to find it in my followers data. Thank you. DCR

As it happens, there are no Higganbothams in the Dudley DNA project, but even asking the question shows how disordered your approach has become. It's a waste of time to even look, because you don't match any Higganbothams. If you don't match one of them, and match fairly closely, it doesn't matter to your search whether they are there or not.

Dale, I also had a father who liked to collect and tell tall tales. It was very sad to give up the good stories, but I decided a long time ago that I care more about facts and getting to stable place for future generations. Giving up the fantasy is the path to inner peace. I don't think you're quite there yet, but I hope you'll leave it on the table as an option for the future.

Revisionist Interpretations are abounding Sir Justin: The name Higganbotham occurs on the dataset belonging a known Dudley descendant on the Dudley project. It's in her family....Because I know that name from my growing up days... and it's very unique I have interest in the name itself, and went to school with a person of that name, just like I did with the name Cromwell, and White, and Jenkins. What you see from your armchair as disorganized I look at it as seeing where the famili es of Woodburn, Oregon have a similar set of ancestors in 1640. The fact that you choose to edit my intention now is not a good indicator of your, ahem, impartiality. Im turning over every stone Like I said I would and see what is underneath.

PS: I'll be the one to decide if the story is factual or fantasy. As I suspect the the ungrouped Dudley's are not the descendants of Sir Robert Dudley that means they are the ones with the nearest values and my estimation of a similar kind of result on markers 38-67 will likewise be similar, will mean we have a data driven method to evaluate the 3 or 4 ungrouped persons as a new group, if and when I can determine their family of Origin. The Suttons do not have the same values after marker 37 to 67....odd because those earlier values are more close to John Rice than I would have expected. In any event...I am fully equipped to understand the statistical nature of Mean, Median, and Modal values and I fully understand that the closest markers presently are in the families that were once part of Clan Ellis & Chochrane to the CLAN Sutton of France. Where myDNA origionates. They are convergent to the source name of Sutton in my amature view and I will eventually seek to show where these names are connected by their values and which are merely coincidental. That's a very large job and It's mine to perform once I clear up the DUDLEY/Rice connection.

Dale, that's all the same kind of nonsense that keeps you immersed in this debate. It's exactly the kind of thing I meant earlier when I said listening to you is like hearing you say that the earth is flat so trees in Australia must grow upside down. It's all such confused nonsense that it's impossible to know where to even begin arguing with it.

But in the end you're right about one thing -- you'll be the one to decide if the story is factual or fantasy. At least, you'll be the one to decide for yourself what you believe, although it does seem you've already done that. You won't, however, be the one deciding for anyone else.

That's correct Justin: You go to war with ARMY one has. I don't have the benefit of knowing who's who and who to compare the results to. I have to make do until a DUDLEY down line from Sir Robert Comes Forward to triangulate the data. The Names in the Family Tree are connected by the clans which preceded them.....I only found the Dudley site within the last year yet the data seems to fall within the bounds as my father predicted.

Whether it stays that way once we have A Robert Dudley Line for comparison is up for grabs....You aparantly don't know if any of the persons on either site is a Robert Dudley descendant or you would have pointed that out by now. I have live with uncertainty until I can compare a known Dudley son of a son. That's what I know. DCR

No, actually I wouldn't have pointed it out. It's easy enough to see on the project website. If I did point one out to you, you'd just come up with a reason why his DNA is wrong but yours is right, just as you did first with the Rices, and later with the Perrotts.

That's where you have the advantage. Every time you begin to understand that there is absolutely no hope of your latest theory being correct, you just swap out a few names and head off to spend months telling the world that this new idea is really what Dad you all those years ago ;)

Do tell: If you have a Dudley down line of Sir Robert I will indeed listen....as I could not ascertain that from what I see. So once again you underestimate my willingness to shift into another mode of understanding as I did with Sir John Perrott. If he's a son of Henry Tudor he's likely R1b1 and that pushed me toward this more controversial line of the testimony, which I did not like at all. DCR

Dale, you are completely missing the point here.

You came to Geni armed with a story about being descended from an illegitimate son of Henry VIII. Various people helped you and eventually figured out that the story had its origins in a 20th century book that traced the Rices through a bogus line to a man who was descended from a distant cousin of Henry VIII.

You didn't like that, so you evolved the theory that your Rice ancestor was really the son of John Perrott, a man you consistently confused and still confuse with a distant relative by the same name. In fact, on FTDNA you still list this John Perrott as your most distant male line ancestor even though you have no proof.

At first you were sure that this John Perrott was descended from another Perrott whose family claimed he was an illegitimate son of Henry VIII, then when the DNA evidence started going against you, you switched, with no apparent logic, to the idea that your John Perrott was really a secret son of Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley.

I don't think it's possible for me to underestimate your willingness to change stories. In fact, I'd be alarmed if you are claiming to be able to change with even less reason than you've shown so far ;)

You can answer your own question about whether there are any descendants of Robert Dudley in the Sutton or Dudley DNA projects just as easily as anyone else. Here's what you do:

1. Go to the project pages and look down the list of most distant ancestors.

2. Did the most distant ancestor live after Robert Dudley? Then, not a known descendant. If someone says their earliest known ancestor is Samuel Sutton born about 1790 in Pennsylvania then they don't know if they are descended from Robert Dudley.

3. Did the most distant ancestor live before Robert Dudley? Then you have to look it up. Is their most distant ancestor someone who is also claimed as an ancestor of Robert Dudley? Remember, of course, that they might be wrong about their ancestry.

4. Was the most distant ancestor one of the famous Dudleys who are thought to belong to the same family as Robert Dudley? In this group I would look at all the R1b descendants of Thomas Dudley and Francis Dudley.

I've never known you to appreciate the research anyone else does for you, so probably best if you take this project on for yourself.

I Just looked at The Dudley Project and I am predicting that John Rice will fall into Family A at the top of the page once the markers 38 to 67 are known. DCR

And the name is John Perratt named in Pembrokshire Journal on line as being in Havorford West 9 moths before John Rice 1630 was born August 1629, salvadging a French merchant vessel in Havorford west. The name was spelled as my father spelled it, like the River. Raised in the household of Sir John Perrott 1528 the leading Puritan in Eliz. Tudor's time and friend to non-conformist preachers like John ALLIN named, by my father as the person to tok care of John Rice in Dedham, once he was brought to America on the Sparrow, as named by my father....and listed by the Naval Records as being under the command of John Perrott. Spell it any way you wish. I ve spent 3 years reassembling the evidence so that if finally makes sense which you fault me for. You know the rest. This is a mystery being solved as no one before me had an explanation of how he got here. The DNA will tell us all that we need to know. Family A on the project Dudley.

Which would then put you into the wrong Dudley family, away from Robert Dudley.

Well then we shall have to wait and see won't we? As it is I only trying to find where the information fits....that's the best I can do at the moment.

The very fact that I am seeking to understand how the pieces fit together are manifest in my conversations here. We don't know yet....I will yield If there is no better match than family A....who are they? And how do they connect to Sutton? DCR

Dale, I wonder if you're really even looking at any of this. Erica and Hatte handed you the information, and you passed right over. I've been teasing you unmercifully, but not even that was enough to make you do your own research.

The Sutton-Dudleys you are trying to claim as ancestors are R1b1a, not I1.

It doesn't take any specialized education to see it. Take what Erica and Hatte gave you, look up those lines on Geni, then go out and compare to the members of the Sutton and Dudley projects.

The Dudleys in Family A are connected to William Dudley, of Guilford. Erica has already told you they are a different family than Sir Robert Dudley and the Sutton-Dudleys. The DNA results confirm the paper trail -- they are different.

Every piece of this information was available to you when you first posted your theory about your Dudley descent, but despite every argument you've continued to insist that you're right, and despite every hint that the information is right there you haven't even bothered to look.

Not so...I did not understand them as I do you just now. I f you sir, insist that a line of Robert Dudley to his sons Robert or Squire Thomas Dudley who was named by my father are R1b1 then I have no cause to wait upon an answer. But by all that is fair and true: You must at last declare to me which numbered souls on the page are son of sons of Squire Thomas Dudley? For if I misunderstood which DUDLEY my father spoke of then the fault lies with me. How is it that Squire Thomas is now a disconnect with no standing? He was the son of Sir Robert and Lettice Knolleys as I read the story. I have wholly wasted my time and money.....

For Erica says NON....she bare witness that there is no such person. Are you also that same certainty? Squire Thomas Dudley was the one named and I worked backward to Sir Robert assuming there would be no change of haplogroup. So certain are you that Sir Robert's line is named on the Dudley DNA project that it can not be disputed? Then I yield. Sir Robert cannot be the father of John Perratt II 1565. Who then is?

Dale, I'm not a Dudley expert. I have a bunch of connections to them but they aren't one of my research interests. For that, I look to Erica and Hatte and others. You have had the same opportunities there that I've had -- you can read their messages and take them seriously.

I don't know anything about Squire Thomas Dudley. Erica posted a warning for you about him a few weeks ago, but you ignored that and re-hashed your theory as though she hadn't even commented.

There is a profile for Squire Thomas on Geni. He has parents Robert and Lettice. They have dates that look like this is the Robert Dudley who was Earl of Leicester and married to Lettice Knollys, but a quick check shows a different profile for that Robert and no son Thomas.

That problem of Squire Thomas doesn't worry me. It's clear people are working on sorting it out. The two Roberts have the same dates but different fathers, so that should be a major clue that something is wrong.

The only thing I have that you don't is a healthy skepticism that the powerful Earl of Leicester had a son who was a simple Dorking squire who is somehow not recorded on his MP (or in the Wikipedia article about him). At the very least, it seems to me, he would have to have been Lord Thomas Dudley as the son of an earl.

If Erica says Squire Thomas didn't exist, then I would trust her, although first I would want to hear exactly what she said and not just what you heard. For all I know, he was a real person, perhaps even the son of a Robert, just not the son of the earl.

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

http://www.geni.com/path/Squire-Thomas-Dudley+is+related+to+Ernest-...

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

The first reference above does not work. This one does. If we work from the people to John Rice of Dedham....they have to be Family A on Dudley.....That's what Im getting now...Some other Dudley perhaps? I don't know what to think now. Good night. DCR

Instead of worrying about the details of the Sutton-Dudley relationships, I took a more direct route.

I went to the Dudley and Sutton projects, trawling for prominent names. Some that really stand out are William Dudley (1608-1639), of Guilford; Thomas Dudley (1576-to Mass 1630); Francis Dudley (1640-1702); Edward Dudley (1604-to Virginia 1637). and Thomas Sutton Dudley (?-1549).

The reason these guys caught my eye is that they all lived in a period that makes them likely to be early American immigrants, and some are even explicitly stated to be.

So, I checked on Geni. Yep. They're all here, and with the exception of William of Guilford, they're all from families said to be descended from the Sutton Dudleys. Even better, they are all from gentry families, which increases the chance that their actual ancestors were gentry, as well as the chance that the details on Geni are more or less correct.

Next step is to glance at their DNA results. That didn't take a lot of effort because the pattern really stands out. All of them, with the exception of William of Guilford, are R1b1a and all of them except William have very similar results, close enough (arguably) for them to have been grouped together. Even better, most of them have two tested descendants, not just one.

The stand out is William of Guilford, who is I1. He isn't even close to matching the other descendants. Initially I thought you might have a chance there, but on closer inspection I realized your results aren't close enough. Later, Erica warned you that William of Guilford is not known to be related to the others (but you ignored the warning).

So, it seems that the Sutton-Dudley DNA is pretty well established. Of course there's a chance of error. DNA can't prove an old line beyond a doubt, but in this case there are 7 different guys with similar DNA signatures all claiming to be descendants of the Sutton-Dudley family, and all in Haplogroup R1b1a. We should all be so lucky to get that kind of evidence.

I'm sorry you feel like you wasted your time and money. You did waste time, but only because you stoutly ignored strong warnings from Erica about the paper trail of the Dudleys and strong warnings from me about the problems with the DNA. However, I don't think you wasted money. You're upgrading to a 67-marker test, and that is bound to help your search for the real ancestors of John Rice.

Dale, this is going to sound harsh but I think it needs to be said.

What you need to do now is go back to the beginning of your search.

When you first came to Geni you had a story from your dad that could be tracked point by point to the genealogy published in the 1910 Rice Genealogy Even the smallest details matched. The only difference was that the 1910 book traced the Rices back to a cousin of Henry VIII but your dad thought it was back to Henry VIII himself. There was also the idea that your John Rice was a son of Edmund Rice, which was something everyone believed until DNA proved it wrong.

I think it's fair to say that everyone who has been following your journey already knows that your story isn't an ancient tradition. Your dad and his sister got it from this book.

Every single one of us is sympathetic. Most of us have been down that path at one time or another. A wonderful story turns out to be just the imagination of a distant cousin writing a few generations ago.

The Edmund Rice Association, which is an extremely prestigious, careful, and thorough group, says that the DNA of your John Rice "falls just short of matching Group 1 [Edmund Rice]". They say, "Such a result is difficult to assess, since it falls into the 'gray area'".

This is probably the most plausible clue you have at this point. It should be the new starting point for your research.

Thank you for your assistance. I have to regroup all my information.....by the way, Robert Bacon was at school at Grey's with his brother Sir Frances Bacon. They were both in France under the guise of being the Queens emmisaries, but the behavior of Robert was especially bad and he was disgraced, left the spy mission that had been set up by Lord Burleigh at the time. The consensus is that he was a pederist and we all know Sir Frances married a 13 or14 year old heiress because of his lack of financial control and was eventually bailed out by king Charles to the tune of 45,000 lbs sterling. Because the two stories are so similar, I may have not have understood who my father was speaking about. The situation was so distasteful that I shut down listening to the detail in 1978. Guilford Dudley is in the Pedigree of 1/2 Brother Ernest Stevens. Maybe it was nothing more than one brother trying usurp the other? Im too close to tell right now. Regards I'll be in touch when I get results privately. DCR 1948

Guildford Dudley belongs to the R1b Sutton-Dudleys. The Dudleys of Guilford, Connecticut are I1. Sounds like you're getting the two confused. One is a person, the other is a place.