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

The Stevens/Rice connection to the Dudley's is firmly the Non-Sutton Branch. I expect that will be more clear when my 67 markers come in. There is much to the story of 1978 that is to be understood....even yet. As we define which families are which...the DNA that creeps into one group can mean only one thing...NPE.

My intent is to publish to my family these results about the Name of the man identified in 1978 as the father of John Rice 1630. That person named was John Perratt II 1565 raised in the Household of Sir John Perrott 1528 son of Mary Berkley Pughe and Thomas Perrott, her husband. (A man like a Prince but was not a Prince).

2. Said John Perratt II 1565, was matriculated into Oxford University, Greys INN, 1580 at age 15 along with named sons of Sir John Perrott of Carew Castle: William Perrott and the heir of the Perrott estates of Havorford West, one Sir James Perrot, both sons of Sybil Johns and Sir John Perrott.

3. The maternal mother of John Perratt II 1565 is unknown and likely to remain so. But the mother of John RIce 1630 is identified as Margaret Rice, daughter of Perrott ap Rice 1598 of TEnby, Wales, England and that a baptismal registry dated May 2, 1630 exists: naming Margaret Rice as mother of JOhn Rice 1630. How and why she was transported to North WAlsham, Newport remains open. But the family was a merchant, sea-going family, thus the merchant ship John Perratt II was restoring in Havorford West August 1529 according to the Pembrokshire journals on line was 9 months prior to the birth of John Rice 1630. John Perrott is listed as the captain/owner of the Sparrow named by SAmuel G. Rice 1978 as a transport vessel of young John Rice to Dedham 1640-41.

4. The John Perrott of Paraketo Point emigrated to Virginia 1623 and later brought his wife Prunella to that location where she died. While the family relationship to John Perratt II is not yet understood, the DNA tells all we need to know, as they are very close in values to down line grandson Lawrence Perrott of Virginia.

5. The son of JohnPerrott & Prunella is Robert Perrott born in England and later came to America settling in Virginia, where he married and had children.

6. The children of Robert Perrott are not yet proved, but one such person has nearly identical DNA to John Rice 1630, is the alleged son of Robert Perrott, one Lawrence Perrott who likewise has descendents with I-1 Haplogroup and match the current administrator of the Perrott Family DNA project.

7. That the Scarfone Family of Italy was named by Samuel G. Rice in 1978 as being fathered by one John Perrott the Quaker who was jailed in ROME for 3 years. He had visitation with outsiders and one such person was a female member of the Scarfone family. A 23/25 DNA match exists between John Rice 1630 of Dedham and Scarfone Family, and a match to Lawrence Perrott is pending the results of 67 marker test.

8. The DNA of father to son is not known to deviate more than 1 or 2 steps across 100 years time on the Y chromosome...and the variations that have occured between the members named by Samuel G. Rice are all within the bounds that would likely occur over the 400 year period 1565 and 1965.

The triangulation of known Perrotts and John Rice 1630 of Dedham are within the bounds allowed by current genealogical standards, and are so slight that a Judge of Circuit Court standing could aprehend the relatedness as likely: under the rules of law that apply to non-capital cases.

Upon confirmation of 67 markers to Lawrence Parrott, I will move to have such a finding by a US Circuit Court binding upon all concerned....that John Perratt II named by his 5th great grandson Samuel G. Rice is in fact his 5th Great GRandfather as the circumstance set forth above alleges.

The 10 Dopple ganger images of the Rice Family of Nebraska will accompany this plea of recognition. I may have been wrong about a Sutton Dudley being the father of John Perratt....But I'll let you know what the Judge decides when my results come in from Family Tree. DCR 1948

?

"I will move to have such a finding by a US Circuit Court binding upon all concerned...."

?

"The 10 Dopple ganger images of the Rice Family of Nebraska will accompany this plea of recognition. I may have been wrong about a Sutton Dudley being the father of John Perratt....But I'll let you know what the Judge decides when my results come in from Family Tree."

?

Dale, please explain . . .

Benjamin: In order not to be discourteous to you I will answer thusly.

My plans for the information developed here at this site is to present it in a circuit court after review by Dr. Manfred Kayser, and petition the court to make a finding of fact based upon the REASONABLE Man concept of what that man would conclude from the evidence presented, understanding that this is not a Captial Crimes Case. Preponderance of the evidence is all that must be shown, Not beyond the shadow of a doubt, is in play. The photographic evidence should leave no doubt. If there is any crow to eat, it may be for me to do, but Im willing to go to court and see if they will agree with me that the family history as garbled as I presented it, is still Based upon a DNA truth.

Greetings to you and yours for a great spring and Summer. DCR 1948

Dale, I wonder if you know the courts don't work like that. You need to have a cause of action. Are you planning to sue someone on Geni for disagreeing with you? And ask the court for a restraining order to keep them from saying so? ;)

I also wonder if you know history doesn't work like that. No historian is ever going to shut down by anything as irrelevant to academic inquiry as a court's finding of fact.

Reviewing my notes: I find the Rice/White relationship to the Perrott's may have something to offer in terms of where Rice's of Sommerset/White of Glemsford came from between 1595-1605. Is Glem Valley near Sommerset?
http://www.geni.com/path/Walter-de-Whyte+is+related+to+Samuel-Rice?...

I told you there was a Hierarchy of related names Perrott, White, and Drake. I think you'll find this site illuminating which explains why the Perrott's went by the Name of White in honor of an important Churchman named Whytham (old way of spelling WHITE). See Paragraphs No.68-89 #77 explains the name change. fyi

http://archive.org/stream/genesiswhitefam00maltgoog/genesiswhitefam...

Justin: I will not reply to nonsense. I'll do what I need to get the Perrot paternity established and you all can do whatever you wish with the information....I certaininly can't make you understand that My father was describing a relationship to the Perrott's now backed up by DNA. If you refuse to accept it so be it. The archive site above in blue shows how Francis Drake I-1 which I talk about above also links to the Rices and Whites to Perrott. Suit yourselves. DCR

Dale, I don't accept it. I won't accept it until you get serious about what constitutes proof and what doesn't.

There is no DNA connected between the Rices and the Perrotts, or between the Rice and the Drakes. It's all too distant. There are people with those names who belong to the I1 haplogroup and that's the extent of your supposed "match". You are desperate for it to be close enough to be significant, but it just isn't. Repeatedly claiming it isn't helping your credibility.

The White genealogy you are citing is garbage, typical of its genre. Overblown claims and leaps of imagination. Throw everything into the same pot and don't worry about the evidence.

Not only that, it's only been a few days since I pointed out this Francis Drake to you in the Drake DNA project, where he is R1a. But now, in your re-telling he becomes Francis Drake I1. This is the reason I'm often led, against my better judgment, to argue with you -- you're just making things up, often even when you're looking right at the evidence that disproves it.

Finally, it's clear from your messages above that you still don't understand DNA results or how to work with them. Nor, apparently, do you understand how courts work.

You don't seem to remember now, but I was the one who suggested the possibility that your (genuine) White DNA connection could stem from the Whites (or Wyatts) who married into the family of Edmund Rice. It's even possible, I think, that there could be an NPE among your Rice ancestors with a White as the biological father.

However, even that is a very long stretch of imagination. I offered it only as an example of how you could work with real sources and real information. There is no reason to believe your White match is descended from those Whites. It's a possibility still only because no one has done any research.

I'll repeat what I've said in the past. I'm willing to come back and help you, but only if you decide to take this seriously and stop inventing evidence.

Emma Siggins White???? That book is TRASH!!!! It has caused, is causing, and WILL cause no end of trouble, because she just jammed together every family named "White" that she heard of - and in the process nearly destroyed a perfectly good line of Somerset yeomen by trying to overwrite them with a bunch of highborns.

I did most of the heavy lifting reconstructing the Somerset line, and every so often I *still* have to fend off attempted incursions by newbies who think they know what they're doing (and don't).

Maven, I wondered if that might draw a comment or two from you. Many of us remember all too well the pain you went through, as well as your uncensored opinion of Emma Siggins White. When I saw Dale's message, I was pretty sure I had just acquired front-row seats for Armageddon ;)

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

No Justin you are wrong about Francis Drake I have match with one on Family treeDNA and this would be the I-1 family not the R1b. You see your mind is made up and you are making things up now about me. Check for yourself. The Source I put up is from Archive.ORG and you called them Junk...your standards are impossible to understand. Yes they are. The Drakes are the last people in the sequence that I told you about. It's right there for you as you demand.

PUH-leeze, Dale - just because it's on the Internet *DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS TRUE*.

I know DAMN WELL that Emma Siggins White's book is a piece of trash genealogy - I wasted entirely too much time with it, and then a lot more trying to undo the damage she did. If you believe ANYthing in it, you're a candidate for Nigerian scams, bridges for sale, etc.

Dale, please pay attention.

1. I don't know anything about the Francis Drake you supposedly match on FTDNA. The only thing I know is what you've said, that you match him 23/35, but so far you haven't provided any information about him and you haven't answered my question about the number of markers he has tested.

2. However, I do know that you are trying to match that Francis Drake to a Francis Drakes of Connecticut, whose descendants are represented on FTDNA as being in haplogroup R1a. That isn't going to fly, no matter how much spin you put on it.

3. Archive.org is a reputable organization that digitizes old books. Their reputation does not mean that every book they digitize is a treasure. In this case they've digitized a book that is garbage. Yay for their work. Boo to the book.

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you're going to have to do some serious work to get your facts straight and stop shooting from the hip.

A cautionary tale for gullible people:

QUEER BUNGLE RYE

Now, Jack was a sailor, who roved on the town,
And she was a damsel who skipped up and down.
Said the damsel to Jack as she passed him by
“Would you care for to purchase some Queer Bungle Rye Raddy Rye”.

CHORUS:
Fal di diddle ly raddy rye raddy rye.

Said Jack to himself “Now, what can this be,
But the finest of whiskies from far Germany;
Smuggled up in a basket and sold on the sly,
And the name that it goes by is Queer Bungle Rye Raddy Rye”.

CHORUS;

Jack gave her a Pound and thought nothing strange
When she said, “Hold the basket and I’ll run for your change”.
Jack peeked in the basket and a child he did spy,
"O begorrah", said Jack, “This is queer Bungle Rye Raddy Rye”.

CHORUS:

Now, to get the child christened was Jack’s next intent,
For to get the child christened to the parson he went;
Said the parson to Jack, “What will he go by?”
"O begorrah", said Jack, ”call him Queer Bungle Rye Raddy Rye”.

CHORUS:

Said the parson to Jack, “That’s a mighty queer name”,
"O begorrah", said Jack, “it’s a queer way he came;
Smuggled up in a basket and sold on the sly,
And the name that he goes by is Queer Bungle Rye Raddy Rye”.

CHORUS:

Now, all you young sailors, who rove on the town,
Beware of them damsels who skip up and down.
Take a peek in their baskets as they pass you by,
Or else they may palm on you queer Bungle Rye Raddy Rye.

CHORUS:

Can we please understand that the relationship of Drake to White is listed in the Dot.Org listing. That's why I put it up. Just because one finds an error does not mean everything the person put up is in error. You continue to ignore the Perrott linkage to White at North Leigh, Perrott linkage to Rice is a matter of triangulating the sons of John Perrott of Paraquito Pont...son Robert to Lawrence Parrott....Again that validates what my father said. But they are down line from John Rice so they don't link to Rice After Robert. they link prior to Robert at Perrott ap Rice 1598 who was fathered by John Perratt II but did not die as you believe....he was on the ship SPARROW with John Perrott starting over again. The Figure known as John Perrott the Quaker carries the same DNA as John Rice and fathered the Scarfone family in Italy while imprisoned there. A Hog breeder from Nebraska born in 1887 could not possibly know about the DNA linkages...but he could know the names passed down through the family. So, thanks very much , but it is not I who is having trouble accepting what is true....that would be you all.

Justin: I put up the linkage Geni has put in place to from Drake to Stevens....Im not responsible for that...I told you I had a Drake match but it was I-1....I was curious if was the great Circumnavigator but you convinced me it was not. So now we have this DRAKE to Perrott linkage that is I-1 and I point to it and you try to make it look like Im squirming...Im not I am the only person here who is trying to understand why these names appear as they do across time. I have never pretended to be an Historian...Im looking for the Explanations of what was conveyed in truth...Sneer if you wish...I'll go with what I have and what is to come back to my family and then they will get to do their version of RESEARCH to decide for themselves. Good Night. DCR

Thanks for the laugh, Maven.

Since you are our expert on the Somerset Whites, here is an update on that part of this sprawling dispute.

1. Simon Perrot (16th century, Northleigh, Oxford) married a White, who apparently came from a prominent family. The unreliable Emma Siggins White says she was a great niece of the Chancellor of Sarum, a niece of the Warden of New College, and a sister of John White "Patriarch of Dorchester", identified with John White of Staunton (Oxford).

This is the family Dale wants to link to now, perhaps because many sources connect Simon Perrot to the Tudors. Tudor Place says Simon was son of Robert Perrot and Beatrice Gardiner, daughter of Helen Tudor, daughter of Jasper Tudor.

2. There was an early 17th Wyatt aka White family in Suffolk. They intermarried with the family of immigrant Edmund Rice. A sketchy pedigree exists, but their descendants, if any, are unknown.

3. Dale has a genuine DNA connection to a man surnamed White. Ancestry known to me but perhaps known to Dale.

Put 'em in bag, shake it up, and they're all the same White family, and it's definitive proof . . . that no one understands the resulting mystery except Dale ;)

Dale, I give up. I have to assume this is just another case of you being provocative in order to get people to do your research for you by proving you wrong.

You cannot triangulate without DNA. You do not have a DNA match to Perrot. You do not have a DNA match to Dudley. You do not have a DNA match to Drake.

There is not a DNA match from Perrot to Drake or Perrot to Dudley. There are just a few scattered people who are I1 but not matches to each other and who don't know enough about their ancestry to make any guesses.

You have a DNA match to a man named White but you don't know anything about his ancestry, so it's absurd to point to different White families and claim a connection to all of them.

The DNA match you think you see to a man named Drake is not a match. The two of you are I1, and that's the whole extent of it. And, even if you did match him, he doesn't know his ancestry before 1789 so it's absurd to say you know he is from a particular Drake family. Beyond that, it's just stupidity to claim he belongs to a family from a different haplogroup.

That's about as clear as I can make it. You've got nothing.

The trail leads to wherever it leads, and I simply predicted that it leads to the I-1 Family noted in the site above. So what? I know what has to be proved...and you've missed all the salient details of the Perratt connection.

Since the Good Dr. Robert F. Dudley traces his pedigree through the Squire Thomas Dudley linkage...perhaps you will tell him he's not connected to the John Dudley R1b that the Robert Dudley line has to be connected to. Since he's obviously wrong as I was....perhaps you should inform him since he's the one who told me he's I-1 haplogroup. DCR1948

Lawrence Parrott b.1670 I-1 to Robert Parrott son of John & Prunella Parrott arrived VA, 1623 of Paraquito pt.. Lawrence was married to Sandra Cutting.

The DNA of Lawrence Parrott and John Rice of Dedham Ma are the exact match on the first 25 DNA makers except dys447 = 24 two steps, & dys 449=3steps. We have to await the 67 marker test for further refinement. The markers after 25 to 67 may only be a total of 6 single steps apart or it may be more. Six would not exclude the relatedness across 67 markers fast changing as some are.

Working inductively as I have from the beginning, the testimony includes the Scarfone matches to Lawrence Perrott, John Rice of Dedham as well as myself. Matches also exist in these members: James Phillips 1806 N.C.- #170512 Wm. DAvis #65608 N.C. Isaac Pocohauntus Davis # 230348 all of which are less than 4 steps apart on the first 25 loci.
There is no way that my father could fake the insided information which you continue to ignore. Fine we are all grown ups, But I do not yield on Perrott as I did on Dudley. That was the Big enchalada that I am .....trusting that you actually can exclude the Existence of Squire Thomas Dudley as an I-1 carrier of Sir Robert Dudley....I let go of that like I said I would at the very beginning of this search for the TRUTH, When confronted with the Preponderance of the evidence.

Now we are down to all the other DNA downline sons of Perrott, I do not believe that line can be broken & the obvious fact that the family information on John Perratt II is utterly true. But that too I will recan't if the DNA makes/unmakes the case. DCR

You have always used words like "court" and "testimony" and "evidence".

Now you are talking about "going to court" with your "case".

I have to ask . . .just exactly what is it that you think you are going to do?

I mean, what the hell does going to court have to do with any of this?

http://www.geni.com/path/Hester-Pakington+is+related+to+John-Perrat...

The man listed as John Perratt II was disenherited from lands worth hundreds of Millions of dollars by being declared DEAD as an way of excluding him from the father's estate. The people who would do such a thing are the family of Sir James Perrott who left the estate to the Packington family. This is how Geni links them up. They also link to the Rices of Nebraska through the JUMP family just fyi.

Hello Benjamin: (Cross post) A court that finds the cause believable is all the stamp of approval I need to present to my family the Court finds this to be acceptable proof of Paternity. The Oral tradition along with DNA evidence of Perrott family as shown above. I hit the same WALL with this crew as I did with the finding of John Perratt II 1565 and his acceptance or matriculation to OXFORD...same nonsense. Not enough proof. Hog wash. The proof is in the faces of my family, driven by the DNA story outlined above. It's my mission to complete the telling of what happend to John Perratt II 1565 ...disagreeable as it may be to some....But we are going to see it in the broad light of 21st century science instead of being lost to History. Not bad for an ex-cop who solves a 400 year old mystery....in retirement, keeps the blood pumping you know. The SAunders of Devon are a match to John Rice as well...but I doubt they would be anything connected to you. DCR

So . . .you're gong to try to sue the hopefully solvent remaining estate of whomever, for a monetary award of whatever, based on your relatedness to the rightful heir? I mean, what specifically do you hope to achieve?

As far as I know, I am not related to any of the Saunders families.

Dale, you're playing fast and loose with the DNA again. You're reading the evidence selectively, choosing the pieces you like and ignoring anything that doesn't fit your theory.

You say you match the descendants of Lawrence Parrott at 25 markers, with "only" a 5-step difference on two markers. Actually, it's a 6-step difference on three markers. You missed 464d because you're picking and choosing which values from which descendants you want to use.

But your real "mistake" is the one you always make. You've tested 37 markers and they've tested 37 markers. You need to compare 37 markers, not stop short with 25 markers because you like the result. At the full 37 markers, you have 21 step differences! That's an astounding number.

You couldn't have done worse if you had just chosen some guy at random.

As if that weren't bad enough, you're leaving out the fact that this Parrott family doesn't have any known connection to the other people you're claiming as his relatives. Contrary to what you say, Lawrence Parrott's ancestry is unknown.

Actually, the Perrott DNA project has 23 unrelated Perrott families, 19 in R1b, two in I1, and one in E1b. None of these families can show a connection to the Perrott family you're trying to connect to. Don't you think those numbers suggest, even just a bit, that it's not possible to grab every Perrott you see and claim they're all relatives?

The more you present your evidence and explain your reasoning, the more you torpedo your own argument.

Justin: Looking at 37 markers is a partial picture, we don't really have a full picture without the results of 67 markers because many of the markers after 37 do not vary a great deal. 7 of 37 looks like a lot but not when compared to 10/ of 67. Lawrence Parrott is known to be a son of Robert son of John of Paraquito point. There is more than enough to tie them together........and wait for the 67 marker results.

What I put up for discussion is treated like vermin, Got that? You treat me to the version of "You can't play because you didn't bring the ball we wanted, and until you do, you have to sit over there." That's exactly what it feels like....The over -reaction to the Whites of North Leigh and the Perrotts/Drake connection is such a case in point. One item out 5,000 words in that article confirmed my I-1 Drake Match which I was telling you about because it was in fact the right era. The reason for posting is to share what I am uncovering.....you want to punnish me for not having a paper trail....Fine lets just stop thinking and wait for the Universe to FLOAT the answer down from Heaven?...Why not just tell me " You can't talk here because you don't know all the answers in advance to our observations? So kindly lay off the PERSONAL observations, they are inappropriate. DCR

Lawrence Parrott of Virginia is the same Haplogroup as the project administrator who said" Until you showed up there were only 2 I-1's in this project" Get it? The Story has never been heard before I brought it here...and instead of trying grasp it: some are trying to Kill it......If I am only the 3rd I-1 in the Perrott Project, that should signal that it is RARE for a reason to be understood, not ignored. If you want to find the combination to a safe, you have to try all the possibilities....the one least likely, is often the O" Razor. John Perratt II is that answer.

Dale, I'm sorry you feel abused but think about that for a minute. You've come to a genealogical website, to a community of people who share a common approach to evidence. Then, you start telling people you refuse to accept that way of doing things and they don't know how to do what they're doing, but you have this wonderful story and it's true even if the evidence is against it.

The way you are handling 37-marker results is a near perfect illustration of this. You are persuaded you have a hot lead with a match of just 19/25, but to get that very marginal result you have to sweep under the rug the fact that is it really only 19/37.

Then, you complain that 37 markers isn't good enough. You want to wait for full 67-marker results -- without evening thinking that even with a perfect match at 38 through 67 the best you will ever hope for is 46/67. In other words, your common ancestor with Lawrence Parrott probably lived somewhere around 75 to 150 generations ago.

It's not a personal attack to say that your evidence doesn't support your theory. There is no way to force it to fit. You don't have an amazing revelation. You have a nice personal fantasy.

We shall see. The Perrot /White and Drakes are best leads that we have, and they point to Perratt II. Good day.

Dale, I'd like you to take a look at this chart from FTDNA;

https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/y-dna-testing/y-str/two-men-sha...

This is a very good guide to interpreting 67-marker results.

A distance of 0 means two men are "very tightly related".

A distance of 1 or 2 means two men are "tightly related"

A distance of 3 or 4 means two men are "related", not very recently but probably within the genealogical time frames of European families

A distance of 5 or 6 means two men are "related", not very recently but probably still within the genealogical time frames of European families

A distance of 7 means two men are "probably related" but more extensive testing is required

A distance of 8 or 9 means two men are "only possibility related" but they probably don't share a common ancestor within the standard genealogical time frame

A distance of 10 or 11 means two men are "not related" within the standard genealogical time frame and they probably don't share a common male ancestor within thousands of year

A distance greater than 11 means two men are "not related" and are totally unrelated within the standard genealogical time frame

The standard genealogical time frame is after about 1200-1300, when surnames were adopted in Western Europe.

Now -- what is your distance from Lawrence Parrott? At 37 markers you already have a distance of 21. You believe you share a common ancestor with him in the 1500s or 1600s, but the DNA evidence started going against it when you hit the first 5 or 6 differences.

It seems a lot like driving under the influence. You're already 4 times over the legal limit ;)

And please notice -- this is giving your theory the benefit of the doubt. Technically, these numbers only apply when comparing men with the same surname, where convergence is less likely to be a factor. To prove a Rice-Perrott connection you'd actually have to slash all of them even further.