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

The actual evidence against the Tudors being I1 is a lot fuzzier.

At the outset you have to give up the idea that there were I1 people living on the glaciers that covered Britain. I1 didn't exist yet. Timing is everything.

If you give any credit to all the old genealogies, then the Tudors would be direct male-line descendants of Beli Mawr, a legendary king of Britain 100-200 years before the Romans arrived. He's the ancestor, one way or another, of all the Welsh royal lines. Problem is, he's really just the old Welsh sun god turned into a human ancestor by later Christians.

Somewhere along the line between the Tudors and Beli Mawr there is probably some invention. Maybe a lot of invention, but no one is fully sure where it was, so you have to take the problem in stages.

The earliest totally certain Tudor ancestor was Ednyfed Fychan (13th century). As far as anyone can tell, all of his male line descendants are extinct. There is, however, some backroom chatter that there is guy out there somewhere who claims to have proved his line back to Ednyfed Fychan. Some people say he is R1b and is getting ready to publish his proof.

Ednyfed Fychan was supposedly a descendant of Marchudd ap Cynan (10th century). I say supposedly because this isn't my area. I simply don't know if that's likely to be true, but it's only 200 years and it seems plausible to me that the tribal Welsh could have preserved a pedigree that long. Supposedly -- again, outside my area so I don't really know -- there are hundreds of men living today who can trace their ancestry in the direct male line to Marchudd -- and supposedly almost all of them belong to a closely related group within R1b. The only ones I've seen mentioned by name are the Williams-Bulkeley Baronets and the Barons Mostyn. Some people say they are both R1b, but I haven't found any proof.

Marchudd ap Cynan was supposedly a descendant of Arthwys ap Mor (5th century) who was a king in what is now northern England. This Arthwys was supposedly a descendant of Beli Mawr.

At each stage further back, the ancestry get more improbable. I haven't paid much attention. I've exchanged messages with people who claim they prove a direct male line to these folks, but I'm a bit skeptical. The few who've told me about DNA have all said they're R1b, which to them is part of the proof that their claim is true.

So where are the I1s? I'm just not seeing them.

Dale, you said above that you had been waiting to hear back from another user who said her brother was an R1b descendant of Rev. Richard Edwardes.

I remember that, but if you go back and look at the discussion you'll see that you decided to accept it only after I pointed out to you that there is someone in the Edwards DNA project who is R1b and who claims to be a descendant of Tudor ancestor Goronwy ap Tudor. Obviously, he is claiming to be descendant of Richard Edwardes since that is the only line where a descent would make sense.

In the interest of clarity, I hope you understand that people can be wrong (or lying) about their ancestry. Just because someone in a DNA project says someone is their ancestor doesn't mean it's true. It also doesn't mean that the project admin has verified the claim or even believes it. The experience you had with the Rice admins changing your ancestor is very unusual.

So, when you see someone like this Edwards guy claiming to be a Tudor descendant, you have to break it down to see if that tells you anything.

First, there's probably no reason to doubt that he's a male-line descendant of Richard Edwardes. Second, no one believes Richard Edwardes was a son of Henry VIII except a few fantasy genealogists so this doesn't say anything about the Tudor DNA. However, third, it's interesting that this guy doesn't match anyone else in the project so it's not a case where anyone can dismiss his claim by saying that he matches other Edwards men who don't claim to be descended from Henry VIII.

Okay, I think this is a good place to stop....until the 67 marker results come in. I don't know which of 3 options will win out in the END. 1. It's all lie and just go to the Pool. 2. The abandoned son of JOhn Perrott 1528 was a scoundrel who later in life had an epiphany, along with a son, John Rice & and changed his ways. 3. The back tracking of the named & matching DNA of Lawrence Perrott, Scarfone, John Rice of Dedham, Wm. DAvis and Floyds to a possible descendent of Owen Tudor, not Kings but the Thomas Tudor line is at work & is over my head . Since I have to let go at some point and let my family find their own way I'll try to bring my personal OCD under control here. (I've never been diagnosed with OCD, this has only been a feature of my live since age 60).

I don't understand the variation in the results after marker 25 in the Perrott/Rice match, unless there is an NPE which informs my 2nd GGrandfather Wm. Sr. son of the mysterious Charity. We need the 37 to 67 marker results of SAmuel and Samuel Jr. Rice of Con to compare results. If they follow the Edmund Rice line, then my 2nd ggf is the one outside the Perrott line, not JOhn or Samuel Rice.

JUstin: If you go to the Tudor DNA project you'll find the Norway Tudor and another Tutor naming Henry V as most distant ancestor. That makes sense to me because the I-1 Haplogroup springs from this single (I) VIKING individual who's DNA is represented in the Kings of England at Stewart, Tudor, Romanov, but they are R1b, so after the development of Blue eyes. That's the repeating DNA values signature I've been drumming on for the past two years. Tudor being the precursor @ I haplogroup informs R1b after the development of Light skins and light eye color. Good Day.

Dale, yesterday you wrote a little piece about skin color, eye color, and the various haplogroups. The short answer to all of that is No.

The genes for skin color and eye color are not on the y chromosome, so there is no link. They're just independent mutations percolating through the population regardless of anyone's yDNA.

You suggest, among other things, that G and I precede R1b because Richard III had blue eyes, but that doesn't work out.

Think about the times scales. I is about 25-30 thousand years old, G is probably about 30 thousand years old, R1b is perhaps 18 thousand years old, the G2a subgroup is about 12 thousand years old, the I1 subgroup is about 6 thousand years old.

Richard III died in 1485. If you put the mutations for light skin and blue eyes about 10 thousand years ago, it's pretty easy to see that by his lifetime his blue eyes would have come down to him through ancestors in almost any haplogroup, not just the one he belonged to.

It makes no sense to say, "So if Melanin genetic mutation means anything we should be in agreement that G, I, J's are first Blue eyed people with a 3,000 year head start on R1b's."

Just for comparison purposes, remember that King Tut had blue eyes and he was R1b ;)

I think you'll find that's actually some Henry V. Tuter of, literally, unknown origin. King Henry V of England was a *Plantagenet* - and I1 is not among the possibilities for that line. (They were most likely G2a - Richard III certainly was - or possibly the ubiquitous R1b.)

As for Claus August Jacob, he's grouped with a guy from Croatia who may have had a common ancestor with him 1000 or more years ago, or it might be convergence. ("Tudor" is also a given/family name in the Balkans. It's a variant of "Theodore". Further north and east, it turned into "Feodor" or "Fedor".)

Exactly what the Welsh used as a basis for "Tewdwr" is uncertain. It could have been a Romanized "Theodorus" (from the Greek, "Theodoros", "gift of God", which is where the Balkan and Russian Slavs got it from), or possibly the Gothic "Theodoric", after the Visigothic ruler who helped beat back Attila the Hun at the battle of Chalons, 451 AD - derived from "Þiudareiks", "leader of the people".

The Brythons (proto-Welsh) did, quite noticeably, loot classical antiquity for names for their own children, and gave them a characteristic twist....

I don't think I want to follow you down the rabbit hole of re-arranging documented genealogies based on theories about how it could have been different. Once you start disregarding evidence there is no longer any basis in reality.

However, I do want to hit a few points about By The Name Of Rice, since this is clearly where your dad got the idea the Rices are somehow related to the Tudors.

The first thing to remember is that this book purports to trace the ancestry of Edmund Rice, not John Rice. The idea that John Rice was related to Edmund was a relatively short lived theory that was ultimately disproved by DNA.

The second thing to remember is that this book traces the Rices to Rhys ap Thomas, a cousin of Henry VII, but not a male-line cousin.

The third thing to remember is that this book quotes a famous line that Rhys ap Thomas "was never more than a knight, yet little less than a Prince in his native country".

These pieces are significant because you are still trying to fit John Rice into the ancestry given for Edmund Rice. Indeed, the central motif of your search is that your ancestor was "like a king, but not a king". A very close paraphrase of the line about Rhys ap Thomas. And, as I read your comments above, you're still trying to keep Rhys ap Thomas as an ancestor, but take the line through an alternative route.

""Just for nice to know" Liz Taylor was a mutant with violet eyes and double eyelashes. Pleeease let there be more mutants.

Yep, I get it...Where there is one fact out of place means everything is wrong.

The point of this place is to discuss the issues at hand. No seeker of the truth can know all there is to know. Some days It's like being punished for seeking to understand what one does not and to listen to some....the joy of retort is more important than the discussion...They know who they are.

I am paying very close attention to the "By the Name of Rice" issues. But giving myself space to digest the information and make sense of what my experience is and to report back is not a laughing matter to me. It's not a dung load to have a knowledge gap....or a misplaced understanding. So Thankyou Justin for making the Blue eye G think more clear.

I was fairly sure I would catch holy heck for the comparison. But I stand by the I haplogroup and the repeating values into I-1 and R1b. Afterall, I've looked at the Romanov's and they trace back to Vinkings....but there is a break at a female in that line about 900AD in Denmark. fyi M.M.

So, let's take a look (again) at what this book says about the Rice ancestry.

The earliest ancestor named in the book is a famous Welsh king, Urien Rheged who married "Margaret La Fay", a daughter of Gorlois, duke of Cornwall. If you know your Arthurian history, you'll know that King Arthur's mother Ygraine was married to this Gorlois before she married Uther. In other words, the Rices are descended from King Arthur's half-sister.

This amazing ancestry was certified by a King of Arms in 1600. That is a good example of how venal the Tudor heralds were.

Other genealogies trace this Urien Rheged back to Beli Mawr, who as I said before is claimed as an ancestor of many Welsh families.

Now the book skips down to Urien's descendant Rhys ap Thomas, without naming any of the generations, except for a little aside to say (falsely) that his father Thomas ap Griffith was married to a daughter of the duke of Burgundy. Then, there is a short bit about Rhys' son Sir Griffith Rice, who was ancestor of the Barons Dynevor.

In the middle of all this is a piece about William Rice "of Bohmer", who was granted arms in 1555. This, of course, is the William Rice (1521) who History of Parliament Online calls William Rice, of Medmenham. Although the Rice book says he was a grandson of Griffith Rice (without giving any details), his ancestry is actually unknown.

Very oddly, at this point the Rice book tries to argue that the coat of arms granted to William Rice in 1555 is senior to the coat of arms used by the Barons Dynevor -- even though they used the arms of Rhys ap Thomas, and those are the arms William Rice himself would have used if he was really a grandson of Sir Griffith.

After this, the book begins its discussion of immigrant Edmund Rice. He is said to have been a 2nd great grandson of Sir Griffith, but no explanation or details. It's implied but never stated that Edmund's line comes through William Rice.

The Forward to the book says that it's a "charming story delightfully written" but Edmund's ancestry is actually unknown.

So, you see what turn-of-the-century genealogy looked like. An ambiguous impression of noble ancestry, but some glaring errors and very little that can be verified.

Dale, you have some very odd misconceptions about how yDNA works, and about what's relevant and what's not. Sometimes I can see how you might have misunderstood something you read because a lot of other people get the same ideas and have the same questions, but other times your ideas are just odd.

Like the idea that there is a royal haplogroup, or the idea that a match on a certain group of markers might outweigh a mismatch on others, or the idea that a mismatch after a particular point might indicate an NPE, or the idea that if one group is older than another it means something where they lived.

The earliest known European yDNA is all E and G. There are still (apparently) descendants of these lines in Europe, but they have been massively outbred by the later R1b folks. No one knows why.

One recent theory is that R1b might give a very slight predisposition to siring sons rather than daughters. It wouldn't have to be much. Even something that worked one time in a hundred would be enough over the course of 10s of thousands of years to increase the numbers of R1b males way out of proportion to other groups.

An older theory, still accepted by many, is that R1b was common among men from a certain warrior culture where high status males were polygamists. If so, R1b males would have quickly outnumbered their non-polygamous farmer-type neighbors.

In all of this, I1 is a relative late comer to western Europe. It originated somewhere in or near Scandinavia, and It was spread through the migrations of tribes from Scandinavia like the Anglo-Saxons and later by the Vikings and Normans.

It's very hard to synthesize for someone else (like you) the overwhelming impression gained from reading all the squabbles on 100s of newsgroups and private messages about ancient lines and ancient DNA. Almost all of the debate about old Welsh lines takes place in a context where the bickering among competing claims is about which branch of R1b is the authentic line. I can't imagine someone jumping into the middle of it with an I1 claim. The participants would just laugh (or sneer) and tell you your ancestors were Anglo-Saxons or Normans; come back when you've got a solid paper trail and triangulation from at least two other remote cousins.

Some popular writers have called R1b the "royal haplogroup", but only because so many of the European monarchs whose DNA is known were R1b. In my opinion that's almost entirely because of just a few extremely prominent families, but the problem remains.

Some people think it was that same warrior culture that led to the R1bs becoming local chiefs and later kings. Other people think it is because the overwhelming majority of the native people in these areas were R1b so having a royal family that is R1b is just the odds at work.

Whatever your personal opinion about your own ancestry, the bottom line is that you'll have a very hard time convincing anyone, based on current data, that an old Welsh noble family could be I1 rather than R1b.

Fact: the Romanovs (R1b) were NOT descended in male line from the earlier Rurikid rulers (N1c1).

It's all Ivan IV's fault: "In 1581 Ivan beat his pregnant daughter-in-law for wearing immodest clothing, and this may have caused a miscarriage. His second son, also named Ivan, upon learning of this, engaged in a heated argument with his father, resulting in Ivan striking his son in the head with his pointed staff, causing his son's death." (Wikipedia)

That left him with only the sickly and weak-willed Feodor for an adult male heir, and Feodor preferred to delegate everything to his wife's brother, one Boris Godunov....

Boris was not only *not* a Rurikid, his family was of Tatar origin, and for that and other reasons he was widely hated. Predictably, there were rumors that he had done away with the last surviving son of Ivan IV, Dmitry Ivanovich (1581–1591) - and just as predictably, there were impostors, three in all, claiming to be Dmitri.

Boris managed to hang onto his shaky crown until he died in 1605 - and then the Godunovs' enemies swept the whole family from power.

A power struggle followed, involving the False Dmitris, the sinister Prince Vassili Shuisky (a distant descendant of the Rurikids), a Swedish-Polish would-be usurper, Władysław IV Vasa, who was never able to make his claim good, and finally Michael I Romanov, whose claim was based on his grandfather being the brother of one of Ivan IV's wives.

We don't actually know what the earlier Romanov haplotype was, since the line was interrupted in 1730. But ever since Paul I (son of Catherine the Great) it has definitely been R1b.

I have no doubt but that you are correct M.B. Helms....My only point in the comment about the Vinking Roots to the Romanov's was that there is fairly good records up to the break I saw about 900 AD out of Denmark....So Im agreeing with you they are in deed R1b....with that drum beat I recognized two years ago. That seems to be of I Origen from 10,000 years ago that informs I1 and R1b both in play in Northern Europe.

What you don't seem to understand, Dale, is that I1 and R1b are *not related at all*.

This is a rather important point, because it means that I1 and Rib individuals *cannot* be related in the male line within a genealogical - or even a historical - timeframe. The "divergence point" goes *far* back into human prehistory - the Neolithic, at least, and maybe farther than that.

The point keeps cropping up in the context of "who is (or is not) related to whom". It's how we know that Peter Mallory of New Haven (R1b) was in no way related (in the male line, at least) to Roger Mallory of Virginia (I1). People used to come up with convoluted theories "explaining" how they could be related - and we now know that *it is not necessary*.

If Peter were an isolate, he could be brushed off as "an NPE somewhere" and forgotten about. But he has a genealogical "cousin" in George Mallorie of East Yorkshire, an approximate contemporary - and there is enough divergence between them to indicate they were not brothers, or even very close cousins.

Most of the recorded Mallorys can be grouped under I1 (ancestors of Roger) - and the vast majority of them used some variation on the Mallory two-tailed lion. The Yorkshire Mallorys differenced theirs with a silver collar - and Sir Richard Mallory, Lord Mayor of London, differenced his so drastically (collared, guardant, *and* a red border) as to make one wonder if he was the son of Anthony Mallory of Papworth (who used the standard version) by any wife at all.

There's an odd grouping - origin obscure, haplotype unknown because no traceable male-line descendants in the present day - that *never* used that lion, or anything like it. Eventually one subset took over and differenced the Revell arms, modifying it to Ermine a chevron gules within a bordure engrailed sable - borne most notably by Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel. People have jumped through hoops trying to link him to the I1 Mallorys - but is it necessary?

IMHO the Bermuda Mallorys hold an important missing piece of the puzzle, and it's frustrating that no results have yet been reported on them in spite of invitations and offers.

Ummm, the interpretation that we are all related as cousins if you will, does not wash with the notion that we come from the same place and all share the emergent lines the farther back one goes if you are correct.

The I Ancestor comes out of the preceding earlier haplogroup until we arrive in West. Africa 340,000 years ago at A or Adam. Thus the later haplogroups have to stand on the shoulders of the earlier preceding groups of human populations. Which came first is a matter of settled DNA science as I read the literature. I & J come before R by a significant time period until a mutation occurs that seperate them further by time. By that notion the Drum beat of recognized leaders by their family emerges and repeats over time even as the mutations occur. Certain Values repeat in honor of those first people. That's the whole concept of ROYAL BLOOD, and ownership.

My conceptual idea is that the I earliest Europeans still builds upon arrivers out of Africa and the land bridge at Gibralter / Spanish and French cave dwellers were not the same R1b who ruled Fr. and England after 1550 AD. They were from a much earlier, O+ Universal blood doner: which I happen to be and out of SPAINs central region. So the earliest persons in Europe still stand on the African Haplogroups as Cousins but mutated into an ever complex level of Haplotype.....& they were the dominant leaders until the the newer Blue eyed people of G H I & I-1 and R1 b arrived.

Dale, that's all nonsense and by now you should know why it's nonsense.

It's illogical to think of any of these different pieces as being related to each other in the way you imagine. After all the discussion, you're still trying to preach a flat earth.

Finally. I've been haranguing a buddy of mine who is an I1 expert to help me out here. Now I have his answer. The highlights:

"Your friend's DNA fits comfortably within the Anglo-Saxon clades. Why do you think there is some mystery?"

"If you said his ancestor was Danish or Norman I would want to remind you that it is difficult to distinguish from AS."

"I think you know it's not a good idea to predict a place of origin without triangulation, but if you already know his ancestor came from England your first guess should be central and southeastern England, which is the heartland for AS settlement. Emphasis on guess."

"I don't understand why you haven't argued the obvious. His clade isn't sufficiently different from other AS to be older than them. He's just one of the same group."

"No you may not use my name. I don't allow my name to be associated publicly with these kinds of petty squabbles, and neither should you."

There's a bit more, mostly of a personal nature, but this is the essence of it. In case he might read this someday, I want to point out that my so-called "misguided missionary zeal" has landed me in the middle of many arguments but hasn't yet destroyed my reputation ;)

No, actually Im doing my best to deduct the book theme's from what my father was conveying and what was implicitly part of his testimony.

2) If we are all cousins then we connect at each change in the Haplogroup...the last time I checked G, I , J were all part of subclade F. That's my point. the modifications are downline events, yes or No?

1) Accepting that ap Rhys isR1b does not exclude a daughter named ap Rhys. John Rice infant was indeed fathered by an I-1 male with DNA matching the Drakes/Whites/ and Perrotts....and that's per the testimony....That's confirmation of the Aural History......

2)The female line of ap Rhys is Margaret Rice of North Walsham baptismal record May 2, 1530 as the 13 year old single female who never married and was taxed on two hearths according to Pembrokshire journals and left 5lbs to her church as a single woman. (most likely she could not have children as a result of the early pregnancy).

3) The Perrotts were sea faring ocean going folks of record, so her transport to N. Walsham is easily solved. We are on track with the Glemsford Rice's, also Puritans arriving from some other place, but not the Glem Valley, but still part of the Puritans of Norfolk Co.& Rev. Allin is central to them and the story. A second confirmation of the Aural history. So far so good....except that family Tree says my branch originated in Northern France, not East Anglia.

4.) The Story also included some event in the Edmund Rice family noted in American records as "A family disturbance prior to arrival in Ma." coupled with a 5 year hiatus in child baring by Tamzine Rice. 1623-1628..which I have left alone because of the distress it caused.

5.) So I can agree with you that the Male Paternity was not likely ap Rhys, but we can't exclude the female ap Rhys members. The testimony to me was about other larger issues than JOhn Rice. For example:

a) "The Rices are part of an Ancient line of English kings, and you are therefore related to all the crowned heads of Europe". How so? It's not the ap Rice line unless you count 3rd cousin Tudor. That's not in the book is it?

b) The paternity of the Phillips 1/2 sister is not in the book?

c) The fathered Scarfone line in Italy that matches Perrott of Va. is not in the book.

So what are you suggesting we do ? Ignore the very things that convey the larger truth? Sir John Perrott cannot be R1b....his son is I-1 therefore he has to be I-1. Who's his daddy? We don't know. So lets stay with the match at Lawrence Perrott of Va. and John Perrott of Parakito Pt. and think about why my DNA breaks down after marker 37.....but strangely links up perfectly with Edmund Rice 38-45 markers on Y.

Yes. No. Kind of.

It's always difficult to figure out the picture you've formed because you have so many odd ideas and confusions, and you don't always apply the terminology correctly.

Yes, we are all distant cousins. All humans are descended in the direct male line from "Genetic Adam" aka "yDNA Adam". His age is a moving target, typically ranging between 100 and 300 thousand years ago, depending on the most recent discoveries. Current thinking is that he lived about 200 thousand years ago, not 340 thousand.

The mutations that define the different haplogroups are downline events. Yes, you are right about that but you have some very odd ideas about age and geography. One of the mistakes you frequently make is to treat groups and subgroups as though they are interchangeable. For example, you often say I when you mean I1 and you say I1 when you mean I.

Above, you said "Which came first is a matter of settled DNA science". That's true if you mean the phylogeny is settled, but it's far from true if you think it means the ages of the various groups.

Right after that you say, "I & J come before R by a significant time period". Here is an example of where you're getting muddled. The ages of the groups are always undergoing revision as new information becomes available, but all three are "about 30 thousand years old". Specifically, I is currently thought to be 25 to 30 thousand years old, J is thought to be 31.7 plus or minus 12.8 thousand, and R is thought to be 24 to 34.3 thousand.

It's hard to see how you arrive at the conclusion that R is so much younger than I. This battle for precedence is obviously very important for your theories, but it makes no sense.

It's also hard to see why you want to wage the battle using generalities about the parent groups rather than focusing on the age of the subgroups, which would be more relevant. The ages of the subgroups also changes with new info. Currently R1b is thought to be less than 18.5 thousand years old (with disputes about how much younger), while I1 is thought to be 6 thousand years old.

Into this odd mix of ideas you threw out the proposition that "Spanish and French cave dwellers were not the same R1b who ruled Fr. and England after 1550 AD". Not sure of the relevance, but this is very muddled.

The cave dwellers weren't R1b. The oldest yDNA recovered is from the Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age). It is C. Move forward to the Neolithic (New Stone Age) and the yDNA recovered from skeletons is G. Both R1b and I1 came into Europe later, in the Bronze and Iron Ages. R1b north through the Balkans and I west from Ukraine into Scandinavia where I1 started.

Then too, you still have this odd idea that blood type, eye color, and hair color are somehow connected to yDNA haplogroups. You talk about "the newer Blue eyed people of G H I & I-1 and R1 b" as though that's a meaningful idea. Is it really so hard to understand that those things are inherited independently of one another? Within a thousand years of the first blue-eyed person there would have been blue-eyed people in every European haplogroup -- and that's before I1 even existed.

Finally, you still have this fantasy idea that certain markers are tied to royalty. You said "Certain Values repeat in honor of those first people. That's the whole concept of ROYAL BLOOD, and ownership." This is just so much garbage. After two years of this stuff you should know better.

Dale, your newest theories aren't even worth discussing, at least in my opinion.

When I posted this afternoon that your line is clearly Anglo-Saxon, not Welsh, I made a bet with myself that you wouldn't have any trouble finding a place to put an NPE so you could keep your theories. And, I have no doubt that if a descendant emerges whose DNA disproves that NPE you'll just insert another NPE into his line to explain it.

I win the bet. The lack of a meaningful DNA match doesn't deter you, and the absence of genealogical data for the matches you think you have doesn't deter you. You're determined to do this just by re-shuffling the same few fantasy pieces.

In my opinion, and it's only my opinion, John Rice's parents are to be found somewhere among the many Rice families of Puritan East Anglia. I'm moving on to other projects until you're ready to get serious.

Justin wrote: "In my opinion, and it's only my opinion, John Rice's parents are to be found somewhere among the many Rice families of Puritan East Anglia."

I share the opinion.

As a reminder, I have a reasonable paper trail to Richard Rice of Concord. Fortunately he was only slightly tainted by Edmund Rice origin fantasies - "some (distant English) family relationship could be presumed.". They do not seem to have crossed paths in their lifetimes, nor did any of the three have any known association.

And --- I see here

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs051/1101861701430/archive/1102...

That Richard Rice is in Rice group 99 (misc).

"The remaining test subjects--54 of them--represent much genetic diversity and, at most, contain at least 41 distinct haplotypes, meaning among them are at least 41 separate, unrelated branches of the Rice family."

And ... A link says ... Hertfordshire. Or Wales. Or .... Who knows.

When practicing genealogy I find that it makes much more sense to follow the facts wherever they may lead than to pick a destination and try to connect the dots.

Preconceived Notions are not always helpful.

And when I am trying to figure out exactly what happened in the last few hundred years, I don't spend much time looking at the last few hundred thousand years.

After all, I won't find my 13th GGF in the year 100,000 BC, will I?

;)

Exactly right. Dale has already decided that the father of John Rice was John Perrott. Originally just one of many theories, it's now hardened into a "fact", even though the DNA doesn't work. So the story gets more and more elaborate, The Perrotts have to have an NPE, then because that doesn't work there has to be another NPE. And the goal is to end up with a cast of characters drawn from a discredited ancestry of another family.

I think most of us, at one time or another, have tried to test a theory that Ancestor A might have been a child of Person X. We ask whether the dates work, whether the places work, whether there are other factors that make it more likely or less likely. Then, depending on what we find, we either quietly drop it or we say it's a possibility pending further evidence.

What Dale is doing is something very different. Nothing wrong with testing the theory that John Perrott was the unknown father of John Rice, even though that seems a bit of a stretch. The dates could work, but the places don't. The religion doesn't. The social circles don't. The DNA doesn't. It requires combining two John Perrotts, and adding in some Virginia Perrotts where the DNA also doesn't work.

At that point most of us would not just quietly walk away, but acutally pretend we never wasted so much time on such a bizarre theory.

My impression is that Dale is writing a story. He already knows the plot, so he's fishing to find the holes. As it stands now, it will start in Africa with a migration across Gibraltar into Spain of the earliest I1 people, the emergence of a previously unknown network of royal families who secretly preserve their identity on one small part of their DNA, then the emergence of the Tudors who are secretly Plantagenet bastards, down through intertwining scandals to a baby secretly smuggled into Puritan Massachusetts who is the heir to it all.

Well, I certainly must have struck a nerve. Im weeding out the story "By the Name Rice" and it's Ideas shared with me in 1978, without throwing away the linkages to Phillips, Based on DNA, Scarfone match DNA, Lawrence Perrott DNA that are the same as John Rice 1630 up to Y marker 38.

If there is a breakdown after Marker 37 for my values that has to mean a relative entered the picture of my 3rd ggrandmother and fathered Wm Rice Sr. as I understand what can explain the variation. AND that relative matched EDMUDN RICE Family exactly after marker 37 to 45.

Since I rely upon the expertise of you Justin...and you refuse to address the matches with a break at marker 37 I can continue with my notions on my own....or I can look outside this thread for an answer. That should be forthcoming as a very important person has taken note of the 12/12, 22/25 match with the Perrott and hopefully will weigh in soon.

My 67 marker results should be back by May 1.

You make fun of my understanding of the pathway of the development of various Haplogroups ....YET, the idea of an inherited title is the very basis of RULER CLASS as practiced for thousands of years.

My only observation was that this inherited political title is following what has happened over time. The drum beat of that DNA profile is represented in Stewart/ Tudor/Romanov and possibly even Romans? Have not looked at them so I don't know. That the drum beat which I found also matches the Men of Devon Study where my Hall, Saunders,&Drake DNA matches are.

So I am following the evidence....with your guidance to where we are today. I became convinced by your and other's guidance that Tudor was likely R1b so I left that notion. You can't have it both ways Justin....It is or it isn't. Since we have social evidence that John Perrott 1528 was an alleged son of Henry Tudor....and the Aural history point to his son John Perratt 1565 as being I-1 the father of my ancestor...We have to leave the conclusion as unknown Father to John Perrott 1528, but can rule out the R1b Perrott's. Why? Because the Oral history includes JOhn Perrott the Quaker and his line forms up with I-1 Lawrence Perrott of Virginia.

Snarl all you want to....I will advise you of my 67 marker results....and no I don't want to CLAIM anything royal other than to verify the story. I am certainly not of that breed and neither was our line back to John Rice 1630.

PS: The Break at marker 37 is the Clue to what happened. Your say it means there is no relatedness. My attempt to understand does not mean I ignore it, it means I don't understand it. You have tried to kill this linkage from the beginning and your efforts says you are the one who is CLOSED off from any revelatory information being developed here by my INDUCTIVE method. I have always maintained this is more than a 50-50 proposition...so find me guilty of presumption that My father knew what he was talking about and pointed to Insider information that is not part of the Book you cite.

May 1, 2015 is not so far off...then the methodology I followed should pay off with a 80%-20% conclusion. It's too important to me to capitulate to "EXPERTS" and their conclusions who've had their minds made up for years.

Greetings Ms. Erica: The Rice's are all over the place but thanks to the conversation of 1978 we absolutely know the name of the handed down name of JOhn Rice's Father was John Perratt. I found him to be born 1565 and to have been cast out for his terrible behaviors toward women.

The Perrott's are Historically known SEA Captains...so the transport from Tenby to North Walsham is fully explained why Margaret Rice ended up in Norfolk co. at North Walsham. And that is what makes perfect sense for a pregnant 13 year old to be moved from her town of origin.

Sir John Perrott 1528 and his son Sir James Perrott were both leading Puritans of their Age and knew of and supported the NON-CONFORMIST preachers up to housing them at Carew Castle. Therefore the linkage to John Allin is understood...and my father could not have known this, I discovered this here in doing the research, but my father told me that Reverend Allin took John Rice in once he was delivered to Ma. age 11 or thereabouts. Recalling that the story was that John Rice was returned to the Mother's family when Edmund Rice left East Anglia for Ma. I say this hangs together, and is perfectly understandable why an indenture has never been found for Young John Rice born 1630 to Margaret Rice. Regards.

Dale I don't want to sound argumentative. I do however need to point out that Rev Allyn was never mentioned by your father in your reports of his story until after those of us who looked into the history of the town of Dedham MA for you mentioned that the minister of a theocracy for 32 years surely knew his parishioners. We also looked deeply into any paper & geography trails that could indicate prior acquaintance and found not a hint.

Memory being what it was 3 years ago that name had slipped my conscious recollection, but our conversations brought the name back to the surface...He did talk about the Reverend Allin or Allyne as a care giver to me. I find it odd that there is no record that has surfaced without his name...but since the Good Reverend Married one Dorothy Hackley Allen...a named family which links directly to John RIce...we should not disregard the Oral testimony. We have finally gotten this recollection to a level where it makes sense to me now. Let it remain an open case of needed verification. Thank you.

Minor nitpick, Dale: no daughter of anyone in Wales was *ever* known as "ap" anybody - for the same reason that no daughter in Scandinavia, until very recently, would be known as "-son". DUH!
(They STILL use "-dottir" in Iceland.)

The Welsh for "daughter of", depending on time period and other variables, was "ferth", "verth", or "verch".

Don't worry, you're obviously not the only person on Geni who doesn't understand this. :-P

I stand corrected: verch it is.