Living descendants of Edward IV?

Erica, it seems the Earl of Leicester did have a non-marital son who found Italy more congenial, and who had three wives (two of them at the same time) and a whole slew of children - including at least eight sons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dudley_%28explorer%29

Something might be gleaned from that lineage, if Dale is going to insist.

Dale, some of the people you listed are people I haven't run before. Here are the results for them:

Thomas Sutton & Robert Parrott, distance 14
John Sutton, distance 15
John Neville, distance 27 (and R1b, not I1)
Richard Phillips, distance 36

No good leads here. At this point you should be able to see at a glance whether someone is worth the effort of copying their results and pasting into Geni messages. These weren't.

Thanks Maven.

Robert Dudley, styled Earl of Warwick

Geni says: 7th cousin x 11 (via Douglas Sheffield)

His children look like they've been entered in Geni. I'm looking at MyHeritage trees and not seeing any male descent though.

No evidence that anyone who has had a DNA test claims through an Italian branch.

Looks like there are no male descendants of Sir Robert Dudley, styled Earl of Warwick.

From Life of Sir Robert Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland, By John Temple Leader, page 153

http://books.google.com/books?id=9CowAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA153&lpg=...

Till 1720 the Canon lived at Viterbo, where he made his will, leaving his nephew Marchese Tommaso Paleotti sole heir to all the Dudley property in Florence, Fiesole, and Maiano. He too seems to have died soon after, for in the year 1728, all these properties lapsed to the Marchese Andrea Paleotti, Canon Antonio's heir at law, the line of Dudley being then extinct.

As an afterthought, having a lot of sons doesn't necessarily mean that all of them will continue to have sons down to the present. Consider Sir Thomas White, Sr., MP - he reportedly had a dozen or so sons (we have 10 of them on Geni), but only two of them had sons (one each) and neither of those grandsons is recorded as having any offspring.

So Dale is out of luck and there are no known male descendants of the Earl of Leicester.

So what now?

Maven, Dale was out of luck on this theory a long time ago. We didn't actually need the 67 marker test to know there was no way it could still work out.

His idea that John Rice was a Perrott is almost impossible. The Perrotts at Tenby are apparently extinct in the male line, so there's no direct proof. But, they are thought to have been a branch of the family in Kent. As far as I know there is no DNA for the Kent family, but there is DNA for Virginia immigrant Richard Parrott, who seems to have been a son of John Parrott, of Paraketo Point, who probably came from the Kent family. Unfortunately for Dale, that line is R1b not I1.

His idea that John Perrott was an illegitimate Sutton-Dudley is impossible. As a whole, the Sutton-Dudleys are between 11 and 16 differences away from Dale. The documented lines have been triangulated. They fall at the high end of that range, and they fall in different I1 subgroups that don't even register as a possibility for Dale. So, Dale would have to argue that all of them have NPEs in order to have his be the real line.

Dale's request for a male-line descendant of Sir Robert Dudley shows the direction he's going. If Sir Robert's male-line descendants are really extinct, or not yet tested for DNA, then Dale can hold onto the idea that piling on the NPEs will eventually give him a path to the Tudors that can't be challenged by DNA evidence. I predict his next step will be to throw in an NPE somewhere above Henry VIII and another one above Robert Dudley.

Ironically, Dale's Chalfants turned out to be every bit as distinguished as he said they'd be. It's amazing to me that he didn't ever put much effort into that line. Through them he seems to have a descent from the op den Graeff family, and they open up even more vistas if you accept the idea that they're illegitimate descendants of the counts of Jülich. Controversial. Possible but not yet proven or disproved.

However, I think we can expect some wrangling there in the near future. The bit Dale did takes his line back through a different path than everyone else does. I've done some merging but there are some key parent conflicts.

So the answer to the question "what now?" is -- I think -- that Dale will find new and innovative ways to keep up the discussion.

That's what having an obsession does - it locks you into one possibility and blinds you to all the others. Then when your one possibility does not pan out, you're up you-know-which creek without you-know-what.

In the middle of all this, what I think is most interesting is that Dale seems to belong to a relatively small subgroup of I1 -- the ML group. If he ever decides to join the I1 project, I think that's where they would put him. And, they would recommend that he test PF49 to confirm it.

This is a group that seems to be older, smaller, and separate from other I1 groups. The members of the I1 project who belong to this subgroup are heavily concentrated in Scotland. It's not a coincidence that Dale's closest real matches include several Cochranes. His distance to two of them is at 6 and 7, with a calculated time to most recent common ancestor at 660 years and 930 years. In other words, well after the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

I'm not thinking that Dale's ancestors necessarily came from Scotland. More likely, they are a collateral line of a family where one branch was in Scotland and the other in southern England.

I think our best clue to the origin of John Rice is the Rice woman from Devon who had a daughter at Dedham Mass. I'll bet John Rice was her nephew and was raised by his cousin and her husband.

I rather liked Erica's theory that Rev. Allin(?) and his wife had a hand in managing the destiny of the unwanted (except maybe by his mother) John Rice in his neighborhood. No evidence for that either, but it showed the Rev. to be caring and concerned for the welfare of his parishioners, even the littlest ones.

Could still be true of Ann Hackley. Then the story is even better. With John Rice an orphan being raised by a cousin who happened to be a prominent member of the congregation, what better than to match the two orphans?

I like the theory that John Rice was from the Devonshire family because it's the cookie-cutter answer. John was connected in some way with someone at Dedham, or he wouldn't have been there. Probably someone's apprentice or orphaned relative.

So, the first strategy should be to spiral out until you find someone with a Rice connection. It's amazing to me that there's one this close. Then you look at the big picture. Would it work? Oh yeah. Devonshire. Hotbed of Puritanism. Devonshire folk on most of the early Great Migration ships.

Not just to New England either - some Devonshire folks moved in further south, as well.

http://www.geni.com/path/Douglas-Dudley+is+related+to+Mildred-Rice-...

BEHOLD! A Blood conenction to DUDLEY!

Interesting constellation of events here. There are, of course, many Rices in Devonshire at the relevant time. One that catches my eye is a John Rice of Exeter, who died 1616 leaving a will. The only other Rice will I see in the period from Exeter itself is Agnes Rice, a widow, who died in 1624. She must have had children because her will was separately proved in Orphan's Court and an inventory was prepared.

Old news, Dale ;)

I told you a few days ago that I merged your mother's family with the Chalfants already on Geni.

Dale, too bad Douglas Dudley had no offspring - you can't claim descent from him, only distant cousinship *with* him via a mixed male-female path.

You and he are both descended from Ieuan ap Lleision, way back in Old Glamorgan. And so, probably, are whole slews of other people - Geni has him at 5000+ descendants.

And here's a bit more -- some Internet people think the John Rice and Agnes Rice who both died at Exeter were the John Rice and Agnes Tucker who were married at Exeter on 3 March 1615. If so, he died the year after their marriage. There could have been only one child, whose name is (apparently) unknown. That child would have been about 8 when his or her widowed mother died. I think it's a bit unlikely this unknown child was immigrant John Rice. If born in 1616 he would have been 33 when he married Ann Hackley in 1649.

Not to be confused with another John Rice. of Barnstaple, who married Agnes Gille on 5 May 1595 at Barnstaple. They would have (perhaps) been too old to have underage children in 1624.

But notice, the Anne Rice who was mother of Hannah Phillips (of Dedham, Mass.) was also from Barnstaple (born 1591). And, notice the surname Phillips, which is one of Dale's closest DNA matches ;)

Barnstaple is on the north coast of Devonshire. Exeter is a bit inland from the southern coast, 48 miles away.

"Dedham was settled in the summer of 1636 by "about thirty families excised from the broad ranks of the English middle classes"[4] traveling up the Charles River from Roxbury and Watertown traveling in rough canoes carved from felled trees.[5]"

So when you're looking at arrivals, think about Roxbury & Watertown. My thought was John arrived a child & was orphaned in America, taken in by kin. When they moved on to settle Dedham, so did he. I like the "accompanied as an apprentice" theory of arrival less well because he had no craft or trade we know of.

His property was known, those maps should be studied. His grandchildren sold it from their new home in CT if I remember right. But the lots / layouts were kin connected in these early towns.

Another interesting piece. My money is on John Rise, christened 2 March 1624 at Northam (Devon), son of John Rise.

Rev. John Phillips, a Puritan minister, was born at Northam (Devon). He had a son Christopher Phillips who married Agnes Rice, who was born at Barnstaple (Devon), 15 miles from Northam. Christopher and Agnes had a daughter Hannah Phillips, born 1616.

This Hannah Phillips immigrated to Mass. at an unknown date. She married Joseph Morse 1638 in Watertown. They were received into the church at Dedham in 1639.

In the same generation as Hannah Phillips was John Perry, born 1614 at Northam (like Rev. John Phillips) or at nearby Fremington. He probably came in the Lion in 1632. Settled at Roxbury.

His son John Perry married Bethiah Morse in 1665 at Dedham. She was the daughter of Daniel Morse and niece of the Joseph Morse who was son-in-law of Agnes Rice from Barnstaple.

All of this is happening in a small area around Barnstaple and Northam in Devon.

We know that immigrant John Rice was probably born between 1620 and 1630. I find two John Rices christened in Devon during this period. (Probably there were others, not recorded, or lost, or not yet indexed.) One of the two was John Rise christened 1624 at Northam.

This is the only Rice event at Northam, but it seems likely that Ambrose christened 1623 at Fremington between Northam and Barnstaple, son of John was from the same family. And it seems likely that the John Rice who was the father of Ambrose (1623) and John (1624) was the John Rice who married Johan Saunders in 1622 at Fremington. He might also have been the John Rice who married Susanna Wilky in 1610 at Barnstaple, in which case he might have been the father of Thomas 1611 at Coldridge, etc.

The later Rices at Fremington are all descendants of Richard Rice, who is the right age to have been a brother of the elder John Rice, and of Ambose Rice, the older brother of John (1624). John (1624) either died or moved away.

If this wild guess is right, then the Agnes Rice from Barnstaple who married Christopher Phillips was a sister of the elder John and of Richard, and probably all three were actually from Fremington, 5 miles from Barnstaple.

I have more, but this is already getting complicated. There is an entire network of Devonshire families who continue to be interconnected into the 2nd generation in Massachusetts. I'm not sure I'm up to more of this.

Thinking about when Hannah Phillips might have immigrated and whether she could have had (her cousin?) John Rice with her.

As far as I can tell, there is no record or guess.

Her husband Joseph Morse (20) apparently immigrated with his parents on the Increase in 1635.

http://winthropsociety.com/ships/increase.htm

He lived at Watertown but didn't marry Hannah until 1638.

I wonder if Hannah might have come on the Lion in 1632 with John Perry (18) also from Fremington. If so, Hannah would have been 16. And if John Rice was on the same ship he would have been 8.

My first reaction would be skepticism that three children that age would be traveling together, unless they were with some much older relative. I'd like to figure out who that could have been.

The passenger list for the Lion didn't survive. All I find is that it carried "one hundred and twenty three passengers, whereof fifty children, all in health. They had been twelve weeks aboard and eight weeks from Land's End."

Boy was returned to his Father, who was also his half brother, took him, age 8 to be in the Care of Reverend Allin. Dad said he still needed care.

I suppose this is version of Ancestor Collaps with the Tudor's neverthe less all of these people now show up on my mohter's side as well as the Rice's.

http://www.geni.com/path/Sir-Roland-Velville+is+related+to+Mildred-...

Looking for any other Massachusetts immigrants who came from this area, I find Mrs. Eglin Hanford (46) of Fremington, came on the Planter in 1635 with two daughters Margaret (16) and Elizabeth (14). She was the widow of Jeffrey Hanford, although her Geni profile is very confused. She settled at Scituate.

There are also many other families in the same period from surrounding areas, including Nicholas Lobdell, of Northam, who was HIngham Mass by 1636.

No doubt yield....above

Dale, way *way* WAY back when, there was a remote, if highly unlikely, possibility that your legend might be based on fact. That time is long gone. There not only is *no* evidence in favor - there are now tons and *tons* and TONS of evidence AGAINST it.

You have also proved beyond any possibility of reasonable doubt that you are either a complete IGNORAMUS about what DNA is and how it works, or you are deliberately, willfully misreading and misrepresenting the DNA evidence. (I'm inclined to suspect the latter, to be brutally frank.)

I seem to recall that we went over the Paraketo Point guy quite a while back, and concluded that since he went to and lived in Virginia, he wasn't likely to have gone to Massachusetts. (A few - VERY few - people did that, and they are all known.)

There's an awful lot of wishful-thinking GIGO out on the Web, and little if any solid evidence.

The ball has been in your court for a long time, and to date every single bit of "evidence" you have presented has crashed and burned.

"We" may be called to "understand", but we are NOT called to empty our brains and fill them with garbage on your or anyone else's say-so.

Frankly, Dale, you had a FAR better chance of "proving" that you were the descendant of a secret love-child between Queen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Leicester. There is not and never will be any Y-DNA evidence to prove or disprove that one, unless someone actually digs him or one of his known sons up.

Dale, you are welcome to participate in the search for the origins of immigrant John Rice but at this point you need to understand that all your theories and stories have been completely disproved.

It doesn't help the rest of us move forward if we have to stop for months at a time while you balk at the evidence and argue in favor of something that is no longer a possibility.

The only way you can save your theories now is to pile on so many NPEs that you will end up with a line that can never be proved or disproved by either paper records or DNA. If you do that, what will you have? At best, you'll convince yourself but never convince anyone else.

So, I'm asking you to please stop pushing your agenda. This is a genealogy website. If you want to participate you need to focus on the kinds of evidence genealogists will consider and discuss.

Dale, I want to add that I will be happy to tutor you privately about DNA but I don't have much more patience for these lengthy debates where I explain something, then you spend months arguing "flat earth" versions of how you think it could work.

Your message above is a good example. Yes, I'm telling you "that genetic drift is already included in the calculations of 11 differences". You can't deduct anything to adjust for something. I've said that many times before. No, that's not a rule of thumb. It's a mathematical calculation of probability. Yes, one mutation per 4 generations is a rule of thumb. It's a rule of thumb because it's not as precise as the calculations. The two ideas come at the problem from different directions. One mutation per generation is not a rule of thumb, because it's not true. And, percentage of differences is a meaningless calculation.

So, let's be done with all that. If you think I'm wrong, go do some research. Read Wikipedia. Read one of the many DNA blogs and websites then come back with citations. Or, if ask Maven. She knows this stuff too and she's certainly not afraid to call BS when she hears it.

Dale -

Please define "which" Sir Robert Dudley.

That way I can assist in showing what is possible, and what can be cast aside.

Otherwise we keep going round in circles instead of progressing.

Now, if you refer to the earl of Leicester, he had one surviving son, Robert, styled Warwick. We investigated and found that despite several surviving sons, that male Dudley line ceased by the 1740s, in Italy (his abandoned wife had only surviving daughters).

Therefore, Earl of Leicester descent, on the male side, and investigation thereof, is at an end.

Do I understand correctly?

Dale,

You said, “I have my doubts that the differences in the allelels are being used properly, since 4 less single steps puts me back in the running with the Suttons.in 11 of 101allelels tested..”

Yes, I know you think that. And I think that’s truer than you know – you doubt it because you’d be back in the running if it weren’t true.

This is simple, basic stuff. Most people can learn in it an afternoon.

I’ve given you this link four times now:

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

What is so hard about it? This is the guide to interpretation, published by the company that did your test. The title is “If two men share a surname, how should the genetic distance at 67 Y-Chromosome STR markers be interpreted?”

It’s a very simple, straightforward chart. No mysteries. You look down the column on the left to find the number of differences, then you read the interpretation to the right. It does not say, go through all these preliminary steps to adjust your results and then use this chart. Of course not. They want to make it as easy as possible. And it is very easy for most people.

I know the woman who prepared this chart. Her name is at the bottom. She and I are friends. She’s a DNA professional. I’ve been doing this for 15 years. I’m an admin for two large yDNA projects at FTDNA, and a few small ones. I help people with this kind of stuff and consult other admins a dozen times a week.

You might be skeptical, but there is zero chance I don’t understand something as basic as how to count numbers and compare them to a chart.

I’ve talked to several other admins and professionals about your specific results. They all agree – we’ve all been there – the people who don’t understand are always the people who don’t want to understand.