Living descendants of Edward IV?

Dale, you're been explicitly told to drop this sort of pointless speculation.

Sherlock Holmes, the fictional champion of "inductive" reasoning would never have theorized so excessively far ahead of his data. This is more like Lestrade, plodding doggedly along so intent on pursuit of the wrong man that he ignores all the facts and evidence to the contrary. :-P

I'm a big fan of DIRECT-LINE Y-DNA descendants. And the history of Haplogroups and their historic membership...I'm I1 also and would like to see everyone post this type of information (if known) on the pages of all the historic figures of the past.

John, I think we're getting there. Slowly. Over the past few years I'm seeing more and more debates that turn on yDNA evidence. We even have a bunch of DNA projects on Geni so people can add their ancestors to the right haplogroup project.

Dale, North Walsham and Barnstaple are on opposite sides of England. There's no reason to start moving people cross country just to force a theory. If John Rice was in anyway connected to the Phillips family, it's thousands of times more likely he was one of people with that name born near Barnstaple.

Dale is just NOT going to give up his Tudor fetish - he'll cram it in any which way, whether it fits or not. (Usually it will not, and he'll get a bigger hammer.)

Supposing young John Rice came to America with (his cousin?) Hannah Phillips, who settled at Dedham, can we figure out when she came and with whom?

Her brothers George Phillips and John Phillips were with the Winthrop Fleet. No sign of her there. Her brother Thomas Philllips was supposed to go on the Mayflower, but ended up spending the rest of his life in England.

But, her brother William Phillips came at an unknown date before 1637/8. If he was the "William Phelps" who applied to be a Freeman in 1630, he might have been one of the passengers on the Lion in 1630. Was his younger half-sister Hannah (age 14) with him? And also young cousin John Rice?

In 1630 their father, Christopher Phillips was already dead. He died 1621. Three sons go America in 1630, one stays behind. I ca't think of a better guess for Hannah's immigration than with one of her brothers.

Brother William settled at Taunton, but brother George was the first minister at Watertown -- and Watertown was one of the primary areas that contributed to the settlement of Dedham.

Hannah herself married one of the first Dedham settlers just two years (1638) after Dedham was founded.

Im Listening Justin. Please forgive me for following the information my Father gave me...he could have been mistaken but so far I have found no mistake he's made only my interpretation has failed. So to be Brutal MBH, I don't have a fetish...Im using the same technique to see if a combination emerges....I take in all information and process it as I, me, am able to...I find it tiresome that you think you have so much better a grasp on my family than I do....Really, talk about being out of touch!!

Justin: Don't you think arranging the Proved DNA names like Perrott/White and Drake/Perrott in the area around North Walsham and Tenby would be useful, to get a timeline and movement across time. I will agree to let the names go that are not DNA supported however, you should be willing to accept this was a Naval/seafareing family and the Port City of Tenby, N. Walsham, Havorford West are all very accessible to Men of the above names.

Please advise on Margaret Phillips being named as Margaret Rice for some reason May 2, 1630 at N. Walsham....Pride among Puritans being what it was, this looks to be a shame driven possiblity for NPE.

Dale, your memory of your father's story has led us down many false paths over the past few years. In fact, it's been an excellent lesson to any newcomers about why genealogists are suspicious of family traditions. At this point, you should not be citing it as evidence of anything.

The search for John Rice's ancestry has to go forward using genealogical methods, or not at all. Your father's story is OFF TOPIC.

I can understand it's disconcerting for you that so many people have a better grasp of the customs, geography, and records of 17th century England, which in turn makes them better qualified to debate and discuss the possibilities.

I hope you'll take this as an opportunity to learn something about the lives of our ancestors.

One of those odd little items that might never lead anywhere --

The father of Connecticut immigrant Matthew Allyn was Richard Allyn. He was from Devon. In his 1647 will (proved 1652), he leaves money to his children and grandchildren, then immediately after them he leaves 20s. to "John Rice of Barnstaple".

Several of his grandchildren received the same amount, including the children of Matthew, who had already gone to America.

This is probably too late to be the John Rice who settled at Dedham, but not absolutely. We have been supposing that John Rice came to Mass. as a child, but he doesn't appear in records until his marriage in 1649.

Re: "This is probably too late to be the John Rice who settled at Dedham, but not absolutely. We have been supposing that John Rice came to Mass. as a child, but he doesn't appear in records until his marriage in 1649."

Good point, Justin. We shouldn't be assuming he was a "Great Migration" (ended 1640) immigrant.

Where in CT were these Allyns? I had chased up a possible Hackley family to CT.

That sounds like an interesting lead.

This Matthew Allen was at Windsor. I don't want to actually link Matthew and drag his managers into this discussion, so I'll use a relationship path instead.

http://www.geni.com/path/Justin-Swanstr%C3%B6m+is+related+to+Matthe...

I'll put it on the plate to remember to look for the Hackley's of CT. Probably not for a day or two (backed up).

Are we going to talk about the DNA of Record? John Rice? If so should we not be talking about the matches of mine when they occur in a time line? You can't find JOhn Rice without the DNA we have at hand, and the names of Phillips, Drake, Rice, White, Hackley, and Cochrane/Ellis are in that mix of names from North Leigh and Devon as well as Newport.

Bear with me here as I work to reconstruct the Rices families of Devon from the parish records. I'm sure to make a lot of mistakes and will no doubt end up changing my mind a few dozen times about how they fit together.

One thing that occurs to me today as I look at the records is that Christopher Phillips married Agnes Rice in 1613. Other genealogists have said she was the Agnes born 1591 in Barnstaple. So, he was age 48, a widower. She was 22. Not impossible.

But, suppose that's the wrong Agnes. Could she have been the Agnes Gille who married John Rice at Barnstaple in 1595? If she was, say 22 at that marriage, she would have been 36 in 1613 when an Agnes Rice married Christopher Phillips. And, she would have been age 39 and 41 when her two daughters with Chris Phillips were born -- apparently the last of his children.

If correct, this would make immigrant John Rice potentially the half brother rather than cousin of the Hannah Phillips who settled at Dedham.

Problems with this idea --

First, I find no death record for this John Rice. Actually though, I don't find death records for most of the Rices named at Barnstaple. They probably died in surrounding parishes.

Second, a John Rice, son of John Rice, was baptized in 1631 at Barnstaple. Don't know if the father was the same John Rice, but the baptisms at Barnstaple suggest there might have been only one. If John 1631 was the immigrant, he would have been only 18 at the time of his marriage.

Dale, I think we've gone as far as we can with the DNA for now. You have no matches close to suggest further research. We'll keep in mind the names. When you're ready to proceed, join the I1 project. Then we'll see if anything emerges that might be worth looking at.

Back to Agnes Rice. Should have said Hannah could be aunt (not half sister). The dates could be stretched I suppose, but if Agnes was born c1577 and her first husband John Rice died before 1613, unlikely she was was mother of the John Rice b 1631.

Agness Phillips: Daughter of William Rice = the best candidate for the mother listed as Margaret Rice May 2, 1630.
http://www.geni.com/path/Agnes-Phillips+is+related+to+Samuel-Rice?f...

http://www.geni.com/path/John-Rice+is+related+to+Samuel-Rice?from=6...

No, Dale. Most people stayed close to home. You don't need to run off looking for Agnes living under an assumed name clear across the country. There are plenty of Rices in Devon. Easy enough to match this Agnes to people in real records.

Gilley Rings a Bell! Proceed as you wish. DCR

http://www.geni.com/path/Mary-Lovelace+is+related+to+Christopher-Ph...

Justin: I started this discussion on the down line members of Edward IV...I did not run the relationship of Sir John Perrott 1528 and my mother. She's his 6th cousin it turns out. So now we have the son of Sir John Perrott named as father of Perrott ap Rice whom you say died in 1640 but clearly not since his DNA is not extinct...It runs in the Sutton family as demonstraited by the results of my test. You said that gentic drift was included in those results...We may have a semantics issue!

If I am comparing my results as a possible downline Sutton to the other members of that family, then the first time I look at a thousand year difference between Le Teuton and JOhn Rice, NO adjustment for drift has been made. The values are what they are and we have to make the adjustment after looking.(That was the Shrodingers Cat idea) @ 1/100 years of the single mutations that are longer is to be expected....single step mutations which are longer in the down line should be thrown out to adjust for time....using that formula 9 of the 11 mutations can be explained by simple drift.

No, Dale, it's a fairly clear-cut "Yes" or "No", with very little "Maybe" in it. You're WAY over on the "No" side and that's all there is to it.

YOU CAN NOT THROW OUT *******ANY*********** MUTATIONS FOR *********ANY********* REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Otherwise you're practicing the genealogical equivalent of voodoo.

I think I just coined a new term, "voodoo genealogy" - as in "voodoo economics", with the same implications. ;-)

Dale, if you need help understanding this point please message me privately, or find someone you trust to explain it to you privately.

This is not a semantic problem. The first time you look at the thousand year difference, that's what it is -- a thousand year difference. No adjustments needed because the thousand year difference IS the adjustment.

We're never going to be able to move on with actual genealogy if you keep bringing up your confusion on this issue. We're long past the point where you're trolling the discussion, intentionally or not. It's been explained to you dozens of times. If you still don't understand why you're wrong, the burden is on you to do some research.

Dale,

I"m going to try explaining a slightly different way. Not for the purpose of inviting more debate about your ideas, but to give you some information that will help you go find the answers your questions for yourself.

First, give up the term "genetic drift". Genetic drift is something that happens to populations, not families. It's when the percentage of certain DNA markers in a population increases or decreases. Maybe I1 is 10 percent of the population in a particular area, then many generations later it is only 8 percent.

Second, go back to basics and think about what the DNA test is showing you. A distant ancestor had a particular set of numbers, which represent the number of times a particular pattern repeats at that location. Over time, there are mutations where repeats get added and deleted.. That means the different branches of descendants diverge (not drift). There is a fairly consistent mutation rate, so if you know the number of differences between two men you can use the mutation rate to figure out approximately how long ago their common ancestor lived.

Here's a very simple introductory video that shows you exactly what I've been doing and how I come up with the numbers I've given you. This is the standard way to find the time to most recent common ancestor.

https://youtu.be/A-Tjkb9gaKU

http://www.geni.com/path/Sir-John-Perrot-MP+is+related+to+Mildred-R...

His son is the Named father of Perrott ap Rice 1598 and the Anne Phillips birth of Robert Phillips I-1 haplogroup 8 years before the Picton Castle Heir.

Funny, he mentioned in the clip Alexander Hamilton and a likely connection with him and probably viking colonization,
but it could also just be because of this lines?

Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the US Constitution is Ulf Ingvar Göte Martinsson's 22nd cousin!

http://www.geni.com/path/Ulf-Martinsson+is+related+to+Alexander-Ham...