It's time to compare John Dudley Y DNA to His son Ambrose and Robert Dudley 1532 my 2nd cousins x 15 removed

There you go again.

Hello Ms. Helms: Geni has already established that Robert Dudley 1532 daughter by Douglas Sheffield (Howard) is my maternal 2nd cousin x 18 removed. That Puts Robert in Direct blood linkage by his father to my mother's line. It is not too far a stretch to imagine that Dudley's fascination with the Tudor women at Knolleys which also leads to my direct Spencer line may have a surviving male line here in America. I did prove to Geni that the information regarding Hester Harrington, daughter of Ethelralda Audrey Mault was in error in that she married young at age 14 to Steubbs and inherited Watchfield Manor at Bath instead of Dying as Geni had previously published. So the topic I raise to the Dudley male line is still open and primed for research. Above my pay grade for certain: but worth a look. DCR 1948

Look, Dale, we've been over this and over this and over this, going back YEARS. You DON'T have a direct connection to the Dudley male line. At the *very* best, at some point the descent passed through a female (possibly as early as that "Robert Dudley 1532 daughter" you are currently going on about) - and ONE such interruption breaks the line.

Women *have no* Y-DNA (if they did, they would be men), so they can neither receive it nor pass it on. Period end of sentence.

As to autosomal DNA...past about 5 to 7 generations, the "signal" starts to be swamped by the "noise" and it's difficult to determine anything (except Neanderthal DNA, which always shows up because it's detectably different).

Being somebody's "maternal 2nd cousin 18x removed" has 10,000% of NOTHING to do with male-line descent. Maternal = MOTHER = FEMALE. NO Y-DNA.

I can't *believe* we have to go through this all over again for the umptillionth time!

I did not say I have a known male line. He, Dudley is my maternal 1st. cousin through John Guildford and 2nd cousin by his mother. The only thing I am looking for is to confirm the cousin line status which goes to my Uncles Line through the gov. of Ma.
I understand the DNA question exactly as described to me by J.Swanstrom: He's a very good teacher. We may not agree on everything but he said 5 years ago I had to find the son's of Perrot ap Rice 1598 which happens to be now known as Thomas Price of Liether 1630 ca who arrived in Virginia 1652 and married into the Native American Lines of Pughe Atkinson and those are 23/25 matches. We have plenty to talk about now that I have put the full story together with Native Historians. Kind Regards. DCR

We also went all over the Perrot ap Rice legend - no truth in it. The "Trader Hughes" legend was also discussed to pieces on several threads (not just yours) and found to be baseless. All you ever do is move the goalposts and keep spinning the same old fables.

23/25 is a pretty weak match nowadays, when 37 markers is the recommenced minimum for testing, and anyone with an R1b result is advised to test as deep as they can afford (111 or higher!). It's even weaker if you're cherry-picking a segment out of a 37 or higher marker test! (This comment applies to Y-DNA testing *only* - autosomal DNA is calculated completely differently.)

...Actually they now recommend 67 markers, if you can afford it.

I have tested out to 67 markers, it's the others who have not yet tested. Perrot ap Rice is not a legend and Justin presumes he died in Wales when we know that he went to Ma. with his son John Rice 1624 and left him with John Allin the Minister. The DNA Trail is all over the Virginia Landscape and Rice Hughes met Thomas Price of Liether March 2, 1652 and received 50 acres on the York River. That's part of Virginia History. So there is credible support for for RIce Hughes and Thomas Price as my Father indicated to me 1978. I can see you don't know these findings match up with the Native American Historians who have done the matching of my Y DNA to Pughe/Atkins and most importantly Robert Hughes The Quaker. I will understand if you don't want to see that evidence but perhaps there is someone there who will? I was faulted 5 years ago for not knowing what happened....no one knew what happened but the story is now clear that Perrot ap Rice using the name JOhn Perrot became a Quaker and sold the ship he had been using to Hooe Family whom Neccketie married and had daughters with. But her sons born 1641 to 1650 are Perrot ap Rice's son matching me. Why would you not want to see how this amazing story ends with Brother Luft/ Love and John Perrot trying to see the Pope? I said from the very beginning I did not know all the answers then but we at least have DNA to look at and Jesse Hughes is a match at 37/37 on Y.

Dale, I’ll just say that I know there’s a theory that Hooe = Hughes, but I can’t find a paper trail.

Hooe was very English and well documented. Unlike the Hughes families, whose genealogies are very much a work in progress. I don’t recall without looking if there are Hooe family survivors, but they are not Welsh.

Thanks for chiming in Erica: The Hooe's are all female born to the buyer of the virginia trading post in 1653 after Perrot ap Rice's father died there 1653, immediately after the grandson Thomas Price of Liether arrived March 2, 1652 on the Starr. The Two males who match my own DNA 23/25 and 37/37 are Robert Hughes the Quaker and Jessie Hughes whom I believe is Robert's son. In any event....the DNA of all the females of the daughters of Nicketie are well documented by the Cheraw Historian on FaceBook. I have sent in my last Family Finder test last week and should have both male and female lines to compare. I would be the 1/2 brother nephew line to Thomas Price of Liether and his Pughe descendants of virginia. DCR PS: Ms. Helms all the improbable stuff has been found to be true aside from my father's story which has held up to every stone thrown at it. Do feel free to comment as you will no doubt have questions that other's may be better able to answer. DCR

I am very confused about your timeline.

The Virginia Trading Post in Amherst County VA was in the 1720s. How could this have anything to do with someone who died in 1653?

That's not the correct timeline. The first one established by the Hooe's is 1654 and they took over from Necketie and Rice Hughes when Huges became a quaker ca 1654.

Rachelle Roby has the exact dates and so do the family of Sarah Hughes Davis.....who married a man from Wales of her father's approval. The Floyds have this timeline nailed down as well. The virginia Historian gave the date in 1654 as the first right of trade....I'll see if it's in my extensive notes here on Geni first. I can verify the 1654 date. DCR

OH no you don't, Dale! Provide PRIMARY documentation - not somebody's family tree or family legend or many-years-later anecdotes! You know what that means: contemporary (1650s) legal documents showing that X had the right to (own this, buy or sell that, etc.) You've got this whole ridiculous fairy tale with nothing whatsoever to back it up - so back it up with *primary* documentation, or shut up.

Note to others: the Virginia Historian is a website https://thevirginiahistorian.com/ that reviews books on Virginia history. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography is a quarterly journal published by the Virginia Historical Society since 1893. *NEITHER ONE IS A PRIMARY SOURCE for 17th century Virginia*.

Claiming that so-and-so "has the evidence" is weak sauce at best unless you can cite exactly where *they* got the information - and it had damn well better be a *primary* source. Sad to say, the Internet is chock-full of genealogical bullhockey, as I have excellent reason to know.

The legs have been repeatedly knocked out from under the "Nicati Hughes" legend, but fools still buy into it. See *multiple* discussions here on Geni.

Matching *you* 25/27 is not so hot, especially if - as Dale often does - you're cherry-picking the segments that *do* match and ignoring ones that *don't*. Matching *you* 25/27 and 37/37 says nothing about how well they match *each other* - which is the key point in determining relationships.

Family Finder is AUTOSOMAL DNA - not Y-DNA, not mtDNA - and is only valid for about 5 to 7 generations back before the "signal" degrades into "noise". "Finding" "matches" 10 or more generations back is almost always the result of wishful thinking and/or deliberate misinterpretation.

Amherst County *qua* Amherst County did not exist before 1761.
Before then it was part of Albemarle County (established 1744).
Before then it was part of Goochland County (established 1728).
Before then it was part - and a very remote part - of Henrico County.

Until about 1700, settlements clustered *very* tightly around the Chesapeake Bay and the mouths and navigable (lower) reaches of the rivers that fed into it. The process can be seen quite clearly in this series of interactive maps: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~george/countyformations/virginiaform...

Ms. Helms: I will provide the proper doccumentation but you are trying to stop my telling of this remarkable family story now backed up by DNA. It's not for you to judge my family, the Preponderance of the evidence is all that is required to prove connetedness. The first thing for me to provide are the DNA results from MT. DNA to the persons I reference. I am sorry you don't approve of 23/25 Y but that's all the other person has tested, and both Jesse Hughes and Robert Hughes are in Family Tree DNA. My mother's family has the proved connections which I have put on line for all to look at on my Page on FB you can follow the lines all the way far back you like. There is absolutely no reason to be openly hostile. Not one thing has been stated as fact: we are going to look for the facts now that I can describe the story which I could not do before. If you can't tell the difference then I will work with those who are willing to look. My father's explaination fills in all the blanks of Perrot ap Rice 1598 who was not a nice person at all until he became saved by Quaker Relition ca 1654. Ms Helms you hold fast to your beliefs...I am holding fast to mine and have been supported by the DNA trail already given. Have a great day. 1654 is whene the territorial comission in Virginia gave the first permit to Trade to Hooe on the James River. That's the first document I will put up and fyi on the documents page here on GENI under my name it shows John Perrot granted 100 acres in Barbados So he was using the ship of trade on the James River to get around DCR

Dale, I’m going to stick with what the Floyd Family Historian has made very clear. There is no clear evidence for Nicati. So that’s not a yes / no; but it is a genealogical summation.

There is very clear archeological evidence for the Hughes Trading Post in the 1720s, on the other side of Virginia, and that’s where we know the Hughes / Floyd families descend from. Before that are theories of varying validity. The connection to the Hooe family is also only theoretical.

I am not going to debate these. I am going to ask you, Dale, to be very careful in your posts on early Virginia history. And I’m only going to say this once.

From FamilyTreeDNA:

Jesse Hughes (born 1811) is in the first Haplogroup I grouping, but there is no Robert at all in that group.

There are two lines to *a* Robert Hughes (born 1792) - BUT this Robert Hughes is R1b, NOT I. And he doesn't match Jesse Hughes at all.

There are no results for *any* Robert "The Quaker" Hughes. And Jesse Hughes born 1811 *could not possibly* be his son, because he was born some 150 years later.

There is a Rees Hughes (born c. 1625) in the same group as Robert 1792 Hughes - both R1b.

There is a Rees/Rice Hughes (born 1652), also R1b but dissimilar, in a later group.

There is a John Parrot II and a Rice Hooe, both in "Haplogroup I - No Match Yet". They don't even match *each other*, let alone all the other names you have been throwing about.

Your Y-DNA "evidence" isn't.

You will get nowhere with mtDNA, I predict, because Rebeca Rolfe had no daughters. She also has no proven same-mother sisters. You may get a direct line back to *somebody*, if you're lucky enough - and knowing you, you will call that somebody "Nicati" and call it good even if there is absolutely no supporting documentation whatsoever.

"Not one thing has been stated as fact"? Oh, but you HAVE been claiming as "fact" things that are, at best, wild hypotheses (and at worst bizarre fantasies).

"John Perrot granted 100 acres in Barbados" has NOTHING to do with shipping on the James River in Virginia. Barbados is an island in the West Indies. People colonized it, and *some* of them later moved on to Virgina - and some did not.

You can smash and trash and mash all you want, but it won't make your story look any better or more plausible - quite the contrary.

Just posting the chart link

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Hughes?iframe=yresults

Is this the John Perrot you’re talking about?

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Perrot-199

He was not the son of https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Perrot-4

Note under John Perrot:

He has been unlinked from Henry (Tudor) of England (aka King Henry VIII) as his father due to lack of sources/proof. Please do not reattach. 20 Apr 2015 "Perrot's mother was never a mistress of Henry VIII" [1] The ill-founded story seems to have been started by Sir Robert Naunton, his granddaughter's husband[2]but persisted until very recently.

John "the Quaker" Perrot

Not the son of Sir John Perrot

As to the Englishness of Hoo(e), have we all forgotten Sir Thomas Hoo, Lord of Hoo and Hastings ?

Between Sutton Hoo in Suffolk, Luton Hoo in Bedfordshire, Hoo St. Werburgh and Hoo St. Mary in Kent, and who knows how many other Hoos, the opportunities for a locative surname are numerous.

This is a *radically* different derivation than the Welsh "Hughes" (from "ap Hugh").

John Perrot The Quaker is not the biological son of Sir John Perrot. We agree on that. Sir John Perrot 1527 had a son named John Perrot Jr. who married Prunella and their arrival in Virginia is established in 1629, He was born to Sir John and his mistress Sybil Johns Perrot (common law) about 1591 or just before Sir John was attained. Prunella and That John Perrot Jr. lived in Virginia and their sons Dr. Richard Perrot and Robert Perrot have different fathers...perhaps owing to the 6 years she was left in England while her husband worked off his 6 year indenture? But we agree that John Perrot Jr. 1591 is NOT John Perrot the Quaker. Thankyou.

John Perrot the Quaker went by more than one name as my father told me to stay ahead of Cromwell. He is the person who disappeard from Wales ca 1638-39 after stealing a shipload of goods from his brother in law Sampson Lort (married to Perrot ap Rice's sister). Perrot ap Rice is the grandson of Sir John Perrot by Margaret Lovelace Mercer 1580 who's first born son (PERROT ap Rice 1598 was 3 mos. early or she was pregnant 3 mos when she married Sir Thomas Perrot 1570. I worked out the pregnancy status from her date of death 1610 and her 12 births with 90 days between end and a new pregnancy. That's why the FRENCH DNA of Thomas Perrot and Perrot ap Rice1598 do not agree. French Perrot's are R1b and I and the curator of the Perrot site are one of only 3 known I-1 M253 Perrots in their family, or were some 5 years ago. So I am working to verify the DNA of the Sons of Richard Perrot and Robert as different because they have different fathers.

Further: Thomas Price 1630 of Liether matche my DNA in Atkins/Pughe native american status which means his father Perrot ap Rice handed of I-1 M253 to Thomas of Liether. DCR

Ms. Erica: I agree with Floyd Family version of things...I only used the name of Nicktie because that's what everyone was calling her. I only know that my 7th great grandfather Perrot ap Rice 1598 left with a young native woman and began trading with the Native peoples on the James River under her protection. If you like I can use Native woman perhaps they are not the same but since my mother's line directly connects to John Rolfe and Pocohautus as 5th cousin and their Son Persemethone Rolfe is a blood 6th cousin we will have confirmation soon enough through Family Tree and N.A. Historian.

Dale,

Your dates are confused and you’re mixing up different people who likely had nothing to do with each other.

This causes bad information to get out there. Don’t do it. Don’t assert anything.

This man, John "the Quaker" Perrot

was born around 1620. His parents are not known, he had no previous identity, he visited Virginia briefly, he settled in Barbados, and he had two daughters.

That’s it, no more, and discussion of him ends.

"Sir John Perrot 1527 had a son named John Perrot Jr. " THIS much is true. Nothing else about him is. The boy was last heard of applying to the Inner Temple (law court) in London - filthy, stinking, disease-infested London - and in all probability he fell sick and died.

This is strongly indicated by the way Sir John placed so much emphasis on getting his youngest(?) son James legitimated and accepted as a backup heir - which turned out to be very necessary.

I don't know who this "Prunella" is or where she came from - could she be a *very* distorted echo of Priscilla Litleton, who married Perrott ap Rice II?

Hasn't it gotten through to you YET that having "different fathers" means the line of descent is BROKEN and you cannot use the BROKEN line as proof of ANYTHING?

I see you are still libeling Margaret Mercer and booting her OUT of her rightful and legal Perrott connection for your lurid sexual fantasy. (When you DON'T have an exact birth date, and/or when the timeline straddles the Old Style dating system - year beginning on March 25 - you can't state anything with certainty about who was born "early".

The rest of this is typical gibbering nonsense, trying to have it all ways from Sunday when the ascertainable facts say it's all balderdash.

The REALLY shocking thing - Erica and everyone else - is that Dale has been spreading his fantasies far and wide. He has already thoroughly contaminated Wikitree, probably MyHeritage also, and has done severe damage to Rootsweb and every other source that he has any access to whatsoever.

This is how to POISON genealogical research and make it a Sisyphean task to develop a valid family tree.

Sisyphean, because the poison is everywhere and no matter how hard you try to clean things up, some damned fool will get hold of a poisoned source and undo all your work.

I know *far too much* about this from my wrestlings with the genealogical fraudster Emma Siggins White.

If you care to know: ask Justin who John Perrot Jr. is.

Sir Thomas Hoo, KG, Lord of Hoo and Hastings is your 15th great grandfather.
You
→ Viet Nam War Veteran, SFC Freddie Ralph Hicks, Sr
your father → Viola Isabel Hicks
his mother → John Thomas Edgar Webber
her father → John Richard Carter Webber
his father → Samuel Webber
his father → Seth Ward Webber, Sr.
his father → Tahphenes Webber
his mother → Frances Stanley Ward
her mother → Mary Worsham
her mother → Essex Beville
her father → John Beville
his father → Mary Saunders
his mother → Isabel Carew
her mother → Sir Nicholas Carew, KG, Master of the Horse
her father → Sir Richard Carew, Kt.
his father → Eleanor Carew
his mother → Sir Thomas Hoo, KG, Lord of Hoo and Hastings
her father