Calling out a fantasy as a fantasy should be within permissible limits, or there's no point in having a genealogical discussion at all.
It is a fantasy that Otter Lake, way up in the Blue Ridge and not even discovered until circa 1700, has anything whatsoever to do with trading posts in the Henricus-Varina area (at the *actual* fall line of the James River) circa the 1620s.
It is a fantasy that Perrot ap Rice of Tenby, Wales, has anything to do with John Perrot, Quaker schismatic from Ireland.
It is a fantasy that Perrot ap Rice, has anything to do with the Virginia Colony whatsoever.
It is a fantasy that Perrot ap Rice was fathered by Sir John Perrot, MP. (He *may* be a distant cousin via his paternal grandmother, Katherine *Perrot* - whom, by the way, your fantasy would deny to him - but there is not much evidence even of that.)
It is a fantasy that Perrot ap Rice fathered John Rice of Dedham - no one knows who did, but a Welsh nobleman is among the *least* likely possibilities.
It is a fantasy that *every* family with the same or similar surname *must necessarily* be related - far more often than not, they are not. (It is also a very persistent logical fallacy.)
All of these claims, and others, have been refuted, repeatedly, *with actual facts*, but you still make them just as pseudo-authoritatively as though no one had ever said anything at all.