John Perrot The Quaker Pope Converter His writings from Bedlam Prison

Yes: Facts are very helpful, I suggested Rollo is brother or Uncle to William the Conquorer...You all are very familiar but there are new voices to understand my dilema and reach for help. Thus a synopsis is not out of order. Rollo, Brother or Uncle to William the Conquorer which is I-1. And so are Sutton's of Dudley, Herbert, And The Tudors cannot possibly be R1b as Welshmen...they can only be G or I-1 as the French were intent of leaving their mark genetically speaking. and 1400 is the first opportunity that presents itself in the Glendower Uprising and Bollingbroke riding south to put it down. DCR

Fulk d'Aunou

Teuton: Germanic Viking ancestors that's I-1 or I not R1b.https://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+Fulk-d-Aunou?fr...

Dale, work with facts? That's no fun at all!

He'd RATHER keep tossing around "the disproven, the impossible, the improbable, the unlikely" and never get anywhere near something so totally mundane as a fact.

Notice he's now blathering about Hrolf/Rollo/Robert I of Normandy being "brother or uncle" to William the Conqueror, completely oblivious - as usual - to the 200-or-thereabouts years that lie between them.

Specifically, Rollo's dates are c. 860-c. 932; William's are c. 1028-9 September 1087.

Rollo was William's great-great-great-grandfather. Not uncle. Not brother. And nobody knows for sure what their Y-haplotype was, but the "kinship cluster" around William has been found to be almost entirely R1b. (Too bad some person or persons unknown went messing about with the sarcophagi at Fecamp, or we might have had a direct answer.)

William had NO direct male connection to the Plantagenet line, still less to the Tudors. William's *granddaughter* Matilda (no Y-DNA, obviously) married Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, and the House of Plantagenet acquired Angevin Y-DNA as well as the sobriquet "Angevins".

As for Tudors generally, it has been noted that a large "kinship cluster" of male-line relatives are predominantly R1b - exactly what would be expected from Wales, where something like four out of every five men are R1b.

One thing that personally offends me, as a woman, is Dale's penchant for proposing rape fantasies at every possible and improbable opportunity.

You are the only peron who used the word RAPE. That is your problem. Not mine. Thanks for celearing up the exact date between Rollo and William the Conquorere...It's been so long since I was on those sites I had forgotten. For once you did as I asked and gave me a straight answer. You have nothing to say about the pathways to Sutton Dudley eh? That's a fact too. Leave off with your conclusions about who I am. I spent my entire working career protecting women and children from the kind of person you are once again trying to smear me as being. two years corrections, 9 years a police officer with comendation and rose to Chief of University police with a 100% conviction rate in Court on Drunk Drives, Burglary, assaults, and 4 years protecting the children of Drug abusers. It is you Ms. Helms that has your mind in the Gutter. DCR

Once we know the exact DNA of Henry Bollingbroke IV we will have the answer to the issue I did raise which is the Kings' Right to Prima Nocture and Margared Ferch Daffid was the bride of Maredudd Tudor and the Bolloingbroke King had been a widower for 3 or 4 years as I recall when he rode south to put a stop to Glendower's rebellion against his man Percy. This is the logical place for an NPE to occur....it's not made up , it's historical fact that Bollingbroke caught the Tudors and their wives at Conway Castle and not an arrow was fired in Anger. They were allowed to go home from Conway Castle and Owen Tudor was called to the Court of Henry IV 7 or 8 years later to be a page then Wardrobe assist to Henry V. Guess why? Only a fool would believe that Henry VI looked at Owen Tudor as a street Urchin worthy of his mother's hand in marriage. I think he saw his 1/2 brother. But that's just me. Another historian has recently come to the same conclusion that the Court must have known Owen was the Kings illegitimate son and that's the reason they stood for the marriage to The Rellect of Henry V. My position makes the most sense and it has nothing to do with rape, it has everything to do with King and his rights and his son's response to the younger Owen Tudor as the Kings son.

Too Bad: It was the law of the Land so it was legal...Stop smearing me! My ancestors include every major family of England and France and my Father's line married into my mother's line repeatedly. You and Justin are simply wrong about that male line and prefer to smear my public service as a protector of the innocent calling all persons of my generation to Political Action to save our nation by participation in the local and nation elections. Bark on lady...you have become the creature of your own description...

https://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+Roger-Mortimer-...

Mildred Marguriette Rice-Wanker

https://www.geni.com/path/Walter-Stewart-3rd-High-Steward-of-Scotla... Even you Ms. Helms can see that my mother's line and father's line married into the other's family....this was true in 1600 and 1624 when the son of John Pratt 1655 became a Quaker known to the world as John Perrot the Pope Converter. I am telling you what my family story is. I can prove the lines are intertwined as far back as 1400. you have to stop smearing me or the good people at Geni will not let you continue to do so as I search for the common ground here with others.

Scholarly consensus nowadays is that the so-called "jus primae noctis" is a myth, based on a misunderstanding of feudal tax customs and vague "folk memories" or travelers' tales of truly *ancient* customs (as in, Bronze Age).

Please tone down the hysterical rhetoric. No one is claiming that anyone dismissed Owen Tudor as a "street urchin". He was a knight of genteel birth, of a family that had once been wealthy and powerful but had lately fallen on hard times. (He was still well below Catherine de Valois in rank, which is why it was such a scandal.)

It's an open question how much Henry VI did or did not recognize at any given time, considering that he spent much of his reign wandering in his wits.

Oh now it's John Pratt 1655? And have you noticed the chronological *impossibility* in that claim? "John Pratt 1655" was of an age to have been John Perrot the Quaker's *son* - not father.

The Percy rebellion took place in 1403, by which time Henry IV had married Joan of Navarre - so he was no longer a widower. (I checked the dates: marriage Feb 1403, rebellion summer 1403.)

Most of this discussion has gone off into Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, *especially* with regard to the alleged "jus primae noctis" - which has *never* been found in any Western European legal code, *anywhere*. It was *most certainly* never part of English common law!

Just answering your allegations: Reverend John Allin of Dedham married the wife of governor of Ma. Dudley yes? He would have done so after my 6th great grandfather left Rev. Allin's care and his wife is my cousin.https://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+Katherine-Allin...

Did you not say you have 1565 Pratt instead of my Peratt? Keep it straight now. We are tracking down very old information not kept in spoon fed records. 1655 was a typo duuh.

Read. what. you. typed.

You. can. not. afford. typoes.

Re: “Reverend John Allin of Dedham married the wife of governor of Ma. Dudley yes?”

Yes.

“He would have done so after my 6th great grandfather left Rev. Allin's care ...”

There is no evidence supporting that speculation. It’s a mis statement, in fact, of a theory Justin & I “liked” - that Ann Hackley, later the wife of John Rice of Dedham, “could have been” a servant in the household of Katherine Deighton who married a Dudley.

Re: “and his wife is my cousin.”

She shows as your 6th cousin x 12 via your Mother’s side. Since she “married” a Dudley this doesn’t say anything about your “blood relationship” to Thomas Dudley.

Katherine (Deighton) Allin is my first cousin 9 times removed's wife's grandmother.

Katherine (Deighton) Allin is my 8th cousin 11 times removed.

One can go on forever tracing Geni relationships. They are not solving your genealogy questions.

I think I just got to the bottom of that cockamamie "Conway castle" story. Wrong castle, wrong Margaret, wrong Henry, wrong year, and nothing to do with Owen Tudor after all.

"After Owain [Glendower] proclaimed himself Prince of Powys on 16 September 1400, Margaret and her children were obliged to move to more secure accommodation to avoid capture by the English and becoming pawns, prisoners, informants and victims of the ruthless regime of the times.

After their homes at Sycharth and Glyndyfrdwy were burned in 1403, they lived, among other places, at Harlech Castle, which was taken in 1409 by the young Henry of Monmouth. Upon the fall of Harlech, Margaret was captured and imprisoned in the Tower of London with her daughter Catrin, another daughter, and Catrin's three daughters. Margaret's oldest son, Gruffudd, died in the Tower in 1411. Margaret survived the deaths of her two daughters and three granddaughters, but her own death is unrecorded. She is known to have been survived by her son Maredudd, who was alive in 1421, and by her daughter Alys, Lady Scudamore, of Monnington Straddle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hanmer

Seems the Welsh referred to Margaret Hanmer by her father's first name in the Welsh fashion, as "Margaret ferch Dafydd". But she was (obviously) *not* the Margaret who was Owen Tudor's mother.

The siege of Conwy Castle was itself a "wrong Henry" story: it was Henry "Hotspur" Percy who besieged the castle, and with whom the brothers Tudor negotiated a settlement (which amounted to "Pay us a lot of money and we'll go away"). Hotspur paid up out of his own (or his father's) pocket, the Tudors and their retinue packed up and left - but Henry IV Bolingbroke (who was never there at all) refused to reimburse Hotspur in full, on the grounds that he shouldn't have let the castle get captured in the first place. Bolingbroke also refused to authorize the ransom of Edmund Mortimer, Percy's kinsman (whose claim to the throne was arguably better than Bolingbroke's) - and the next thing Bolingbroke knew, he had an irate Hotspur *and his father the Duke of Northumberland as enemies....

Cool: The Conwy Castle I read about showed Henry IV taking the castle without a shot. And let the Tudors go with the promise not to further support Glendower their cousin. Can I please see the blue reference to the story you are writing about?

Ms. Erica: The Dudley's are part of my unlces line which is Stevens-Cros by to Susanna Thorne White sister of Governor Dudley....Ms. Helms knows of the linkage after I gave her further clairification. The Dudley's and my family are linked at a much higher file see for yourself:

John Sutton, 3rd Baron Dudley

http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id217.html

Scroll down to 7 C History of the tudors Maredudd marries Margared Ferch Daffid Owen Tudor born 1400 Ca.

http://www.walesdirectory.co.uk/Heritage_Holidays/Owain_Glyndwr_Con...
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/hotspur.htm
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Percy,_Henry_(1364-1403)_(DNB00)

Some of the "popular" pages claim that the siege of Conwy castle took place in 1403, which is not credible, as by then Hotspur was in open rebellion and allied with Glendower.

Mashie mashie mashie - the Margaret ferch Dafydd who was captured by the English (at Harlech, NOT at Conwy) was Owen Glendower's own wife, plus her three daughters and one of those daughters' three daughters. The English knew her as Margaret Hanmer, from her English father's surname.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hanmer
https://biography.wales/article/s-HANM-HAN-1388

Margaret Glendower and her daughters and granddaughters were sent to the Tower of London. They never came out again.

Maredudd's Margaret was Marged ferch Dafydd Fychan ap Dafydd Llwyd of Trefeilir, a completely different person. There is even some doubt that Maredudd had anything at all to do with the Glendower rising, as no primary source explicitly associates him with it. Your cited web page suggests that he was likely not a fifth brother at all, but a first cousin once removed.

https://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+Sir-Owen-Tudor?...

Rembering that I have no connections to the Tudors...right? No connections to the Dudley's Oh that connection? above. The first cousin is Robert Dudley 1532 by his mother Jane Guildford who's father is my Maternal 14th great grandfather. Right?

At least there is printed support. You as always discount me by discounting the source. That's the style of a Bully: not a person trying to help me understand the People and times of my ancestors. DCR

https://www.geni.com/path/Samuel-Rice+is+related+to+Lady-Margaret-S...

Here is one pathway leading up to my father's line of descent and paralells my mother's family all the way back to De Coursey, Rodger builder of Dudley Castle.

I hope this makes sense to you curators and followers alike: The missing parts of my family story is out there in the great Algorythem of Geni. I keep looking for it as my Ancestry Glass Maternal: as it were is more than half full. It's so full that there is no family of England or France that does NOT show up as cousin or UNCLE/Aunt or grand parent. My father's side has a blank spot at ggf number 7 who we say is Perrot ap Rice 1598 and his father a Sutton Dudley links my father's side perfectly to my Mother's Maternal Glass of Ancestors. You keep focusing on the Glass that is half EMPTY.....that is your right but you are missing the point that you are excluding all the ancestors that belong on both sides of my Ancestry and you are not prepared to accept the Dudley Paternal Line. Only you can answer why that is. The answer to one of the great mysteries of Tudor England is directly if front of you and yet because I don't know the answer and have asked for help you continue to FAULT me. I am here looking for how each side relates to one another and the Howard side of my mother's line corresponds to Henry VIII at Mary Boleyn and Anne Boleyn, their cousn Douglas Howard and Margaret Shelton. The missing person is not missing he's right there in front at the son of Robert Dudley and unknown woman. The logic question I am posing has to exclude the Rices of Elweim because they do not connect to Howard.
https://www.geni.com/path/Samuel-Rice+is+related+to+Lady-Margaret-S...

Dale, what you are failing to understand is that once someone, *anyone*, is on Geni and connected to the World Tree, that someone is also connected to *everyone* else who is also on it - yea all the way back to Adam and Eve. That doesn't make you any more "special" than they are.

You began by claiming *direct male line descent* from Henry VIII, and getting nasty when your claims could not be validated. That has not changed a bit, and has only become exacerbated as one fantastic story after another has turned out to be full of holes.

Making up people and plugging them into convenient holes in your family tree is what foolish (and also fraudulent) genealogical "researchers" did for much of the 19th century and well into the 20th. Using *that* "method", anybody can "prove" descent from *anybody*. And they have. And some still do.

You have an unknown 7th great grandfather in direct male line. You keep trying to FORCE Perrot ap Rice into that slot, where he *does not fit*, and then you compound the folly by bogusing Perrot's *known* ancestry with claims that his father of record is not his father. Sometimes, when you're not paying attention, you try to have it both ways, claiming descent via the known *and* the false lines even though they are mutually exclusive.

Let's get a few things straight, shall we?

Disagreeing with you, even strongly, even vehemently, is not "smearing" you or "faulting' you or "bullying" you or dissing you.

Pointing out errors in your methodology, or your lineage, or your family lore, is not "smearing" you or "faulting' you or "bullying" you or dissing you. (It *could* be a learning experience, if you so chose - but you don't.)

Taking criticism *of your work* as a personal attack on *you* is a logical fallacy.

Maven, may I just say that if someone repeatedly suggested I was bullying or being too aggressive, or verbally abusive to them -- I would immediately back off, whether I agreed with their perception or not. It's just common courtesy.

The Glass is half full Ms. Helms, not empty. I understand that there are pieces missing which is why I came here. to find them. And I have found them but you continue to discount the findings. Your Guru said my 7th great grand father died in 1640...He most certainly did not. YOu say he did...that does not make you right. Now just back up a moment and understand that the mysteries of the Queen of England are fair game to debate: See Anaonomous. If the poor woman had a son, in fact several sons by Dudley then it's ientirely withing the realm of possibility that since my DUDLEY connection is PROVED by DNA matches at his cousins that I and my male ancestors represent the only surviving male line to Robert Dudley. I don't claim that because I have no evidence that links John Peratt II 1565 to the Queen. But the DNA does link me to Dudley and unknown woman. that's ground worth tilling wheter you like it or not. I am the only person on the internet that I can see who has traced the DNA back to our joint 35th great grandfather Baldwin II of Flanders. That's not enough for you. Fine but you have to stop calling me deranged when I followed the DNA to Thomas ap Rice 1630 Perrot ap Rices son and his line in VIRGINIA and posted the very names of Pughe, Atkins, and Hughes which the Natvie Americans said are linked to the Virginia familes...you say that is not proof fiine but it is smoke and you that's grounds to look further. So Stop trying to sell your personal Hubris as FACTS. They are your opinion, and believe me I can follow the DNA when it showes itself. Thanks but kindly move on to your next hate target. DCR 1948

WOW all I see are far to many people far to glued to their screens
Melva what this man is saying DOES NOT CAUSE YOU ANY HARM
HIS OPINION HE HAS A RIGHT TO IT
Stop bullying him..
THE PROOF OF ROYAL BLOOD IS IN HOW ONE CARRIES AND CONDUCTS ONESELF.
Right now all I see are some people who are being as common as dirt

People, *please*. This has been going on for *eight years* now. It has never been settled, it will never be settled, it CAN never be settled.

If all you want is for everyone else to shut up and let Dale have his fantasies, that's only "harmless" as long as he doesn't start changing other people's lines to conform to them. He *has done* that in the past. He *would like* other people to change *their* lines to conform to his fantasies. He *can't stand* any criticism of his fantasies.

If I shut up and go away, AS DALE WANTS AND DEMANDS, he will only find someone else to attack and abuse. It may be YOU next time.

I attack no one MBH...except to defend myself. You say my situation is not unique. Kindly advise me if there are other 5 line Tudor descendants with 9 dobbpleganger members of the Tudor Valois line talking to you? No there are not. I am the onlyone using solving for X as in Algebra logic with the missing pieces of this puzzle. You are not qualified to rule out my observations. You can say: needs more work to be convincing...but say I am in a fantacy when you cannot see the family members faces each one nearly identical to the Tudors at Chalfant twin girls and brother Richard now also found to be born in 1541 means you fail to grasp the picture that rightfully came in pieces because it was being recollected from 35 years earlier. You are simply not equipped to leave the question open. you want to kill the question I have presented even though I followed JUSTIN S. in his guidance. I don't want you to help me anymore...please stop. DCR