John Perrot The Quaker Pope Converter His writings from Bedlam Prison

Cheley - the harm of disinformation is that some people believe it and act accordingly.

Not to be alarmist, but in our own lifetimes or ones immediately preceding the consequences of unproven beliefs (later in fact disproven) have been dire.

So far there are not many Y DNA matches to generations beyond John Rice of Dedham, as Dale knows; and at the distance to 1624, “only” Y DNA is a reasonable clue (not proof).

That’s why Dale’s matches with the Phillips of Watertown line is interesting. Same geography, same religion.

So why is Dale not pursuing this?

Could it be because it’s different from his story?

It is incredibly disheartening, for those of us who spend so much time vetting sources and attempting to work with reliable evidence, to see rumors presented in discussions.

The entire problem here is that many people seem not to be able to tell the difference between rumors and evidence.

So adding them into the discussion is not helpful.

These connections are what Dale should be looking at.

Rev. George Phillips, of Watertown

Elizabeth Mary Phillips

Elizabeth Phillips

Geni paths can connect almost anybody to almost anybody else, as long as both parties are on the World Tree. I was once twenty-somethingth cousin to somebody in China (via Genghis Khan if I recall correctly) but it was a real zigzag path up, down and around.

Ms. Douglas Sheffield is an oddity of Tudor naming habits. It became a fad to take a maternal-side last name and use it as a first name for your own offspring - usually boys, but sometimes girls too. (This is, incidentally, how names like "Beverly" and "Shirley" and "Leslie" evolved into "girls' names". They were all originally surnames.)

Heh! Queen Elizabeth I is a very romantic figure - you should check out the movie "Elizabeth and Essex", with Bette Davis as the Queen and Errol Flynn (sexiest thing in tights in his day) as Essex. The style is very "1930s", but the story carries it. (Ms. Davis disliked working with Flynn, to put it mildly - and vice versa - and actually turned down a chance at the plum role of Scarlett O'Hara because it was part of a package deal with him to play Rhett. Probably just as well....)

Cheley, if Dale really *were* researching, he wouldn't come in for so much criticism. He's not. He's just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing if any of it sticks.

As for the Oxfordians, they've got their *own* hobbyhorse and resent other people intruding with different ones. (The latest entry in the "Who Wrote Shakespeare?" sweepstakes is the good Queen herself.)

Elizabeth l is my favorite monarch. Although she was just as much a tyrant as all of them. My father told me when I was an Elizabeth obsessed teen ager (and this was a long time ago now) that she likely had hereditary syphilis so could not have had children.

It’s a genealogy site. We want to build accurate trees and present them cleanly and in a way that anyone can understand the conclusions reached.

There are a lot of errors to correct in Geni profiles and trees. I take the opportunity of presentation to look at them and examine for possible correction and enhancement.

So Cheley - maybe you can help Dale by tracing his Phillips connections for him. This would be the Rice side of his family of course.

...And sometimes things that were devoutly believed in turn out to be just not so. This usually results in somebody getting very very upset when the DNA analysis disproves their cherished "family story".

...And sometimes you get a "Where did *that* come from?" I've got a fourth cousin who says his autosomal results show about 25% Native ancestry, and we're both puzzling over where it could have come from, since my side of the family hasn't got *any*.

Can we get something, um, straight please? I am *not* a curator. Erica is. Anne is. I just pay money to access the extra features Geni provides to subscribers.

That's the difference between the little green "PRO" tag and the little purple "C" tag.

The "syphilis" rumor was debunked a long time ago, but people still believe it. Both of Elizabeth I and of her father Henry VIII. (The latest thing with ol' Hank is the "Kell factor" theory, which has been proposed to explain why it was so difficult for him to sire thriving children and why he went off his nut in his later years. It's like the infamous rH factor only worse. https://www.science20.com/news_articles/henry_viii_and_miscarriages... )

As I said ... a long time ago. :) Probably around the same time Dale was hearing a different version of the Tudor dynasty from his father.

Cheley - Dale has been posting his story for 8 years. He repeats it without new credible evidence, and when something is shown by researchers to be different from his interpretation, he seems to accept (for the moment), but then reverts to the original story. Perhaps he’s not updating his notes. We do try and keep up on Geni with what we’ve found as a result of his queries, and those profile links (not relationship paths, because we all have them) hover in the discussion for anyone’s review.

We are also hampered by an incomplete Geni tree on his mother’s side. From what I know and can see, she does have more diverse origins than the Rice side, which is all Puritan, all the way.

Oh, Cheley. If you don’t see the harm in persisting with impossible genealogy, I don’t know what else to say. If Dale even presented it as speculative I’d have a better attitude. :) But he doesn’t. He is trying to persuade an internet audience to his way or the highway. The rest of us just scramble to detangle.

Glad for your work on Quanah Parker. I don’t think the analogy holds, though. Welsh Gentry is decently documented.

Now, *that* is an even more complete derailment than anything Dale has ever done!

Let me see if I understand....

Aggressive presentation of a dubious theory is "not bullying".
Aggressive demands that other people accept the theory *as fact* in the absence of any kind of evidence is "not bullying".
Aggressive repetition of the same theory in the same words over and over and over again is "not bullying".
Belittling, browbeating and insulting anyone who refuses to accept the theory is "not bullying".

BUT....

Disagreeing with the theory and presenting facts that invalidate it "IS bullying???"

https://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+John-Perrot-II?...

Would you care to rephrase why you think John Perratt II and Sir John Perrot his foster father cannot be my relative when they already are? The Truth is this man is the father of Perrot ap Rice 1598 and Robert Phillips 1582 with whom I have DNA matches 67/101 in the Phillips line. You keep smashing the words of my father and I because you don't like the stroy, not, NOT because they are not true or unreliable. disheartened in deed. DCR

I’m not going to respond to insults. It there’s a profile that needs explaining - post a link to the Geni profile.

Your latest relationship link says:

John Perrot, II is Dale C. Rice's fifth cousin 12 times removed!

Through your mother’s side, not the Rice side.

The common ancestor is Sir Richard Herbert, of Coldbrook who Geni says is my 4th cousin 18 times removed. Doesn’t that mean I’m a closer relative? :). (No, because it doesn’t work that way for either of us.)

We’ve already been discussing that there are issues with the Pugh tree on Geni to be researched further and corrected, as we can do.

Your Y DNA matches are with the Phillips of Watertown family, who are not Welsh Origins, so unlikely to have anything but a roundabout relationship in recent generations to anyone Welsh.

Your Y DNA matches with the Phillips of Watertown family suggest a common origin in East Anglia, or an NPE event in the American Rice tree. With more details on the match and preferably by a professional genetic genealogist, you may come closer to solving your John Rice Origins.

You might want to double check your notes, because the John Rice b May 2, 1630 is this one:

John Rice, of North Walsham

Who had a family in England, so was not the John Rice who married Ann Hackley in Dedham (originally called Contentment) in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Erica, you have the patience of a saint. I don't.

By me it's all moonshine.

The distance between South Raynham (of George Phillips) and North Walsham (of another John Rice) is only 10 miles or so. Combine that information with the Y DNA match, I’d call it a clue, and trying to understand these families better.

Interesting, but you *know* he's not going to go there.

“It is very discouraging to realize how difficult it is to correct bad information once it has been posted on the internet.”

From “Phillips DNA News”

https://phillipsdnaproject.com/web_documents/newsletters/Jan_2012_n...

Born May 2, 1630: Never said he was the man who married Anne Hackley. I said he was referred to as RICE BOY by the church who took him in. You see you don't yet know or understand how these names connect. Rice boy born 1630 the year after John Perrot made a salvadge operion in Havorford west was born to Perrot ap Rice Daughter age 12. So clearly he cannot be the Rice boy fathered by Perrot ap Rice 1624 of Dedham. They are however related by Margaret who never married and most likely got her insides chewed up by the pregnancy like Margaret Beaufort. I said Rice boy was taken in by the the Church (reformed and recusant from COE) and as far as I know he did not emigrate to Dedham so yes, he most likely stayed put like his mother Margaret. So score one fo me and try to follow the new information not known 5 years ago but known now.

John Rice of Dedham would have been 12 or so 1638 when his mother left for England and settled in Ma. That's the boy who was taken in by Reverend Allin when Perrot ap Rice 1598 tried to reuinte him with his mother. That was impossible for reasons I can't share here because I said I would not use the mother's most likely name. You are not being smeared at all....EH I have praised you up and down for your contributions....This is a discussion site where we bring the reports and conflicts to be hashed out and YOU all make the changes on the file...I certainly never will again. Phillips to Mordicai Price in Con is the Bloodline from John Perratt 1565 to be linked to me. The other Phillips are nice to look at but they are distant cousins by marriage and according to MBH they don't matter.

If you think you can follow please do: I left the site beause I dared to put Perrot ap Rice's name as father of John Rice and JS. had a Cow. So I stayed away all this time to finally get a grip on how these people fit together and they do. John Perrot the Quaker is the same person as Perrot ap Rice 1598 who disappeared in 1640 owing 640 lbs to his uncle and left aboard the ship salvadged by his biological father mentioned in Pembrookshire Jourals Aug 1629. That ship carries the name Sparrow and the English Admiralty shows John Perrot First Mate of the Sparrow. So MBH you and JS were wrong then and I have solved how my 6th great grandfather arrived in Dedham without and indentured servants contract. His grandfather John Peratt 1565 who sailed with Sir John Perrot and learned how to from an Admiral of the Flleet (Title given by Edward VI to Sir John 1527). What then happened to my 6th ggfather? He stayed in Dedham and became a freeman and received 50 acres upon marriage to Anne Hackley Widdow and a generation older of the Grainger/Folsome family of Isle of Wight. Closure as her marriage to Hackley ended when he died young and there are only two children born to she and Hackley....she bore her young husband 8 children matter of record. John Rice and Anne had Samuel who moved onto Con. and Samuel Jr. moved to Dutchess co. NY where all the rest of the boys wer born. Edward aparantly born 1734 was in Pomfret but all other were born and burried in Ductchess Co. NY.

What happened to Perrot ap Rice 1598 son of Margaret Mercer (Lovelace) see her all Red portion of the emblem above her grave in Tenby Church of St. Mary...the Scarlet half is the Lovelace side. The other side is the Perrot side including her birth father John Perrot 1527 by Mary Berkley Perrot-Pughe. Her side is engraved on the sinster side or right part of the shield with Sir John. So don't tell me Im wrong when it's there plain to see. The many other persons part of that shield reflect the de Berkley's and others on Mary Berkley's side.

And where did John Peratt II go ? He went with his son to start trading with those goods stolen from the Lort Brothers. You have blocked Perrot ap Rice long enough as father of John Rice of Dedham but you still refuse to even look....Investigators you are not if you are not willing to look. The Trading post was first set up by Perrot ap Rice's 4th cousin John and Mary Price of Manovan his 4th cousin at the first rapids on the James where hePerrot ap Rice and his father and a native girl went....Imagine they might have taken refuge with his cousin....Makes perfect sense when you consider they traded there from 1639-1653-54 when the trading post became property of the HOOE1 family....whe are they????Cousins of Perrot ap Rice who did not want to be known by his name so he used his brother's name who was an actual cavallier in King Charles I Army till he died in 1655. So the history of John RICE Hughes became legendary in Virginia and he left his son's behind in the persons of Jesse and Robert the Quaker who's DNA match mine. So you ar wrong, wrong, wrong about this CRAZY family of mine MBH. He was a scoundrel and left his first wife Pricilla behind with all those kids. Thomas Price of Liether his son came over on March2, 1652 and the man known in Virginia as Rice Hughes ??? of the James river got 50 acres + 150 for 3 other headrights. The Pembookshire journals shows he received his inheretence of 50 lbs from Pricilla and left England and aparantly returned when his father sold out his ship to the Hooe Family their cousins from Wales. All perfectly normal and I will not repeat this as I have before now....but you don't listen. You must see the totality of the links of cousins and inlaws all preserved in the DNA which you say is not mine because 37/37 is not good enough for you. Prepondeerance of the Evididence is all you need site to put this to rest and watch the Algorythem do the rest. Perratt II 1565 is listed as my cousin, and so is his father Sir John Perrot 1527 but that isn't good enough for you to look any further.....Right? 5 years ago I had forgotten that Perrot had used a false name to stay clear of Cromwell but happily I regained that memory over the lase 3 years. Pretty good read right? Well waid till you hear what happend to Brother Love and John the Pope Converter in Rome. DCR

" I left the site beause I dared to put Perrot ap Rice's name as father of John Rice and JS. had a Cow."

Well *of course* Justin Swanstrom "had a Cow". That's called Vandalism, creating false links in a false tree. There is *no evidence* for *anyone* as father of John Rice of Dedham - and until and unless unequivocal, preferably primary, evidence emerges, *he should not be shown with one*. Duh!

You have completely misread the Margaret Mercer memorial. The left side as you are looking at it (dexter side) is all her HUSBAND'S side. She's got Lovelace (because of *her* mother, which is not in strict accordance with heraldic rules), *HE* has all the rest. HE had a Perrot MOTHER (Katherine Perrot). THAT is where the "Perrot" comes from, and not any of your lurid imaginings. I suppose you didn't notice or understand that the memorial also has *complete* shields for *each* of them, his on the left with all the impalements (Perrot and Rice and so forth), hers on the right with just plain Lovelace.

There is no record of any "HMS Sparrow" before 1653.

There is NO POSSIBLE REASON to be looking in VIRGINIA for connections to an immigrant to MASSACHUSETTS. NONE.

It only "fits together" for you because *you made it all up*. It's all FICTION. Sadly, it isn't even good historical fiction.

This much of the whole megillah is - maybe - true:

What then happened to my 6th ggfather? He stayed in Dedham and became a freeman and received 50 acres upon marriage to Anne Hackley Widdow and a generation older of the Grainger/Folsome family of Isle of Wight. Closure as her marriage to Hackley ended when he died young and there are only two children born to she and Hackley....she bore her young husband 8 children matter of record. John Rice and Anne had Samuel who moved onto Con. and Samuel Jr. moved to Dutchess co. NY where all the rest of the boys wer born. Edward aparantly born 1734 was in Pomfret but all other were born and burried in Ductchess Co. NY.

Verification needed on "Anne Hackley Widdow".

Already disproved and Dale notified twice, by two separate people, which he agreed; again, he needs to check his notes. The Hackley he’s thinking of has no death record for the husband found so far, and 2 daughters married after 1649, which makes it unlikely she emigrated at all, and not before her daughters marriages. So seems pretty unlikely she was Ann Hackley of Dedham.

By the way most of these near misses were researched by JS & presented to Dale. What a lot of work we’ve done, and re done, only to have it disregarded.

Thanks, Erica. I smelled a rat on the Hackley beeswax. A young man might marry a woman six or so years older (Shakespeare did), but not a whole generation.

Anne Hackley

Yeah, Dale had gotten all huffy that no one had made a profile for the 2nd daughter. Even though she was in profiles notes, and this fragment leads nowhere.

Hmm, someone thinks she’s this Hackley

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hackley-138

I suppose this could be revisited.

Rachel Humphrey

My note was not the same as Rachel Dolover

Yup, it's fairly common knowledge around here. Some people even use the mathematical term "implex" for it.

Charles II of Spain was arguably the hairiest case of it this side of the Egyptian Pharaohs.

This might be a good time to sum up what is *actually* known about John Perrot the Quaker, vs. the lurid fiction.