Living descendants of Edward IV?

Ms. Erica: No response is required, but you indicated to me that there was no evidence of the Rice's being connected to the Perrott line, despite the testimony of my father. Here's the GENI relationship path...showing my uncle who is 3rd cousin to JOHN PERRATT II 1565.

This relationship path PROVES nothing, we all know that right? But it does serve notice that the people of the 1978 testimony were real enough to one another....just not to some here.

http://www.geni.com/path/Ernest-E-Stevens-of-the-WPA+is+related+to+...

Now please understand: I found John Perratt II when you said he didn't exist. I found John Perrott of Parquito Pt. believing him to be a son of JOhn Perratt or other member of the family who became John Perrott the Quaker. That's still up for debate...but the DNA is 19 deep at Perrott and the drift will be accounted for. The Perrott name as it relates to Rice is coming together....much to some of your CHAGRIN. Peace, out.

The last time I had a discussion ended it was because of observers could not contain their anger and ridicule, resorting to 6th grade name calling!!!..If I answer you the way some attack me, I am punished, not them, so be on notice, this Pedigree will come together whether you help or not.

Do *you* understand that that isn't a direct connection?

What it means, and *all* it means, is that both your uncle and John Perrott (I and II) had Maurice Berkeley for a common ancestor.

Maurice de Berkeley was the grandfather of Sir John Perrott's mother.

He was also your uncle's 13th great-grandfather.

However, since your uncle married your father's sister, he is not blood kin to you, and this proves nothing regarding a Perrott-Rice connection.

I can't, and don't, claim my sister's husband as "blood kin" - if there is a genetic relationship it is very, *very* distant.

Since you asked: The story came down the route of the Relationship path. There is no way for my father his brother in law and possible 1/2 brother to have known the insider information on Robert Phiillips son of Anne Perrott phillips who did not inherit. There was no way for him to know about The Quaker Perrott or more importantly the Italian FAmily with matching DNA the Scarfones.

We hear what we hear as history growing up, and he said his mother drilled him on all of the family connections as a child...and recounted about 40 names that I was able to recollect because i was 28 and using a Mnemonic system connecting the family names to my own experience.

So that's all you need to understand...there is a logical way for the story to have come down to me....I know none of you believe me...but clearly Im finding one piece at a time. Thank you for asking and not throwing epithets.

My Uncle is blood related I just don't know how....My grandfather was married 3 times and has 3 sets of children....My uncle could also be a cousin, that's the impression that I got from DAD....there are even closer reasons to claim him but I can't speak of them for the living are still vulnerable....You do get that?

If you can't prove it, it doesn't count. That's the bottom line.

You know, Dale, you keep saying there was "no way" your father could have known this, or this, or this - but you had (have?) a genealogist in your own family who *could* have known and mentioned these things. One, moreover, who is known to have spoken with your father about "the family history".

I don't suppose you want to look too closely at that, which is hardly surprising.

By the way, what *is* this obsession with incest?

I need to review some relationships: Uncle Ernest is cousin and Grandson of Perratt II and Maurice Berkley. My 3rd cousin Harry Storm Rice Jr. descends from Edward Rice 1734 is 9th great grandson of Lady Jane Pollard (mother of Captain Stuckley) Whom QE 1 dounced as a" Kur Dog". Tacinda Tudor line comes down to the Wilkinson line where they connect with Crosby/to Stevens. The Daughter of John Rice of Dedham marries into the Harrington line at Wilson. And the Earle FAmily is mother my 3rd GGRandfather Edward Rice is a PIMBROOKE and alligns with Wales, Philemon WHALE is a contemporary of John Rice of Dedham and appears in the Rice Blood line CHarity (Derby?) is 13th ggrand daughter of JOhn Lackland (another Horrible man).

The Perratt II line is most definately connected to the Perrott's who are I-1 Haplogroup not the R1b Perrotts which brings up the Down line I-1 similarities of Sutton/Dudley and or Sutton to Perrott at Mary Berkley Pughe....The non royal Tudors are coincidental but the name is Berkley/Puge to Tudor nevertheless.

Further: William and Isabel Marshal are 13th great grandparents of Uncle E. Stevens and therefore part of the Rice family of Nebraska. He's also part of the 12th grandson of Wycliff (bible translator of Puritan fame).

These are connections found here at Geni over 3 years and point to the Person known as John RICE 1624-30 as being the contemporary of John RICE of the Shakespeare Company. The Shakespeare family connects to Stevens line as previously discussed. The 1630 Birth is smack dab in the middle of the TUDOR/ Elizabethan AGE from 1557 to 1603 with the population of England seriously constricted by Plague and the People of East ANGLIA are the in the first full flush of of PURITANISM let lose upon the land as Elizabeth ascends the throne,

I am not responsible for the timing of anything but I do understand no one wants to claim the Orphan John Rice of DEDHAM but me and my Father by Perrott/Perratt ancestory. I have layed out the circumstancial case and the preponderance of the evidence of the connections of the family put them within proximity of the TUDORS from1400 to 1603.

It is what it is....and Im not calling it that ...you are. I am retelling you what I know. I don't like it. but the circumstances are unknown...as to when these people met, or how they became aquainted...It's not incest fyi if a brother in law has children with a non relative....it called an NPE.

Last item: The cousin Rosemary CAnfield worked at the UCLA Library and yes she could have some inromation that was imparted to DAD. She spent very little time with him as a Librarian because she lived in California and Dad stayed in Nebraska/Wyoming where he dabbled in land speculation all his days.
Her research show up in Rice pudding and there is not one word of these issues in that document. So DAD was telling me what had been drilled into him as a child...not something Rosemary Told him. Good night.

MBH: Please do not make this out to be something awful.. My Aunt had no children. IT is not a crime to love someone whom you've never met previously ..and since she was born in Nebraska 1880's and he in Applington IOWA and met IN Washington D.C. as performance Arttist as Eloqutionist. He was a struggling Artist, spending time in Paris at an art school so do imply In---t. That is your word and I ask you not to use it again.

You may want to retract your word MBH.....it's way benieth you and I prefer the administrators strike all such words above. DCR

If it meets the legal definition, it is what it is, regardless of what you think.

You didn't say "stepbrother", which is odd but it happens - and is generally legal. You said (possible) half-brother, which is NOT legal, as far as I know, in most of the world.

There have been a few, rare cases, typically involving adoptees or children of the same sperm donor. This is prima facie grounds for annulment when the relationship is discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_incest (In Iceland, where everyone is related, they have an app which can tell people if they are *too* closely related before they get too involved.)

There is also the possibility that *you* have just committed libel, especially since you admit you're not sure. (Which is a great time to keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keyboard!)

Having William the Marshal as an nth great-grandparent is not all that unusual - the Marshal family seems to be somewhere in everybody's tree who can trace their ancestry back that far. (Old William was a very successful social climber, and his descendants kept it up.)

It's not that "no one wants to claim" John Rice of Dedham, it's that no one has been able to build a paper trail back across the Atlantic. Y-DNA research is not doing any better, no matter what you want to believe it tells you.

If the Oxford and Inns of Court records are correct, there is no "Perrott II" line - because John Perrott II had no children. Oxford, at least, tended to keep tabs on such things, because they needed to know who was a "legacy" of a previous student and who wasn't (much like it is nowadays, in fact).

"These are connections found here at Geni over 3 years and point to the Person known as John RICE 1624-30 as being the contemporary of John RICE of the Shakespeare Company. The Shakespeare family connects to Stevens line as previously discussed. The 1630 Birth is smack dab in the middle of the TUDOR/ Elizabethan AGE from 1557 to 1603"

WTF? That's 27 years after the END of "the TUDOR/Elizabethan AGE". You can't just grab and mash like that, and have people take you *at all* seriously.

The birth date of Shakespeare's John Rice is not known for certain, but he was listed as a "boy player" (i.e. pre-puberty) in 1607, and retired after 1625. Giving him a birth date of c. 1595 would not be too far off the mark. That makes him about a generation older than your "John Rice 1624-30" - which is not what is usually meant by "contemporary".

There is one thing I do not think you have *ever* understood about Geni, and that is, that it is only as good as the people using it, and only as accurate as the information they put in. (Which puts it about on par with the Visitations - which are *known* to be full of errors, omissions, fudges and kludges.)

The participants who led up to John Rice 1630: Sir John Perrott/ Margaret Mercer ap Rhys: Perrott ap Rhys 1598 Mary Berkley Pugh are whom I was speaking of....It's their story I am trying to understnad....I know perfectly well who my 7th ggf is and you refuse to understand it.

Guess what? The word you used is inappropriate. Not my description.

How do you think Oxford can explain John Perrott being in Milford Haven as Pembrokshire journals describes August 1629 salvadging a small french merchant vessel? He's in the correct place at the correct time because he is NOT DEAD....But their preferred method for DISOWNING A PERSON OF POSITON, IS TO DECLARE THEM DEAD. SEE THE WHITE QUEEN WHEN EDWARD IV THREATENS HIS MOTHER CECILY.....IF ONE IS DECLARED DEAD ONE CANNONT INHERIT. SIMPLE QUICK AND EASY.

While you ruminate on the practice of declaring persons alive as DEAD.....

I think you need to understand that the role of searcher (me) is to look, find, and discuss. The role of Curator is not to take sides in an argument, but to offer salient observations on the evidence presented. Thus: Every one here told me that John Perratt II was a figment of my imagination You and other's here were wrong, I found him and now he's listed as the son of Sir John Perrott 1528 and Sybil Johns Perrott.

You all told me that my DNA does not match in any meaningful way the Perrott's named by my father. Again you were wrong, I am listed with 19 other Perrotts at 12/12 and once corrected for genetic drift the matches are expected to move to 23/25 and some 33/37 once the DNA is back.....

You think because people have not yet tested that makes the ones who have tested as not a match....well they will match once variables of time and new participants occur.

So now we get to the real heart of the matter. John Perratt was father of Perrott ap Rice 1598 and the simple truth is you don't like the insider information that Perrott Ap Rice DNA is the DNA of JOHN RICE via unknown mother but the other Perrotts down line are a match so the story is more likely true than untrue.

I left that line of inquiry early on because some were too sensitive to think about it being true. It's you who will not see it as a simple case of NPE in the "PURITAN" community. So stop with the I don't know what Im doing....Indeed when I come to you for answers I get double talk and just go away because we don't want to think outside of a Paper trail...That makes you great at what you do, but I wouldn't rely on your skill to solve a mystery by following the behaviors of people. Have a nice day....while we wait for 67 marker results.

Dale,

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood two important pieces about the Geni platform.

You say above that you are asking Geni to make a decision about your claims.

Not likely. Geni is a platform not a genealogical service. Geni's staff does not examine evidence or verify claims.

And you say that a curator should not take sides in an argument.

Not true. A part of the curators' mission is to keep the tree as free from error and fraud as they can. Curators have a duty to listen impartially to all sides, but then they apply their own expertise to make a decision.

It might also be worth noting that, as far as I can remember, no one ever told you John Perrott didn't exist. Instead, the argument has been and continues to be that you are rolling several different men of the same name into a single person.

You think John Perrot the Oxford student last named in 1583 was the same person as John Perrott, of Paraketo Point. There is an old muddle that supports that, but many problems. For example, John the student seems to have been dead by 1592 when his brother James was their father's only living son. He cannot have been the same John Perrott who was salvaging a merchant vessel in 1629 because if he had been merely declared dead but was still alive he could not have been acting in a public capacity under his real name.

Also, John the student seems to have been a generation older than John the immigrant, who arrived in Virginia in 1623. You still might be able to pull off an argument that he could come to Virginia under his real name after being declared dead in Wales, but then it's not likely he'd be back in Wales in 1629 salvaging a ship.

This is just an example. As you know, the argument become very complicated but the simplest explanation is still the best and most logical. The student, the immigrant, the Quaker, and the ship salvager were four different men with the same name.

I've been trying to disentangle the different John Perrotts from the muddle.

For John Perrott, of Paraketo Point, the Virginia immigrant, I think the most likely origin is the Perritt family in Kent. Nicholas Perritt, of Cliffe (Kent) had his will probated Jan. 1629/30 by widow Mary. Immigrant "John Parratt" arrived in Virginia 1621 as a servant of Daniel Gookins. Gookins was born at Ripple (Kent). Cliffe and Ripple are 56 miles apart, but both coastal towns in Kent.

This Daniel Gookins returned to Ireland and died there a few years later. However, one of his sons settled in Massachusetts. This is one of the few documented cases of a family in both Mass. and Virginia. It's probably just a coincidence but one of Edmund Rice's sons, David, bought land in Mass. from Samuel Gookin.

Sir John Perrott who plundered a cargo of wheat from a small Spanish ship off the coast of Milford Haven in 1629 is a mystery.

The fact he was a knight tells us he was not the same person as John Perrott the Virginia immigrant or John Perrott the Quaker.

John Perrott the immigrant received land in Virginia in 1635. It's unlikely he would have been a knight without being named as a knight in the record. John Perrot the Quaker is first mentioned in 1656. Also unlikely he would not have been mentioned as a knight if he was.

I haven't been able to identify any other Sir John Perrott, except the famous one who claimed to be a son of Henry VIII. He was dead by 1629, so it wasn't him.

That Sir John had sons John (the student) and James. It's interesting that this James was a knight (1603) and Deputy Vice Admiral for South Wales at the time the Spanish ship was taken. In 1630 the Calendar of State Papers says he had been Deputy for the past three years lists an account of his takings (of ships and cargo), together with a petition from two deputies who ask for respite from an accounting "nothing having fallen with them worthy of consideration".

In short, I think our secondary source (Wrecks of Pembrokeshire) has a typo here. The salvager of this cargo was probably Sir James Perrot, not Sir John Perrott. As Deputy Vice Admiral Sir James would have been actively pursuing pirates and smugglers, as well as investigating and salvaging wrecks. His detailed biography shows him investigating and serving on commissions in this capacity.

In 1629 the Calendar of State Papers shows two more documents. Now Sir James has been Deputy Vice Admiral for 18 years. He is complaining about a commission that is overvaluing the casualties [wrecks] "so as to surcharge the petitioner"

Sir James was also a member of the Virginia Company from before 1620 but I'm not seeing anything in his biography to suggest he played an active role in its settlement or had relatives there.

Just in case I'm wrong about the ship's salvager being Sir James Perrott, here's another lead -- the Calendar of State Papers for 1630 shows a letter from the garrison at Portsmouth appointing John Perratt (not Sir John) to handle with their petition to the king. This John Perratt was part of the garrison and was perhaps the commander. Later entries show this was a pay dispute, with the garrison arguing that they were not just "common soldiers and garrison men, but townsmen of Portsmouth" so they should have the same liberties and not just 8d. a day from the king.

Anybody who uses a work of fiction to support their genealogical claims, has forfeited all credibility.

Im in the hunt for the declaration of death on JohnPerratt II 1565. If it exists, I will find it. If not...then it's a dead end. So Shoot me! MBH.

Sir JOhn Perrott was dead 1592....anything after that with Sir in front of it is a typo...I fully agree Justin.

Sir James was an investor in the Virginia which I brought up 6 months ago. His only heir was a daughter and she and her husband never proved up on the inheritance by paying the fileing fees and lost it all. No one in Virginia to carry the name on. The cousins in Virgina were from North Leigh is my reading and not the same family. AND yes , I do have I1 Drakes in the family named for Frances Drake...but not THE Francis Drake. He's listed as 23/25 match on family tree.

By the way, Dale, you got caught out again. Don't make up stuff that can be easily checked - you owe your uncle, and the rest of us, an apology.

Customer Service

This discussion should probably be closed.

Just one member's opinion.

You can sputter all you wish, I owe you nothing....my information is incomplete and Im looking for all the pieces. Right here.

Benjamin: You close it by leaving the discussion. It's voluntary, remember.

No Dale, Customer Service closes the Discussion.

Do we have someone to provide a Third request to close?