Living descendants of Edward IV?

Since understanding the sequence of events and who was married to whom and when we get some Idea of the relevence of the Birth order of Perrott ap Rice, first Born of Margaret Mercer 1580 who married Thomas ap Rhys 1570 in 1598. The number of children she bore between 1610 Death and the marriage date is fairly assumed she was with child in 1598 when she wed and gave birth to Perrott named for the father John Perratt as the family aural history suggests.

Unless you embrace the idea of the history being true, you cannot possibly fathom the approach I have taken to prove or disprove the story. At long last we have a sequence of birth with Margaret ap Rhys (Pricilla if you wish) and the only person who could have a child in 1630 was Perrott's Wife. I notion I had at first embraced then abandoned because the young girl pregnancy did not fit anywhere else.

Now that we are back to Margaret ap Rice wife of Perrott ap Rice as being the one who had to give the child up....we understand the word used by my father: "ROW in the Rice Family". What happend to this child by Perratt II? I'll check to see if he enrolls in the Ministry at Oxford.

Dale, that is EXACTLY the problem. You are trying to bully and bludgeon us into accepting that yours is The One And Only Absolutely Real Turth, and *everything* else - including mountains of documentation as high as Mount Snowdon - is all cover-up and lies.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Let me remind you there is one FATAL flaw in your theory, and I mean that quite literally. John Perrott II was *DEAD* by 1598.

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/pe... "However, in February 1594 Sir Thomas [Perrott - the only surviving legitimate son of Sir John Perrott I] died without male issue, *leaving James as his father’s sole surviving son.*" (Emphasis added.) "Under normal circumstances, Perrot would now have inherited his family’s estates without difficulty, but his illegitimacy posed a significant impediment to his smooth succession. Three months after the death of Sir Thomas, the latter’s widow, Dorothy, obtained a grant from the queen of those lands she claimed as her jointure.35 Emboldened by this success, Dorothy and her new husband, Henry Percy, 9th earl of Northumberland, subsequently laid title to additional properties. Perrot’s difficulties were aggravated by Thomas Perrot of London, a descendant of a younger brother of Perrot’s paternal grandfather. Like Dorothy, Thomas claimed title to the Perrot estates, and although he sometimes acted in concert with Perrot against Dorothy his ambitions were ultimately incompatible with those of Perrot himself.36"

Sir James was the *younger* brother of John Perrott II. Not only was there no claim from John, there was none from any wife or on behalf of any child. Q.E.D., R.I.P.

I know what it says, but being dead on paper is not the same as being really dead. If so which John Perrott was in Havorford West plundering a small French Merchant ship in August 1629according to Pembrokshire Journals?

We are here because John Perratt 1565 had relations with Margaret Rice 1604? Yes? We have explained the paterninty of John Rice 1630. No? Then the Down line of John Rice 1630 could not exist, yet we do and say he was declaired dead for cause of MISBEHAVIOR.

@Edward IV is my 15th GreatGrandfather. Ragnar "Lodbrok" Sigurdsson is my 32nd GreatGrandfather. They are both on my paternal side.

Pull the other leg, Dale, it's got bells on. Your tale was wildly improbable enough already, and you want to add MORE impossible stuff to it?

You've already been told that You. Cannot. Just. Declare. People. Dead.

It. Does. Not. Happen.

(Not in real life, at least. In historical and fantasy fiction you can get away with a lot more, but the key word is FICTION.)

It is *highly* probable that John Perrott was dead within six months of his applying to the Inns of Court - London can be a *very* unhealthy place for the unseasoned.

As of early 1584, Sir John Perrott (the original) was going through all kinds of circuses trying to get his illegitimate son James - his *youngest* son James - acknowledged and placed in a position where he could be a secondary heir. "[O]n 29 May 1584 his father, who was then about to leave for Dublin, formally acknowledged him. Sir John instructed that his property should descend to those of his own blood and name, or at the least ‘to such of his name as he liketh and careth for’,30 and provision was made for James to inherit a valuable parcel of land outside Haverfordwest known as Prior’s Hill.31 Six years later [1590], Sir John reaffirmed his intention to provide for his illegitimate son after learning that the conveyance of 1584 had failed to settle upon James the remainder to his estates. Accordingly, a fresh assurance was drawn up, to which lord treasurer Burghley (William Cecil†) and Sir Henry Cobham (Henry Cobham alias Brooke I†) were signatories.32"

No one mentioned son John . No one seems to have thought twice about John. If he was not dead by the end of March 1584, he was *surely* deceased by 1590, as Sir John Perrott was down to one legitimate son (William, his younger legitimate son, having died in 1587). Then, if ever, was the time to bring his other sons - if he had more than one left - into the succession as far as he could manage it. But it was all about James. Only James. The conclusion is obvious.

The single record concerning John Perrott, "third son" of Sir John, states explicitly that he "d.s.p." (decessit sine prole, died without offspring). No other unequivocal records later than 1583 - *none* - have ever been found.

There were other John Perrotts, in Carmarthenshire and elsewhere, in the 1620s. And Sir *James* was on active anti-piracy duty since 1608: "commr. admty. causes 1608,9 inquiry into lands belonging to his father 1610;10 dep. v.-adm. S. Wales for Pemb., Card., Carm. c.1611-d.,11 commr. levying mises, Pemb. 1612,12 subsidy, Haverfordwest 1622,13 piracy causes, S. Wales 1623,14 Irish wreck, Pemb. 1623,15 subsidy arrears, Haverfordwest 1626,16 Forced Loan, Pemb. 1627;17 ?col. militia ft. Pemb. c.1627;18 commr. knighthood fines, Pemb. 1630,19 wreck inquiry 1631,20 exacted fees, Pemb., Carm., Card. 1635."

Wreck inquiries in 1623 and 1631 suggest that it was probably Sir James (erroneously referred to as "Sir John" - there was no other John Perrott who had been knighted) who was wreck-hunting in 1629.

"We" are not here for any reason but to ascertain the facts as best we can. YOU apparently are here to spout wild and implausible-to-impossible tales and demand that everyone else accept them with no proof whatsoever other than your say-so.

YOU reject any possible origin for your line other than this bizarre fantasy. YOU refuse to look for any other source. YOU keep rejecting any explanations that do not mesh with your fantasy. YOU keep running up blind alleys, and getting angry and abusive when other people refuse to run their heads into YOUR stone walls.

It's not that I'm against speculation in the absence of hard data - I've done it myself. We all have. It's that the speculation must be at least minimally *plausible*, and not be flatly contradicted by known facts.

Take Frances White Wells (please) Frances Wells. It is at least marginally plausible that she could be the daughter of Sir Richard Whyte Richard Whyte, IV by his first wife Anne Gray Anne White, and have been sent to Virginia as an adolescent or young adult "for safety".

What is downright *impossible* is that she could have been the daughter of his *second* wife - that would have made her far too young. All indications are that the Frances from Sir Richard's second marriage Frances Petre accompanied the rest of the family in 1642 to Paris and thence to Rome, not returning until well after the Restoration (when it was clear that England was once again safe for Catholics, if they kept a very low profile).

Are we playing calvinball again?

London as a disease pit: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/londondisease.html

"From a disease standpoint, Shakespeare was living in arguably the worst place and time in history. Shakespeare's overcrowded, rat-infested, sexually promiscuous London, with raw sewage flowing in the Thames, was the hub for the nastiest diseases known to mankind."

Maven, thanks for bringing up that elusive "Sir John Perrott" who was salvaging the Spanish ship in 1629.

Dale originally agreed it was a typo, but I knew it wouldn't be long before that guy was back as a key part of the story.

I neglected to post about it, but I was able to find that this "Sir John" was really Sir James. And, of course, it makes sense it would be James. He was Deputy Vice Admiral, so this type of operation would have been part of his job.

The Calendar of State Papers shows the correct name.

17 February 1629
CXXXVI.10. Sir James Perrott to John Thorowgood, secretary to William Earl of Pembroke. Sent of late to the Earl for directions for a ship at Llanelly, which will be lost if not looked to. Now sends a letter respecting a Spanish carvel arrived at Milford Haven, laden with wheat, whereof some perished with the storm, and the rest will be spoiled by the country people, if present order be not given to save and sell it. Inclosed,

10.1. Note of the contents of the Spanish carvel above mentioned, with the names of the principal country people who had plundered the wreck.

17 April 1629
CXLI.3 Account of Sir James Perrott, as Deputy Vice Admiral under the Earl of Pembroke for cos. Pembroke, Carmarthen, and Cardigan, of wrecks and prizes recently brought within his jurisdiction, and what had been received on account thereof.

18 April 1629 Haroldstone.
CXLI.9 Sir James Perrott to Nicholas. Returns the Commission for the Spanish carvel which came into Milford Haven laden with corn. A small French bark has been brought into Tenby, the right to which does not appear. He has caused her to be stayed. If there is not a fair account made of the ship at Llanelly, some other course must be taken.

https://books.google.com/books?id=KCYMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA523&lpg...

Frustrating that we have to keep doubling back to say, "No, we already went through this."

We've (the group over time) been through everything and then some . . .

I was thinking today that this information changes the part of the story where John Perrott steals a ship to take the young John Rice to America.

Then I thought (again) that it's maybe a little curious that Dale's story is broadly similar to another story from Puritan New England.

According to a story published in NEHGR (1850), Sir Anthony Stoughton was a very strict Puritan and served in the Parliamentary army. In 1644, when he was dying, he sent his daughter Rose Stoughton (age 15) to America for safety during the Civil War in the care of his cousin Capt. Israel Stoughton, of Dorchester, Mass. Sir Anthony kept his son Nicholas (age 10) in England. Nicholas grew up to become the 1st Stoughton baronet, while Rose married a blacksmith and spent her life in New Hampshire.

Some parts of this story seem doubtful, but I haven't researched it.

I think it was Erica who pointed out that parts of Dale's story could have come from different parts of his ancestry and been erroneously combined.

Stories about a child being sent to America for safety are probably a dime a dozen in family traditions, but every time I hear this part of Dale's story it always makes me wonder, even if just for a second, whether Dale might be descended from the Stoughtons.

Looking at the Choices you outlined last page Justin: I1-a2b haplogroup which includes Perrott the Quaker, and Scarfone families, would make more sense for my line....since we know that Perrott ap Rice 1598 disappeared and began life again (anew) after 1640 per the Aural history.

In fact that was exactly what my father indicated in 1978," the Writer of religious Phamphlets went to Italy to convert the Pope and got thrown in jail there." Plenty of time for a Quaker Conversion 1640-1654. Later, He was transferred to Bedlam, where he was allowed personal visitations by friendly locals, the Scarfone woman and continued to publish his Pamphlets earning the IRE of George Fox. He was relaesed by his connection to Sir John Perrott 1528 who was then believed to be 1/2 Tudor and 1/2 brother to former Queen Elizabeth...Enough for a jittery Pope to cut him lose.

Since Perrott ap Rice 1598 would have to be fathered by a descendant of Sir John Perrott 1528 we have to look to Sir John's sons. William was a church organis no heirs, Thomas died before his father, leaving James Perrott son of Sybil Johns to have issue with Margaret Mercer daughter of Wm. Mercer, Wool wholesaler. If John II is dead as you insist, that means Sir John's Perrott Son James/Thomas/or Williiam would be the father of Perrott ap Rice 1598. son James, is local Puritan Big Wig, and son of Sybil Johns would be naturally aquainted with the local Mercer Family. I'll check with Tenby Historical Society to see if there is a contribution to St. Marys from Sir James Perrott. I'll let you know.

Someone paid for the passage of an 11 year old young boy named JOhn RICE in 1640...William & Thomas Perrott were dead as was Sir John 1528. So that means Sir James Perrott the big time Puritan leader in Pembrokshire...and credentials /connections to Puritan clergy, could certainly have sired a boy named John Rice with Perrott ap Rice's Wife Margaret/ Pricilla Littleton or Perrott ap Rice the descendant of Sir john got the puritan Woman (what's her name with child as my father said. Either way, we have a potential pathway for DNA to match the Scarfone/and downline Perrott's of N.Leigh/Devon......and he would also be in a position to pay the lavish homage for her troubles when she passed in child bed 1610. There must surely be a record of that sizable contribution for her marble tomb in Tenby?

Re: "Someone paid for the passage of an 11 year old young boy named JOhn RICE in 1640."

I need to point a few errors in this sentence, starting with his age.

Every "authority" I have read estimates the birth date of John Rice of Dedham as 1624, not 1630. This is based on our first record of him marrying in 1649, and he would have been of legal age, as he had no guardian or other surety for being under 21.

Previously we went into a rather detailed look at "ages of first marriage" in this period. It is known information as a generality, even if we don't have birth records (and often we don't and never will).

In fact I have a table in front of me from Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America (Google eBook) David Hackett Fischer
Oxford University Press, Oct 19, 1989 - Social Science - 972 pages. Page 76:

https://books.google.com/books?id=wWDugJTHHAwC&lpg=PP1&pg=P...

And the very top item:

Marriages in Dedham
Marriage cohort (1640-90)
Men: 25.5
Women: 22.5

So ... It looks like the "experts" long before us who estimated birth dates of 1624 & 1628 for John Rice & Ann Hackley, respectively, were validated by contemporary sophisticated historians ...

For John & Ann to have been admitted to the church at Dedham they needed references or to have been known. The average age for indenture as an apprentice was about age 11 for 5-7 years, and the ship passenger lists from the Great Migration which have survived certainly indicate "servants" accompanying families.

Who would, of course, have paid passage fees for their apprentices.

Re: "I think it was Erica who pointed out that parts of Dale's story could have come from different parts of his ancestry and been erroneously combined."

Here's a couple of thoughts.

Dale - you've mentioned that your father was drilled in his family history by his mother. But wouldn't that have been HER family history? How would she know her husband's?

If you let go of the idea that some of the elements & themes are from the name "Rice," you have a much wider playing field, and you won't have to twist around trying to reconcile disparate elements (such as Tudors & Puritans, which can hardly be put together in the same sentence).

Arrivers to Virginia were "far more likely" to have been -

- Welsh
- Cavaliers
- on unknown / unrecorded ships
- smuggling children
- Name changing

Than staid & recorded New England.

And arrivers via Barbados ... Hey, who knows, all sorts of strange things.

I offer this as a way to pursue the faces that amaze you through a different pathway.

Your grand mother's.

I checked out Dale's father's mother's line. Pennsylvania German all the way. No opportunities for anything exotic.

What that leaves is that she *did* somehow learn her husband's ancestry (via "By the Name of Rice"?) and "drilled" it into her son.

Just thought I'd mention that Emma Siggins White was a lot prouder of the "illustrious ancestry" she cobbled together for her husband than she was of her own.

Dale, you're getting muddled with the DNA, the different Perrott families and the chronology for John Perrott the Quaker.

You say I1a2b is the group for both Scarfone and John the Quaker, but that's not true. It's the group for Scarfone, but there is no DNA for the Quaker. Probably never will be, because his only proven children are two daughters. Geni shows a son Robert, but Robert seems to belong to one of the Virginia Parrotts.

You need to remember that the evidence so far shows that these are all different Perrott families. Virginia immigrants Lawrence Parrott and Francis Parrott belonged to different families. Virginia immigrant John Perrott has no known DNA, but probably belonged to the family at Kent, not the family at Tenby. Quaker John Perrott might have belonged to the Tenby family, but his DNA is unknown and the DNA for the Tenby family is also unknown.

It's not possible to string them all together and still come up with a credible theory. It's a large, 3-dimensional puzzle. If one piece doesn't fit, none of it holds together.

This shows the limitations of trying to use intuition to solve this kind of question. The mathematical odds are 2 to 1 that you belong to PF49, a different subgroup than any of the people you're trying to match. We talked about that here:

http://www.geni.com/discussions/143282?msg=1015829

There is a chance you could belong to one of two other subgroups, but if you do, you're still left with only the Scarfone piece. It won't have done anything to prove a Perrott connection.

In the end, you face the problem that there is no DNA scenario using existing data that will prove what you want to prove. At every turn, you run into the problem that there is either no DNA to compare or the available DNA works to disprove some part of your theory.

When it comes to John Perrott the Quaker, I don't think you're remembering he was the same generation as John Rice.

John Rice first appears in Dedham (Mass) in 1649 when he got married. John Perrott the Quaker first appears in Ireland in 1656 when he was a Quaker preacher.

You say "Plenty of time for a Quaker Conversion 1640-1654" but George Fox didn't begin preaching publicly until 1647 and the first known Quaker meeting in Ireland was in 1654. It would be reasonable to put John Perrott's conversion at about 1654-55, not earlier.

He went to Rome to convert the Pope in 1657, and was released in 1661. You think a "jittery Pope" released him because of his connection to a half-brother to the former Queen.

That's quite a stretch. Sir John the courtier who had been dead for 69 years. His descendants were just another minor political family. The king in 1661 was newly restored Charles II. Neither pope nor king had any reason to be nervous about a Tudor bastard.

No one knows anything about the ancestry of John the Quaker. There is plausible speculation he might have been an illegitimate descendant of Sir John. If so, probably a grandson or great grandson, judging from his dates.

I Thank you Ms Erica for your valuable insights. You are correct that my father's mother was a Third Wife and likely gave him her side of the PEDIGREE. Andrew being often away doing business was far more likely to have given instruction in manly arts, husbandry, and investing.

My father was preoccupied with breeding registered livestock race horses, and the times were rife with talk of Pedigree's in the late 19th century as American money was flowing Back to England in the form of American Heiress marrying a poor Titled sons of England to flesh out family dynasties & the hopes thereof.

By the Name of Rice would have been published 1910? So my father would have been reading on his own by then. Clara's daughter, Maud, Dad's sister did marry into the grandson line of William Marshall, Edward IV and the Wicliffe translator of the English Bible, which Anne Bolyne used to her demise to pry Henry Tudor away from the Roman Church. The point being that my Mother's pedigree was always a source of contention between Maude and herself...One very Grand, and the other not so much.

( just incase you missed this, the Chalfant's emigrated to Pen. and were aborard ship with Wm. Penn and bought 600 acres from him.)

The descriptor my father used was lifed from that infamous book, but he did not mean Sir Rhys ap Thomas, he meant Sir John Perrott 1528...and his various sons were used to a kind of Lawless "prince of the City " that modern day Police Officers have to contend with...being above the Law.

I will spend whatever is needed to get to the bottom of the DNA linkage, as I said earlier, many times before...the convolutions, were confusing then and hard to keep track of then and now. The Pruitt line does connect to Perrott exactly as Dad said...They just don't connect to Rice.

Yes Justin: It's perfectly Clear, I and John Rice line are the First to claim this affiliation to the Sir JOhn Perrott's....and hence the lack of tested subjects in the world works to my disadvantage. But I predict we will not be the last. My name will be forever linked to the search because I brought the question here for examination, out in the OPEN!!...and the picture will emerge over time. DCR

I wouldn't say it works to your disadvantage. It puts the burden back on the paper trail, which is also absent.

If I were doing a project like this, I'd take care that every piece of DNA evidence is meticulously presented so there would be no thought of sloppy work.

That's the challenge you have here. You've shifted the emphasis away from the relative safety of the fact that DNA can't disprove your theory with the existing data, to trying to force the pieces to fit in a way you think DNA will prove it. Then, when you run into problems you have nowhere to turn.

I don't think you realize that you're trying to reinvent the wheel. There are some very standard ways of testing the kind of theory you have. Join the I1 project. Order a few SNP tests to get your exact place on the I1 tree. Run the Cullen predictor for your theoretical matches. And then, when you really have firm bearings, start exploring other possibilities. A far different process than jumping all over, claiming to have discovered relationships that can be easily disproved.

Dale,

It's been killing me not to say anything, but I finally have permission to say this much -- if what I'm hearing is true, you're about to be blown out of the water on the Tudor connection. Maybe another 6 or 8 months.

Who are they trying to dig up now? I hear talk that they're searching for the remains of King Stephen - which unfortunately would probably not prove anything with regard to the Angevin, Plantagenet *or* Tudor lines even if all goes spectacularly well.

that was ment as a sarcastic joke not a personal attack..

Michael, before you post please ask yourself whether you will be contributing something to the discussion. Is it new information that has a bearing on the problem? Is it information that would tend to disprove or cast doubt on information that has been presented? Is it something that draws on your research experience that might suggest another avenue of investigation?

If not, it's probably off topic.

i was joking with maven and it was on topic.. she was asking who they were trying to dig up from the grave now. How is saying we should dig up jesus and examine his dna for the act like a fool gene off topic.. granted it should have be said nicely but...

What do you believe it contributed to the discussion?

Nothing I was trying to break the tenison.. lol.. Anyway I am intrested in this talk she hears about them digging or or trying to find king stephen not that it would build much on what we don't allready know about tudors plantagets etc etc

Info on the King Stephen hunt, from a "royal gossip" website: http://royalcentral.co.uk/royalhistory/plans-unveiled-to-excavate-f...

Meanwhile, Philippa Langley (they've started calling her "Kingfinder General") has announced that she's involved in the hunt for the remains of King Henry I and whatever traces can be found of the abbey at Reading that he founded and where he was buried. http://www.medievalists.net/2015/03/27/philippa-langley-the-end-of-... *That* hunt, if completely successful, would at last reveal to the world what William the Conqueror's genome really was - Henry I was his son.

She'd also like a scientific restudy of the "bones of the Princes in the Tower", but still has to get past the objections of the Queen and others....