Living descendants of Edward IV?

That is very interesting Maven. It's funny, now that they have found Richard's bone's they are consumed and obsessed with digging up the bones of other royals and diverging upon the dna analysis? The saying that "People want to know" could never be more true. So sad about the Princes in the Tower and to think those adorable children suffered such atrocities. I hope they find the right bones and put it to rest and the poor boys to rest in a dignified manner as well as Stephen of Blois.
I had to look him up and am curious as to why he is listed as the half Brother of another Stephen Kind of England? He also has no photo or descendants listed? http://www.geni.com/path/Wanda+is+related+to+Stephen-of-Blois-King-...

Three duplicate profiles, at least. Fixable, maybe, if you get the right Curator on it.

Merged.

One reason there is so much official objection to retesting the "Princes'" bones is that they have no idea what to do if they turn out *not* to be genuine.

Stephen is my 24th GGF - now, I'm getting a pink bar at the top that says "Relationship can't be found" (haven't seen that before)?

I think the path changed. Try redoing it - I did a reverse path check and got: Linda Wellman is Stephen I, King of England's 24th great granddaughter.

Thanks, Maven! Yes, this is one of those multiples.

Dale C. Rice, are these your great grandparents?

Walter C. Collins and wife Phoebe Jane Collins.

Think carefully before you answer. If they are, you'll end up as my 7th cousin ;)

Same path my ancestors took -- Virginia to Ohio to Muncie Indiana to Atchison Co Missouri to Iowa to Neligh Nebraska.

I'm still developing the line but it's close enough now for you to look at. It would give you a royal descent from Louis VI of France, and from a French half-sister of Henry III of England.

I have Walter Collins and Jane Collins of Muncie, In: parents of my maternal grandmother: Esther Collins-Cookston 1886.

I told you that you looked like a TUDOR...LOL Don't think I can take any more Royals under my wing. I have a dopple ganger there in Muncie, weighs about 100lbs more than me he is a Collins.

That Walter and Jane lived in Muncie. And, they had a daughter Esther Mabel Cookston who looks like she could be your grandmother. We can merge them into your line if you want, or leave them separate for now.

By all means, merge. I've had the print out on HenryIII for a while, not the half sister, what's her name?

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+Isabelle-d-Angou...

Alice de Lusignan
http://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+Alice-de-Lusigna...

Justin: Note the same family de Grey connects to John Perratt II 1565 and John Rice of Dedham 1624. two links:

httphttp://www.geni.com/path/Thomas-de-Grey+is+related+to+John-Perratt?...

http://www.geni.com/path/Thomas-de-Grey+is+related+to+John-Rice?fro...

It should be obvious to you that the same family is working within known cousin lines to find and marry the Children of John Rice of Dedham. John Perratt II 1565 is the common Linkage. He shares the correct family Name with 20 members of the Perrott family having lower level agreement to JOhn RICE of Dedham. He's one step differnt from my own 37 marker test and that is toward the Perrott family alleles. This can be repeated for every one of the children of John RICE of Dedham...they will all lead to John Perratt II 1565, DISOWNED Son of Sir John PERROTT.

Further: There is now one member of the Perrott family listed on the Dudley site. Meaning that as more people are tested, my so called EXTINCT LINE will have more of a chance of filling in the voids with new members being tested all the time. my 30/37 agreement on Sutton will become no more than 60/67 or better than 91% agreement when the tests results come back because there is so little variation in markers 38-67. Oliver Dudley has only 3 single steps of variation 38-67 with the Two Robert Suttons H 1956 and H1957....Which means if my results are 60/67 we will have 4 names spanning Sutton/Dudley/Rice DNA. That's a finding no one would have expected but my Father. The female remains unknown as there is no way to prove she's a Tudor exceptthat Lettice Dudley mothter is a suspected Tudor, Catherine Carey.

Dale, you have a REAL problem posting web links. You keep messing them up so that they can't possibly work. Please be more careful.

As for your paths, those are NOT direct blood relationships and they don't prove a thing. Pick any two profiles on Geni - ANY TWO at random - and you will probably find some kind of connection between them. (I'm a 96th cousin of someone in China, for instance.)

Dale, your 67-marker results are in. Have you looked at them?

Drum roll please...........................and the results of the 67-marker show.............

i don't think we need to know results.. It won't work in dale's favor anyway

Justin: I was on the site this afternoon...not back then. Just Now at 10:27 I get an error message: Page not available. You can privately notify me if you wish...as we all know Im not the EXPERT in interpretation here. DCR

Dale, your results are publicly viewable at any of the project pages where you're a member. For example:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/rice/default.aspx?section=yres...

Okay: They are in and EXACTLY as I predicted 3 months ago I am 2 single steps in variation with the Sutton I-1 LeTeuton group which includes John Neville, and 3 single step with Perrott family group of Virginia: Lawrence and Robert. above Marker 38-67.

The total variation amongst all the Perrott members at Robert and Lawrence are within 1 step across the first 27 markers. This is more than convergence Justin.

Statistically there are no more than a total of 33 steps of variation across 4700 markers tested or 7-8%. That means to me that John Rice is a member of the Sutton-LeTuton group by an accuracy of better than 91 or 92%.

What nonsense! Dale, I don't mean to be rude but did you even look at the numbers??

13 22 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 13 11 29 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 22 28 12 13 15 15 10 10 19 21 14 14 1416 21 35 37 12 10 Le Tutan 927 AD

13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 22 16 20 28 12 14 15 15 11 09 19 21 16 15 13 16 18 35 35 11 10 Sutton 104268

13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 21 16 20 28 12 14 15 15 11 09 19 21 15 14 15 19 19 35 35 11 10 Sutton, Rbt.

13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 22 16 20 26 12 14 15 16 11 09 196 21 John Neville

13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 25 15 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 28 12 14 15 16 11 10 19 21 14 13 16 18 35 35 11 10 JR/ DCR

13 22 14 10 13 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 29 12 14 15 16 10 10 19 21 14 13 16 18 35 35 11 10 James Phillips 164901

13 22 14 10 14 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 29 12 14 15 16 10 10 196 21 14 16 16 17 33 37 12 10 Richard Phillips

13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 10 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 29 12 14 15 15 10 10 19 21 14 16 16 17 35 35 11 10 John Sutton

13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 111 28 15 8 9 8 11 22 16 20 26 12 14 15 16 11 09 19 21 15 14 17 20 35 36 12 10 Robt. Perrott son of John Perrott the Quaker?

You may rule him out as individual to down line people, but the upline ancestors DNA show these men to be connected by a common ancestor. We know him as JOHN PERRATT 1565. A Sutton-Dudley (do show me a Robert Dudley descendant!) Which leads to down line Rice and Perrott's...They all connect by insider information at Phillips to Perratt II and Perratt to Rice. Scarfone is not ruled out because of one family that tested Sir....there are other's out there who have not tested. They are part of the testimony and my Father's testimony is now shown here in DNA values that you can throw out if you want to...But I say there is enough smoke in the air over these results and the markers above 38-67 to have this throughly examined. Do what you wish.

Dale,

In the "Sutton group" you are now at a distance of 11 from Robert Sutton, 13 from Webster, 14 from Thomas Sutton, 16 from Oliver Dudley, 16 from Balderich le Teuton, and 18 from William Dudley.

In the Perrott group you are now at a distance of 15 and 16 from two descendants of Lawrence Parrott.

For Santa Scarfone, you are now at a distance of 16.

Now go look at FTDNA's guide to interpreting results:
https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/y-dna-testing/y-str/two-men-sha...

At a distance of 10 or 11, you are "not related within the genealogical time frame. The odds greatly favor that the two men have not shared a common male ancestor within thousands of years."

At a distance of 12 and above, you are "totally unrelated within the genealogical time frame on their direct paternal line. Their shared ancestry is deeply anthropological and dates to the common African heritage of the human race."

This isn't just me making up numbers arbitrarily to yank your chain. This is directly from the testing company that did your test.

There is no room for evasion here. If you want to construct a valid proof, you have to follow the rules that make it a proof. You can't change the rules and have it still prove what you say it does.

You have disproved your father's story. I'm disappointed you've decided not to follow through on your promise to give up if your results didn't come back with "a distance of 5 or 6".

The one place you still have a chance of something is with James Phillips. He doesn't match the Phillips family of Picton Castle, so maybe you don't care.

But, you just went from a distance of 3 at 37 markers to 7 at 67 markers. That puts you in an ambiguous area where you might be related or not. If you are, "it is likely that these two lines are related through distant family lines", not recently.

Agreed! He's I-1 per the insider information of Anne Phillips son Robert born 8 years prior to the Heir of Picton Castle.

FACTS are what they are: I have to adjust to every new insight since I didn't have a comprehensible story to begin with. The FACT is I never knew of them or how they related....and neither did any of you. As you eliminate down line Perrott's you simply move the common ancestor back a generation or two allowing for statistical differences.

If you do as I suggested page 4 and simply allow 4 single step mutations, one for every 100 years between 1528 and 1948 you get to the numbers I assumed would show themselves as Genitic Drift.

For the last time: The facts are changing the combination to unlock this mystery which is now down to a group that includes I-1 Phillips downline from Suttons. All the values fall within the modal values of each site for all these men. I saw that and pointed to it....not anyone here. It is my belief that the Scarfone family when they do test will show up in the correct group.

I'll let go of Robert Sutton if you'll find me one descendant of Sir Robert dudley so we can check Apples for Apples. My method eliminates the weak linkage to find the combination which should point us toward the truth...."IF THE STORY WAS TRUE"....Can you all just understnd we going backward not forward from known positions? Pretty please, grant me that much respect for a methodology none of you have accepted from day one. Thanks, Peace out.

Dale

Whom do you mean by "Sir Robert dudley" please?

Places & dates, spouse if you know it, please, if you cannot post a profile link.

For reminder, several known American progenitors are listed on this page:

https://www.geni.com/projects/Dudley-Families-of-America-and-their-...

Facts ARE what they are, Dale, and *you are refusing to face them*.

Justin told you the score. You have MORE than single-step mutations - in some places you have as many as THREE steps on the same marker. You are not allowing for multiple-step differences, and are pretending that they are "just one" step or not there at all, handwaving them away any which way you can.

You are closing your eyes and your mind to the math, because you would rather go with your gut. Fine. Your prerogative. But don't try to present your gut feelings as "proof" of anything on a collaborative genealogical site.

I think he means the Earl of Leicester, Queen Elizabeth I's favorite. He has never really let go of the idea that they made a secret son between them who is his "real" ancestor and all the others he has offered have been "substitutes".

Dale, this is what you said:

"If you do as I suggested page 4 and simply allow 4 single step mutations, one for every 100 years between 1528 and 1948 you get to the numbers I assumed would show themselves as Genitic Drift."

That's what I'm talking about when I say you can't change the rules and think you still have a valid proof.

For whatever reason, you like the idea that there are 4 mutations every 100 years. There is a rule of thumb that says 1 mutation every 100 years. I think that's where you got your version.

But, when you get the hard numbers about *total* number, those are more authoritative than any rule of thumb.

And, when you run the numbers through a distance calculator that takes into account the different mutation rates for different markers, you get an even more accurate result.

Dale, we started with a story that everyone thought was improbable but unprovable. Through your perseverance we're now at a point where we don't have to just say it's improbable, we can actually say you DISPROVED it. Yay! You've accomplished something very few genealogists have been able to do, even with modern tools

That sound you hear in the background is the last nails being driven into the coffin.