Living descendants of Edward IV?

I'll be gone for the next 10 days, hope someone out there is alive! :- ) !

If there *are* any direct male-line descendants of Edward IV, they are by mistresses or one-night stands, and you can bet they kept a very low profile until the last of the Tudors was gone. Otherwise - "off with his head!"

That also goes for any male-line descendants of George Duke of Clarence and of course Richard III....

Ernest E Stevens of the WPA So My uncle is from a female line of descent?

His line is daughter of IV, Eliz. de Lumely to Hilton, to Rich, to Crosby, to Stevens. and his children are 12th ggrandchildren of EDWARD IV. Anyone elese have a female line of descent then?

Maven B. Helms:

These people live, one has 4 12th ggrand children with 4 grandchildren the other sister has 3 children with 4 13th grand children. Making them of interest to some DNA researcher somewhere I would think!?

Dale: They would have to be straight-line male (HIGHLY unlikely) or straight-line female. That far back, autosomal DNA is mostly "noise" and very difficult to prove anything from.

Well, Elizabeth de Lumley was an illegitimate daughter by a woman named WAITE....It's an interesting connection none the less. The straight line descent should be of interest if the Dudley line is ever established which is male to male from 1565. I have to order up a 67 marker test and then see where it fits in either the Dudley or Sutton Family Tree. The Dudley connection is presently at the wife of former govenor Dudley and Rev. Allin of Dedham whom my father named as care givers to John Rice 1630.

Maven: The there are 9 females in blood descent and only two or three which are not blood descended, so perhaps the Mt. DNA message may not be as garbled as we think ......DCR

if it isn't direct mother-to-daughter, the information is LOST. Male offspring *cannot* pass this information on - it is biologically impossible.

By the same token, Y-DNA passes ONLY father-to-son - if the line goes all to daughters, bye-bye Y-DNA.

9 mothers pass their X along to both daughters and sons. The reason I would look is because that's only 1 female missing in the line and part of a message may be gleaned, especially if there is a living link to the 9 females from de Lumley to Hilton to Rich, to Crosby, to Stevens. That is a kind of bottleneck of X information that should be reasonable to look at on a percentage basis since the women are often cousins, as one is in the particular group of women. Just a thought. DCR

Sons. can. not. pass. on. mtDNA. Period.

.

I am not saying Sons pass on Mt. DNA but they do receive it on the only X chromosome they get from their mother. Yes? If they don't receive it how does one discern what Mt. DNA is for a male child? Justin?

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/chromosomes/typesmito/

this says it better than I can. Son's get the Mt. DNA on their X chromosome but cannot pass it along. THERE fore it should be usefull to look at that Mt. DNA in a case where there is only one bread of female to female. The son's X will reflect the 9 serial females in his mothers ancestory. That's my point. DCR

sorry, one BREAK from female to female.

ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY when the son is in the generation being tested.

For instance, my sister, my brother and I all inherited our mother's mtDNA. My sister could and did pass it on (she has a daughter). My brother has a daughter too, but she got *her* mother's mtDNA - not his.

I decided I'd rather raise cats. :-D

Yes, I get that. Now my Origional point was the male Break in a series of 9 females would still have the MT. DNA of all those previous mothers to daughters prior to his receiving his X. If a second female is introduced she would provide her son with a seperate X Mt. DNA. That's why I said It might be useful to look at the Male in that line of women. Now, since the relative of Richard III in Canada was a downline descendent of Richards sister, he must have been the break in mother to daughter mt. X . It seems a shame to have Uncle Ernest an 11th ggrandson of Edward IV to examine but there were two men in this break instead of only one. DCR

Please look at the DNA profile of the below listed Sutton/Dudley/Rice/ Phillips/ and Tudor lines. Genetic Drift brings all of these seemingly unrelated males into a kind of LEADERSHIP or if Prefered ROYAL bloodline.

AND it is instructive to note how the values of one line's drift is brought back into line by looking @ up-line ancestor. So I suppose This is a Bottleneck effect on a founders Group of males due to the effects of the Plague in the 1500's.

The drift is more pronounced in some lines because their numbers are increasing with opportunities to have children increase?

The following DNA footprints show that DNA passed from a line of Vikings to the Sutton's, Non-Royal Tudors, Rice, and Phillips lines Where genetic drifting occurs. Pulling the paternity out of such Data in not possible as a deductive experience at my level of knowledge, but a PHD somewhere will be able to do that: I am willing to bet on it.

1420 Tudor compared to 927AD le Tutan, then T. Sutton Rbt. Sutton & JR

13 22 15 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 14 8 910 11 24 16 20 30 12 1616 16
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
13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 22 16 20 27 12 14 15 15
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
13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 28 12 14 15 16

Lawrence Parrott 1670 Glauster Va., Webster: Adopted/ Sutton
13 22 15 10 13 16 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 9 9 8 11 23 16 20 29 12 14 15 15
13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 9 9 8 11 22 16 20 26 12 141516
Webster Family is part of the Rice's nameing.

1833 Tutor, followed by Richard Phillips J. Phillips Rbt. Phillips, 6 Perrotts

13 23 14 10 14 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 22 16 20 27 12 14 15 15
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
13 22 14 10 13 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 29 12 14 15 15
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
Phillips lines:
Nicholas, Nicodeamus and Freeman Phillips RI ,Richard, James n.c.

13 22 14 10 14 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 29 12 14 15 17
13 22 14 10 14 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 16 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 29 12 14 15 16
13 22 14 10 14 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 16 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 29 12 14 15 16
13 22 14 10 13 1411 14 1112 11 28 (33% chance of common an. 4 gen)
13 22 14 10 13 15 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 29 12 14 15 15

3rd co.Harry Storm Rice is a9th grandson of Lady Jane Pollard/Stuckly
13 22 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 16 8 98 10 23 16 21 28 12 14 14 16
13 21 14 10 13 14 11 16 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 23 16 20 30 12 14 15 16
13 23 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 29 15 7 8 9 11 23 15 20 28 12 14 15 16
Edwardes I-1 unk. Edwards

Wm Davis and Isaac P. Davis are downline of John REECE HUGHES Va.
13 22 14 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 14 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 30 12 14 15 16
13 22 15 10 13 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 16 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 30 12 14 15 16
These values correspond to John Rice of Ma./Perrott ap Rice father/or Perratt II father.

All of these men share a common ancestor: the fartherest back is SUTTON/ le Teutan The inferred linkage is that Sir John Perrott 1528 leads to John Perratt II 1565 is part of the DNA of Sutton/ leading to John Rice 1630 to Webster, to Pollard-Rice to Davis of Virginia per the aural history of my father spoken to me as ORAL history in Oct. 1978

Kindly have someone other than Justin review these DNA profiles and if you find the preponderance of the evidence to be they are likely linded by DNA values as reported the assign the name of John Perratt as Father of John Rice. If Not Perratt then Perrott ap Rice 1598 would be acceptable with unknown mother. Thankyou Dale C. Rice 6th ggrandson of John RICE of Dedham.

Justin Durand as i aluded to before I am a dna beginner can you make sense of this greek for me and seperate the truth from what i'm sure is bull poo? thanks.

Michael, I'm not sure I want to go through this again (and again and again). It's all just nonsense.

Many of these men belong to subgroups that exclude the possibility they're related to each other. Many of the ones who belong to the same subgroup have more extensive results that show they are not closely related.

I know. This is the first time i've seen his numbering though and i was trying to digest it.

Michael (and others): Dale was told flat-out just a few days ago that his "Tudor" from Norway wasn't anything of the kind - he was a sailor named Claus August Jacob who jumped ship in Australia and started calling himself "Christopher Tudor" to keep the law from catching up with him.

This was back in the mid-19th century.

It proves absolutely nothing with regard to the Welsh "Tudor" lineage.

I see. I suspected as much

There are a few legitimate "strange but true" stories out there.

I do not think that Dale's story will turn out to be one of them.

What I DO think is that Dale's Discussions will potentially cause doubt to be cast on every other family history story out there, no matter how feasible, which would be a shame.

Rhetorical.

(and maybe this discussion should be closed too...)

I also went to the trouble of running a spreadsheet on his first five number-sets, and found what I expected: the only two close relationships are between the two Suttons.

"le Tutan" is so far out that his chances of being related to any of the others in any meaningful manner are slim to none. (14 step-differences!)

The Suttons are almost as far off the "1420 Tudor" line as "le Tutan". (13 step-differences, and 8 step-differences from "le Tutan").

JR (John Rice?) has 9 step-differences from "1420 Tudor", 8 from "le Tutan", and 4 (3 on *one* marker!) from the Suttons.

This is with a 25-marker set, and the differences can be expected to widen as more markers are tested.

Conclusions:

"le Tutan" is not related to "1420 Tudor" in any meaningful sense (maybe somewhere around the founding of Sumer....)

The two Suttons are "probably related" to each other, but *not* to "1420 Tudor", "le Tutan", or JR (that three-step difference on one marker puts them right out).

JR isn't meaningfully related to any of them (maybe to the Suttons circa Charlemagne).

Strings of pretty numbers don't mean a thing if you don't know how to *use* them.

LIke I said i am a total noob when it comes to spread sheeting dna.

Contrary to what Dale seems to think, it's not rocket science. You put one number in each box, then you color in any boxes that don't match (use a different color for one-step, two-step, three-step, etc. non-matches).

The more colored-in boxes you have, the less of a match you have. Anything over 3 is (usually) "forget it" for Tudor times. And a three-step discrepancy on any one marker is a HUGE red flag.

So far the only site I have seen with an intelligent summary is leedna.com. They've got everybody charted up in such a way that you can see who's related to whom (or not), with what percentage, how many differences, etc. You can also sort on several different variables to bring whomever you want to study to the top of the chart.

They talked three of the Stratford Hall Lees (aka THE Lees) into contributing, as, among other things, a baseline. They all matched each other tightly (95-97%, 1-3 differences out of ~45 markers), and no one else tested has ever matched them closely enough to signify a relationship.

Their "most distant ancestor" was born c. 1650, and two lines trace directly to him, with a third stopping off at a known descendant.

For Tudor-era ancestry, one might allow *one* more difference and a match of 92% or better.

You are 3.5 years late in the analysis....I put up what I found...not what you say I must have. This is my search and if there evidence that the Perrott's and Rices have a connection then it should be evident to a PHD in DNA....We await the decision of DNA results at 67 markers and Geni administrators. Benjamin, no one cares what I think least of all this group. Your better behavior is noted MBH.

Well then, check this out: http://leedna.com/dnaresults.php

Notice who has close results, and who doesn't. Play around with the chart to bring different people to the top, and see how the calculations change.

It's very instructive, believe me.