Sunday, April 21, 2013

Question from Dale Rice - Prince Henry William Tudor

We are awaiting the DNA confirmation that our Father is descended from one John Rice 1624...Who is believed to be the son of Perrott ap Rice son of John Rice II and Katherine Perrott. John Rice II is the son of William ap Rice 1521 and Elizabeth Lattimer. William ap Rice aka known as Henry of Newton is according to my father who was 94 at his passing the Son of Beatrice Tudor Gardiner, Rice and Henry VIII. She was the laundress of Field of Cloth of Gold fame and was herself the grandaughter of Jasper Tudor making she and Henry VIII 2nd cousins. Her husband was Groom Daffid ap Rice of Carew fame and both were assigned to the household of Princess Mary Tudor 1519 until her death 1558. While Queen, Mary Granted little Henry William 1521/22 a coat of Arms with the Pommegranite upon the standard acknowledging his birth by her FATHER Henry. The Pomegranite with a cut revealing multiple seeds being the symbole of Katrin of Castile.

All that to say, is it possible that Henry VIII was kept in the dark of Prince Henry William Tudor as punnishment from both Katherine Queen and Mary's Dynastic plans? The DNA we have in hand is quite clearly a TUDOR match for John Rice 1625, and should have my brother's DNA for comparrison by mid June at the latest. Thankyou. 14 GGrandson of Henry William ap Rice son of Beatrice and Henry Tudor King.

15 comments:

PhD Historian said...

You seem to have an interesting potential family connection, Mr Rice, but I am sorry to say that the background information and the question are both rather confusingly worded and difficult to understand. The best I can ascertain is that you are trying to say that William (aka Henry) ap Rice was the son of Beatrice Gardiner (a granddaughter of Jasper Tudor) and Daffid ap Rice, but may actually have been fathered by Henry VIII. Is that correct? That would make William-Henry an illegitimate and unacknowledged son of Henry VIII.

Then you go on to suggest that William-Henry was granted arms while Mary I was queen, i.e., after 1553, by which point William-Henry was no longer "little", if 1521/22 refers to the year of his birth. I am quite confused about the seeming suggestion that William-Henry was assigned arms with a pomegranate as an acknowledgment that he was the son of Henry VIII. Why would the College of Arms design an escutcheon (the shield in a coat of arms) that bore a pomegranate in reference to Katherine of Aragon if William-Henry had no blood relation to her? It would seem to me that his escutcheon should have borne one of his supposed father's badges, such as the Tudor rose or a portcullis. Very odd that he would have been given arms referencing his illegitimate father's first wife more than 2 decades (after 1553) after that wife's death. I do not at all see how that pomegranate can refer to Henry VIII being William-Henry's father.

Did Katherine and Mary keep Henry VIII "in the dark" about the existence of William-Henry (assuming the really was Henry VIII's illegitimate son)? Why would they do so? More importantly, how would THEY know about it (having no direct connection to the boy) while Henry would not? Seems very illogical and far-fetched to me. And for what reason would Katherine and Mary have been "punishing" Henry? "Mary's dynastic plans"? I am not aware that she HAD any "dynastic plans", since she did not marry until 17 years after the death of Henry VIII and had no children of her own.

Lastly, I am curious about the DNA testing. I am not a geneticist, but I have to wonder where the lab obtained a DNA sample that is specifically Tudor in origin, for comparison to your father's DNA? The line descending from Henry VIII fell extinct in 1603, so their are no samples of that line readily available. The line of Henry VII survives, but has been much diluted over the centuries. The DNA lab may be able to link your father's DNA to that of the larger Tudor lineage, but I just do not see how they can link it to Henry VIII specifically. Even the recent DNA identification of Richard III's remains was done with mitochondrial DNA, an expensive and complex testing process not usually offered by modern publicly-accessible genetics labs. I do hope you are not being deliberately mislead by some online DNA testing service.....

Lara Eakins said...

Dale was having trouble logging in so I'm posting this for him:

Firstly: Henry William 1521was granted a patent May 2, 1555 by Queen Mary in recognition of his birth as her 1/2 brother....That's why the Pomegranite was used. To have used the Tudor Rose would be like fingering one's brother to be executed by the Political enemies of Mary....He was raised Catholic, was a devoute Catholic and His Cousin Griffeth ap Gruffed ap Rice 1508 was executed on Tower Hill 1531 for an alleged plot to usurp the throne from Henry VIII. Henry took his 40,000 lbs worth of lands and 10K lbs of annual income and eliminated a Rival with an ancestory one thousand years older than his.....The Prophesey of the "RED hand " of Scotland and The Raven of Wales was actually cited as probable cause of his guilt....So No, William was I believe being protected because of the Political Forces around Henry, Mary, and Elizabeth I.....

Secondly, Beatrice was Henry's 2nd cousin....That is cause for scandal....and Rome had to give permission to Marry a first or second cousin, so every reason to keep the birth Quiet....Since Beatrice was married, it looked to be a normal protected birth. The Loyalty of Beatrice to Mary who was only 9 years old when Beatrice and Daffid Rice joined her household is the first reason I can think of to keep quiet....Had the King been exposed to yet another Bastard son to make legitimate by decree would have been too much for everyone to bare I think Beatrice understood the Dynamics of the time, and Princess Mary was providing a comfortable living. She did Assign Henry William 1521 to various positions to her reign, and gave him houses/ mannors/lands for nominal government service....

Third: The geneology of William Rice 1522 is mixed in with Henry William 1521 because he and his sister Mary may have been fostered out for care to 3rd cousin Griffin 1508 and Katherine Howard. Many sites wrongly show both William and Mary 1530 as children of Katherine Howard....She did not mention them in her will and left all her posessions to actual blood born Children. Because they were in the House hold they were assumed to be hers. Burks Peerage does not recognize either child as fathered by Griffeth Rice 1508. You see how people could conclude wrongly? Henry William was born 3 years before Katherine Howard married Griffith, so it would be nice to confirm the FOSTERING story before going public with my DNA evidence.

Lastly: the DNA evidence was collected by the Tudor DNA project who put the data on line so I cannot vouch for it other than it is out there and is very nearly identical to my Ancestor John Rice II of Rickerston and Cahterine Perrott of Mary Berkley/King Henry liazion....If you like I can forward that to you, but in sum there are 15 sites or alleles measured and my Ancestor has 23 identical 2 of shorting length meaning his DNA is older than The subject William OWEN Tudor of Wales #268833. I hope this clairify's your questions..Dale C. Rice 148

Stranger in Paradise said...

In re-reading your comments you also had a question regarding contact with the King. Beatrice continued to serve the KIng as his primary Lavendar, doing the Kings Lennins for years after her assignment to Princess Mary Tudors household....Mary would have been treated by Beatrice as Family certainly loved as family...This is born out by her own words "upon my death you will find Castile lying upon my heart" but she was talking about Beatrice, her devoted servant of 38 years. So continued close contact....The other possiblity may be that the pregnancy by Henry Tudor may not have been recognized until Henry William Tudor 1521 reached Adult age, when the physical resemblence could not be ignored....thus the Secret of his Father and Mother's liaizon would come to light many years after the fact. FYI Dale Rice 1948 of Nebraska Rice's

Marilyn R said...

"When I am dead and opened, you shall find Calais lying in my heart," referred to Mary's distress at England's loss of Calais to France(see Raphael Holinshed, The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, vol. III)

A reliable contemporary source for Queen Mary having made a similar reference to Castile would be very interesting. I think I am missing something here,however, because I can't see how you make the connection between Castile (Mary's maternal grandmother was Isabella of Castile) and Beatrice.

I have a research interest in the Katherine Howard you mention, but only during the time she was Countess of Bridgwater and sent to the Tower for her association with Queen Katherine Howard. I have come across a daughter, Agnes, and two sons, Griffith and Thomas, by her executed husband, but am not aware of the lady being linked to any other children.

Do you have any reliable and accessible information as to where these children you believe could have been fostered were living in 1540-42? I would be really interested to know.

Thank you

PhD Historian said...

I do not wish to argue, but some of the evidence makes no sense.

First, see Marilyn R’s response for the correct phrase Mary is reputed to have said before her death. Mary was lamenting the loss of England's last continental possession. I fail to see how that has any relevance to Beatrice Tudor Gardiner.

Monarchs do not have any direct hand in designing and assigning coats of arms. The actual design – the choice of emblems, colors, etc – is carried out entirely by the College of Arms and the person being granted the arms. It would have been utterly unique in English history had Mary somehow “commanded” that a pomegranate be used for your ancestor, as you seem to imply. The pomegranate was a common symbol denoting fertility and abundance. Katherine of Aragon used it as a personal badge, as did (less often) Mary Tudor. But I just do not see any logic in your suggestion that the use by your ancestor of a pomegranate denotes a biological connection to Henry VIII. If anything, it should be read as a biological connection to Katherine of Aragon! If you have a copy or transcript of the original patent stipulating that the pomegranate was used specifically to draw a connection between your ancestor and Henry VIII, I’d love to see it. My suspicion is that the pomegranate-for-Henry VIII story is nothing more than a family myth invented at some point long after the 1550s.

That “Henry William” was granted lands in return for services performed cannot in any way be interpreted at face value as indicating that Mary considered “Henry William” to be her half-brother. “Henry William” was nominally a member of a very prominent Welsh land-owning family, the Rices (Rhys) and it was entirely consistent with 16th-century practice for him to be restored to power and possessions two decades after his kinsman’s disgrace. Such restorations were the norm in the era. If we read every one of them as evidence of a blood relationship between the monarch and the recipient, the monarch would have had hundreds of close relatives!

As for the DNA evidence, the only “Tudor DNA Projects” that I am aware of are being done by various for-profit, online DNA testing companies. I am not aware of any scholarly-driven project. That fact alone makes me a bit suspicious. But assuming all of the testing being done is above-board and accurate: the simple fact that your ancestor was the son of Beatrice Tudor Gardiner would be sufficient to give him (and you) a statistically significant DNA match to the Tudor lineage. But again, a DNA match to the Tudor lineage is NOT the same as a father-son DNA match to Henry VIII himself. Virtually the only way to scientifically demonstrate that your ancestor “Henry William” ap Rice was fathered by Henry VIII would be to do a direct DNA comparison between “Henry William” and Henry VIII. At a remove of almost 500 years, it is virtually impossible for anything other than such direct comparison of father-to-son samples to confirm your claim that Henry VIII was “Henry William’s” father. I’m not even sure that current DNA testing ALONE can prove “beyond a shadow of a doubt” even that your father is a descendant of John Rice. Did you somehow collect a DNA sample from John Rice’s remains? Or are you instead relying on DNA samples taken from people alive today who are also descended from John Rice? HUGE difference, at the scientific level ... and a difference that for-profit online DNA testing companies are all too willing to exploit.

I am truly sorry, but your body of evidence just does not hold up to close scrutiny. Most of that evidence is circumstantial and can readily be explained in other ways. Other parts are simply wrong. And the whole DNA testing thing is just too vague. I very strongly suspect that your family tradition/myth is exceedingly similar to hundreds of others involving monarchs and unacknowledged illegitimate children. Those myths make for great family stories, but are still nothing more than myth.

Stranger in Paradise said...

Thankyou Ms. Marilyn for the correction...quoting from a i65 year old memory has it's perils....that was foolish of me, and I apologize for being carless with the Queen's words.
As to the fostering idea: That is my interpretation of events, history of both Henry 1521 and his sister Mary 1530 also born to Beatrice the Lavendar. Their names and the relatedness to the Lady Bridgwater is clearly in error on many sites who call them Katherine's children...As stated earlier that would be quite a feat for a 12 year old father born in 1508 to have a Son william 1521/ 4 years before he Married Katherine. Your information is exactly what mine is...Griffith their first born, Then Thomas, then Agnes are the children listed in Katherines will. No mention of William Henry or Mary.
Since they are 1/2 second cousins by virture of a second family of Rhys ap Thomas 1449 The notion of being fostered by busy parents in Princess Mary's Household seems reasonable. I believe they must have been in Griffith's and Katherine's household because they are recorded in the traveling peerage counts of that era. But I am an amature and offer that as only conjecture. It would explain why the DNA for my Ancestor John Rice 1624 matches the Tudor line and not the Welsh line as was once thought. Beatrice Tudor/Gardiner and Dafid ap Rice 1475 in service to Princess Mary Tudor for 38 years has the ring of Truth....and the King's notice of his 2nd cousin at Field of cloth of Gold 1520 aligns with Henry Williams birth March 1521/22. The records of the Household accounts stop with payment for education of Henry 1538 when he truns 16. The princess Pays for Mary's Wedding Dress....not sure of the year....Im looking for who she married, as that may be an important name in my mystery. I discovered today, that the Mary Rice who married Walter VAughn was the Daughter of Griffeth Rice the son of Griffeth executed 1531. So I still have some loose ends....Happily there are 3 well known genetic geneologists who are working on this with me....so no publication just yet. I believe my Family line connects to John Rice 1624 of Perrott Rice son of John Rice II and Catherine Perrott of Goggerdan which gives a Tripple dose of Owen Tudor's gentic message writ large on the faces of 6 immediate family members and 2 others in 2 preceeding generations. I am happy to share my meager information, unique and stunning it may turn out to be....Alas, it is still a Mystery wraped in 500 years of time to preserve the life, I say of Henry William 1521. Best Regards D.C. Rice 1948 of Nebraska Rices.

Stranger in Paradise said...

Apologies again, I missed your question at the end of your comment. Where would the two children have been 1540-42. Henry was married by then and in Service to Princess Mary's household....That seems to be the recollection I have from READing Women of the Tudor Court, specifically BArbar Fuller/Flude. That person is listed as William but David Flude was her husband...so that is a Conflict to be resolved. Mary being only 10 was back in the Princess Houshold no doubt, since Mary continues to pay her expenses as well as Henry William. His last expense from her household accounts is shown to be 1538 to a Bishop Gardiner? for his education....I believe her household accounts will show Mary is back in the Marches Castle where Mary was living. That too is conjecture. But you should find all in the listings of Prince Mary Tudor's household accounts...they are on line. Best Regards D. Rice of Nebraska 1948.

Marilyn R said...

In the Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic of Henry VIII, we find that when Lady Bridgwater was arrested with other members of the Howard family it was decided that her daughter Agnes Rice (Rhys) should be sent to the house of Lady Oxford, while the boys, Griffith and Thomas Rice, were to go the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Durham (13th December 1541). Up to that point the children appear to have been living at Norfolk House in Lambeth in the mansion of their grandmother, the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, where they would receive the training to fit them for their place in society. I wondered if there was any sign at all of the other children having lodged there. (www.queens-haven.co.uk)

If I come across any references to William/Henry and Mary I will let you know through Lara.

Stranger in Paradise said...

Ms. Marilyn: It occurs to me now after some reflection that there may be an entry in the Household expense accnts. of Princess Mary Tudor to Bishop Stepephen Gardiner, brother of Beatrice the Laundress, during the time period you asked about. It is all online and should be readily verifiable.

As to the contention that Henry is not a special person of interest. I offer the following: Firstly, a number of Historical sites on line WRONGLY assert that William Rice 1522 was the biological son of Katherine Howard and Griffeth ap Gruffed ap Rhys ap Thomas 1508 slain on tower Hill Jan 4, 1531. That person does not exist, and has been clearly conflated with Henry Rice 1521 born to Beatrice/Daffid Rice 1475 a 2nd 1/2 cousin to Griffeth.

Secondly, the DNA below does not lie, nor do the 6 faces alive and well walking around Oregon and Burried in Nebraska with the physical markers of that VERY special DNA. Represented in the DNA of this family are Louis XI of France, James I of Scotland, Elizabeth Blount, Queens Mary and Anne, and Henry VII and Henry VIII and Richard III. The verification of my father's story comes from History itself...you may discount it as you wish, but until this writing Im pretty sure you have never, ever heard this before. The Blood Tests are in for my brother on 25 Alleles and I will proceed with a 100 marker test after his results are in....So find below first the DNA for Wm. Owen Tudor of Wales #268833 Then John Rice of Dedham Ma. 1624 then the Stewart line of scotland.
It is this verification that confirms to me my Father's Death bed assertion, that I have decided to investigate and merely offer you first response.

13 22 15 10 13 14 11 14 11 28 14 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 30 12 16 16 16 16 17 WOT

13 22 14 10 13 14 11 12 11 28 15 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 28 12 14 15 16 - - John Rice Dedham Ma

13 23 14 10 13 11 11 14 11 28 16 8 9 8 11 24 16 20 28 12 14 15 16 - - Old Stewart Line of Scotland

The lower number indicates a shorter allele and an older line of descent...As you can plainly see there are reasons to believe these people shared a Common ancestor, and in the case of John Rice 1624 that would be Henry Tudor to son Henry, to son Thomas to son John then to Perrott then to my ancestor John 1624. That's what is in the pipeline at this writing and my first results will be back by June 1, 2013.

Lastly, I cannot explain why the symbol was chosen for Henry William 1521, it is what it is....you cannot fault me because I had no knowledge of this until January of the this year If the site was incorrect that I read then so be it, I merely proffer what my research has yielded.....hense my questions to your site. Best Regards D.Charles Rice 1948 Nebraska Rices.

PhD Historian said...

I ask again: Where did the purported DNA samples come from? The persons they supposedly represent (William Owen Tudor and John Rice) have been dead for centuries. Did the DNA testing company you are using go to the site of their burial, dig them up, and obtain a viable testing sample directly from their remains? This would be the ONLY scientifically correct and accurate way to obtain a DNA match between your father and those two persons.

Or is the company instead using DNA samples taken from modern descendants and correlating the results with amateur genealogical data provided by its customers? That is a very UNRELIABLE method, from a purely scientific point of view.

Consider that at a remove of just 300 years (the equivalent of about 10 generations), a modern individual has no fewer than 1024 direct ancestors! If expanded from your father to the generation that included Henry VIII, your father would have had over 16,000 separate people contributing to his DNA! For any DNA testing company to say with certainty (regardless of any obfuscatory enumeration of allele matches) that your father is a DNA match to Henry VIII ... or even to the John Rice of the 17th century ... and to do so without direct sampling of the remains of Henry VIII, William-Henry Rice, or John Rice, is just hogwash.

I continue to suggest that you are either being deliberately misled by the DNA testing company (after all, they make their money by telling you what you want to hear), or you are misunderstanding the correct scientific interpretation of the results. I am not saying that your overall theory is incorrect ... I am simply saying that the evidence you have provided thus far is not *scientifically* credible. It is merely circumstantial.

Stranger in Paradise said...

I appreciate you skepticism, that is why I asked the question in the first place, to hone the circumstantial case for Henry/William 1521: but I fear we are loosing sight of the Promise of a Profound Historical discovery, I.E. "Henry/William Rice 1521 born to Beatrice and Daffid ap Rhys/Rice of Carew: Is a missing Tudor link with surviving blood heirs in America."

That is what is at stake here, not how DNA evidence is collected which is a matter of statistical scienc which an Ancestor of the Rice family invented, FYI: SeeRichard Pryce Moral Philosopher, England ca1725, He invented Actuarial Science.

The DAta Set I presented was not offered for a fee. The Data set on 3 diferent sites for ancestoral reasearch is available at Tudor DNA Project on line, Stewart DNA Project on line, and Edmund Rice Association DNA Project online & do offer various tests, but my test comes from ANCESTORY.com and will have both a 25 Allelel and a Mitocondrial DNA component on a 100 marker test for myself.

Their information states that Y chrosomal data or information can be passed father to son for dozens of generations with little degredation...in some cases traced for a thousand years...so your information is not the science in use today. The reconstucted DNA is done by comparing nephews, uncles, sons of the same line and deriving an analytical source DNA.

I don't need 100% proof because this is not a Capital Crime case being prosecuted...this is a Preponderance of the EVIDENCE Case, and the DNA is but one Important component....The Fact that I have pluged in the Name Value of Henry /William Rice 1521 and his sons to the DNA Project for Henry Tudor yielded 1425 connecting hits on other file histories.is also circumstantial: Try that with Bill Smith! ...My only requirement is to show DNA that is compatible with Stewart/Tudor DNA and John Rice 1624 does that quite nicely.

Yes, this is a circumstantial case thus far...But the Proof is that there are 6 current members with double ganger faces of this bloodline walking around in Oregon, California, and Nebraska which confirms the Story I have Uncovered, NOT INVENTED, but confirmed by History itself....Understanding that history is my job as the Lead Investigator,if you will ,for my father's assertion.... Thus I return to the question: " If Henry/William 1521 was not known to be the Kng's son, that could explain why he survived the Mahem of the Tudor Era....I guess I'll have to go with that....or his Birth was known and Hid from the KING for personal reasons of Mary Tudor and her Mother. In any event, my story yields a promising area of Data collection and research at the very least. Best Regards, Dale C. Rice 1948

Lara Eakins said...

Dale, at this point I think we'll just have to wait to see all the historical evidence you've uncovered (I think you said it would be published eventually?). I have a feeling your research is just too much to be posted in blog comments and I would like to see this thread "wind down" since I think we're just at the point of going in circles until the full volume of your research can be seen.

Thanks!

Stranger in Paradise said...

Thankyou, and convey my warm regards to Ms. Marilyn for her input as well....As you might imagine this is a very steep learning curve, but the eveidence continues to to tighten around the persons I have mentioned. My best regards to you for your input....Dale C. Rice 1948 of the Nebraska Rices

Anonymous said...

I found that my Ancestor : Beatrice, is recorded as Alswin Martin 1478 married to Daffid ap RHYS 1475 of Sir Rhys ap Thomas and Gwillian f Gwillim. Any idea's why ? According the Women of the Tudor Court she came into the household of Princess Mary Tudor 1520 and stayed until Mary Died 1558, or 38 years.

Anonymous said...

I need to correct something I posted with you earlier. And then I'll leave this thread completely, I promise...I wrongly asserted that Henry of Newton is in my family line, but that is in error...That family derives from the son Griffeth ap Rice & Katherine Howard line which stayed in ENGLAND. The Henry's of 1558 & 1558 born to Thomasine Minn/Myall are the Cousin line and I had them confused with their distant cousin Henry of Griffeth ap Gruffed 1508. This overlapping of persons in the narriative with same names has been a great challenge....The first of 3 DNA tests are back and confirm the DNA of the Valois ANCESTORY which was doubled in the persons of JOHN RICE 1540 son of William 1521 and Katherine Perrott of Gogerddan. This is the line from whense comes the Rice ancestor Perrott ap Rice 1600 and his son John 1624 of Dedham Ma.FYI