

Started by Justin Swanström on Monday, July 22, 2013


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 91-120 of 255 posts
Private User
7/28/2013 at 12:22 AM

There was an assumption made by some researchers (not Pope) that John of Dedham was related to Edmund. As you know that has been disproved.

There was an Oath taken at Framingham in 1645. I believe Edmund Rice's son Henry signed it.

There was an Oath taken at Dedham in 1636. John Rice is not listed nor, I believe, is any other Rice. Presumably this is before he arrived in Dedham, and in any event would have been too young.

7/28/2013 at 12:39 AM

Dale and Erica,

The above exchange raised a question in my mind. If military service in colonial militias was commonly all men between 16 and 60, isn't it possible that that the age for taking an oath might have been younger? Would the various settlements really have required that men serve in the local militia without taking an oath? And -- didn't I see somewhere an age limit that surprised me by being less than 21?

So, I did what any of us would do. A Google search. I found this:


Look at page 19. There is ordinance 1634 at Cambridge that sets the age at 16. And an ordinance 1634 at Boston that sets the age at 20.

Dale, I don't think it will be possible to guess about the rule at Dedham. You will have to search Dedham Town Records to find the ordinance that authorized the oath and defined who would take it.

I think it is not credible that the age for taking the oath could ever have been less than 16. If John Rice's younger brother took the oath at the same time, then that brother must have been at least 16.

You should consider the marriage date as well. Why did John wait seven years to get married?

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:01 AM

That is interesting. This is similar to other google results for Dedham/ Freeman (although I should really be looking for MY Rice great grandfather!)

Michael took the Oath of Allegiance May 13, 1640 and was admitted a freedman at Dedham, May 13, 1642.
"Before a member of society could exercise the right of suffrage, or hold any public office, he must be made a 'freeman' by the general of quarterly court. To become such he was required to produce evidence that he was a respectable member of some Congregational church."[1] "In 1631, a test was invented which required all freemen to be church-members. This was upon the first appearance of a dissent in regard to religious opinions. But even this test, in the public opinion, required great caution, as in 1632 it was agreed that a civil magistrate should not be an elder in the church."[2] "This regulation was so far modified by Royal order in 1664, as to allow individuals to be made Freemen, who could obtain certificates of their being correct in doctrine and conduct, from clergymen acquainted with them."[3]

[1] "Early 'Freemen' in New England"
[2] Bentley, "Description of Salem, 1 Colls, Mass. Hist. Society", vi. 236.
[3] Felt, History of Ipswich, p. 18


My understanding is that the record of John Rice is his marriage record in (I stand corrected) 1649 to Ann Hackley.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:10 AM

I'm wrong - John Rice signed the Dedham Covenant, but I can't tell what year. He's listed quite a bit in the index and here's the Covenant page direct link:


The Early records of the town of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1636-1659
edited by the town clerk, Don Gleason Hill
Published 1892 by Printed at office of the Dedham Transcript in Dedham, Mass . Written in English.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:12 AM

Justin - John Rice did not have a (known) younger brother, in Dedham records his is the only Rice family, and it is not known when he arrived.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:15 AM

Dale this is the index page to Dedham town records where John Rice is listed.


Now I'm going to look for my Richard Rice of Concord.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:21 AM

Page 14 - apparently there was a problem of canoe theft. :)

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:26 AM

Oh, this is fun, I had forgotten my 9th great grandfather Ralph Shepard lived in Dedham and signed the 1636 Covenant.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:45 AM

This list might be easier to read, and the freemen are listed in the order signed. John Rice is # 107. Does that confirm he was in fact in Dedham in 1636???


Private User
7/28/2013 at 2:05 AM

Sorry - I believe, based on this page http://archive.org/stream/earlyrecordsofto03hill#page/134/mode/2up/...

That John Rice was admitted as "townman" in 1651 (and the 107th man to have been admitted). That is 2 years after his marriage at age 24. Again, date of arrival is unknown, but there was no Dedham before 1636. I have not seen any reference to him as "indentured" or "being made free."

7/28/2013 at 7:48 AM

I double checked the births, Henry was 20 in 1642 and Thomas was 18 so both were past age 16....And the Oath taking I saw was for FRAMINGHAM 1642....and John would have been 16.....Presumably, holding my sequence and motifvation....the John Rice of Framingham was being supported by some Puritan family connected to Edmund/Thomasine: John RICE is NOT, REPEAT NOT Edmund's son.....we all understand that, But Im not convinced that he was not THOMASINE's son.....The reason he waited 7 years was to prove to his father in law to be....that he was willing to labor as Jacob did for Rachel? and the Marriage took place after the biblical time of labor was fulfilled....as he grew in stature he was allowed to move from Framingham to his intended's home town where she was born....ie. DEDHAM....and from 16 to age 23 when he married ANNE Hackley...he would have been judged regularly by all concerned....That's the inductive logic Im employing here....now let's see if the story can be coroborated by movement Eastward from FRAMINGHAM. DCR 1948 The sites lited above will take some time to digest no doubt....You are all very wise and I have a lot to do.....LOL

7/28/2013 at 8:20 AM

I've look carefully at the DEDHAM Covenant and seems to point to 1636, but the name is abbreviated as Joh: Rice....all the other names with John are spelled out completely...so I believe we have Joshia, or Joshua, Johabiem, or some other itteration.....I don't beleive we can assume it's John Rice 1624 but that's not an informed observation....just my questioning why the writer would demure over one letter....odd at the least...DCR 1948

7/28/2013 at 9:41 AM

Looking at the 1651 record of John Rice being admitted, I see the abbreviation but it's just a normal abbreviation. In that time, it's very common to see a name both abbreviated and not abbreviated. A man's signature might have been consistent, but the same clerk or different clerks would not always be consistent. Significantly, the other names in the 1651 record are also abbreviated.

If I understand correctly, John Rice of Dedham has not been firmly attached to any parents or birth record. In that case, if his 1649 marriage to Ann was his first, he must have been about 21-25. Almost impossible that he was any younger, and highly unlikely that he was any older. The answer to my (rhetorical) question about why he waited seven years is that in 1642 he would have been too young to get married.

The idea that he had to labor seven years for his bride is a nice story, and there could be an element of truth in it, but the reality of frontier New England is that if he was a strong able-bodied man he would have every assurance in a new settlement like Dedham that he could get land. In fact, the town itself would not have allowed him to marry until he was financially able to support a family.

So, the problem is the signature of John Rice on the 1636 Dedham Compact. A different John Rice? Or did every man above 16 sign the compact? If so, and if John were just 16, then he would have been 29 when he got married. Unusually old for a first marriage, I think. In other New England towns he would have been hauled into court for not being married at that age. Also, highly unlikely that a man who was making a future son-in-law work seven years would push it that far or let his daughter marry a man who was so shiftless and irresponsible as to still be unmarried at 29 ;)

Is it at all possible that some men signed the compact later? Notice that the six men who were admitted as townsmen in 1651 all signed the Compact consecutively. This suggest to me they were being processed as a cohort. Maybe they all signed together at some time between 1636 and 1651. Or, the order of signing in 1636 was by approximate age. Or, ...? You could find more clues by checking the marriage dates for the other men admitted in 1651.

I didn't find a record for a John Rice who took the oath at Framingham in 1642. I strongly question whether the John Rice at Dedham would have taken at oath at Framingham in 1642 if he was at Dedham in 1636. Could be, but I'd want to see the other questions around his age and residence at Dedham resolved first.

BTW, I looked at the Wikipedia article for Edmund Rice (1638). I wish all of our immigrant ancestors were so nicely documented.

7/28/2013 at 12:12 PM


I took a minute this afternoon to look at the Rice Family Y-DNA Project:


You've probably been consulting this page. I don't see any results for descendants of John Rice. There are results for descendants of Samuel Rice, who they say is thought to have been John's son.

They don't say it explicitly, but it is clear that the results for the Samuel group belong to haplogroup I1.

Is this where you got the idea that you will be I1?

Private User
7/28/2013 at 12:30 PM


Because I descend from RICHARD Rice now (and Ralph Shepard of Dedham & Concord) you'll see my interest. In fact, the ERA was one of the first "assistants" to my understanding my ancestry, as there are old genealogies & lots of speculations trying to associate those two families.

My understanding is (and I'll try & find the page for your reference) is that in the initial DNA testing in 2005 they included a known descendant of John Rice's son

Private User
7/28/2013 at 12:33 PM

(cont'd) in the Edmund Rice test. It turned out he was a close match but no cigar. His haplogroup is i1 and markers show the comparison. Therefore there is exciting DNA test(s) available for Dale to compare results with.

The ERA has mentioned expanding to other Rice descendants, that's part of why Dale talks about contacting them.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 12:41 PM

I am pretty sure the 1636 Dedham compact was signed sequentially between 1636 - 1652 (when there were no more signatores), that's why the numbered list is helpful. My ancestor Ralph Shepard was "one of the 18 original signers" in 1636 and received an allotment of land. You'll see in the town record minutes that groups of men were "admitted as townsmen" and the date noted; John Rice in the group in 1651.

To me it's a logical progression. He came to Dedham (record of passage from England lost as with so many) sometime between 1636, when it was 1st settled, and 1649, first record. He had enough assets by 1649 to marry. In fact I would think being married was a pre requisite to being admitted as a townsman? At least in Dedham. And so would church membership have been.

Which argues for the "born about 1624" date to be accurate. Many colonists came with wife and children, they were actively recruited that way.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 12:48 PM

Group 17 on your page Justin


"The common ancestor of Group 17, Samuel Rice, is believed to be the son of Massachusetts immigrant John Rice of Dedham, who married there in 1649. Since John Rice had another son who raised a family, there is a good possibility that we can extend the group back one generation by testing a descendant of the other son. This would have the added benefit of producing the first real evidence of a connection between John and Samuel (beyond the mere fact of living in the same town). ..."

This haplotype falls just short of matching Group 1 ....

Private User
7/28/2013 at 12:49 PM

NB John Rice of Dedham had 2 sons, John Rice & (not recorded birth) Samuel Rice. Dale descends from Samuel.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:15 PM

Henry Rice came with his parents to Sudbury, MA and after his marriage moved to Framingham where he took the oath of fidelity 7/9/1645


A History of Framingham, Massachusetts: Including the Plantation, from 1640 ... By William Barry page 156

Henry Rice is the only Rice listed. It continues with a note

"They that tooke the oath of fidelity since."'. ...Edward Rice"

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:19 PM

So as far as I can tell, there is no evidence to support John Rice's existence in any other place but Dedham. Of course that's impossible - he had to have come from England, and it seems likely from East Anglia, and that he was a Puritan.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:44 PM

No he could have come from Leiden or maybe France or Scotland. I have John Cookson was in Boston in late 1600's married rachel proctor, daughter of Richard proctor and Rachel, bother daughter Rachel and father Richard are recorded as being born in Boston. No record of her mother's birth. Know where Richard and Rachel are buried been there. Also know where John is buried, he has his own tomb built so more then likely wife is there too but we don't know for sure where John came from. we think England . John was a whitesmith and businessman in Boston. There was a John in England, not sure if it ended up being London, who was a gunsmith , that is maybe his father but we don't know. So never assume. Isn't that what a wise person always says and I beleive I have heard several persons in Geni say the same. The Procter more then likely is connected with george Proctor , one of the first five Proctors to come here. Not connected directly with John , the accused witch nor can I find info connecting to the other three nor George but George was in the area.Same thing with Bryant Morton, think I found the connection to George but that's why when i listed bryant's father I put in parentheses not proven. The dates are right. Judy

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:54 PM

Excellent points, Judy, thank you!

One thing I was thinking about is arriving with a minister someone followed in England. The congregation would raise the money to build a ship & they would determine who would be the most "useful" 1st colonists, with more to follow later if the planting proved successful. That's the naming pattern for these early settlements, isn't it?

Dedham's name was proposed to be "Contentment" (nice hopeful name, just like "Concord" is) but they settled on Dedham.

I would think that argues to the 1st settlers (which we do not know that John Rice was) having common origin in


Dedham, near

Private User
7/28/2013 at 1:55 PM

Sorry - Dedham, a village in the borough of Colchester, county of Essex, bordering the county of Suffolk.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 3:01 PM

I'm glad I looked at that Wikipedia link, apparently Dedham, Essex, England employed (successively) "notable" Puritan Vicars:

John Rogers (c. 1570–1636), sometimes referred to as "Roaring" John Rogers, for his fiery preaching style, was a well-known English Puritan clergyman and preacher ...

And after his death, succeeded at Dedham England by

7/28/2013 at 3:25 PM

Wow, you guys are fast, and faster! Im in tune with John Rice 1624 being precisely the right age to Marry at age 23 in 1649! That comports....Ms. Erica, I did indeed find the 1645 Oath as you did, which was very confusing because just the Day before that I had the same group of books on line and checked twice on the names, and DATE As July 09, 1642 in FRAMINGHAM. Which Is why I dared even to bring this up....sadly I have not seen that page for two weeks....Since I clearly had nothing to gain but doubt on your part adn Kris Stewart who asked me the same question on the second day after I found and quoted the reference....I don't know what to say....I wrote the DATA down, and fyi the Page listing with John's name was at the TOP, Isolated and Indented both sides as if to call specific attention to the Names....all 3 Rice's were listed: Henry, Edward and John Rice.....I am not careless but have been unable to find the doccument since.....for which I am profoundly embarrassed.....fyi The Biblical reference to the story of Jacob toiling for his father in law plays well with my story of John Rice 1624 young man having to prove himself....Im betting the marriage was arranged by Edmund and Mr. Hackley....don't know that but strongly suspect that to be the case....DCR 1948

7/28/2013 at 3:31 PM

PS: The Hughes Family plays an important role in more than one generation of RICES.....AS noted EARLY postings Griffeth ap Rhys 1508 beheaded by Henry VIII was accompanied by his Man Hughes who was Drawn and Quartered.....The family Rice in England were Rabid Anti Catholics by 1600 so the Hughes family I believes has a marriage if not a Preacher sponsored by the family.....and do we not have a Marcie Anne Hughes from which a Virginia Rice is connected who returns to England for his inheritence perhaps from Margaret Middleton one of Perrott's Virginia son's? Im allerting you to the importance of the Name and why Captain John Rice Hughes could be the cover used by Perrott as he remade his life in America....I know that's a divergin storyline but since you have the depth of knowledge on the EARLY pioneers to Virginia I felt the need to state my interest in the family name again....for what that's worth....DCR 1948

7/28/2013 at 3:36 PM

Judy, the Cookson family is believed to be the line that the COOKSTON brother came from that is my direct line via my Mother....A falling out of sort occured and the COODSTON line was born.....My mother was a Cookston, and her father was James Cookston.....I have almost no data on his family, so whatever you have would be of interest .....He married Esterh Chalfant-Collins of Muncie In....and the Marie Chalfant figure is the Maternal great grandmother to me and the NEbraska Kids born to Mildred Cookston RICE. fyi

7/28/2013 at 4:36 PM


I'm not getting your point about the DNA. You can see from my message that I had already looked at Group 17 in the ERA project (or I would not have been able to calculate that the results were I1).

If Dale is a descendant of Samuel, who is thought but not proven to have been a son of immigrant John, then Dale's DNA test should place him in that same group. More importantly, though, there is no reason not to go forward with comparing results with other known Tudor cousins now. If for some reason Dale doesn't match other descendants of Samuel, that would be a game-changer because he would then not be a descendant of Samuel.

The differences among Rice groups 1, 2 and 17 are indeed a gray area, as the page says. FTDNA's basic guidance is very conservative. They would say that the 11/12 match means that 1 (Edmund) and 2 (Samuel) probably do not belong to the same family within historic time. However, 385a is one of the fastest mutating markers and there is only a one step difference. The other two differences, at 457 and 468 are similarly ambiguous, because these are not among the fastest mutating markers.

The idea of calculating distance by reference to mutations in individual samples is increasingly controversial. In fact, some experts now say that it is junk science. Their position is that the number of mutations shows distance, but cannot be used to calculate time.

With that in mind, I would still say the samples are close enough that Samuel Rice was probably at least a distant relative of Edmund Rice, but based on the other samples I've seen, I would be very surprised if they were close relatives.

Most commonly, when an 11/12 match is not just random convergence, it is enough to push the relationship back to the period 1200-1400 or earlier. Most commonly, men who have a common ancestor circa 1200 -- the period when surnames were being adopted -- still have a full 12/12 match.

Private User
7/28/2013 at 4:53 PM

Hi Dale

I think the point I've been trying to emphasize is that it is quite possible that the story line about Tamzin & Perrot is entirely valid.

But where you're going down the wrong road, I believe, is in trying to make it fit with John Rice of Dedham. I base that on Dedham was not just another early settlement, it was an early settlement with an AGENDA. They were utopians! They came over from England WITH this ideal already in mind. They picked up a few like minded persons in the early Watertown settlement, like my ancestor "Deacon" Ralph Shepard. This is far more than being anti Papist, this is being indoctrinated "true believers" long before colonization. It was a tiny settlement, only 150 or so families, 18 at the first Covenant meeting, I would think batches of 20 or so when they believed enough were ready to further serve the community, over the period of 1636 - 1650.

This just doesn't fit with what you've explained of Perrot's life and times. But you have many ancestral lines.

Can you explain why it couldn't be a story for a different ancestor?

I'll give you an example from my own tree. One of our "pioneer" ancestors was supposed to have migrated out West from West Virginia in response to the Civil War. Well, I looked high & low, I found practically all the states - and No WEST Virginia. Was family tradition wrong?

Finally I found it - a name NO ONE knew. But the trail is pretty solid. And biggest irony - this is the line that goes back the furthest and to the most "noble" families ...

I only got to it because I "let go" of the surname search.

Showing 91-120 of 255 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion