Anne Heydon and Roger le Strange
jmt
Strange, as well as their children, I would appreciate it very much.
What I am actually trying to straighten out is the ancestry of Thomas
Gray, the Ancient Planter. Most seem to agree that his parents were
Catherine le Strange and Edward Gray - it is Catherine's history that
has me bogged down.
Thank you!
jhigg...@yahoo.com
Aside from the unreliable LDS files, what is the evidence that the
mother of Catherine le Strange was Anne Heydon? For that matter, what
evidence is there that her father Roger was of the family of Strange
of Hunstanton (as stated in a Grey pedigree in the [new] History of
Northumberland)?
There was in fact a Sir Roger le Strange of Hunstanton who mar. an
Anne (or Amy) Heydon (of the family of Baconsthorpe), and the parents
of this couple can be easily determined. But this Sir Roger d. 27 Oct
1506 and Anne/Amy d. in 1510 (will proved 16 Jan 1510 - probably
1510/1). They had one son John who died before his father. Aside
from the fact that she's not mentioned in either Heydon or Strange
pedigrees, it's highly unlikely from a chronological standpoint that
Catherine was their daughter, since she was married about 70 or 75
years after their deaths (before 6 Oct 1581).
[The above is based on Rev. G. H. Dashwood's edition of the 1563
Visitation of Norfolk]
I too would be interested if anyone can solve the conundrum of
Catherine's ancestry - but I don't think that the Heydon connection is
the right answer, and perhaps not even the Hunstanton connection.
wjhonson
>
> There was in fact a Sir Roger le Strange of Hunstanton who mar. an
> Anne (or Amy) Heydon (of the family of Baconsthorpe), and the parents
> of this couple can be easily determined. But this Sir Roger d. 27 Oct
> 1506 and Anne/Amy d. in 1510 (will proved 16 Jan 1510 - probably
> 1510/1). They had one son John who died before his father. Aside
> from the fact that she's not mentioned in either Heydon or Strange
> pedigrees, it's highly unlikely from a chronological standpoint that
> Catherine was their daughter, since she was married about 70 or 75
> years after their deaths (before 6 Oct 1581).
>
> [The above is based on Rev. G. H. Dashwood's edition of the 1563
> Visitation of Norfolk]
But from where is he getting these dates?
The Vis Norfolk by Rye doesn't have any dates, and it doesn't state
that John Strange d.v.p. just that he died "young"
The family appears in Burke's Extinct saying that Roger d.s.p.
but I have to review stirnet again, because I'm showing that John died
as a minor ward or something like that....
wjhonson
> But from where is he getting these dates?
> The Vis Norfolk by Rye doesn't have any dates, and it doesn't state
> that John Strange d.v.p. just that he died "young"
>
> The family appears in Burke's Extinct saying that Roger d.s.p.
> but I have to review stirnet again, because I'm showing that John died
> as a minor ward or something like that....
Here are my notes on John Strange, note that he apparently outlived
both his parents if as you say Anne died in 1510/1
http://books.google.com/books?id=K1kBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA311
Burke's Extinct, "L'Estrange of Hunstanton"
saying that Roger d.s.p.
but see http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ss4tz/strange02.htm
citing BLG1952 (Le Strange of Hunstanton) with support from BP1934
(Hastings)
and stating
1. Sir Roger Le Strange of Hunstanton (d 1505) m. Anne Heydon (dau of
Sir Henry Heydon)
A. John Le Strange (b 1501, d 25.03.1514)
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Norfolk/visitation/
Vis Norfolk page 271
that John "died young"
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 4, 4:41 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > But from where is he getting these dates?
> > The Vis Norfolk by Rye doesn't have any dates, and it doesn't state
> > that John Strange d.v.p. just that he died "young"
>
> > The family appears in Burke's Extinct saying that Roger d.s.p.
> > but I have to review stirnet again, because I'm showing that John died
> > as a minor ward or something like that....
>
> Here are my notes on John Strange, note that he apparently outlived
> both his parents if as you say Anne died in 1510/1
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=K1kBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA311
> Burke's Extinct, "L'Estrange of Hunstanton"
> saying that Roger d.s.p.
>
> citing BLG1952 (Le Strange of Hunstanton) with support from BP1934
> (Hastings)
> and stating
> 1. Sir Roger Le Strange of Hunstanton (d 1505) m. Anne Heydon (dau of
> Sir Henry Heydon)
> A. John Le Strange (b 1501, d 25.03.1514)
>
> http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Norfolk/visitation/
> Vis Norfolk page 271
> that John "died young"
The 1972 edition of BLG (the last to incoude this family) agrees with
the version you cite from Stirnet regarding the death dates of John
and his father.
But whether John died vp or not is ancillary to the central issue:
that Catherine wife of Sir Edward Grey cannot have been a daughter of
this couple, based simply on chronology. And she is not shown in
pedigrees of the family of Strange of Hunstanton, nor is there any
other Roger in that family who could be her father.
wjhonson
sons and no daughters. It would certainly be clearer if, authors in
the future would specifically state "they had three sons and no
daughters", otherwise we're left wondering if this Vis is only tracing
out the sons here, *even though* there were daughters.
But I agree that an argument from silence is not very convincing and
that what should occur, were one interested in tracing further this
Catherine, is to examine closely the IPM's of her immediate family to
see what lands they were holding, and how.
That would be a good start to solve the issue.
jhigg...@yahoo.com
I don't know who you're talking about when you say "what we see in the
Vis. is three sons and no daughters", as it certainly isn't Sir Roger
and Anne Heydon. And I reiterate that chronology does not permit this
particular couple to be the parents of Catherine, as so many pedigrees
in the LDS files have claimed, regardless of whether the Visitation
pedigree ignored any daughters. [And incidentally the Visitation does
include daughters in the next generations]
One possible clue is that one of the brothers of Sir Roger Strange
married a daughter of Thomas le Strange of Walton, Warwickshire.
Perhaps Catherine was of this family instead - a possible avenue for
research.
jmt
Between the visitations, the peerages, and all the rest of the
archival resources I have, I too had come to the conclusion that
Catherine had come from an entirely different line. Time to dig deeper
then.