C.P. Addition: Parentage of Josce de Dynham
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage has a good account of the history of Sir Oliver de
Dynham (or Dinham) (died 1298/9), 1st Lord Dinham, of Hartland, Devon.
Regarding his marriages, Complete Peerage gives the following
information:
"He married, 1stly, ..... He married, 2ndly, before 24 January 1276/7
(royal license 18 or 19 May 1280 for a fine of £100) Isabel, widow of
Sir John de Curtenay or Courtenay, of Okehampton, Devon (who d. 3 May
1274, and was buried in the Abbey of Ford), and daughter of Hugh (de
Vere), Earl of Oxford, by Hawise, daughter of Saier (de Quincy), Earl
of Winchester." END OF QUOTE.
No evidence is cited for the first marriage, which is strange. This
marriage seems to inferred only by the fact that Sir Oliver de
Dibham's son and heir, Josce, was aged 24 or 26 ar his father's death
in 1299, or born about 1275 or 1273. However, given that the marriage
of Sir Oliver and his known wife, Isabel de Vere, could have taken
place as early as late 1274, there seems to be no reason to create a
first marriage for Sir Oliver. If so, Oliver's son, Josce, could
conceivably be a child of Isabel de Vere.
In recent time, it has been speculated on the newsgroup that Sir
Oliver de Dynham might have married (1st) Iseult de Cardinham, widow
successively of Thomas de Tracy and William de Ferrers [see copy of
post below]. However, the evidence for such a union is weak at best.
Also, a footnote in the Cornwall Feet of Fines states that Iseult de
Cardinham was still living in 1301, long after Sir Oliver de Dynham
married Isabel de Vere. If correct, Iseult de Cardinham could not
possibly have been Oliver de Dynham's wife, either before or after his
marriage to Isabel de Vere.
The question remains: Is there evidence that Isabel de Vere is the
mother of Josce de Dynham? The answer is yes, there is.
A few years after the death of Sir Oliver de Dynham, his son, Josce's
son and heir, John de Dynham, came of age. This took place in 1316.
Shortly before John obtained livery of his father's lands, Hugh de
Courtenay (grandson of Isabel de Vere) wrote a letter to William de
Airmyn dated c. September 1316, in which he requested assistance for
his kinsman, John de Dynham, now of age, in obtaining seisin of his
lands [Reference: List of Ancient Correspondence, Lists and Indexes,
No. XV, reprinted 1968, pg. 552; cf. Index to Ancient Correspondence
of the Chancery and the Exchequer, 1 (Lists and Indexes, Supplementary
Series, No. XV) (reprinted 1969), pp. 308, 351]. The King
subsequently took John de Dynham's homage, and he had livery of his
father's lands, 18 October 1316.
Reviewing John de Dynham's ancestry, I see no immediate connection
between him and Hugh de Courtenay, unless the two men had the same
grandmother, Isabel de Vere. Then, Hugh de Courtenay's reference to
John de Dynham as his kinsman would make perfect sense.
Reviewing the chronology, I find that Isabel de Vere's eldest known
child, Hugh de Courtenay, was born in 1249, approximately 26-27 years
before Josce de Dynham could have been born. Given the early age of
high born noblewomen at first marriage in this period (usually around
14), a span of births of up to 30 years between a woman's oldest and
youngest child is entirely possible. The range in births between Hugh
de Courtenay, born 1249, and Josce de Dynham, born say 1275, would be
26 years, still within the 30 year span.
As for other contrary evidence, I note that there was at least one
later intermarriage between the Dynham and Courtenay families. If
Isabel de Vere was the mother of Josce de Dynham, this couple would
have been related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred. In this
case, no dispensation is known to exist for the marriage. However,
the fact remains that not all dispensations for this period have
survived, nor did all couples who need a dispensation obtain one.
Given this situation, the lack of a dispensation fails to disprove
that a kinship existed between the two partites. Only if a
dispensation existed would one know that there was kinship between the
two parties.
In summary, I find no evidence that Sir Oliver de Dynham had an
earlier marriage than his documented marriage to Isabel de Vere. I
find that Sir Oliver de Dynham's grandson, John Dynham, was styled
kinsman by Isabel de Vere's grandson, Hugh de Courtenay. I conclude
therefore that Sir Oliver de Dynham's son, Josce, was the child of
Isabel de Vere. Had another relationship existed between these
parties existed, then Sir Oliver de Dynham and Isabel de Vere would
themselves likely have had to obtain a dispensation for marriage, they
being related through affinity, rather than kindred.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
From: Ivor West (i...@freeuk.com)
Subject: Re: Isolda de Cardinham
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-06-10 09:10:17 PST
As you say, it will take more than a moment's thought to go into the
ins and outs of the implications of this fine.
One could, of course, take the Shropshire fine at its face value and
read Richard as a younger son of Geoffrey who married someone called
Isolda and they had some property in Ludlow. Is there any previous
history of the land showing it was in the hands of the family of this
Isolda? I see that the rose is to be offered to the heirs of Isolda,
not to the heirs of Richard and Isolda. Did Josce or his heirs receive
the rose for the Ludlow messuage?
Alternatively, to avoid a charge of special pleading, having read
Richard as Oliver, one might equally have read Richard's wife Isolda
as Isabella, in which case there would be no problem with Isabel de
Vere.
If your reading of the Shropshire fine is correct, however, it would
provide a piece of evidence for Isolda's marriage to Oliver.
A marriage between Isolda and Oliver de Dinham has been suggested
before, of course. Pearse-Chope, for instance, in the Transactions of
Devonshire Association (TDA, vol.50, (1918), p434) had Isolda as
Oliver's unknown first wife, with Isabel de Vere as his second. As
there was no evidence for the first marriage, he acknowledged it was
an assumption, based on the grant of Cardinham and Bodardle. This
conflicts with the footnote to Cornish fine no.222 of 1270, where it
says Isolda was still living in 1301. I don't know the source for
this date but the footnote also says that she had two sons by William
de Ferrers, which has since been discounted. As far as I can see, the
1301 date is the only thing that stands in the way of a chronology
which would allow Isolda to be the first wife of Oliver.
Isabel de Vere, following the death of John de Courtenay, was said to
have married Oliver de Dinham c.1280, or earlier. DEP says it was
without licence and that a fine of £100 was paid in consequence. That
should be verifiable somewhere. If the marriage was after 1275, she
wouldn't be Josce's mother on that score alone, so I guess it doesn't
say precisely when.
Thomas de Tracy died c.1267/8 (he was patron of St. Mabyn 1266). After
his death, Isolda de Cardinham married William de Ferrers (they
granted Strete to Hugh de Treverbyn in 1269). William de Ferrers died
c.1271/8 ( Isolda presented to Ferrers' churches in 1279 ). So a third
marriage of Isolda to Oliver de Dinham might have been possible within
William's time-limit. For Isolda to have been the mother of Josce de
Dinham, b.1275, the limit would be reduced to 1273. Isolda herself
would presumably need to be born not much later than c.1235 (Thomas de
Tracy was holding her fees in 1255) making her about 40 at the time of
Josce's birth. Oliver would have also been about 40 (b.1234), which
seems late for a first marriage unless he had an even earlier one
still, which would complicate matters.
Isolda divested herself of most of her estates during her widowhood of
Thomas de Tracy and, apparently, during her marriage to William de
Ferrers. They went first, in 1268/9 (Caption of Seisin, Duchy of
Cornwall, 1337, xi.), to Richard, earl of Cornwall, who received
Restormel, and to Oliver de Dinham (Dynham Cartulary, BM Add.MS 34792
(A)), Henry de Champernoun and others in c1268 -1270. All these were
alienees, of course, and mostly relations but not necessarily heirs.
If Isolda's latest notice was, in fact, 1279 and not 1301, this
chronology seems to fit ~
Isolda (1235 - 1279), m.1 (1255), Thomas de Tracy (1230 - 1267), m.2
(1268), William de Ferrers (1230 - 1273), m.3 (1274), Oliver de Dinham
(1234 - 1298). Oliver, m.2 (1280), Isabel de Vere (1222 - 1299).
Isabel, m1 (1240), John de Courtenay (1218) - 1274.
In my own view, it is not unlikely that Oliver was, in any case,
Isolda's nearest surviving male heir, which might have been sufficient
in itself to explain the large grant to him. If my calculation is
correct, their kinship would have been fairly remote, possibly in the
fifth and sixth degrees. So Oliver could have been in the position of
potential heir and husband.
It might be possible that Isolda followed the bulk of her property to
Oliver when she found that she had William de Ferrer's untimely (?)
demise on her hands. One difficulty that remains, however, is that one
can hardly imagine Isolda granting her lands to Oliver, with future
marriage in mind, while she was still married to William de Ferrers.
But one never knows.
Ivor West
John Ravilious <the...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:55712d2e.02053...@posting.google.com...
| Thursday, 30 May, 2002
|
|
| Hello Ivor, et al.,
|
| I have found another piece of evidence that I think will (A)
| lead us to a documented connection between de Cardinham
| and de Dinham,and (B) a related correction to CP, and the
| history of these families, in the end.
|
| From Eyton's Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 5, there is the
| following extract from a fine on page 288:
|
| ' By Fine of Nov. 3, 1276, Richard son of Geoffrey de Dynan,
| and Isolda Richard's wife, enfeoff Hugh le Tanur, in a
| messuage in Ludlow, for eight marks paid down, and a rent of
| one Rose, reserved to the Grantors and the heirs of Isolda. '
|
| While this will take more than a moment of thought to resolve
| with the rest of the information at hand concerning these families,
| it would appear initially that:
|
| 1. Isolda de Cardinham was married to Oliver [named Richard
| in the fine as above] de Dinham, who in fact was the
| grantee of Cardinham and Bodardle, presumably after the
| de Tracy marriage - the chronology here will need another
| look;
|
| A. The possibility that Oliver de Dinham was the grantee
| from a sister-in-law (assuming Isolda was married to
| a brother of Oliver, named Richard) seems unlikely as
| there were other eventual heirs.
|
| 2. Sir Josce de Dinham, 2nd Lord Dinham (b. before 26 Feb
| 1274/5 according to his father's IPM - see CP) was the
| son of Sir Oliver de Dinham and Isolda de Cardinham.
|
| 3. Margery de Hydon, widow of Sir Josce de Dinham, was in
| fact related (by marriage) to the then extended Cardinham
| clan by virtue of the above 'change' in Josce's parentage,
| causing her to be more than a token party to the
| Kilkampton fine of 1317 [see previous post, below].
|
| I realize the above is as yet unproven, but the possibility
| appears quite strong.
|
| Your thoughts (pro or con) ?
|
The...@aol.com
Dear Douglas,
Thanks for your very good post re: the statement by Hugh de
Courtenay (future 1st Earl of Devon, d. 1340) calling John de Dinham
his 'kinsman'. This is the first evidence of which I've heard, in
which a Courtenay-Dinham relationship is attested at such an early
date.
The problem, as previously understood from the documentary
evidence, is (or rather was) that the IPM of Oliver de Dinham, father
of Josce, dated 24 March 27 Edw. I (24 March 1298/99 - Somerset)
states, "Joyce his son, aged 24 and more, is his next heir" [1]. This
would place the birth of Josce de Dinham at a date of 24 March
1274/75, or earlier (and the IPM in Devon claims a greater age,
"26 and more"]. This appears to fly in the face of the possible date
of a marriage of Oliver de Dinham and Isabel (de Vere) de Courtenay,
as the account in CP says that her first husband, John de Courtenay,
d. 3 May 1274 [2]. This was a primary basis for ruling out this
possible relationship, as this placed the birth of Josce de Dinham
in extreme proximity to the earliest reasonable date at which Isabel
(de Vere) de Courtenay could have married Oliver de Dinham.
Interestingly, the date of death for John de Courtenay in CP is
in error. An examination of the chartulary of Ford Abbey finds the
following to be the actual text, concerning the death of John de
Courtenay:
" obiit tandem faeliciter in Christo quinto nonas Maii anno
Domini M.CCLXXIII. et regni regis Edwardi primi, primo anno;
qui juxta patrem suum dominuum Robertum de Courtnay apud
Fordam sepelitur coram summo altari. " [3]
trans. " he died at last, happily in Christ, on the fifth of the
nones of May in the year of Our Lord 1273, and of the
kingdom of King Edward the First, the first year; and was
buried next to his father, Lord Robert de Courtenay, at
Ford in the upper area of the altar."
Clearly, John de Courtenay then died in May of 1273, not 1274 as
the account in CP states. This appears to have resulted from
confusion as the writ requiring the inquisition is dated 11 May
2 Edw. I [4]. Given that King Henry III died in 1272, and Edward I
did not return from his Crusade until August 1274, it is certainly
possible that there was some administrative delay in issuing the writ.
There certainly seems no basis for the misstatement of the date in
the Ford Abbey record, as given in CP.
The other problematic date, that of the licence for the marriage
of Oliver de Dinham and Isabel ("before" 24 Jan 1276/77) appears not
to be so major an issue. That they were married before that date, as
given in the CP account, does not rule in or out any prior date.
Given a birth date for Josce de Dinham of March 1274/75 and the death
of John de Courtenay in May 1273, a marriage of Oliver de Dinham and
Isabel (de Vere) de Courtenay between say June 1273 and July 1274
would provide for a possible birth of Josce de Dinham (without
related embarrassments) between say March 1273/4 and March 1274/5.
On the subject of ages, Hugh de Courtenay (son of Isabel de Vere)
may have been born as late as 25 March 1250/51 - the IPM of his father
for Buckinghamshire states he was aged 24, while the others claim a
greater age [5]. So, the 'strain' on Isabel de Vere's age, between
the birth of Hugh and the birth of Josce de Dinham, may not be quite
as great as the larger potential date range indicates.
A reexamination of the dating of the writ of diem c. extremum and
the IPMs for John de Courtenay seems in order. That aside, it does
appear now that Josce de Dinham could have been, and apparently was,
the son of Isabel (de Vere) (de Courtenay) de Dinham.
Thanks for sharing your find, and for all your other good works.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] IPM, Edw. I, 532. Oliver Dynham alias de Dyneham. See also
CP IV:372, sub _Dinham_.
[2] CP II:465, sub _Courtenay_. The reference for this date is
note (e), "Chron. of the Abbey of Ford (where he was bur.), in
Monasticon, vol. v, p. 379".
[3] Monasticon Anglicanum V:379, Num. 1: Fundationis et
Fundatorum Historia.
[4] CP II:465, and note (f).
[5] Ibid.
Martin E. Hollick
> Friday, 19 November, 2004
SNIPPED.
If this is true, I believe it may be, there would be a way to test the
theory.
Sir John de Dinham who died 7 January 1382/3 married Maud de
Courtenay. If this theory is true there were second cousins, once
removed of the half blood. Would they have needed a dispensation in
order to marry?
This couple is ancestral to me and very likely to many others and
appears on p. 274 of PA3.
Martin Hollick
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
Your astute observations regarding the death date of John de Courtenay
are well put. Ford Abbey, who recorded John de Courtenay's death,
should have been in a position to know the correct date of his death,
especially since this great nobleman was buried in their monastery.
As such, I would give credibility to their records which state that
John de Courtenay died in 1273, not 1274. If so, this would push the
possible marriage date of Isabel de Vere and Oliver de Dynham back as
early as Autumn 1273. Sir Oliver de Dynham is known to have been born
about 1234. This would make him approximately 39 or 40 at the time of
his marriage to Isabel de Vere. My guess is that Isabel de Vere was
about the same age. If so, she would still be within the age of
childbearing at the time of their marriage.
I have another record to offer regarding Sir Oliver de Dynham. I find
that he presented to the church of Waddesdon, Buckinghamshire on 3 id.
March 1277 [Reference: F.N. Davis, Rotuli Ricardi Gravesend Episcopi
Lincolniensis 1258-1279 (Lincoln Rec. Soc. 20) (1925): 255].
Waddesdon, Buckinghamshire was a Courtenay family property. I presume
Sir Oliver de Dynham made this presentment in right of his wife,
Isabel de Vere's dower lands.
For interest's sake, I've listed below the names of the 17th Century
colonial immigrants who descend from Josce de Dynham, son of Oliver de
Dynham and his wife, Isabel de Vere.
1. William Asfordby.
2. Nehemiah & George Blakiston.
3. Charles Calvert.
4. Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
5. William Farrer.
6. Anne, Elizabeth, & John Mansfield.
7. William & Elizabeth Pole.
8. William Skepper.
9. Mary Johanna Somerset.
10. Samuel & William Torrey.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<7f.5174de8...@aol.com>...
The...@aol.com
Dear Martin,
You are correct, there was a later Dinham-Courtenay marriage
which I had alluded to, and that Doug Richardson described in his
post, without naming names:
" As for other contrary evidence, I note that there was at
least one later intermarriage between the Dynham and
Courtenay families. If Isabel de Vere was the mother of
Josce de Dynham, this couple would have been related in the
3rd and 4th degrees of kindred. In this case, no
dispensation is known to exist for the marriage. However,
the fact remains that not all dispensations for this period
have survived, nor did all couples who need a dispensation
obtain one. Given this situation, the lack of a dispensation
fails to disprove that a kinship existed between the two
parties. Only if a dispensation existed would one know that
there was kinship between the two parties. "
The following is the apparent relationship between Sir John
de Dinham and his wife, Muriel de Courtenay:
(1)
Sir John de Courtenay = Isabel de Vere = Sir Oliver de Dinham
of Okehampton I d. bef I of Hartland, Devon
d. 3 May 1273 I 7 Jan 1290/91 I d. 26 Feb 1298/99
___________________I I___
I I
Hugh de Courtenay = Eleanor le Sir Josce = Margaret
d. b 28 Feb 1291/92 I Despenser de Dinham I de Hydon
________________I d. 30 Mar 1300/01 I
I ___________I
I I
Sir Hugh de = Agnes de Sir John de Dinham = Margaret de
Courtenay I St. John d. bef 15 Apr 1332 I Botreaux
Earl of Devon I I
d. 1340 I I
__________I_________________ I
I I I
Hugh de Sir Thomas de Courtenay I
Courtenay of Woodhuish and Dunterton, Devon I
2nd Earl and Cricket Malherbe, Somerset I
of Devon d. 1356 = Muriel de Moels I
I I
I I
Muriel de Courtenay = Sir John de Dinham
coheir of her I of Hartland, Devon
brother Hugh I d. 7 Jan 1382/83
V
A dispensation was 'required'; it is possible that such a
dispensation was obtained and is lost to the ages (or at least for
the time being). It is also possible that it was never sought,
and - given that John de Dinham and Muriel de Courtenay were
married some 12 years at the most, and possibly much less [I know
of only two issue of the marriage] - the fact that it was
required was never noted, or acted upon.
Cheers,
John
Chris Phillips
...
> this appears to fly in the face of the possible date
> [2] CP II:465, sub _Courtenay_. The reference for this date is
> note (e), "Chron. of the Abbey of Ford (where he was bur.), in
> Monasticon, vol. v, p. 379".
>
> [3] Monasticon Anglicanum V:379, Num. 1: Fundationis et
> Fundatorum Historia.
>
> [4] CP II:465, and note (f).
This is also discussed by CP in vol. 4, p. 370, where again John's death is
dated to 3 May 1274. Footnote h cites "Chron. of Ford (Monasticon, vol. v,
p. 379), where, however, the year is erroneously given as 1273. The writ of
diem cl. ext. was issued 12 May 1274 (Fine Roll, 2 Edw. I, m. 23)."
I think we should be cautious about accepting Dugdale's transcript of the
Ford Chronicle against the strictly contemporary evidence of the Fine Roll -
it's easy to omit a stroke when copying Roman numerals.
Chris Phillips
The...@aol.com
Dear Chris,
Initially I would agree, but the text you cite from CP
IV:370, note (h) states that "the year is erroneously given as
1273." In fact, the Ford Abbey cartulary gives the date in two
forms. The text as given in Mon. Angl. V:379 reads:
" obiit tandem faeliciter in Christo quinto nonas Maii anno
Domini M.CCLXXIII. et regni regis Edwardi primi, primo anno;
qui juxta patrem suum dominuum Robertum de Courtnay apud
Fordam sepelitur coram summo altari. "
1. The year is given as "in the year of our Lord 1273"
but note, at the same time and in the same sentence,
2. " of the kingdom of King Edward the First, the
first year."
If this was merely a matter of accepting or rejecting the
date given in Roman numerals that would be one issue, then
accepting the date as 'more likely' 1274 [as done in CP II and
IV] would seem reasonable. However, the text then says this
was in the first year of the reign of Edward I, which year was
from November 1272 to November 1273. If we are to believe that
the correct date in the original charter was 1274 (or
M.CCLXXIIII), then the subsequent text would be in error in
stating this was in the first year of King Edward I's reign.
The possibilities appear to be as follows:
1. The original text in the Ford cartulary was in error,
with the writer recording the year (as 1273 and as
I Edw. I) incorrectly. The actual dates were 1274
and 2 Edw. I, the same years as the writ [per CP].
2. The original text stated the year as 1274 and 2 Edw. I,
and the transcriber (Dugdale or other) transcribed
BOTH dates incorrectly as 1273 and I Edw. I. The
dates in CP for the writ are correct.
3. The original text in the Ford cartulary was correct,
giving the year as 1273 and 1 Edw. I. The transcription
is likewise correct; the date given for the writ (1274)
is incorrect, and should read 1273.
4. The original text in the Ford cartulary was correct,
giving the year as 1273 and 1 Edw. I. The transcription
is likewise correct; the date given for the writ (1274)
is correct, with the writ (for reason or reasons
not yet clear) was not actually issued until the
following year.
Which of the above scenarios is correct (or most correct) is
unclear; however, the suggestion that the death occurred in
1273, and the writ was not issued until 1274, should be
considered a possibility.
Cheers,
John
Chris Phillips
> Initially I would agree, but the text you cite from CP
> IV:370, note (h) states that "the year is erroneously given as
> 1273." In fact, the Ford Abbey cartulary gives the date in two
> forms. The text as given in Mon. Angl. V:379 reads:
>
> " obiit tandem faeliciter in Christo quinto nonas Maii anno
> Domini M.CCLXXIII. et regni regis Edwardi primi, primo anno;
> qui juxta patrem suum dominuum Robertum de Courtnay apud
> Fordam sepelitur coram summo altari. "
>
> 1. The year is given as "in the year of our Lord 1273"
>
> but note, at the same time and in the same sentence,
>
> 2. " of the kingdom of King Edward the First, the
> first year."
That's a fair point, which I must admit I hadn't noticed. That must make it
unlikely that the date has been mistranscribed by Dugdale. (In any case,
this aspect can be checked, as the manuscript source - Cotton, Julius B.10
at the British Library - is still in existence.)
I agree it would be good to check out the discrepancy further, but I'm still
sceptical about accepting the Ford Chronicle against the Close Roll.
The Ford date comes from a narrative history of the founders of the abbey,
which goes up to 1340, so it wasn't written down for two or three
generations after John's death. It appears to use the double dating scheme
(anno domini and regnal year) throughout, so it's quite probably that the
historian took the date from a source which recorded it only in one form or
the other, and converted it to his standard style. It's plausible he made a
slip in the copying from his source, whether he was copying an AD or a
regnal date. Also, you've shown in the past that the history less than
compleely reliable in other details - it states that John's widow Hawise
survived Oliver de Dinham, whereas a contemporary document shows that she
didn't.
On the other hand, as the Close Roll contains contemporary enrolments made
in sequence, it doesn't seem credible that the date recorded there would be
a year out.
That leaves the possibility that for some reason there was a delay of almost
exactly a year after John's death in issuing the writ (the fact that it's so
close to a year in itself suggests that one date or the other is wrong by a
year). I find it a bit difficult to believe that the administrative
machinery ground to a halt because the king was out of the country, but
again it should be possible to check that by looking to see whether writs
continued to be issued regularly in the period between May 1273 and May
1274.
Chris Phillips
Clagett, Brice
descended from Josce de Dynham should include Mary Launce.
Ronald Di Iorio
Katherine Hamby.
Ronald Di Iorio
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Richard B. Anderson, Jr.
As a follow-up inquiry to the discussion below, where might I find a comprehensive list of 17th century settlers who descend from the DYNHAM/DINHAM family?
I've been working on part of my family ancestry and believe one of my lines links back to that family [by the time someone responds to this query, I'll have looked up which line it would be].
I look forward to reading further responses about this line.
Best wishes,
Richard B. Anderson, Jr., Danville, Virginia
"Happy Thanksgiving" to all the Americans on this list! 8-)