Dennys/Stradling
Edward Davies
Dennys may be interested in the illustration on page 15 of Stella Colwell,
_The Family History Book_ (Oxford, 1980). The caption is "Part of a
pictorial Tudor tree pedigree made around 1530. It records the
Gloucestershire families of Denys and Russell. Note the heraldic shields
carried by the figures. (London, College of Arms, Muniment Room, MS. 3/54)".
This is not a contemporary source for Maurice or Walter, but if it is
correctly dated, then it is considerably earlier than the 1623 visitation.
Some (large) images are temporarily available:
http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.uk/dennys.htm
Edward Davies
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for posting the information about the Dennis pedigree dated
c.1530 found in the book by Stella Colwell. Thanks also for making a
scanned copy available on your website. It is much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"Edward Davies" <edward...@guiseley94.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c478ja$vof$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brad Verity
> Those researching the wives of Maurice Dennys and the maternity of Walter
> Dennys may be interested in the illustration on page 15 of Stella Colwell,
> _The Family History Book_ (Oxford, 1980). The caption is "Part of a
> pictorial Tudor tree pedigree made around 1530. It records the
> Gloucestershire families of Denys and Russell. Note the heraldic shields
> carried by the figures. (London, College of Arms, Muniment Room, MS. 3/54)".
Edward, this is wonderful. Many thanks. I'm going to order a copy
from The College of Arms (and hopefully not have to pay a small
fortune).
> This is not a contemporary source for Maurice or Walter, but if it is
> correctly dated, then it is considerably earlier than the 1623 visitation.
Yes indeed. Much stronger evidence, as this would've been created
privately for the family, with less reason for the fraud that
sometimes seeped into the Elizabethan Visitation pedigrees.
> Some (large) images are temporarily available:
> http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.uk/dennys.htm
I must admit, I can't make out any of the writing in even the blown-up
sections clearly, though the little I can decipher appears to be
Latin.
If the photo from the book is any clearer, could you transcribe the
wording that you can make out? For all of the folks on the chart, not
just Maurice and Walter Dennys and their wives. It'll help to verify
this chart against surviving 15th century Dennys records.
Per the pedigree, the name of Maurice Dennys's first wife was Johanna
Stradlyng? Following the branches (I love these medieval charts),
they appear to have had two sons, one of whom was Walter. The two
sons for the couple matches the 1623 Visitation.
Also, from what you can determine, do the arms of Johanna(?) Stradlyng
match the Stradling arms, which can be seen at the following:
Thanks Again, Edward, and Cheers, ------Brad
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> "Edward Davies" <edward...@guiseley94.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:
>
> > Those researching the wives of Maurice Dennys and the maternity of
> > Walter Dennys may be interested in the illustration on page 15 of
> > Stella Colwell, _The Family History Book_ (Oxford, 1980). The
> > caption is "Part of a pictorial Tudor tree pedigree made around
> > 1530. It records the Gloucestershire families of Denys and Russell.
> > Note the heraldic shields carried by the figures. (London, College
> > of Arms, Muniment Room, MS. 3/54)".
>
> Edward, this is wonderful. Many thanks. I'm going to order a copy
> from The College of Arms (and hopefully not have to pay a small
> fortune).
It would be nice and simple if the heralds could just copy this or take
a high quality photograph but this is not their normal practice. They
usually get someone to copy it out by hand with all the dangers of
error. The expense of this could well approximate to a small fortune.
Some high negotiating skills are needed?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Douglas Richardson
As best I can make out the written Latin, the pedigree chart assigns
two wives to Maurice Dennis, Esquire, namely "Johanna Stradlynge uxor
prima Maur's Denys" [that is, Joan Stradling the first wife of Maurice
Dennis], and "Alicia Poyntz secunda uxor Maur's Denys" [Alice Poyntz
the second wife of Maurice Dennis]. The writing is somewhat blurry
but I think I got it right.
The pedigree assigns one son, Sir Walter, to the first wife, Joan
Stradling, and four sons and one daughter to the second wife, Alice
Poyntz. I'm unable to read the names of Alice Poyntz' children
because the names are too small and blurry. The names are given
besides each child, however.
By the figure for the son, Sir Walter Dennis, I believe it
specifically states that he was the son of Maurice and Joan. It's
blurry but I think that is a correct reading. It identifies four
wives for Sir Walter, all of which agrees with the 1623 Visitation of
Gloucestershire. The wives named in order of marriage are as follows:
Unnamed daughter of Lord Dacre, Agnes Danvers (she is styled daughter
and heiress of Robert Danvers), Agnes Mynne widow, and Alice Beynham
widow. All of Walter's children were by his 2nd wife, Agnes Danvers,
according to both the pedigree chart and the visitation.
The writing seems to me to be about 1550. It could be earlier than
this, but I doubt much later. The College of Arms probably would be
able to provide us a better fix on the date, especially if the Dennis
pedigree comes from a collection of other manuscript pedigrees.
I trust this helps you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.04032...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Some (large) images are temporarily available:
> > http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.uk/dennys.htm
>
> I must admit, I can't make out any of the writing in even the blown-up
> sections clearly, though the little I can decipher appears to be
> Latin.
>
> If the photo from the book is any clearer, could you transcribe the
> wording that you can make out? For all of the folks on the chart, not
> just Maurice and Walter Dennys and their wives. It'll help to verify
> this chart against surviving 15th century Dennys records.
>
> Per the pedigree, the name of Maurice Dennys's first wife was Johanna
> Stradlyng? Following the branches (I love these medieval charts),
> they appear to have had two sons, one of whom was Walter. The two
> sons for the couple matches the 1623 Visitation.
>
>
Nathaniel Taylor
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
Well, this particular pedigree was photographed at least once already,
right? If the College of Arms had any sense, they would retain the
negative used then, for future requests.
But this premise has elsewhere been impugned...
Nat Taylor
Douglas Richardson
I've studied the Dennis pedigree a bit further just now. It appears
that Maurice Dennis is identified by the pedigree as the "son of the
abovesaid Gilbert and Margaret D[ennis]." Gilbert and Margaret's
images are above Maurice's but they are not included in the copy of
the pedigree posted by Mr. Davies. We know from other records that
Gilbert and Margaret Dennis are the correct names of Maurice's
parents.
As I indicated in my earlier post, in the next generation down, Sir
Walter Dennis is in turn identified as the son of his parents, Maurice
Dennis and his 1st wife, Joan [Stradling].
The writing is blurry but I think I have correctly read the Latin.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.04032...@posting.google.com>...
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> The pedigree assigns one son, Sir Walter, to the first wife, Joan
> Stradling, and four sons and one daughter to the second wife, Alice
> Poyntz. I'm unable to read the names of Alice Poyntz' children
> because the names are too small and blurry. The names are given
> besides each child, however.
It looks like three sons and two daughters to me, judging by the costume.
> By the figure for the son, Sir Walter Dennis, I believe it
> specifically states that he was the son of Maurice and Joan. It's
> blurry but I think that is a correct reading. It identifies four
> wives for Sir Walter, all of which agrees with the 1623 Visitation of
> Gloucestershire. The wives named in order of marriage are as follows:
> Unnamed daughter of Lord Dacre, Agnes Danvers (she is styled daughter
> and heiress of Robert Danvers), Agnes Mynne widow, and Alice Beynham
> widow. All of Walter's children were by his 2nd wife, Agnes Danvers,
> according to both the pedigree chart and the visitation.
It looks as though the first wife, like the third and fourth, is described
as "vidua", widow.
Chris Phillips
Edward Davies
news:8ed1b63.04032...@posting.google.com...
> [...]
> If the photo from the book is any clearer, could you transcribe the
> wording that you can make out? For all of the folks on the chart, not
> just Maurice and Walter Dennys and their wives. It'll help to verify
> this chart against surviving 15th century Dennys records.
Unfortunately, the resolution of the illustration doesn't make it easy to
make an exact transcription of the text. If it's possible to get a better
photographic copy of the pedigree from the College of Arms then that would
be helpful. However, the pedigree does appear to show that Maurice Dennys's
first wife was Joan Stradling, that Maurice's second wife was Alice Poyntz,
and that Walter was the son of Maurice and Joan.
> [...]
> Also, from what you can determine, do the arms of Johanna(?) Stradlyng
> match the Stradling arms, which can be seen at the following:
>
> http://www.stradling.org.uk/
Joan Stradling is represented by the figure on the left at
http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.uk/dennys2.jpg (the illustration in
Colwell's book is black and white).
Edward Davies
Edward Davies
news:c49kbf$vka$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > The pedigree assigns one son, Sir Walter, to the first wife, Joan
> > Stradling, and four sons and one daughter to the second wife, Alice
> > Poyntz. I'm unable to read the names of Alice Poyntz' children
> > because the names are too small and blurry. The names are given
> > besides each child, however.
>
> It looks like three sons and two daughters to me, judging by the costume.
These seem to be Maurice, Francis, Hugh, Alice and Emma.
Edward Davies
> [...]
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> The writing seems to me to be about 1550. It could be earlier than
> this, but I doubt much later. The College of Arms probably would be
> able to provide us a better fix on the date, especially if the Dennis
> pedigree comes from a collection of other manuscript pedigrees.
Please clarify the basis for your suggestion that the handwriting
belongs to "about 1550". As Edward Davies reported, the caption in
Stella Colwell's book dated the pedigree to "around 1530" - I can only
assume you are shifting this back from some specific observation/s.
Peter Stewart
Hal Bradley
William, this pedigree provides evidence as to the identity of the
heretofore deduced first wife of Maurice Denys.
Interestingly, although most secondary and tertiary sources that identify
Maurice's first wife as a Stradling, identify her as Catherine Stradling,
this pedigree identifies her as Joan Stradling. This argues towards it being
independently derived. If this is correct, it would be interesting to
ascertain how the error was introduced that later identified her as
Catherine.
Further, since Edward Stradling held the wardship of Maurice Denys, if
Maurice Denys' first wife was indeed a Stradling, it is probable that
Maurice Denys married a daughter of Edward Stradling. The arguments
previously made (pro and con) regarding Katherine Stradling being
illegitimate should be re-examined. If Maurice's first wife was indeed Joan
Stradling, there would be a stronger argument that she was the legitimate
daughter of Joan Beaufort. Of course, this would be contingent upon
resolving the chronological issues previously brought up by Rosie.
Harriss' "Cardinal Beaufort" makes the explicit claim that Henry fathered
Joan in 1402, after the death of Sir John Cherleton. That she was not born
during Cherleton's lifetime is almost certain, for she would have been
regarded as his heir, assuming her mother was Lady Cherleton. On the other
hand, there are claims that Henry Beaufort fathered Joan before he took
orders. The arguments against this appear to be threefold:
1) This claim was made simply to divert attention from the fact that Henry
had a bastard child while serving as a Bishop.
2) Henry was born c. 1374/5, and thus was too young to have fathered a child
in 1391, i.e. before Alice Arundel's marriage to Sir John Cherleton.
3) Since Joan Beaufort died in 1479, it is unlikely that she would have been
born as early as 1391.
As for point number two, I do not quite follow the argument here.
Brad Verity has pointed out that there is no contemporary evidence that
Alice Arundel (or Fitz Alan) was the mother of Joan Beaufort. If Joan's
mother is unknown, then Joan could have been born as late as 1397, even
while Henry was abroad, before Henry took orders. This would also somewhat
address the objection of point number three, for Joan would be in her early,
as opposed to her late, eighties. Yet, some continue to argue that the
chronology does not allow for Joan to be the mother of Maurice Denys' first
wife. That would only be true if one was assuming that Joan Beaufort was
born after the death of Sir John Cherleton.
One cannot have it both ways. One can't argue that there is no evidence
that Alice Arundel was the mother of Joan Beaufort, and then define the
chronological objections to Joan being the mother of Edward Stradling's
daughter contingent upon Alice Arundel's marriage to John Cherleton. In
other words, if one rejects the identity of Joan's mother as being Alice
Arundel, then the chronological arguments fall to the wayside.
Hal Bradley
Douglas Richardson
Yes, Chris, I concur with you that the Dennis pedigree shows that
Maurice Dennis and his 2nd wife, Alice Poyntz, had three sons and two
daughters, not four sons and one daughter as I originally stated. I
descend from Alice Poyntz' brother, Humphrey Poyntz, so I have a keen
interest in Alice's children.
I also concur with you that the first wife of Walter Dennis is styled
"vidua" (that is, widow), although her former husband's name is not
provided as is the case with Walter's 3rd and 4th wives who were also
styled widows.
Do you have any opinion about the date of the pedigree?
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Do you have any opinion about the date of the pedigree?
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
But YOU have an opinion on this, and you have posted it to the newsgroup
without any supporting evidence. You have since been asked to
substantiate the reasoning behind this.
Are you now seeking other people's input on the question before
venturing your own "expertise"?
Paul Bulkley has demonstrated that he doesn't observe the courtesy of
providing evidence to back up claims, even when asked to do so. It's an
old, cheap & unavailing trick - I wonder where he might have learned it.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Mr. Davies kindly posted a copy of the Dennis pedigree on his website.
I've dated the Dennis pedigree based on the handwriting as being
about 1550, and possibly earlier. This is just a guess, without
knowing further particulars about the pedigree. Ms. Colwell may well
be right to date it as being circa 1530. Twenty years isn't a lot of
difference, Peter. In any case, my question regarding the pedigree's
dating was directed towards Chris Phillips, not you. Please allow
Chris to reply, if he wishes to do so. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<V95ac.130884$Wa.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Chris Phillips
Edward Davies wrote:
> These seem to be Maurice, Francis, Hugh, Alice and Emma.
Yes - I've been looking at the version in Colwell's book, which is a little
clearer than the scan. I agree about these names. It looks as though someone
has added in slightly paler ink that Maurice, Francis and Emma died without
issue of their bodies.
On the date, I should have guessed from the form of the 'r's that it was
perhaps earlier than 1550, but I could easily be wrong. Presumably the
"around 1530" is based on how far the pedigree is taken.
Chris Phillips
Brad Verity
Many thanks for looking closely at the pedigree photos and deciphering
what you can make out of the writing - it's very helpful. I've sent a
query into the College of Arms, so we'll see what their response is.
hw.br...@verizon.net ("Hal Bradley") wrote in message news:
Great summary of the evidence so far, Hal. Comments interspersed.
> If dated correctly, i.e. within the lifetime of Maurice Denys' grandson,
> William, this pedigree provides evidence as to the identity of the
> heretofore deduced first wife of Maurice Denys.
Yes. I still would like to find a 15th-century document that
identifies this first marriage of Maurice Dennys, but this pedigree
chart, with the heraldry and all, is certainly the next best thing.
> Interestingly, although most secondary and tertiary sources that identify
> Maurice's first wife as a Stradling, identify her as Catherine Stradling,
> this pedigree identifies her as Joan Stradling. This argues towards it being
> independently derived. If this is correct, it would be interesting to
> ascertain how the error was introduced that later identified her as
> Catherine.
It's quite possible the family showed this pedigree to the Heralds
when they came to do the Visitations in late 16th/early 17th century.
Remember the original Visitation was lost - we only have a manuscript
that someone copied from the original, so 'Katherine' for 'Johanna'
could have been a Herald error or a transcription error of the
copyist?
> Further, since Edward Stradling held the wardship of Maurice Denys, if
> Maurice Denys' first wife was indeed a Stradling, it is probable that
> Maurice Denys married a daughter of Edward Stradling.
I would say possible rather than probable. Edward Stradling was
granted the lands of the late Gilbert Dennys in 1422, not the marriage
of the heir. This may be because the heir (Maurice Dennys) was
already married/contracted to Joanna Stradling before his father died,
or the marriage could've resulted from Edward having control over the
Dennys lands.
I'm going to throw a theory I have as to Joanna Stradling Dennys's
parentage out onto the newsgroup: she may have been the daughter of
Sir John Stradling and Joan Dauntsey, widow of Maurice Russell.
1) We know John Stradling and Joan Dauntsey were married in 1417
(Joan's first husband died in 1416), which is 4-5 years sooner than we
can date Edward Stradling's marriage to Jane Beaufort.
2) Joan Dauntsey Stradling was the stepmother of Margaret Russell
Dennys, mother of Maurice Dennys.
3) The two sons of Joanna Stradling and Maurice Dennys were named
Walter and John - these names favor the John Stradling/Joan Dauntsey
parentage (Joan Dauntsey was the heiress of her brother Walter
Dauntsey) over the Edward Stradling/Jane Beaufort one.
4) According to Bartrum, John Stradling and Joan Dauntsey had several
daughters, a couple of whom seemed to marry Kemmys, which was the
family of Maurice Dennys's stepfather - so there was apparent
marriages between the families of Joan Dauntsey Stradling and her
stepdaughter Margaret Russell.
5) The only source that states Maurice Dennys's first wife was
daughter of Sir Edward Stradling is the 1623 Visitation pedigree,
which now seems to have gotten the first name incorrect, and has been
shown to have been in error/confusion about other early generation
relationships/identities.
> The arguments
> previously made (pro and con) regarding Katherine Stradling being
> illegitimate should be re-examined. If Maurice's first wife was indeed Joan
> Stradling, there would be a stronger argument that she was the legitimate
> daughter of Joan Beaufort.
Or Joan Dauntsey.
> Of course, this would be contingent upon
> resolving the chronological issues previously brought up by Rosie.
Which was that there does not seem to be any pre-1422 evidence of a
connection with Sir Edward Stradling and Cardinal Beaufort - the
favors he started receiving in that year indicate he had probably
married the Cardinal's daughter about that time.
> Harriss' "Cardinal Beaufort" makes the explicit claim that Henry fathered
> Joan in 1402, after the death of Sir John Cherleton. That she was not born
> during Cherleton's lifetime is almost certain, for she would have been
> regarded as his heir, assuming her mother was Lady Cherleton. On the other
> hand, there are claims that Henry Beaufort fathered Joan before he took
> orders. The arguments against this appear to be threefold:
>
> 1) This claim was made simply to divert attention from the fact that Henry
> had a bastard child while serving as a Bishop.
> 2) Henry was born c. 1374/5, and thus was too young to have fathered a child
> in 1391, i.e. before Alice Arundel's marriage to Sir John Cherleton.
> 3) Since Joan Beaufort died in 1479, it is unlikely that she would have been
> born as early as 1391.
I'm in the midst of writing an article about Bishop Beaufort and his
alleged affair with Alice of Arundel. The Stradling children of Jane
Beaufort won't figure prominently at all, so there won't be any Dennys
information, but the article will thoroughly debunk Alice as Jane's
mother.
> As for point number two, I do not quite follow the argument here.
>
> Brad Verity has pointed out that there is no contemporary evidence that
> Alice Arundel (or Fitz Alan) was the mother of Joan Beaufort. If Joan's
> mother is unknown, then Joan could have been born as late as 1397, even
> while Henry was abroad, before Henry took orders. This would also somewhat
> address the objection of point number three, for Joan would be in her early,
> as opposed to her late, eighties.
Yes, removing Alice as mother opens up the years 1392-1401. Beaufort
could've fathered Jane at any time during his adult life. So Jane's
chronology - marriage date, dates of birth for children, date of death
- become the only means to estimate when she was born.
> Yet, some continue to argue that the
> chronology does not allow for Joan to be the mother of Maurice Denys' first
> wife. That would only be true if one was assuming that Joan Beaufort was
> born after the death of Sir John Cherleton.
The Stradling mother of Walter (and John?) Dennys had to have been old
enough to have given birth to her son(s) in the early-to-mid 1430s.
This is the chronology that doesn't work for Jane Beaufort to be the
mother - there is no evidence that she was married to Edward Stradling
before 1422/3. In fact, Joan Dauntsey Stradling as the mother just
barely works chronologically (it requires Joanna Stradling Dennys to
be her firstborn child by John Stradling).
If Joanna Dennys was an illegitimate daughter of Edward Stradling,
then of course the marriage constraint drops, and the chronology opens
up to her being born at any point during Edward's adult life (about
1407 on).
> One cannot have it both ways. One can't argue that there is no evidence
> that Alice Arundel was the mother of Joan Beaufort, and then define the
> chronological objections to Joan being the mother of Edward Stradling's
> daughter contingent upon Alice Arundel's marriage to John Cherleton. In
> other words, if one rejects the identity of Joan's mother as being Alice
> Arundel, then the chronological arguments fall to the wayside.
Certainly the chronological restraints for Jane's birth fall to the
wayside, and the years 1392-1401 open up as possible. But the
chronological objections to Jane being mother of Maurice's Stradling
wife are not just contingent upon Jane's age - they are contingent
upon the marriage date of Jane to Edward Stradling.
The vital piece of evidence needed for those hoping for a descent of
Katherine Deighton from Cardinal Beaufort is an indication that Sir
Edward Stradling was married to Jane Beaufort prior to 1422, ideally
around 1414-16.
Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad
Peter Stewart
this document is an important point to be discussed on this newsgroup,
on three conditions:
1. Other people must first provide analysis for him, not the other way
round, even though he raised the issue on the ground that "around 1530"
apparently didn't seem satisfactory to him.
2. He must be allowed to pose as an authority on handwriting, able to
"guess" a likely date to within twenty years by some kind of
extra-sensory perception, all from fuzzy images in which he can't even
make out important words that other people have filled in for him.
3. No-one has any business questioning him, messing with his opportunity
to look as if he knew something all along but just hadn't got round to
explaining it - and if they do then his fine distinction of twenty years
becomes a mere trifle, rather than yet another example of his bogus
approach to scholarship.
Nothing I wrote could prevent Chris Phillips from having his say. He, of
course, confines his remarks to matters that he knows about or genuinely
thinks through; and he doesn't seek to blur the discourse here with a
fog of pretension.
Peter Stewart
Derek Howard
> Dear Peter ~
>
> Mr. Davies kindly posted a copy of the Dennis pedigree on his website.
> I've dated the Dennis pedigree based on the handwriting as being
> about 1550, and possibly earlier. This is just a guess, without
> knowing further particulars about the pedigree. Ms. Colwell may well
> be right to date it as being circa 1530. Twenty years isn't a lot of
> difference, Peter. In any case, my question regarding the pedigree's
> dating was directed towards Chris Phillips, not you. Please allow
> Chris to reply, if he wishes to do so. Thanks!
May I butt in and reply? The membrane concerned from this pedigree has
been published previous to Stella Colwell's 1980 work. It appeared in
the Catalogue of the Heralds' Commemorative Exhibition 1484-1934,
plate XLIV, exhibition item 101 discussed at page 70. It was then
catalogued as College of Arms, Box 9, no. 18 so obviously some
rearrangement of the CoA storage has taken place. It had been
bequeathed to the college by Ralph Sheldon of Beoly, co. Worcester in
1684.
The vellum roll is dated to "about 1520 continued to 1530". The
principal compiler of the catalogue was A R Wagner, then Portcullis
Pursuivant. It would be hard to find a better authority for the date.
The photo in the Catalogue is rather finer and sharper than in
Colwell's book though the latter has a higher contrast so for the
consideration of the two generations under current discussion I have
found it useful to have both volumes open together. The Catalogue
print includes a couple of earlier generations and the bottom of the
previous membrane while Colwell includes a later generation, so they
are probably not from the same negative or plate.
As I read the document :
Maurice Denys Armiger is stated to be first son of Gilbert and
Margaret;
Maurice married 1st Joan Stadling, 2nd Alice Poyntz
the children are given as
Maurice first son of Maurice and Alice
Francis 2nd son died without heirs of his body
Alice first daughter
Walter Denys first son of Maurice and Joan
I would add to the previous transcripts posted that Sir Walter's 2nd
wife, Agnes, was 'one' (una) of the daughters and heiresses of Robert
Danvers.
If necessary I can spend a little more time with the prints and
magnifying glass.
Derek Howard
Chris Phillips
Derek Howard wrote:
> As I read the document :
> Maurice Denys Armiger is stated to be first son of Gilbert and
> Margaret;
> Maurice married 1st Joan Stadling, 2nd Alice Poyntz
> the children are given as
> Maurice first son of Maurice and Alice
> Francis 2nd son died without heirs of his body
> Alice first daughter
> Walter Denys first son of Maurice and Joan
The layout is a bit confusing, as the children don't all appear at the same
level. Lower down than Alice are Hugh (Hugo) and Emma. I am working from
Colwell's book, and I think Maurice the son is said to have died without
issue of his body, like Francis (and Emma).
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for posting this information regarding the two productions
and the dating of the Dennis pedigree. Much appreciated.
A brief internet search for the earlier publication, Heralds'
Commemorative Exhibition 1484-1934, indicates that it is available for
sale at www.bibliophile.net for 28 pounds sterling. It can be viewed
at the following website:
http://biblioserv1.bibliophile-international.net
Another copy is also being auctioned at another site. This site
indicates it was published in 1936 and is one of 300 original copies
which were produced.
http://www.icollectorlive.com/viewCatalogItem.aspx?auctionid=3376&itemid=1150429&page=29
For those descended from the Dennis-Stradling family, this would
surely be an interesting book to own.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
dho...@skynet.be (Derek Howard) wrote in message news:<ea734afc.0403...@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Richardson
Please don't get a bunch in your undies on my account. I'm concerned
about your frequent bouts of irritability. Perhaps you should switch
to decaf.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<Efmac.131979$Wa.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
L Mahler
> Dear Peter ~
>
> Please don't get a bunch in your undies on my account. I'm concerned
> about your frequent bouts of irritability. Perhaps you should switch
> to decaf.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Is this what we usually expect from a 'trained historian'?
Perhaps Mr. Stewart could accomodate you even further, by lowering his
standards for evidence, or by accepting connections that lack
sufficient evidence.
Leslie