If anyone can help me with the parents of Anne Heydon and Roger le 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.
On Jul 4, 12:35 pm, jmt <jeanmarietur...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> If anyone can help me with the parents of Anne Heydon and Roger le > 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!
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.
> 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....
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
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)
> 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
> but seehttp://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)
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.
I agree John, with the caveat that what we see in the Vis is three 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.
On Jul 4, 6:07 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> I agree John, with the caveat that what we see in the Vis is three > 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.
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.
> On Jul 4, 6:07 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I agree John, with the caveat that what we see in the Vis is three > > 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.
> 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.
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.
