Early Dearnleys - pre 1500

    The surname occurs in the 14th century;  'thus Roger de Dearnley contributed to the subsidy of 1332';
Exch. Lay Subs. (Rec. Soc. Lancs. and Ches.),

At Michaelmas 1351 Richard son of William de Bury did not prosecute his suit against John del Dearnley and others respecting a tenement in Hundersfield;
Duchy of Lanc. Assize R. I, m. 5 d.

In 1360 Adam de Dearnley was a plaintiff, John de Dearnley being one of his pledges;
ibid R. 8, m. 4 d; see also Dep. Keeper's Rep. xxxii, App. 342.
  Henry de Dernylegh (c.1350-)
from the H. L. Bradfer-Lawrence Collection

Grant *MD335/3/1/5/147* 25 Apr 1382

*Contents*: 1. John Pelle of Crykelston     2. Sir Richard de Dronsfeld, chaplain, and Henry de Dernylegh
John grants to Sir Richard and Henry of all the messuages, with buildings, lands and tenements, rents and services, with appurtenances which he had in the vills of Cheyfft, Crykelston, Walton and Sandall by curtesy after the death of Alice daughter of Thomas Monck his wife; to hold for the grantor's life. Witnesses: John de Staynton, Thomas de Whetelay, Thomas de Cheyfft, William de Doddeworth, Thomas de Staynton. At Crykelston. Seal; red wax, round.
[Former ref: MD 335 Box 69 Clay vol VIII No 81: Series B No. 36: Dorse 71]

Quitclaim *MD335/3/1/5/148* 1 May 1382

1. Henry de Dernelee    2. Sir Richard Dronsfeld, chaplain
Henry quitclaims to Sir Richard all right in the premises detailed in md335/3/1/5/147 :- [all the messuages, with buildings, lands and tenements, rents and services, with appurtenances which he had in the vills of Cheyfft, Crykelston, Walton and Sandall by curtesy after the death of Alice daughter of Thomas Monck his wife.] At Berneslay. Seal; red wax, round with a flower.
[Former ref: MD 335 Box 69 Clay vol VIII No 81n: Series B No. 37: Dorse 69]

(Law) a formal renunciation of any claim against a person or of a right to land

 - thanks to Ian Goddard for this nugget - this confirms that Dernylegh & Dernelee are one & the same.

Outlawed for trespass ...

In 1400 it was stated that Henry de Dearnley had been outlawed in 1372 at the suit of Henry de Haworth for trespass, and that his land in Hundersfield had passed into the hands of the Ashton family;
Pal. of Lanc. Misc. 1/9, m. 87-8; Dep. Keeper's Rep. xl, App. 536.

After the death of Robert de Buckley his widow Alice married Henry de Dearnley, an outlaw, whereupon the escheator took the estate into the king's hands, or, at least, the widow's third part. Alice died in Sept. 1423, and John de Buckley, son of Robert, in Oct. 1429, leaving a son and heir James;
ibid. no. 496; Towneley MS. DD, no. 1483; Dep. Keeper's Rep. xl, App. 536. The lands were held of Sir Thomas Savile in socage.

In feudal England, escheat referred to the situation where the tenant of a fief died without an heir or committed a felony. The fief reverted to the King's ownership for one year and one day, by right of primer seisin, after which it reverted to the original lord who had granted it. From the time of Henry III, the monarchy took particular interest in escheat as a source of revenue.

From the 12th century onward, the Crown appointed escheators to manage escheats and report to the Exchequer, with one escheator per county established by the middle of the 14th century. Upon learning the death of a tenant, the escheator would hold an "inquisition post mortem" to learn if the king had any rights to the land. These were often preceded by a "writ of diem clausit extremum" issued by the king to seize the lands and hold the I.P.M. If there was any doubt, the escheator would seize the land and refer the case to Westminster where it would be settled, ensuring that not one day's revenue would be lost. This would be a source of concern with land owners when there were delays from Westminster.

note: Hundersfield was an ancient ecclesiastical parish, created 1746 from the parish of Rochdale, in the Hundred of Salford, England. It straddled the historic county boundary between Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire. There are written references to the parish dating back to 1202.
Hundersfield lay on high moorland around Blackstone Edge, containing the settlements of Todmorden, Walsden, Littleborough, Wardle, Smallbridge and parts of Rochdale.
In 1444 Roger Whitehead and Margaret his wife, together with Ellen Dearnley, recovered a moiety of two messuages, 40 acres of land. &c., in Hundersfield and Spotland, which Roger Dearnley had given to John Dearnley and his issue, and which after the death of John's son Geoffrey should descend to Margaret and Ellen, daughters of Geoffrey;
Pal. of Lanc. Plea R. 6, m. 12.

The same plaintiffs claimed the other moiety against Alexander son of Roger Butterworth; he replied that there was another daughter of Geoffrey, viz. Mary, still living at Newcastle on Tyne, but they said she had died at Chadderton in 1442; ibid. m. 12b  The estate was claimed as late as 1580 by a Roger Dearnley against Arthur Whitehead; (see below) see Fishwick, op. cit. 442 (quoting Duchy of Lanc. Plead. Eliz. lxxxi, D. 7)

Moiety - one of two (approximately) equal parts
Messuage -a dwelling house and its adjacent buildings and the adjacent land used by the household

"History of the Parish of Rochdale"  by Henry Fishwick

Some thoughts regarding the dates on Fishwick's Dernylegh tree (above). - JAD
    "In 1580 ...
     On behalf of the plaintiff it was stated that about fifty-two years ago [i.e., about 1528] a certain Roger Dernylegh was ..."

Perhaps: "about 52 years ago" = circa lii years ago = c.lii years ago = clii years ago = one hundred and fifty-two years ago

If so, the first listed Roger Dernylegh would then be "enfeoffed of" the lands closer to 1428.
Assuming a 28 yr generation gap, the descendents of Roger (born about 1408) would then be:
Roger Dernylegh born about 1446
John Dernylegh born about 1474
Roger Dernylegh born about 1502
Roger Dernylegh of Glossop, liv 1580; therefore born about 1530

Problems with the above pedigree for Roger of Glossop include both the dates and the possibility of missing generations.
The property in dispute in 1580 appears to have previously been in dispute in 1444
(see notes for John Dearnley 1355 (#9915) and his descendants)
and 1504-15
(see notes for Roger Dernely 1470 (#26228).
An attempt to provide linkage between the various people involved in these three recorded disputes is given in the table below.

  Table providing an alternative pedigree linking the disputes of 1444, 1504-15 and 1580 - a work in progress




 known to be alive in:



 believed to be alive in:

1 Roger Dearnley (II) c1325         Possibly a son of Roger (I) known to be alive in 1332.
2 John Dearnley (0) c1355 1384 Named in 1444 dispute as son of Roger (II), but missing
from Fishwick's pedigree
Elder son
Younger son
John (0)’s sons may be half-brothers.
3 Geoffrey Dearnley c1377 1397 Roger Dearnley (IV) c1410 1444 Roger (IV) (& a 3rd brother Robert) only known from
Fishwick's pedigree.

Descendants of the above Geoffrey

Descendants of the above Roger (IV)
4 Margaret (Whitehead) and sister Ellen c1405 1444 John Dearnley (I) c1450 Various assumptions being made on father/son relationships.
5 John Whitehead c1440 - Roger Dearnley (VI) c1475 1504-15 Court case 1504-15.
6 Edmund Whitehead c1470 - Roger Dearnley (VII) c1500 1537 Roger (VII) named in will of John (II).
7 Edmund Whitehead c1500 - Roger of Glossop (VIII) c1530 1580
Court case of 1580.
Witness to a will in Glossop in 1586.
Named in son Oliver's will of 1591.
8 Arthur Whitehead c1525 1580
i All birth years are estimates.
ii Numbering systems for the various Rogers and Johns as used elsewhere on the website – see Roger (II) (#9918) and John (I) (#14564).
iii Compared with Fishwick's pedigree, the above table contains an additional two generations for the Dearnleys (generation 2 and generation 5 or 6).
J.A.D. 2017

All early Ds currently in database c.1245-c.1599

Trees & any Dearnley stuff welcome
please email Mark

please note:  with the web constantly changing, some source URL's may have moved.
'Good Hunting'