(?) (?)

ID# 9912, b. about 1355
From about 1375, her married name was Dearnley.
Birth:
(?) (?) was born about 1355.


Marriage:
(?) (?) married John Dearnley, son of Roger Dearnley (II), about 1375.

Children of (?) (?) and John Dearnley

Ellen Dearnley

ID# 9913, b. about 1405, d. after 1444
Ellen Dearnley was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for search.)
She was also recorded as Ellen Dearnley.

Note:

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

Ian Goddard notes:
If we exclude Roger doing something completely mischievous such as leaving the property to John over the head of an older son then the most likely scenario I can think of is this: Geoffrey is the older son, marries & sets up home elsewhere. He also has a younger son who stays at home and maybe also has a family thus:

Roger
John
Geoffrey
Mary d Chadderton 1442
Margaret = Roger Whitehead
Ellen
Unknown daughter = Roger Butterworth
Alexander Butterworth
Unknown I
Unknown II

When Geoffrey dies, which I suppose must have been about 1443 or 1444, Unknown I, if still living, or Unknown II stays on in possession along with Alexander (maybe the Butterworths also lived at the property) and these became the defendants. It would help to know the exact terms under which Roger left the property. If it was heirs male and Geoffrey only had daughters then AIUI the unknown son would have been the legitimate heir. Presumably the plaintiffs must have persuaded the court that this was not the case.


Birth:
Ellen Dearnley was born about 1405.


Ellen Dearnley was the daughter of Geoffrey Dearnley and (?) (?)
Ellen Dearnley was living in 1444.
Death:
Ellen Dearnley died after 1444.

Geoffrey Dearnley

ID# 9914, b. about 1377, d. about 1443
Geoffrey Dearnley was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for search.)
He was also recorded as Geoffrey de Dernelegh.

Note:

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

Ian Goddard notes:
If we exclude Roger doing something completely mischievous such as leaving the property to John over the head of an older son then the most likely scenario I can think of is this: Geoffrey is the older son, marries & sets up home elsewhere. He also has a younger son who stays at home and maybe also has a family thus:

Roger
John
Geoffrey
Mary d Chadderton 1442
Margaret = Roger Whitehead
Ellen
Unknown daughter = Roger Butterworth
Alexander Butterworth
Unknown I
Unknown II

When Geoffrey dies, which I suppose must have been about 1443 or 1444, Unknown I, if still living, or Unknown II stays on in possession along with Alexander (maybe the Butterworths also lived at the property) and these became the defendants. It would help to know the exact terms under which Roger left the property. If it was heirs male and Geoffrey only had daughters then AIUI the unknown son would have been the legitimate heir. Presumably the plaintiffs must have persuaded the court that this was not the case.


Birth:
Geoffrey Dearnley was born about 1377.


Geoffrey Dearnley was the son of John Dearnley and (?) (?)


Note:
on 12 May 1397
On 12 May 1397 a 'pardon [was issued] to Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey de Bockelegh [Buckley] of his outlawry for not appearing in the King's Bench to answer Geoffrey, son of John de Dernelegh, in a plea of mayhem and breach of the peace, he having surrendered to the Marshalse prison, as is certified by Walter Clapton, chief justice'.
This entry was excellent confirmation of a relationship at a specific date - but it is the only reference to the Dearnley family in all sixty-six volumes*, possibly because they lived in the palatinate of Lancaster.

* referring to 66 volumes of Patent Rolls covering the period 1216-1587

source: Google Books -
The family tree detective: tracing your ancestors in England and Wales
By Colin D. Rogers.


Marriage:
Geoffrey Dearnley married (?) (?) about 1400.


Death:
Geoffrey Dearnley died about 1443.

Children of Geoffrey Dearnley and (?) (?)

John Dearnley

ID# 9915, b. about 1355
John Dearnley was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for search.)
He was also recorded as John de Dernelegh.

Note:

This assumes that the Roger Dearnley (below) was the father of John Dearnley

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.



Note:

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

Ian Goddard notes:
If we exclude Roger doing something completely mischievous such as leaving the property to John over the head of an older son then the most likely scenario I can think of is this: Geoffrey is the older son, marries & sets up home elsewhere. He also has a younger son who stays at home and maybe also has a family thus:

Roger
John
Geoffrey
Mary d Chadderton 1442
Margaret = Roger Whitehead
Ellen
Unknown daughter = Roger Butterworth
Alexander Butterworth
Unknown I
Unknown II

When Geoffrey dies, which I suppose must have been about 1443 or 1444, Unknown I, if still living, or Unknown II stays on in possession along with Alexander (maybe the Butterworths also lived at the property) and these became the defendants. It would help to know the exact terms under which Roger left the property. If it was heirs male and Geoffrey only had daughters then AIUI the unknown son would have been the legitimate heir. Presumably the plaintiffs must have persuaded the court that this was not the case.


Birth:
John Dearnley was born about 1355.


John Dearnley was the son of Roger Dearnley (II).

Marriage:
John Dearnley married (?) (?) about 1375.



Note:
in 1384
Another reference to John Dearnley c.1355?

Grant DDHU 7/6 (9 Mar. 1383/4)
Contents:
Margery daughter of Geoffrey of Klegg to Nicholas of Bamford -- her properties in Klegg in Boterworth, which Cecily her mother held as dower by Feoffment of Adam son of Nicholas of Merland -- Witn. Henry of Haworth, Alexander of Boterworth, John of Dernlegh Henry of the Holdeyn, Geoffrey of Newbolt. Given at Boterworth, Sun. after St. Cedde Bishop, 7 Ric. 11. (30).
These documents are held at Lancashire Record Office
see The National Archives
-JAD.





Note:
on 12 May 1397
On 12 May 1397 a 'pardon [was issued] to Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey de Bockelegh [Buckley] of his outlawry for not appearing in the King's Bench to answer Geoffrey, son of John de Dernelegh, in a plea of mayhem and breach of the peace, he having surrendered to the Marshalse prison, as is certified by Walter Clapton, chief justice'.
This entry was excellent confirmation of a relationship at a specific date - but it is the only reference to the Dearnley family in all sixty-six volumes*, possibly because they lived in the palatinate of Lancaster.

* referring to 66 volumes of Patent Rolls covering the period 1216-1587

source: Google Books -
The family tree detective: tracing your ancestors in England and Wales
By Colin D. Rogers.

Children of John Dearnley and (?) (?)

Margaret Dearnley

ID# 9916, b. about 1405
Margaret Dearnley was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for search.)
From about 1426, her married name was Whitehead.

Note:

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

Ian Goddard notes:
If we exclude Roger doing something completely mischievous such as leaving the property to John over the head of an older son then the most likely scenario I can think of is this: Geoffrey is the older son, marries & sets up home elsewhere. He also has a younger son who stays at home and maybe also has a family thus:

Roger
John
Geoffrey
Mary d Chadderton 1442
Margaret = Roger Whitehead
Ellen
Unknown daughter = Roger Butterworth
Alexander Butterworth
Unknown I
Unknown II

When Geoffrey dies, which I suppose must have been about 1443 or 1444, Unknown I, if still living, or Unknown II stays on in possession along with Alexander (maybe the Butterworths also lived at the property) and these became the defendants. It would help to know the exact terms under which Roger left the property. If it was heirs male and Geoffrey only had daughters then AIUI the unknown son would have been the legitimate heir. Presumably the plaintiffs must have persuaded the court that this was not the case.


Birth:
Margaret Dearnley was born about 1405.


Margaret Dearnley was the daughter of Geoffrey Dearnley and (?) (?)

Marriage:
Margaret Dearnley married Roger Whitehead about 1426.

Mary Dearnley

ID# 9917, b. about 1405, d. 1442
Mary Dearnley was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for search.)

Note:

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

Ian Goddard notes:
If we exclude Roger doing something completely mischievous such as leaving the property to John over the head of an older son then the most likely scenario I can think of is this: Geoffrey is the older son, marries & sets up home elsewhere. He also has a younger son who stays at home and maybe also has a family thus:

Roger
John
Geoffrey
Mary d Chadderton 1442
Margaret = Roger Whitehead
Ellen
Unknown daughter = Roger Butterworth
Alexander Butterworth
Unknown I
Unknown II

When Geoffrey dies, which I suppose must have been about 1443 or 1444, Unknown I, if still living, or Unknown II stays on in possession along with Alexander (maybe the Butterworths also lived at the property) and these became the defendants. It would help to know the exact terms under which Roger left the property. If it was heirs male and Geoffrey only had daughters then AIUI the unknown son would have been the legitimate heir. Presumably the plaintiffs must have persuaded the court that this was not the case.


Birth:
Mary Dearnley was born about 1405.


Mary Dearnley was the daughter of Geoffrey Dearnley and (?) (?)

Death:
Mary Dearnley died in 1442 at Chadderton, Lancashire.

Roger Dearnley (II)

ID# 9918, b. about 1335
Roger Dearnley (II) was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for search.)

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.
So Roger Dernele c1350 who is named on the West Riding subsidy roll 1379 could well be this Roger (Roger II).



Note:

Suggested Generations of Roger D.

     The generation numbers are based on the Rogers known in November 2016.


 gen.

 name

 born

 known dates

 died

 comment
 I  Roger de Dearnley  c1300  Alive 1332    Contributed to subsidy of 1332.
 II  Roger Dearnley
 perhaps also
 Roger Dernele
 c1335      The Roger Dearnley named in the 1444 court case
 with son John.
 On the 1379 West Riding Subsidy roll.
 (III)          John the father of Geoffrey, named in 1444 case,
 is in this generation.
 IV  (Unnamed Dearnley
  maybe a Roger)
   1444 court case    Assuming there was a Dearnley involved in the
 1444 case, a younger brother of Geoffrey, from
 whom the Whiteheads recovered the property.
 (V)          John I 1450-1504, wife Alice, is in this
 generation.
 VI  Roger Dernely  c1470  Court case 1504-15    Was Roger VI the eldest son of John I?
 VII  Roger Dernylye  c1500  John II's will 1537    Roger VII was to counsel John II?s children.
 (Based on the above suggestion for Roger VI, Roger
 VII and John II would be cousins.)
 VIII  Roger Dearnley
 Roddger Dernelie
 Rodger Dearnilie
 c1537  Court case 1580.
 Named in 1586 will.
 Son's will 1591.
   Named in 1586 will of Oliver of the Blackshaw.
 (2nd cousins?)
 (IX)          Oliver of Dinting in this generation.
 X  Roger Dernellee  c1591      Moved from Dinting to Whitfield.


The above table ignores the 4 Rogers in the Dernylegh family tree reproduced on the pre-1500 page see Early Dearnleys (about half-way down)
(Roger Dernylegh 1500-, Roger Dernylegh 1520-, Roger Dernylegh 1560-, Roger Dernylegh 1579-) as the dates given in the tree appear to be erroneous.
Further comments on this can be found on the Early Dearnleys page.



Note:

This assumes that the Roger Dearnley (below) was the father of John Dearnley.

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.


Birth:
Roger Dearnley (II) was born about 1335.

Child of Roger Dearnley (II)

Eunice K (?)

ID# 9919, b. 8 March 1921, d. 29 December 1975
From about 1940, her married name was Dearnley.
Birth:
Eunice K (?) was born on 8 March 1921.


Marriage:
Eunice K (?) married William H Dearnley, son of Royal Walker Dearnley and Netta May Guy, about 1940.


Death:
Eunice K (?) died on 29 December 1975 at Jewett City, Griswold, New London County, Connecticut, at age 54 years, 9 months and 21 days.


Burial:
Eunice K (?) was buried in 1976 at Jewett City, Lower Cemetery, Griswold, Connecticut.

Child of Eunice K (?) and William H Dearnley