person page - 992

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.

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 Roger son of Alexander 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, as I understand it, the unknown son would have been the legitimate heir. Presumably the plaintiffs must have persuaded the court that this was not the case.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

For further information see Suggested Generations of Roger D.

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.