Maria Dernily

ID# 13341, b. 17 June 1666, d. April 1683
Maria Dernily was also recorded as Mary Dernaley.
She was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for indexing.)
Birth:
Maria Dernily was born about 1666 at Glossop, Derbyshire.


Baptism:
Maria Dernily was baptised on 17 June 1666 at Glossop, Derbyshire.


Maria Dernily was the daughter of John Dearnely and Mary (?)

Death:
Maria Dernily died in April 1683 at Derbyshire at age 16 years and 9 months.


Burial:
Maria Dernily was buried on 28 April 1683 at Glossop, Derbyshire.

Mary Dernily

ID# 13343, b. 2 March 1780
Mary Dernily was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for indexing.)
Birth:
Mary Dernily was born about 1780 at Stockport, Cheshire.


Baptism:
Mary Dernily was baptised on 2 March 1780 at High Street Presbyterian, Stockport, Cheshire.


Mary Dernily was the daughter of William Derneley and Betty Hulme.

William Derneley

ID# 13344, b. 1752
William Derneley was also recorded as William Dernily.
He was also recorded as William Derniley.
He was also recorded as William Dermley.
He was also recorded as William Dernally.
He was also recorded as William Dernalley.
He was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for indexing.)

Note:

It seems likely that William's mother Rachael (from his marriage record) is the Rachel married to Samuel D.
However, according to our current plan she would have been known as Rachel Kemp in 1771 & not Rachael Dernalley widow.


Birth:
William Derneley was born in 1752
Aged 19 at 1771 marriage.


William Derneley was the son of Rachel Potter.

Residence:
in 1771 William Derneley lived at Stockport, Cheshire.


Marriage:
William Derneley married Betty Hulme, daughter of Peter Hulme, on 9 March 1771 at St. Mary's Church, Stockport, Cheshire,
"William Dernalley of Stockport.... Twister" age 19 Bachelor intends to marry Betty Hulme of Macclesfield in the Parish of Prestbury.... aged twenty years ... Spinster"

Married with the consent of "Rachael Dernalley Widow his mother, of Peter Hulme father of the sd Betty Hulme"
witnesses: Chris'r Coates & Peter Hulme.

Occupation:
in 1771 William Derneley was a Twister.

Children of William Derneley and Betty Hulme

Maria Dearnaley

ID# 13345, b. May 1722
Maria Dearnaley was also recorded as Mary Dearnaley.
Birth:
Maria Dearnaley was born in May 1722 at Derbyshire.


Maria Dearnaley was the daughter of Joseph Dearnelley and Ann Kirk.

Baptism:
Maria Dearnaley was baptised on 10 June 1722 at Parish Church, Glossop, Derbyshire,
Maria daughter of Joseph & Anna Dearnaley
FamilySearch transcription only.

(?) (?)

ID# 13346, b. about 1792

Note:

Probably "Unknown Cuthill".


Birth:
(?) (?) was born about 1792.

Child of (?) (?) and Sena Dearnley

Marianne Dearnaly

ID# 13347, b. 26 June 1814
Marianne Dearnaly was also recorded as Dearnaley - (spelling not found but added for indexing.)
Birth:
Marianne Dearnaly was born about 1814.


Baptism:
Marianne Dearnaly was baptised on 26 June 1814 at Wesleyan, Netherthong, Holmfirth, Yorkshire.


Marianne Dearnaly was the daughter of John Dearnley and Mary (?)

Ann Dearnley

ID# 13348, b. 26 September 1845
Ann Dearnley was also recorded as Ann Darnley.
Birth:
Ann Dearnley was born on 26 September 1845 at Oldfield, Netherthong, Yorkshire.


Ann Dearnley was the daughter of Thomas Dearnley and Lydia Jagger.

Baptism:
Ann Dearnley was baptised on 5 July 1846 at All Sants, Netherthong, Holmfirth, Yorkshire,
Ann daughter of Thomas & Lydia Darnley; Abode: Oldfield; Occupation: Clothier
Birth Date: 26 Sep 1845
Baptism Date:      5 Jul 1846.

Ruth Dearnley

ID# 13349, b. 5 January 1905, d. 2 November 1972
Ruth Dearnley was also recorded as Ruth Dearnely.
From 11 July 1925, her married name was Fallon.
Birth:
Ruth Dearnley was born on 5 January 1905 at Littleborough, Rochdale, Lancashire.


Ruth Dearnley was the daughter of William Dearnley and Betsy Ann Bamford.

Marriage:
Ruth Dearnley married Joseph Fallon on 11 July 1925 at St. Barnabas' Church, Shore, Rochdale R.D., Lancashire,
Joseph Fallon 21 Bachelor, Labourer res: Littlebro fa: Michael Fallon, Labourer
Ruth Dearnley 20 Spinster, --- res: Shore fa: William Dearnley, Shunter
Both signed
Witnesses: William Dearnley & Ruth Mills.


Death:
Ruth Dearnley died on 2 November 1972 at Rochdale R.D., Lancashire, at age 67 years, 9 months and 28 days.

Ruth Dearnley appeared in the 1911 census at
6 Garden Street, Smithy Bridge, Rochdale, Lancashire.
On 2 April 1911:-

DEARNLEY, William Head Mar 34 Labourer On Permanent Why(?) Lanc Littleborough
DEARNLEY, Betsy Ann Wife Mar 10yrs 29 - Lanc Littleborough
DEARNLEY, Harry Stott Son 9 - Lanc Littleborough
DEARNLEY, Ruth Dau 6 - Lanc Littleborough
DEARNLEY, Dorothy Dau 6 mo - Lanc Littleborough

RG number: RG14 Piece: 24694 Registration District: Rochdale Sub District: Littleborough
Enumeration District: 10 Parish: Littleborough
Address: 6 Garden Street Smithy Bridge Near Rochdale, Lancashire.


Child of Ruth Dearnley and Joseph Fallon

Roger Dernylegh

ID# 13350, b. about 1500
From about 1520, Roger Dernylegh was also recorded as Roger Dearnley.

Note:

** IGNORE Dernylegh line**
We believe this line is erroneous and that the Dernylegh family tree is just a poor interpretation of a complicated document.



Note:

This pedigree is from "History of the Parish of Rochdale" p.422. see Early Dearnleys (about half-way down)
However, there appears to be more generations shown than are possible.
For this pedigree to work, the Roger Dernylegh of Glossop shown as “liv. 1580” would
have to be the infant son of the Roger D. bringing the suit. Also the siblings Robert, Geoffrey
& Roger would have to be written in a non-traditional order. Roger being the first-born
son born before 1526.
BUT - it would be unusual for an infant to be known as “Roger Dernylegh of Glossop”
- MED

-------------------------------------------

Pedigree for Roger of Glossop - a work in progress

Theory: Geoffrey Dearnley 1377 and Geoffrey Dernylegh 1523 are the same person. And Roger of Glossop is Roger of Dinting.

There are 3 problems with the published pedigree for Roger of Glossop (History of the Parish of Rochdale p422):
     (1)     The statement of 'some 52 years ago' and the associated date of 1528 are wrong. So I have ignored them.
     (2)     Assuming that the 2 Geoffreys are the same person, the father of Geoffrey and his brothers in the pedigree should be John not Roger.
               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.
     (3)     The Whitehead pedigree appears to be 2 generations longer than the Dearnley pedigree for the same period (1444-1580).
          One possibility is that the compiler of the Dearnley pedigree mistakenly put Roger as father of Geoffrey instead of brother of Geoffrey,
          which would give an additional Roger after Roger c.1410 in the table below.

The report of the Duchy proceedings names Mary as a daughter of Geoffrey. But this doesn't make sense. If she was a daughter of Geoffrey she would have had a share of the moiety shared by Margaret and Ellen, whereas her name appears in discussion of the other moiety. I am uncertain how the Butterworths fit in.

Why was the property in dispute in 1444 and who was the dispute with? I am assuming that Geoffrey's brother Roger claimed the property in 1444 but lost his claim to the Whiteheads.

There is still a bit of a problem with dates. However the dates are now feasible (note especially how the Whitehead dates fill the period 1444 to 1580). Explanations for long gaps between fathers and sons after Roger Dearnley c1410 include: late marriages; daughters born before the eldest son in the various generations; older brothers not surviving; a missing generation (see above).


Descendants of Roger Dearnley of Hundersfield and Spotland
(dates below are an attempt to get this scenario to work and do not match dates currently on the website)
gen  name  known to
be alive in:
 yob   name  believed to
be alive in:
 yob  comment
1  Roger Dearnley     c1350           Possibly a son or grandson of the Roger de
 Dearnley known to be alive in 1332.
2  John Dearnley     c1375            
   Elder son        Younger son         
3  Geoffrey Dearnley  pre-1444  c1400  Roger Dearnley  1444  c1410   
4  Margaret (Whitehead)
 and sister Ellen
 1444  c1423  John Dearnley  -  c1450   
5  John Whitehead  -  c1450  Roger Dearnley  -  c1490   
6  Edmund Whitehead  -  c1475  Roger of Glossop  1580
 1591
 c1530   
7  Edmund Whitehead  -  c1500  Oliver     c1565-1591   
8  Arthur Whitehead  1580  c1525            

- Janet A Davies, October 2012.


Birth:
Roger Dernylegh was born about 1500.



Note:
in 1504
Is this the Roger D who was the plaintiff in the following lawsuit? see Roger Dernely

Reference: C 1/304/66
Short title: Dernely v [Unknown].
Plaintiffs: Roger Dernely.
Defendants: NicholaRoger Dernylegh ... and ... Boverworth.
Subject: Detention of deeds relating to lands in Dearnley. Lancashire
Note:      Mutilated.
Date: 1504-1515
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status:      Public Record
Closure status:      Open Document, Open Description
Status: This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded. (June 2016)
see The National Archives.


Marriage:
Roger Dernylegh married (?) (?) about 1520.

Children of Roger Dernylegh and (?) (?)