On Jul 4, 6:07 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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, Warwick****re.
Perhaps Catherine was of this family instead - a possible avenue for
research.
|
