On Jul 4, 9:59=A0pm, jhiggins...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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. =A0It 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. =A0And 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. =A0[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.
Between the visitations, the peerages, and all the rest of the
archival resources I have, I too had come to the conclusion that
Catherine had come from an entirely different line. Time to dig deeper
then.
|
