Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
I recently had a major FTM issue so decided to verify every possible line! What a task!
Anyhow, in all our recored online, etc genealogy trees, most have Jane STRANGEWAYS married to Sir. Christopher BOYNTON.
With the advent of google books and Heritage Quest books, it's simple to hunt down ancestors now.
What I found is that Jane STRANGEWAYS isn't really a STRANGEWAY descendant.
SOURCES:
#1
Heraldic Visitation of the Northern Counties in 1530
by Thomas Tonge, William Hylton Dyer Longstaffe, College of Arms (Great Britain) - 1863 - Heraldry - 121 pages
on page 61 Joan DOLPHANBY of Gateshead only daughter of Robert DOLPHANBY age 2 heiress. Her first guardian was Robert STRANGEWAYS. He died 10 years later and Joan was then placed under Sir Christopher BOYNTON'S guardianship till she married 1st. Conan BARTON.
#2
HIstory of Newcastle and Gateshead by Howard Pease c. 1884 pg. 301
states same thing.
#3
Testamenta Eboraensia (or) Wills Registered At York, pg. 216
#4 Publications of The Surtees Society- pg 216
" the Dolphanby's were persons of great wealth and influence on the Tyneside"
I don't see a problem, but would love any thoughts. I don't care if Jane is a STRANGEWAY'S OR DOLPHANBY. What I do care about is Jane the wife of Sir Christopher.
I read in one of the above sources that Boynton lines are some of the worst and confused lines of ancient times :(
I have to wonder if this line has been corrupted from way back and no one ever bothered to fix it.
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/boynton/messages/801.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|