Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-03 > 1080598151

From: "Hal Bradley" <>
Subject: RE: Dennys/Stradling
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:09:13 -0800
In-Reply-To: <c478ja$vof$>

If dated correctly, i.e. within the lifetime of Maurice Denys' grandson,
William, this pedigree provides evidence as to the identity of the
heretofore deduced first wife of Maurice Denys.

Interestingly, although most secondary and tertiary sources that identify
Maurice's first wife as a Stradling, identify her as Catherine Stradling,
this pedigree identifies her as Joan Stradling. This argues towards it being
independently derived. If this is correct, it would be interesting to
ascertain how the error was introduced that later identified her as

Further, since Edward Stradling held the wardship of Maurice Denys, if
Maurice Denys' first wife was indeed a Stradling, it is probable that
Maurice Denys married a daughter of Edward Stradling. The arguments
previously made (pro and con) regarding Katherine Stradling being
illegitimate should be re-examined. If Maurice's first wife was indeed Joan
Stradling, there would be a stronger argument that she was the legitimate
daughter of Joan Beaufort. Of course, this would be contingent upon
resolving the chronological issues previously brought up by Rosie.

Harriss' "Cardinal Beaufort" makes the explicit claim that Henry fathered
Joan in 1402, after the death of Sir John Cherleton. That she was not born
during Cherleton's lifetime is almost certain, for she would have been
regarded as his heir, assuming her mother was Lady Cherleton. On the other
hand, there are claims that Henry Beaufort fathered Joan before he took
orders. The arguments against this appear to be threefold:

1) This claim was made simply to divert attention from the fact that Henry
had a bastard child while serving as a Bishop.
2) Henry was born c. 1374/5, and thus was too young to have fathered a child
in 1391, i.e. before Alice Arundel's marriage to Sir John Cherleton.
3) Since Joan Beaufort died in 1479, it is unlikely that she would have been
born as early as 1391.

As for point number two, I do not quite follow the argument here.

Brad Verity has pointed out that there is no contemporary evidence that
Alice Arundel (or Fitz Alan) was the mother of Joan Beaufort. If Joan's
mother is unknown, then Joan could have been born as late as 1397, even
while Henry was abroad, before Henry took orders. This would also somewhat
address the objection of point number three, for Joan would be in her early,
as opposed to her late, eighties. Yet, some continue to argue that the
chronology does not allow for Joan to be the mother of Maurice Denys' first
wife. That would only be true if one was assuming that Joan Beaufort was
born after the death of Sir John Cherleton.

One cannot have it both ways. One can't argue that there is no evidence
that Alice Arundel was the mother of Joan Beaufort, and then define the
chronological objections to Joan being the mother of Edward Stradling's
daughter contingent upon Alice Arundel's marriage to John Cherleton. In
other words, if one rejects the identity of Joan's mother as being Alice
Arundel, then the chronological arguments fall to the wayside.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Davies [mailto:]
Sent:Sunday, March 28, 2004 11:21 AM

Those researching the wives of Maurice Dennys and the maternity of Walter
Dennys may be interested in the illustration on page 15 of Stella Colwell,
_The Family History Book_ (Oxford, 1980). The caption is "Part of a
pictorial Tudor tree pedigree made around 1530. It records the
Gloucestershire families of Denys and Russell. Note the heraldic shields
carried by the figures. (London, College of Arms, Muniment Room, MS. 3/54)".

This is not a contemporary source for Maurice or Walter, but if it is
correctly dated, then it is considerably earlier than the 1623 visitation.

Some (large) images are temporarily available:

Edward Davies

This thread: