Zij is getrouwd met Robert del Dykes.
Zij zijn getrouwd
Kind(eren):
Agnes Del Dykes is your 18th great grandmother.
You
‰ ᆒ Henry Marvin Welborn
your father ·Üí Henry Marvin Welborn, Sr.
his father ·Üí Calhoun H. Welborn
his father ·Üí Sarah Elizabeth Welborn
his mother ·Üí Benjamin Franklin Dykes
her father ·Üí William Dykes, Sr.
his father ·Üí George Dykes, Sr.
his father ·Üí Edward George Dykes
his father ·Üí Edward Dykes
his father ·Üí Thomas Dykes
his father ·Üí Edward Dykes
his father ·Üí Thomas Dykes
his father ·Üí Leonard Dykes
his father ·Üí Lord of Whitehall Thomas Dykes
his father ·Üí William Del Dykes
his father ·Üí Sir William Del Dykes
his father ·Üí William Del Dykes
his father ·Üí William Del Dykes
his father ·Üí Walter Del Dykes
his father ·Üí Agnes Del Dykes
his mother
https://www.geni.com/people/Agnes-Del-Dykes/6000000001131283136
Agnes Del Dykes (de Crokedayk)
Gender:
Female
Birth:
circa 1279
Waverton, Cheshire, England (United Kingdom)
Death:
United Kingdom
Immediate Family:
Wife of Robert Del Dykes
Mother of Agnes Del Dykes and Walter Del Dykes
Sister of Christiana de Crokedayk and Robert de Crokedayk
Primary Sources
Agnes and her sister Christiana were the heirs of their brother Robert de Crokedayk who died in 1303. Agnes the wife of Robert del Dykes was aged 24 [b. abt. 1279] and Christiana aged 22 [b. abt 1281]. The sisters inherited among other lands, a capital messuage and 8 bovates of land in Great Waverton which was held of the king in chief.
1304 Feb. 20. Dunfermline
Order to the escheator on this side Trent to make partition into two equal parts of the lands of Robert del Crokedayk, tenant of the manor of Great Waverton, co. Cumberland . . . and to deliver to Robert del Dykes and Agnes his wife, first-born daughter and one of the heirs of the said Robert del Crokedayk, their pourparty of the said lands, Robert del Dykes having done fealty, retaining in the king's hands the pourparty of Christiana, the other daughter and heir; and to send the partition made by him to be enrolled on the rolls of Chancery.
Source: Calendar of the Fine rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. I, Edward I, 1272-1307, p. 488
Other Sources
page 12 of A Visitation of the Seats and Arms fo the Noblemen and Gentlemen of Great ... By John Bernard Burke
There is an error in Burke's for this generation of the del Dykes family. See discussion here.
======================
Erica Howton 5/6/2017 at 6:11 AM. Report
A Visitation of the Seats and Arms fo the Noblemen and Gentlemen of Great ...
By John Bernard Burke page 12
https://books.google.com/books?id=n4lpAAAAcAAJ&lpg=RA1-PA12&...
William del Dykes, living temp. Edward II.-Agnes, heiress of Sir Hugh Waverton,
fourth in descent from William del Dykes
bearing the name of William.)
-----
So go down the tree to the top of this pedigree (Agnes Wolverton), clean up, add Burke as source (not perfect but better than FamilyPursuit). According to Burke there's a string of 4 Wiliam del Dyke's, that's not the Geni tree currently, so more work to be done. Also not sure one of the William's was married to Clemence Banastre, I'd separate them until more reference.
... And found a Burke's Error?
The Pipe Rolls of Cumberland and Westmorland 1222-1260By Great Britain. Exchequer https://books.google.com/books?id=GyIRAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PR40&ots...
The interest in the Wavertons turns on the apparent connection between themselves and the Crookdakes of Crookdake, a name that was famous in the reign of Edward I. It arises in this manner: the pedigree of the Dykes family states that in the reign of Edward II. William del Dykes married Agnes, heiress of Sir Hugh Waverton of Waverton. Now an Inquisition held 31 Edward I. tells us that Robert de Crookdake was succeeded by his sisters Agnes, aged 24, the wife of Robert del Dykes, and Christiana, aged 22, and that he had lands at Waverton and elsewhere. The inference is that Agnes Dykes and her brother Robert de Crokedayk were children of Hugh de Waverton.
The discrepancy between the two statements, the one making the husband of this Agnes, William del Dykes, and the other Robert, can be accounted for. The pedigree is clearly a compilation from deeds; such evidence as can be found in this way has to be pieced together as well as it can; and the genealogist, having found an authentic alliance between the two families, may easily assign it to the wrong generation. Probably the family papers do not mention Robert, so that he is left out of the pedigree; he should no doubt have been made son of the first and father of the second William del Dykes; but as he is omitted, the compiler naturally appropriated his wife to the next head of the house. From the critical point of view, such an error is a trivial one.
And you'll want to chase up what's referred to here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_(surname)_
At this early period of history, however, the surname existed in a different form from the modern day; del Dykes, literally meaning 'of the Dykes', indicating the region from where the family came. A charter, bearing the first known recorded instance of the surname, comes from either the reign of Henry III or Edward I, though the exact date of the record is unknown. It does, however, reveal that land owned by one Robert del Dykes at Burgh was conveyed to one William del Monkys. ...
... The earliest historical records are from a family which was moderately wealthy for the time. Robert del Dykes owned land during the reign of Edward I, and in 1379, during the reign of Richard II, Adam del Dykes owned land further east in Yorkshire.
The previous comes from more Burke's:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yIlpAAAAcAAJ&lpg=RA1-PA37&...
Charlene Newport 5/7/2017 at 4:47 PM. Report
Apologies for this late post but I just want to bring attention back to Agnes Del Dykes and Erica's post above starting with ... And found a Burke's Error?
Yes, an error indeed.
I think Agneta is actually the same person as Agnes sister of Robert de Crookdake who married Robert del Dykes not William del Dykes.
Agnes and her sister Christiana were the heirs of their brother Robert de Crookdake who died in 1303. Agnes the wife of Robert del Dykes was aged 24 [b. abt. 1279] and Christiana aged 22 [b. abt 1281]. The sisters inherited a capital messuage and 8 bovates of land in Great Waverton which was held of the king in chief.
On the 20 Feb. 1304 an order was sent to the escheator to make partition into two equal parts of the lands of Robert del Crokedayk, tenant of the manor of Great Waverton, co. Cumberland.
In 1315 Sir John de Wygeton died. At his death he held most of the land in Waverton.
The sub-tenants were listed as:
A fourth part held by Lambert de Waverton by homage, 40d. cornage yearly, and 9s. for his free farm
>>> An eighth part held by Robert del Dykes by homage, and 20d. cornage
An eighth part held by John de Ormesby by homage, and 20d. cornage
A twelfth part held by William de Osmonderlaw by homage, and 3 1/4d. cornage
A twelfth part held by Simon de Quinhou by the like service
A twelfth part held by John de Bothel by the like service
NOTE: Cornage was a tax fixed according to the number of horned cattle pastured.
Unfortunately, there is no further mention of Robert del Dykes and no Inquisition Post Mortem for him as he did not hold his land directly from the crown i.e. was not a tenant-in-chief.
My proposal is to change Agneta Del Dykes (Waverton) to Agnes Del Dykes (Crokedayk) and add siblings Robert & Christiana. Change her husband's name to Robert Del Dykes with a death date of after 1315. I'll also add my sources.
The de Lea parents for del Dykes does not look right either.
If we look back at Erica's post once again it says "Probably the family papers do not mention Robert, so that he is left out of the pedigree; he should no doubt have been made son of the first and father of the second William del Dykes"
My suggestion is to remove the de Lea parents and add William del Dykes as the father.
Agnes del Dykes (de Crokedayk) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert del Dykes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
De getoonde gegevens hebben geen bronnen.