Ancestors Home Site map History

The Dyer Family

New page 22 Feb 2011

Warning: Areas of the pre-1837 Dyer family tree are uncertain as the IGI is so far the only source
Comments, suggestions or further information would be welcome.

The main line is in bold as on other pages.

The main Dyer connection with the families in this history begins on 6 Aug 1815 with the marriage of William Ricketts and Sarah Dyer in Feltham, Middlesex, but the Dyers were linked first with the Cannon family by the 'main-line' marriage of Eliza Cannon and William's son Henry Ricketts in 1845.

Although William is so far the earliest known person in the Ricketts line, the Dyers have been traced back much further, back to William Dyer born about 1675-8. Earlier records of Dyers have been seen but links to them can't be made at present. So this report begins with William and describes the probable and possible links through to Sarah and several quite definite ones later. The main factor in finding connections has been the very long association of the Dyers with the village of Send in Surrey (linked with Ripley in the records as 'Send & Ripley'). It seems very likely that there was only one main Dyer family in the village, obviously so at times in the 19th century, and this is quite a strong point in favour of many of the possible links below.  The first occurs with the first marriage, this being the only one found naming William - no other is named at this time in the parish registers.

Family of William Dyer & Martha Bristow

William and Martha were married in Send on 16 May 1695 [IGI Send & Ripley Batch No.M109871] There is no other evidence to link Martha here as she is not named on the baptism records. William (assuming this William was the only one in Send) had three children, all born in Send & Ripley [Batch #C109871]

1. Thomas DYER b.abt.1700
2. William DYER chr. 17 Feb 1701
3. Joan DYER chr. 4 Apr 1705

Family of Thomas Dyer & Mary

The name 'Mary' is not certain as no marriage has yet been found and again, the mother is not named on any of the birth or baptismal records for their seven children. They are all from the same batch of records in Send & Ripley:

1. Elizabeth DYER chr. 31 Mar 1724
2. William DYER chr. 24 Oct 1725
3. Thomas DYER chr. 23 Jul 1728
4. Mary DYER chr. 25 Sep 1832
5. John DYER chr. 8 Sep 1834 m. Mary Streduk 25 Feb 1760
6. Sarah DYER chr. 8 Jan 1737
7. James DYER chr. 5 Apr 1744

The spelling 'Streduk' is that of the record. The modern 'Strudwick' will be used in the text for identification as there are many variants, e.g. Strudwick 1702, Stredwicke 1796, Stredwick 1798,

Family of John Dyer & Mary Strudwick

Mary, chr. 12 Apr 1733 in Cranley was the eldest of 6 children of Robert Strudwick and Mary Mills of Cranley, Surrey (now spelt 'Cranleigh' since Post Office renaming to avoid confusion). (See the Strudwick family of Cranley below for more details - not to be confused with the Strudwicks of Worplesdon, ancestors of Eliza Cannon, daughter-in-law of William and Sarah Dyer). The records are found in : Send & Ripley [Batch #C109871] and Merrow [Batch #C109881]

1. John DYER chr. 15 Jun 1760 Send &Ripley ; m. 12 Oct 1784 Elizabeth Stent in Send, 2 children
2. George DYER chr. 11 Jul 1762 Send & Ripley m. Elizabeth, d. 1847 W.Clandon, 6 children
3. Thomas DYER chr. Feb 1767 Merrow m. 15 Nov 1792 Mary Cole in Merrow, 9 children
4. Mary DIER chr. 16 Dec 1773 Merrow (no more known at present)

In Merrow the parents of both children are listed - with spellings as above - as JNO and MY, i.e. John and Mary. In this case as in all, spelling is not important as there were no standardised forms until late in the 19th century. Throughout these records 'MY' is a typical abbreviation for 'Mary'.
The day of Thomas's baptism is presumably illegible.
Death dates for John and Mary are unknown, but they probably died in Merrow rather than Send.

1. John Dyer married Elizabeth Stent in Send [Batch #M109871] and there is a record of a Betty Stent, daughter of William and Betty baptised in Send in 1759. (There were others but Betty is the only one born in Send) They must have moved to West Clandon soon after, their two daughters being baptised there, Mary on 28 May 1797 and Sarah on 10 Aug 1800.
_____Mary may have married James Cox of Send on 26 May 1821 - the 1851 census gives such a couple living in Send with the right birthplace for Mary but a birth date of 1802, quite a discrepancy. If this is correct she was a widow by 1851 having had 8 children, and died Mar Q 1853 or 1855.
_____Sarah married Robert Monk (Robart Munk in 1841!) in West Clandon on 2 Oct 1821 and they had 7 children (details on request)

3. Thomas Dyer married Mary Cole of Kingsley, Hampshire, (baptised on 13 Mar 1774 at Kingsley, Hants, close to the Surrey border) . Their eldest daughter Sarah was baptised in Merrow on 6 Jan 1793. Next came Thomas 1794-1871 and John 1797-1876 both born in Send, easily traced through the censuses, both single, 'ag.labs' and together in the workhouse at Stoke-next-Guildford in 1871. Mary was born in 1800 and Hannah in 1806. The rest were born in Merrow, Ruth in 1811, Amelia in 1814, Jane in 1817 and lastly James William in 1818. The girls have not yet been followed up in the censuses but James married Martha Cannon daughter of James Cannon and Sarah Russell on 3 Jun 1848 in Albury.

Martha's sister Eliza (Cannon) was married to Henry Ricketts and therefore daughter-in-law to Sarah Dyer, wife of William Ricketts.

Mary Cole was born about 1772, so was about 20 when she married Thomas Dyer in 1792. Being born in Kingsley, Hampshire she seems unlikely to be related to other Cole(s) appearing in the Cannon family although Kingsley is just over the county boundary from Surrey and not too far from Bramley. She had 9 children between 1793 and the birth of James William Dyer, her youngest in 1818 when she was about 46 - which accounts for the two generation gap here.

James and Martha had 4 children, all born in Merrow and the three younger ones at least were baptised in the year of their birth (confirmed by the 1881 census)

  1. Mary Dyer, chr.11 May 1851
  2. Emma Dyer chr. 27 Aug 1854 d. 1925
  3. Ellen Dyer chr.24 Jun 1860
  4. William Dyer chr.31 Jul 1864

With quite large gaps between them perhaps there were miscarriages or children in between who died. (Some further research into those named is ongoing, mainly in order to confirm relationships.)

In 1881 Martha and James were living in Merrow Road, Colebrook Field, Merrow with the three younger children.
Sarah, the sister of Thomas Dyer, and James's aunt, married William Ricketts. She was not related to Martha but Martha's sister, Eliza Cannon, was her daughter-in-law

top


Family of George Dyer and Elizabeth

George was baptised in Send on 11 Jul 1762, son of John Dyer of Send and Mary Strudwick of Cranley but nothing is known of George's wife Elizabeth. She was probably born in Surrey, but that is mere assumption - she is only known through being named on the records of their children: who were born in Send. (There may have been others but with no obvious connection)

1. Henry DYER chr. 20 Mar 1781
2. Elizabeth DYER chr. 28 Oct 1787
3. Sarah DYER b. 11 Jan 1793 chr. 24 Feb 1793 m.William Ricketts 6 Aug 1815 in Feltham Mdx, d. Mar Q 1876 [Free BMD]
4. Elizabeth DYER b.17 Oct 1794 chr. 2 Nov 1794 m. 22 Nov 1813 James Legg

3. For details of Sarah and William's children go to the Ricketts page.

4. The 1851 census shows a James Legg and Elizabeth with daughter 'Emaley' (Emily) born in 1814 in Send, and son Frederick born 1830 in St Nicholas parish, Guildford which backs up the marriage (though it isn't proof of course). The 1841 census can next be read correctly - James named as James 'Lagg' 50 and Elizabeth 45 (rounded down to the nearest 5) with children Amelia 1816, Daniel 1821, George 1826, Susannah 1826, Frederick 1830 and Thomas 1834. 'Amelia' is actually Emily (see below), Daniel has not been found elsewhere, though a possible Thomas turns up in Albury in 1851 as an apprentice shoemaker. (The enumerator made a mess of his first attempt at this page, corrected Thomas's age from 19 to 17 on the 2nd attempt and both pages have been retained - a little confusing!) Probable 'matches' are George chr. 3 Jun 1827 and Frederick chr. 13 Sep 1829, both in the parish of St Nicholas, Guildford [#C109891] and Susannah chr. 20 Feb 1835 in Worplesdon [#C066003] . It would not be unusual for the children of an agricultural labourer to be born in different parishes as it was common to employ 'ag.labs' for a year less one day, which meant that the farmer, (who also might have a number of 'tied' cottages) could easily dismiss them at the year's end.. A whole year would give them the right of re-employment.

James died in the 1850s (there are 3 possible records in the Guildford area) as Elizabeth is listed as a widow aged 67 in 1861 living at 'Farm Hill Lodge' - schedule 41 - in Albury as 'lodge keeper' along with her daughter Emily The FindMyPast transcript gives the address as 'Laundry' but this is from schedule 37 on the previous page and oddly doesn't mention the actual name of the house, 'Farm Hill Lodge'. (Hopefully this misleading information will soon be corrected! Elizabeth was responsible for the Lodge and not a laundry maid). In 1871 they were still in the same house, Elizabeth aged 77 (which is correct) and Emily 57, neither shown with an occupation, and the house now correctly named, and next door to Albury Park Mansion, home of the Duke of Northumberland with a list of residents and servants taking up two whole pages. In fact the laundry - 'Laundry Cottage' was now 9 other houses away, namely a gardener's cottage, several other cottages and another lodge beyond, which suggests that this Farm Hill Lodge 'guarded' one of the entrances to the Duke's estate, and perhaps that it was Elizabeth's duty to open and close a gate there.

The record of death of an Elizabeth Legg in the Dec Q 1877 aged 85 is almost certainly the right one - from the somewhat erratic ages given over the years it seems likely that she wasn't too sure herself of how old she was (a common problem at the time). Unfortunately for Emily, the 1881 census finds her an inmate aged 66 in the large Guildford Union Workhouse in Stoke-next-Guildford where she may have spent her last 12 years till her death aged 75 in the Mar Q 1889 .

Top


The Strudwick Family

Robert Strudwick born about 1671 in Cranley had 5 or 6 children (as usual no mention of the mother, and not including Hannah if spelling is important, which seems rather unlikely - it could just mean a change of parish clerk or minister). All these children were baptised in Cranley [IGI Batch #P008871].

1. Hannah STREDWICK chr.29 Jan 1696
2. Thomas STRUDWICK chr. 22 Feb 1698
3. Elizabeth STRUDWICK chr. 18 Oct 1699
4. Robert STRUDWICK chr. 17 Jul 1702
5. John STRUDWICK chr. 26 May 1704
6. Sarah STRUDWICK chr. 18 Apr 1707

The marriage of Robert (b.1702) is somwhat uncertain as there are two 'candidates', or perhaps he married twice:

1. to Ann Carpenter on 30 Oct 1722 in Cranley [#M008871]
2. to Mary Mills on 23 May 1732 (only listed by 'LDS members']

On dates the latter is more likely but for this kind of record there is no evidence given. Robert had 7 children if he was married twice:

1. Robert STRUDWICK 2 Jan 1723 in Cranley (mother- Ann)
2. Mary STRUDWICK chr.12 Apr 1733 in Cranley m. John Dyer 25 Feb 1760 in Send
3. Robert STRUDWICK chr.8 Sep 1734
4. Sarah STRUDWICK chr.16 Jan 1736
5. Thomas  STRUDWICK chr.12 Mar 1738 m. Ruth Naldred 17 Mar 1765 (7 children)
6. Betty STREDWICKE  chr.28 Aug 1740m.James Warner 19 Feb 1762
7. Jane STRUDWICK chr.27 Jul 1743m. James Plaw 1 Apr 1770

Return to John Dyer & Family

Top