Hi Jim This website destroyed my answer to your query so this is a rewrite. Ashley cousins is sourced from me but has not bothered with the John Stranks family. Heather Rohrer is not a Stranks descendant but presents a collection of genealogical data from the general area. She is wrong as you will see below - there is no 1670 John Stranks.
I have relocated my exposition from 2002 and repeat it here for posterity
Dear fellow Stranks researchers, I have recently reviewed all the data I can find on the core North Marston Stranks family and formulated a picture of what might have occurred.
I decribe my thinking below. I would be interested in comments and especially any addition facts which support or discredit the assumptions made.
The North Marston parish register seems to have a gap from 1676 to 1696 inclusive. The 'Bishop's Transcripts' (a second copy sent to the Bishop each year) only have 1676-77 and 1680-81 in this sequence. About twenty years are lost altogether. The missing years may well match with the productive years of the first Stranks family in North Marston.
The IGI has mention of a John Stranks christened at North Marston with father Thomas on 10 Oct 1670. When I was recently viewing the NM Bishop's Transcripts I was briefly excited by the appearance of names which turned out to be 'Stoakes', also sometimes spelt 'Stokes' in the register. The IGI links up the name Stokes with Stock, another name of interest to Stranks researchers. When I was looking at the occurrences of the name Stock in the IGI batch for North Marston, I noticed that there was a John Stoakes christened 10 Oct 1670 with father Thomas.
I looked up the 'Stranks' version of this event and discovered it was from Patron Sheets for LDS Church Temple work from a few decades ago. I had made a printout of the entry from 1670 when I borrowed the North Marston Parish Register film some years ago. Looking at it again, I recall wondering how they had found the 'n' and 'r' in it in the first place. It definitely looks like 'Stoakes', and this was the opinion of the actual transcriber of the whole register, who had a lot more opportunity to be familiar with the handwriting style involved than an LDS Church member doing their own tree.
Incorrect unoffical entry JOHN STRANKS Christening:10 OCT 1670North Marston, Buckingham, England Father:THOMAS STRANKSForm submitted by a member of the LDS Church
Correct official entry JOHN STOAKES Christening:10 OCT 1670North Marston, Buckingham, England Father:THOMAS STOAKESExtracted birth or christening record for the locality listed in the record
Thus I have removed Thomas and John from the family altogether.
This means that all available data on the North Marston Stranks family emerges after the big gap at the end of the 1600s.
The data, as best I know, is:
The appearance of a Richard Stranks getting married in 1706, having kids till 1712, living till 1760 with a wife who lives till 1760.
The appearance of a John Stranks getting married in 1710, having kids till 1725, loving till 1759, with a wife who lives till 1742.
The appearance of a Thomas Stranks dying in 1721 as 'a poor servant'. The appearance of an Anne Stranks dying in 1703 as daughter of 'Will & Ann' - Naming parents seems to be usually an indication of a child's death.
The appearance of a William Stranks dying in 1731 'an aged poor man', with 'Mary Stranks his widow' dying a few weeks later.
The appearance of a 'William natural son of William Stranks snr & Mary Dadly, late Sarvents heare' dying in 1733 - again presumably a child [In the Bishop's Transcript it also carries the note: 'She said - I was born & baptised at Hatfield in Hartfordshire to which place she rambled].
I have conceived a method of putting these together.
Imagine a William Stranks born around 1660 (becoming an 'aged poor man' of 70 by 1731) Let him marry an Ann around 1684 when he is in his early twenties. Let them have son Richard around 1685 so that he can get married at age 21 and live till he is about 75. Let them have son John around 1687 so that he can get married at 23 and live till he is about 62. Let them have son Thomas around 1690 who dies a bachelor at 31. Let them have daughter Ann around 1693 who dies as a child of 10.
Let William's first wife, Ann, die in the 1690s some time after the birth of her daughter.
Let William Stranks take up a de facto relationship with Mary Dadly after his sons leave home. Let them have a boy called William out of wedlock, but eventally get married before dying in the same year.
The only difficulty I have with this is matching the rambling natural-son-bearing Mary Dadly with the 'Mary Stranks his widow'. They could be two different Marys without spoiling the rest of the story.
Anyway this is the schema I have now begun using to fit the early North Marston Stranks details into my database and to unite the families springing from them.
Do others have knowledge of events to add or subtract from this 'reconstructed' nuclear family?