Detailed Proof of Paternal Ancestry of Thomas Dudley
joe
by H. Allen Curtis, a overview and proof of the paternaty of Thomas
Dudley's father, Roger Dudley.
joe
by H. Allen Curtis, a overview and proof of the paternity of Thomas
Nathaniel Taylor
"joe" <joey...@mail.com> wrote:
This is an interesting document. At best it restates some of the very
careful and well-stated work of Marshall Kirk presented and circulated
in the early 1990s but never published--the work which underlay the
inclusion of this line in Faris and Richardson's compilations.
Some things in Marshall's work which are missing here include his much
more detailed exploration of the known agnate descendancy of the
baronial Sutton-Dudleys (using much better sources than Dean Dudley's
work); as well as a more conservative approach to the relevance of the
differenced arms used by Dudley; and the confusing identities of the two
contemporary Capt. Sir Henry Dudleys, who BOTH happened to be second
surviving sons of their respective fathers, whom Marshall reviewed as
candidates for Gov. Thomas' grandfather.
As for taking the approval of the NEHGS Committee on Heraldry as prima
facie evidence for the genealogical validity of Gov. Dudley's use of
arms, I would be rather more cautious.
Be that as it may, I remain convinced that Marshall's hypothesis (the
same one as reflected here) is probably correct, but it lacks proof.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/immigrantsa.htm
joseph cook
> As for taking the approval of the NEHGS Committee on Heraldry as prima
> facie evidence for the genealogical validity of Gov. Dudley's use of
> arms, I would be rather more cautious.
>
I completely agree with this, but thought it was a good statement of
the overall evidence. Another article on the same page by the same
author lists out the previous theories and their flaws. (and gives
larger credit to Marshall Kirk)
Todd A. Farmerie
This argument is based on a classic process of elimination, but as in
all such cases it depends on the assumptions which underlie it, and in
this case, these are flawed.
1. It is taken on faith that a crescent on a shield is indicative of
descent from a second son at one and only one point in the pedigree.
This is an oversimplicifation of the practice of differencing.
Ultimately the operating principle of systematized heraldry is that each
individual has distinctive arms. Thus the second sons of successive
generations would not have the same difference. Further, the heraldic
representative of a predicessor may have used his exact arms even if he
was not the first son, or first son of first. If the senior line died
without issue, the senior surviving line would adopt the arms as senior
representatives, and appear as if they were first sons. (However, in
one of the cases, a third son is examined, since the second died without
issue, the argument being that as the second son with issue, he would
have had the crescent, yet this has not been my experience - a
differenced arms was a differenced arms, and a third son would be
unlikely to 'trade-up' one differenced arms for another.) Thus the
situation is more complex than this analysis attempts to portray.
2. The NEHGS Heraldry Committee was primarily interested in whether the
immigrant adopted arms in America, or carried some armingerious
tradition with him from England. The arms used by Dudley were clearly
brought with him, but the use of arms in England need not imply legal
right to them - just look at the number of disallowed arms in the
English Visitations, of about the same time. Further, that he had the
right to some Sutton-Dudley arms and that he had the right to the
specific version with the crescent that arrived on his seal are
different prospects. I have heard of at least two examples where a
non-entitled descendant used the arms of an ancestor without further
difference, either using their progenitor's seal itself (rather than
having a fresh one cut) or using the older arms as model for new arms,
copying exactly where a difference would have been appropriate.
While a systematized analysis of the Sutton-Dudley is certainly helpful
in identifying possibilities, I think these conclusions are reading too
much into one arc on a seal.
taf
Tony Hoskins
talk with Marshall Kirk about this case, as well as (and especially) his
hypothesized Greville-Winslow connection (published pseudonymously in
NEHGR.) Although I used to tell Marshall that, for my money, the
Winslow-Greville connection was even more powerful than the Dudley
identification. He agreed. I miss Marshall, and deeply regret the
absence of his inimitable and penetrating genealogical voice among us.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Douglas Richardson
This weblink might be helpful:
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:af2151&id=I12260
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah'
Website: www.royalancestry.net
John Brandon wrote:
> As I noted last year, the place to start for documentary evidence of
> Roger Dudley may be ...
>
> _Lists and Indexes_, 7:131:
>
> --Dudley, Roger.
> --Hatton, Richard.
> --Personal estate of John Dudley (Middlesex).
>
> If you go to the LDS Ancestral File, and enter "Richard Hatton" (as
> husband) and "Elizabeth" (as wife), you'll come up with a Richard
> Haffon/ Hatton who is said to have married Elizabeth (Clerke) Dudley,
> widow of John Dudley. John Dudley is said to be the son of Simon and
> Emme (Saunders) Dudley, and he and Elizabeth are given a number of
> children.
>
> This other lawsuit may apply --
>
> _Lists and Indexes_, 7:237:
>
> --Kinge, John, and Mary his wife.
> --Hatton, Richard, and Elizabeth his wife.
> --Cambridge, personal estate of Henry Clerke (Cambridge).
Douglas Richardson
I don't believe you have to subscribe to Ancestry to research the
Ancestry World Tree database. You may just need to register your name
and e-mail address. Regardless, I've copied the one entry below for
you to read.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + +
Source:
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:af2151&id=I12260
Entries: 18175 Updated: Sat Aug 25 18:41:21 2001 Contact: Unknown
Index | Descendancy | Register | Download GEDCOM | Add Post-em
# ID: I12260
# Name: John DUDLEY
# Sex: M
# Note: From Ancestral File (TM), data as of 2 January 1996.
# Birth: BET 1518 AND 1528 in London, Middlesex, England, Great Britain
# Death: 29 JUL 1545 in Cornhill, London, England, Eng
# Burial: ABT 1545 London, Middlesex, England, England
# Endowment: 17 MAR 1916
# LDS Baptism: 4 MAR 1913
Marriage 1 Elizabeth CLERKE b: ABT 1524 in Cornhill, London, England,
Eng.
* Married: ABT 1540 in Cornhill, London, England
* Sealing Spouse: 12 JUL 1916
Children
1. Roger DUDLEY b: 1535 in London, London, England, Great Britain
2. Edward DUDLEY b: 1542 in London, Middlesex, England, Great
Britain
3. Margaret DUDLEY b: ABT 1544 in London, Middlesex, England, Eng
4. Catherine DUDLEY b: ABT 1546 in London, Middlesex, England, Great
Britain
5. Agnes DUDLEY b: ABT 1548 in London, Middlesex, England, Great
Britain
6. Francis DUDLEY b: ABT 1552 in London, Middlesex, England, Great
Britain
7. Francis DUDLEY b: ABT 1560 in Of, London, Middlesex, England
Marriage 2 Elizabeth LEIGHTON
* Married:
* Sealing Spouse: 12 JUL 1916
John Brandon wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> I can't get in there (no subscription to Ancestry.com). What is the
> reference to?
>
> Thanks,
> John
Nathaniel Taylor
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm. So maybe the wife of Richard Hatton was Elizabeth (Leighton)
> Dudley, not Elizabeth (Clerke) Dudley. ...
Perhaps, though it shows here that this John Dudley married Elizabeth
Leighton fifteen years after his own death. The dates are meaningless,
as is, I suspect, the grouping of all these people together in the first
place.
Following Marshall's reply to your post of last February, I wonder
whether Brandon Fradd has found anything in those chancery suits?