Ancestors of Roger Calvin Covalt

Citations


2637824. Robert Lawrence Sir

1The Ancestral Lineage of John Lawrence of Watertown,Mass.


2666496. John de Sutton

1http://www.familypage.org/RogerSonoHenry.pdf.
"Roger Dudley’s Father Proved to be Captain Henry Dudley
By H. Allen Curtis
The maternal ancestry of Thomas Dudley, the first Deputy Governor and several
times Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, is noble, regal, and well documented.1
For over one hundred and forty years able and talented genealogists have been trying to
discover Thomas Dudley’s paternal lineage.2 However, it has never been completely
proven. All through the years that researchers have been trying to determine Thomas
Dudley’s paternal ancestry, the stumbling block has been in discovering the true identity
of his father, Roger Dudley’s parents. It is evident that with so many having researched
the Dudleys for so many years that no DIRECT evidence of Roger Dudley’s parentage
exists today. That means that what is needed to discover and prove Thomas Dudley’s
paternal line is INDIRECT proof of Roger Dudley’s parentage. In mathematics, an exact
science, indirect proof is often found preferable to direct proof. Use of indirect proof in
genealogy, an inexact science, is valid and should be used when needed.
Two distinguished modern day genealogists, David Faris3 and Douglas
Richardson,4 are agreed that towards proving Thomas Dudley paternal ancestry, there are
three main clues. The first of these is “that the will of Gov. Thomas Dudley included a
seal of the baronial Sutton-Dudley arms differenced with a crescent (i.e. indicating
descent from a second son of a Sutton-Dudley baron).” Clearly, for the coat of arms on
Thomas Dudley’s seal to be a valid clue, Governor Dudley must have been entitled to use
it.
Under the hypothesis that Thomas Dudley was, indeed, entitled to the use the coat
of arms, it will be investigated here to see where the clue leads. First of all the coat of
arms is that used by the Sutton-Dudleys. The present day accepted and well documented
Sutton-Dudley line from the first generation using the coat of arms to and including the
generation adopting the Dudley name in brief is as follows5:
1. Sir Richard de Sutton, b. ca. 1266, d. aft. 1346, m. Isabel Patrick, b. ca. 1260, d. by
1318.
2. John de Sutton I, d. aft. 1337, m. Margaret de Somery, b. 1290, d. 1384.
3. John de Sutton II, d. 1359, m. Isabel de Cherleton, d. 1396.
4. John de Sutton III, b 1338, d. 1369/70, m. 25 Dec 1357 Katherine de Stafford (child
bride), b. ca. 1347/8, d. by 25 Dec 1361.
5. John de Sutton IV, b. 6 Dec 1361, d. 1395/6, m. Joan.
6. John Sutton V, b. Feb 1380, d. 28 Aug 1406, m. bef. 10 Dec 1401, Constance Blount,
d. 23 Sep 1432.
1 Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America before
1700 (Baltimore, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.,1999, Seventh Edition), 51-54.
2 George Adlard, The Sutton-Dudleys of England and the Dudleys of Massachusetts in New England (New
York, printed for the Author, 1862).
3 David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth Century Colonists (NEHGS, 1999, Second Edition),
125
4 Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry:A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families
(Baltimore,Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.), 280.
5 Weis, Ancestral Roots [Note 1], at 78 (Line 81) and David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry [note 3], at
122,123.
7. John Dudley, b. 25 Dec 1400, d. 30 Sep 1487, m. aft. 14 Mar 1420/1, Elizabeth
Berkeley, d. shortly bef. 8 Dec 1478.
Considering the time from generation 7 in the Sutton-Dudley line and Roger
Dudley’s approximate date of birth (1550)6 there must have been three to four
generations spanning that time.
To be consistent with the second son crescent requirements of Governor Thomas
Dudley’s coat of arms, the men of generations 8, 9, 10, and 11 must be comprised of
either three first sons and one second son with Roger Dudley being the first son of
generation 11 or else four first sons with Roger Dudley being the second son of
generation 11. There are exactly five such cases to investigate. One and only one will
contain the correct generations between John Dudley of generation 7 and Roger Dudley.
In the investigation of any case, if it becomes evident that there might be only three
generations spanning the time to Roger Dudley that possibility will also be investigated.
In the first four cases studied it will be shown that those generations could not be the
correct ones separating John Dudley of generation 7 and Roger Dudley. Then by
inference, it follows that the generations of the fifth case must necessarily be the correct
ones.
Case A7:
8. Edmund Dudley (first son)
9. Edward Dudley (first son)
10. John Dudley (first son)
11. Edward Dudley (first son)
The 11th generation Edward’s first wife died in 1566 without male issue. His
second wife had two sons both of whom were born too late for Roger Dudley to have
been the second son. Therefore, the case for which there were only three generations
must be investigated. The second son of John Dudley of the generation 10 was well
known to be Henry Dudley.8 This means that Roger Dudley cannot have been the second
son and that neither the three or four generations were the correct ones.
Case B9:
8. John Dudley (second son)
9. Edmund Dudley (first son)
10. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (first son)
11. Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (first and only son with male issue)
Robert Dudley’s first son was Robert born in 1572 just three years before Roger
Dudley was married on 8 June 1675.10 Hence, Roger Dudley could not have been the
first son of Robert of generation 11 or for that matter the first son of John Dudley of
generation 10 because Robert Dudley was his first and only son.
6 [note 3] at 125 and [note 4] at 280.
7 Adlard, The Sutton-Dudleys [note 2], Pedigree of the Sutton-Dudleys (Chart A, second page), one of
five charts preceding page 17.
8 [note 3] at 125 and [note 4] at 280.
9 [note 2], Pedigree of the Dudleys, Duke of Northumberland, Earls of Warwick and Leicester (Chart B),
one of five charts preceding page 17.
10 [note 3], at 125 and [note 4] at 280.
Case C11:
8. Edmund Dudley (first son)
9. Thomas Dudley of Yeanwith (second son who had male issue)
10. Richard Dudley (first son)
11. Edmund Dudley (first son)
Edmund Dudley of generation 8 had two sons by his first wife, Joyce Tiptoft, but
his second son John of Aston le Wells had no male issue; John’s daughter Margaret was
his heir.12 Edmund Dudley of generation 11 was succeeded by Thomas, his first son with
a male heir. Since Edmund’s successor was not Roger Dudley, the generations of case C
can reasonably be eliminated as the correct ones to Roger Dudley.
Case D13:
8. Edmund Dudley (first son)
9. Edward Dudley (first son)
10. Geoffrey Dudley of Russell‘s Hall (second son to have male issue)
11. Thomas Dudley (first son)
Thomas Dudley of generation 11 was married to Dorothy Lascelles in about
1562.14 Also, Thomas’ first son Jeffrey (not Roger) was born in about 1563.15
Furthermore, Roger could not have been Geoffrey’s first son because Thomas was. Thus,
cases A through D have been eliminated as a part of Roger Dudley’s ancestry.
Case E16:
8. Edmund Dudley (first son)
9. Edward Dudley (first son)
10. John Dudley (first son)
11. Henry Dudley (second son)
Of the five cases A through E, one and only one can consist of the ancestors of
Roger Dudley. Since the first four cases have been eliminated, it follows by inference that
case E must be the one which consists of Roger Dudley’s ancestors.
Hence, it has been proven here that if Thomas Dudley was entitled to his coat of
arms, then its crescent mark represented Henry Dudley and that Henry Dudley was Roger
Dudley’s father. To complete the indirect proof, it must be shown that Thomas Dudley
was entitled to his coat of arms.
Many an early settler found a need to use a seal on documents and adopted a coat
of arms associated with his name without knowing whether or not he was entitled to it
based on his ancestry. The New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS)
established the Committee on Heraldry to address this problem of whether or not a settler
was using a correct coat of arms. The Committee registered coats of arms of settlers
11 [note 2], Chart A (second page) and Pedigree of the Dudleys of Yeanwith, Cumberland (Chart C), one of
five charts preceding page 17.
12 [note 3], at 368 and [note 4] at 754.
13 [note 2], Chart A (second page).
14 Dean Dudley, Supplement to the History of the Dudley Family, (Wakefield, MA, privately printed 1898),
Chart of pages 33,34.
15 Ibid.
16 [note 3], at 123-125
whose titles were proven by sufficient evidence. They would not register “coats assumed
in this country without either a grant or an inherited right.”17 If the Committee was
satisfied that the settler brought his coat of arms on a seal or any other form from
England the Committee considered that was a good prima facie case that the settler was
entitled to the coat of arms. Otherwise, complete proof was required.18 The first Roll of
Arms registered appeared in April of 1928 and contained seventy-two coats.19 The second
roll contained ninety registered coats of arms among which was that of Thomas
Dudley.20
It was not revealed by what basis each coat of arms was accepted for registration.
One reason for the registering Thomas Dudley’s coat of arms might well have been that
he was not one of those who felt a need for coat of arms seal to use on his documents
since he only used it on his will. The second reason was probably that the coat of arms
was for the 16th century and not the 17th century. This requires a bit of explanation. The
Sutton-Dudley coat of arms consisted of a green lion rampant (standing erect with one
foot on the ground and facing left) on a field of gold. Originally, the lion had a double
tail, but in the sixteenth century the heralds, due to a dispute, caused the lion to be
displayed with a single tail. The heralds restored the double tail in the seventeenth
century.21 If Thomas Dudley had adopted his coat of arms in America, it would have had
the double tailed lion. Hence, it is likely that the seal was originally that of Thomas
Dudley’s father for use in the 16th century.
Anne Bradstreet’s biographer, Elizabeth Wade White, acquired evidence from an
English authority that Thomas Dudley was fully entitled to the Sutton-Dudley coat of
arms: In a letter dated 9 February 1953, Captain de La Lanne-Mirrlees, then Rouge
Dragon pursuivant, of the College of Arms agreed that Thomas Dudley was entitled to
the use of the Sutton-Dudley coat of arms, and that his seal provides “reasonable, though
inferential proof” of Thomas Dudley’s paternal lineage.22 Inferential proof is a form of
indirect proof.
From its inception to the present day the NEHGS Committee on Heraldry has
been the most respected authority on American heraldry. Other than proof that Thomas
Dudley was not entitled to his coat of arms, there is no reasonable justification to ignore
or dismiss either their findings and judgments or those of England’s highest authority on
heraldry, the College of Arms. Therefore, in accordance with the two best possible
authorities, Thomas Dudley was entitled to use his coat of arms seal. This completes the
indirect proof that Henry Dudley was Roger Dudley’s father and establishes Thomas
Dudley’s paternal line as follows:
17 NEHGR, Robert Dickson Weston, Chairman of the Committee on Heraldry, “A Second Roll of Arms
Registered by the Committee on Heraldry of the New England Historic Genealogical Society”, vol. 86,
258-259.
18 Ibid, at 259.
19 NEHGR, G. Andrews Moriarty, Jr. of the Committee on Heraldry, “A Roll of Arms Registered by the
Committee on Heraldry of the New England Historic Genealogical Society”, vol. 82, 146.
20 NEHGR, [note 17], at 273.
21 Dean Dudley, Supplement to the History of the Dudley Family, [note 14], 6 ( a footnote).
22 Elizabeth Wade White, Anne Bradstreet, The Tenth Muse, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1971),
13.
1. Sir Richard de Sutton, b. ca. 1266, d. aft. 1346, m. Isabel Patrick, b. ca. 1260, d. by
1318.
2. John de Sutton I, d. aft. 1337, m. Margaret de Somery, b. 1290, d. 1384.
3. John de Sutton II, d. 1359, m. Isabel de Cherleton, d. 1396.
4. John de Sutton III, b 1338, d. 1369/70, m. 25 Dec 1357 Katherine de Stafford (child
bride), b. ca. 1347/8, d. by 25 Dec 1361.
5. John de Sutton IV, b. 6 Dec 1361, d. 1395/6, m. Joan.
6. John Sutton V, b. Feb 1380, d. 28 Aug 1406, m. bef. 10 Dec 1401, Constance Blount,
d. 23 Sep 1432.
7. John Dudley, b. 25 Dec 1400, d. 30 Sep 1487, m. aft. 14 Mar 1420/1, Elizabeth
Berkeley, d. shortly bef. 8 Dec 1478.
8. Edmund Dudley (or Sutton), m. Joyce Tiptoft, d. between 1483 and 1487.23
9. Edward Dudley, b. abt. 1459, m. Cecily Willougby, d. 31 Jan. 1531/2 at age abt. 72.24
10. John Dudley, b. abt. 1495, m. Cecily Grey, buried at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, on
18 Sep. 1553.25
11. Capt. Henry Dudley, b. abt. 1517, m. Miss Ashton, d. between 1568 and 1570.26
12. Capt. Roger Dudley, b. abt. 1550, m. Susanna Thorne 8 June 1575, d. bef. October
1588.27
13. Gov. Thomas Dudley, baptised 12 Oct. 1576, m. Dorothy Yorke on 25 Apr. 1603, d.
25 Apr. 1653.28
The statement of David Faris and Richardson about the importance of Thomas
Dudley’s coat of arms in determining Governor’s Dudley paternal ancestry has been
shown to be true and insightful.
Formerly, there was no documentary proof that Thomas Dudley was a descendant
of Henry Dudley. Now, there is. Thomas Dudley’s will is that document with the crescent
of the coat of arms seal showing the descent of Thomas Dudley from Captain Henry
Dudley.
Some Closing Comments
It has been suggested that one of the Suttons of generations 1 through 6 might
have had a second son who was Thomas Dudley’s ancestor. To study this possibility,
generation 6 will be considered. It is known that John Sutton and Constant Blount had
three sons, the first son , John, along with Thomas and Humphry. For Thomas or
Humphry to have been the ancestor of Gov. Thomas Dudley, he must be the first of a line
of four or five first sons to the time of Roger Dudley. No such line is known to exist after
more than 150 years of researching the Sutton-Duttons by a goodly number of expert
genealogists. Longer lines from a second son of any of the first five generations have
also not been discovered. Thus, based on the present state of knowledge, it is
23 [note 3], at 123,124.
24 Ibid. at 124.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid. at 125
27 Ibid. at 125,126.
28 Ibid.
inconceivable that the suggested possibility is true. However, it is noteworthy that Isabel
de Cherleton of generation 3 married a second husband by the name of Richard Dudley.29
His line came within three generations of reaching the time of Roger Dudley.30 Of course,
he was not a Sutton-Dudley. His coat of arms featured three lions’ heads.31
It is worth mentioning that according to the present state of Sutton-Dudley
knowledge, each first and second son of the cases A through E is correctly identified.
For instance, Thomas Dudley of case C was identified as the second son in 184832 and
the identification after all these years has not been shown to be false.
29 [note 14],10; [note 2], Chart A (first page)
30 [note 14],10.
31 Ibid
32 Dean Dudley, The Dudley Genealogies and Family Records, (Boston, published by the author, 1848),
10.
Rebuttal to Criticisms of Roger Dudley’s Father
Proved to be Captain Henry Dudley
By H. Allen Curtis
At the website http://www.gatago.com/soc/genealogy/medieval/4281263.html are found
some criticisms of my article, “Roger Dudley’s Father Proved to be Captain Henry Dudley”. Below is my
rebuttal to those criticisms.
Nat Taylor’s Criticism
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.
My Rebuttal
Mr. Taylor was critical of standards of the NEHGS Committee on Heraldry and dismissed their evidence
but ignored the evidence of the greater authority, The College of Arms: Captain de La Lanne-Mirrlees, then
Rouge Dragon pursuivant, of the College of Arms who agreed that Thomas Dudley was entitled to the use
of the Sutton-Dudley coat of arms, and that his seal provides “reasonable, though inferential proof” of
Thomas Dudley’s paternal lineage. The captain’s reference to an inferential proof was the inspiration for
my proof by elimination which verified the captain’s words.
Joseph Cook’s Criticism
Mr. Cook agreed with Mr. Taylor about the NEHGR Committee on Heraldry but was otherwise favorable
to my article. Thus, my rebuttal to Mr. Taylor applies here also.
Todd A. Farmerie’s Criticism
Mr. Farmerlie’s criticism though much more detailed was essentially the same as the previous two. Among
his details, he said, “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.”
My Rebuttal
Mr. Farmerlie also ignored the evidence of the College of Arms. In this case the over-simplification applied
and could be used to provide reasonable inferential proof. Mr. Farmerlie correctly stated, “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 reason for this interest was that many of
the immigrants adopted coats of arms for personal gain. However, Thomas Dudley used his seal only once
(on his will) and thus did not use it for personal gain. Thomas Dudley was known for his honesty and
would not have used his seal if he were not entitled to do so.
John Brandon’s Criticism
Mr. Brandon had no explicit criticism, but suggested the direction he would take in the search for
documentary evidence of Thomas Dudley’s paternal ancestry. My rebuttal is not needed.
Douglas Richardson - no criticism
Mr. Richardson merely replied to Mr. Brandon. This initiated a Richardson and Brandon correspondence
which included no criticism of my article. Nat Taylor joined that correspondence. All criticism had ceased.".


2666497. Margaret Somery

1http://www.familypage.org/RogerSonoHenry.pdf.
"Roger Dudley’s Father Proved to be Captain Henry Dudley
By H. Allen Curtis
The maternal ancestry of Thomas Dudley, the first Deputy Governor and several
times Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, is noble, regal, and well documented.1
For over one hundred and forty years able and talented genealogists have been trying to
discover Thomas Dudley’s paternal lineage.2 However, it has never been completely
proven. All through the years that researchers have been trying to determine Thomas
Dudley’s paternal ancestry, the stumbling block has been in discovering the true identity
of his father, Roger Dudley’s parents. It is evident that with so many having researched
the Dudleys for so many years that no DIRECT evidence of Roger Dudley’s parentage
exists today. That means that what is needed to discover and prove Thomas Dudley’s
paternal line is INDIRECT proof of Roger Dudley’s parentage. In mathematics, an exact
science, indirect proof is often found preferable to direct proof. Use of indirect proof in
genealogy, an inexact science, is valid and should be used when needed.
Two distinguished modern day genealogists, David Faris3 and Douglas
Richardson,4 are agreed that towards proving Thomas Dudley paternal ancestry, there are
three main clues. The first of these is “that the will of Gov. Thomas Dudley included a
seal of the baronial Sutton-Dudley arms differenced with a crescent (i.e. indicating
descent from a second son of a Sutton-Dudley baron).” Clearly, for the coat of arms on
Thomas Dudley’s seal to be a valid clue, Governor Dudley must have been entitled to use
it.
Under the hypothesis that Thomas Dudley was, indeed, entitled to the use the coat
of arms, it will be investigated here to see where the clue leads. First of all the coat of
arms is that used by the Sutton-Dudleys. The present day accepted and well documented
Sutton-Dudley line from the first generation using the coat of arms to and including the
generation adopting the Dudley name in brief is as follows5:
1. Sir Richard de Sutton, b. ca. 1266, d. aft. 1346, m. Isabel Patrick, b. ca. 1260, d. by
1318.
2. John de Sutton I, d. aft. 1337, m. Margaret de Somery, b. 1290, d. 1384.
3. John de Sutton II, d. 1359, m. Isabel de Cherleton, d. 1396.
4. John de Sutton III, b 1338, d. 1369/70, m. 25 Dec 1357 Katherine de Stafford (child
bride), b. ca. 1347/8, d. by 25 Dec 1361.
5. John de Sutton IV, b. 6 Dec 1361, d. 1395/6, m. Joan.
6. John Sutton V, b. Feb 1380, d. 28 Aug 1406, m. bef. 10 Dec 1401, Constance Blount,
d. 23 Sep 1432.
1 Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America before
1700 (Baltimore, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.,1999, Seventh Edition), 51-54.
2 George Adlard, The Sutton-Dudleys of England and the Dudleys of Massachusetts in New England (New
York, printed for the Author, 1862).
3 David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth Century Colonists (NEHGS, 1999, Second Edition),
125
4 Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry:A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families
(Baltimore,Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.), 280.
5 Weis, Ancestral Roots [Note 1], at 78 (Line 81) and David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry [note 3], at
122,123.
7. John Dudley, b. 25 Dec 1400, d. 30 Sep 1487, m. aft. 14 Mar 1420/1, Elizabeth
Berkeley, d. shortly bef. 8 Dec 1478.
Considering the time from generation 7 in the Sutton-Dudley line and Roger
Dudley’s approximate date of birth (1550)6 there must have been three to four
generations spanning that time.
To be consistent with the second son crescent requirements of Governor Thomas
Dudley’s coat of arms, the men of generations 8, 9, 10, and 11 must be comprised of
either three first sons and one second son with Roger Dudley being the first son of
generation 11 or else four first sons with Roger Dudley being the second son of
generation 11. There are exactly five such cases to investigate. One and only one will
contain the correct generations between John Dudley of generation 7 and Roger Dudley.
In the investigation of any case, if it becomes evident that there might be only three
generations spanning the time to Roger Dudley that possibility will also be investigated.
In the first four cases studied it will be shown that those generations could not be the
correct ones separating John Dudley of generation 7 and Roger Dudley. Then by
inference, it follows that the generations of the fifth case must necessarily be the correct
ones.
Case A7:
8. Edmund Dudley (first son)
9. Edward Dudley (first son)
10. John Dudley (first son)
11. Edward Dudley (first son)
The 11th generation Edward’s first wife died in 1566 without male issue. His
second wife had two sons both of whom were born too late for Roger Dudley to have
been the second son. Therefore, the case for which there were only three generations
must be investigated. The second son of John Dudley of the generation 10 was well
known to be Henry Dudley.8 This means that Roger Dudley cannot have been the second
son and that neither the three or four generations were the correct ones.
Case B9:
8. John Dudley (second son)
9. Edmund Dudley (first son)
10. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (first son)
11. Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (first and only son with male issue)
Robert Dudley’s first son was Robert born in 1572 just three years before Roger
Dudley was married on 8 June 1675.10 Hence, Roger Dudley could not have been the
first son of Robert of generation 11 or for that matter the first son of John Dudley of
generation 10 because Robert Dudley was his first and only son.
6 [note 3] at 125 and [note 4] at 280.
7 Adlard, The Sutton-Dudleys [note 2], Pedigree of the Sutton-Dudleys (Chart A, second page), one of
five charts preceding page 17.
8 [note 3] at 125 and [note 4] at 280.
9 [note 2], Pedigree of the Dudleys, Duke of Northumberland, Earls of Warwick and Leicester (Chart B),
one of five charts preceding page 17.
10 [note 3], at 125 and [note 4] at 280.
Case C11:
8. Edmund Dudley (first son)
9. Thomas Dudley of Yeanwith (second son who had male issue)
10. Richard Dudley (first son)
11. Edmund Dudley (first son)
Edmund Dudley of generation 8 had two sons by his first wife, Joyce Tiptoft, but
his second son John of Aston le Wells had no male issue; John’s daughter Margaret was
his heir.12 Edmund Dudley of generation 11 was succeeded by Thomas, his first son with
a male heir. Since Edmund’s successor was not Roger Dudley, the generations of case C
can reasonably be eliminated as the correct ones to Roger Dudley.
Case D13:
8. Edmund Dudley (first son)
9. Edward Dudley (first son)
10. Geoffrey Dudley of Russell‘s Hall (second son to have male issue)
11. Thomas Dudley (first son)
Thomas Dudley of generation 11 was married to Dorothy Lascelles in about
1562.14 Also, Thomas’ first son Jeffrey (not Roger) was born in about 1563.15
Furthermore, Roger could not have been Geoffrey’s first son because Thomas was. Thus,
cases A through D have been eliminated as a part of Roger Dudley’s ancestry.
Case E16:
8. Edmund Dudley (first son)
9. Edward Dudley (first son)
10. John Dudley (first son)
11. Henry Dudley (second son)
Of the five cases A through E, one and only one can consist of the ancestors of
Roger Dudley. Since the first four cases have been eliminated, it follows by inference that
case E must be the one which consists of Roger Dudley’s ancestors.
Hence, it has been proven here that if Thomas Dudley was entitled to his coat of
arms, then its crescent mark represented Henry Dudley and that Henry Dudley was Roger
Dudley’s father. To complete the indirect proof, it must be shown that Thomas Dudley
was entitled to his coat of arms.
Many an early settler found a need to use a seal on documents and adopted a coat
of arms associated with his name without knowing whether or not he was entitled to it
based on his ancestry. The New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS)
established the Committee on Heraldry to address this problem of whether or not a settler
was using a correct coat of arms. The Committee registered coats of arms of settlers
11 [note 2], Chart A (second page) and Pedigree of the Dudleys of Yeanwith, Cumberland (Chart C), one of
five charts preceding page 17.
12 [note 3], at 368 and [note 4] at 754.
13 [note 2], Chart A (second page).
14 Dean Dudley, Supplement to the History of the Dudley Family, (Wakefield, MA, privately printed 1898),
Chart of pages 33,34.
15 Ibid.
16 [note 3], at 123-125
whose titles were proven by sufficient evidence. They would not register “coats assumed
in this country without either a grant or an inherited right.”17 If the Committee was
satisfied that the settler brought his coat of arms on a seal or any other form from
England the Committee considered that was a good prima facie case that the settler was
entitled to the coat of arms. Otherwise, complete proof was required.18 The first Roll of
Arms registered appeared in April of 1928 and contained seventy-two coats.19 The second
roll contained ninety registered coats of arms among which was that of Thomas
Dudley.20
It was not revealed by what basis each coat of arms was accepted for registration.
One reason for the registering Thomas Dudley’s coat of arms might well have been that
he was not one of those who felt a need for coat of arms seal to use on his documents
since he only used it on his will. The second reason was probably that the coat of arms
was for the 16th century and not the 17th century. This requires a bit of explanation. The
Sutton-Dudley coat of arms consisted of a green lion rampant (standing erect with one
foot on the ground and facing left) on a field of gold. Originally, the lion had a double
tail, but in the sixteenth century the heralds, due to a dispute, caused the lion to be
displayed with a single tail. The heralds restored the double tail in the seventeenth
century.21 If Thomas Dudley had adopted his coat of arms in America, it would have had
the double tailed lion. Hence, it is likely that the seal was originally that of Thomas
Dudley’s father for use in the 16th century.
Anne Bradstreet’s biographer, Elizabeth Wade White, acquired evidence from an
English authority that Thomas Dudley was fully entitled to the Sutton-Dudley coat of
arms: In a letter dated 9 February 1953, Captain de La Lanne-Mirrlees, then Rouge
Dragon pursuivant, of the College of Arms agreed that Thomas Dudley was entitled to
the use of the Sutton-Dudley coat of arms, and that his seal provides “reasonable, though
inferential proof” of Thomas Dudley’s paternal lineage.22 Inferential proof is a form of
indirect proof.
From its inception to the present day the NEHGS Committee on Heraldry has
been the most respected authority on American heraldry. Other than proof that Thomas
Dudley was not entitled to his coat of arms, there is no reasonable justification to ignore
or dismiss either their findings and judgments or those of England’s highest authority on
heraldry, the College of Arms. Therefore, in accordance with the two best possible
authorities, Thomas Dudley was entitled to use his coat of arms seal. This completes the
indirect proof that Henry Dudley was Roger Dudley’s father and establishes Thomas
Dudley’s paternal line as follows:
17 NEHGR, Robert Dickson Weston, Chairman of the Committee on Heraldry, “A Second Roll of Arms
Registered by the Committee on Heraldry of the New England Historic Genealogical Society”, vol. 86,
258-259.
18 Ibid, at 259.
19 NEHGR, G. Andrews Moriarty, Jr. of the Committee on Heraldry, “A Roll of Arms Registered by the
Committee on Heraldry of the New England Historic Genealogical Society”, vol. 82, 146.
20 NEHGR, [note 17], at 273.
21 Dean Dudley, Supplement to the History of the Dudley Family, [note 14], 6 ( a footnote).
22 Elizabeth Wade White, Anne Bradstreet, The Tenth Muse, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1971),
13.
1. Sir Richard de Sutton, b. ca. 1266, d. aft. 1346, m. Isabel Patrick, b. ca. 1260, d. by
1318.
2. John de Sutton I, d. aft. 1337, m. Margaret de Somery, b. 1290, d. 1384.
3. John de Sutton II, d. 1359, m. Isabel de Cherleton, d. 1396.
4. John de Sutton III, b 1338, d. 1369/70, m. 25 Dec 1357 Katherine de Stafford (child
bride), b. ca. 1347/8, d. by 25 Dec 1361.
5. John de Sutton IV, b. 6 Dec 1361, d. 1395/6, m. Joan.
6. John Sutton V, b. Feb 1380, d. 28 Aug 1406, m. bef. 10 Dec 1401, Constance Blount,
d. 23 Sep 1432.
7. John Dudley, b. 25 Dec 1400, d. 30 Sep 1487, m. aft. 14 Mar 1420/1, Elizabeth
Berkeley, d. shortly bef. 8 Dec 1478.
8. Edmund Dudley (or Sutton), m. Joyce Tiptoft, d. between 1483 and 1487.23
9. Edward Dudley, b. abt. 1459, m. Cecily Willougby, d. 31 Jan. 1531/2 at age abt. 72.24
10. John Dudley, b. abt. 1495, m. Cecily Grey, buried at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, on
18 Sep. 1553.25
11. Capt. Henry Dudley, b. abt. 1517, m. Miss Ashton, d. between 1568 and 1570.26
12. Capt. Roger Dudley, b. abt. 1550, m. Susanna Thorne 8 June 1575, d. bef. October
1588.27
13. Gov. Thomas Dudley, baptised 12 Oct. 1576, m. Dorothy Yorke on 25 Apr. 1603, d.
25 Apr. 1653.28
The statement of David Faris and Richardson about the importance of Thomas
Dudley’s coat of arms in determining Governor’s Dudley paternal ancestry has been
shown to be true and insightful.
Formerly, there was no documentary proof that Thomas Dudley was a descendant
of Henry Dudley. Now, there is. Thomas Dudley’s will is that document with the crescent
of the coat of arms seal showing the descent of Thomas Dudley from Captain Henry
Dudley.
Some Closing Comments
It has been suggested that one of the Suttons of generations 1 through 6 might
have had a second son who was Thomas Dudley’s ancestor. To study this possibility,
generation 6 will be considered. It is known that John Sutton and Constant Blount had
three sons, the first son , John, along with Thomas and Humphry. For Thomas or
Humphry to have been the ancestor of Gov. Thomas Dudley, he must be the first of a line
of four or five first sons to the time of Roger Dudley. No such line is known to exist after
more than 150 years of researching the Sutton-Duttons by a goodly number of expert
genealogists. Longer lines from a second son of any of the first five generations have
also not been discovered. Thus, based on the present state of knowledge, it is
23 [note 3], at 123,124.
24 Ibid. at 124.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid. at 125
27 Ibid. at 125,126.
28 Ibid.
inconceivable that the suggested possibility is true. However, it is noteworthy that Isabel
de Cherleton of generation 3 married a second husband by the name of Richard Dudley.29
His line came within three generations of reaching the time of Roger Dudley.30 Of course,
he was not a Sutton-Dudley. His coat of arms featured three lions’ heads.31
It is worth mentioning that according to the present state of Sutton-Dudley
knowledge, each first and second son of the cases A through E is correctly identified.
For instance, Thomas Dudley of case C was identified as the second son in 184832 and
the identification after all these years has not been shown to be false.
29 [note 14],10; [note 2], Chart A (first page)
30 [note 14],10.
31 Ibid
32 Dean Dudley, The Dudley Genealogies and Family Records, (Boston, published by the author, 1848),
10.
Rebuttal to Criticisms of Roger Dudley’s Father
Proved to be Captain Henry Dudley
By H. Allen Curtis
At the website http://www.gatago.com/soc/genealogy/medieval/4281263.html are found
some criticisms of my article, “Roger Dudley’s Father Proved to be Captain Henry Dudley”. Below is my
rebuttal to those criticisms.
Nat Taylor’s Criticism
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.
My Rebuttal
Mr. Taylor was critical of standards of the NEHGS Committee on Heraldry and dismissed their evidence
but ignored the evidence of the greater authority, The College of Arms: Captain de La Lanne-Mirrlees, then
Rouge Dragon pursuivant, of the College of Arms who agreed that Thomas Dudley was entitled to the use
of the Sutton-Dudley coat of arms, and that his seal provides “reasonable, though inferential proof” of
Thomas Dudley’s paternal lineage. The captain’s reference to an inferential proof was the inspiration for
my proof by elimination which verified the captain’s words.
Joseph Cook’s Criticism
Mr. Cook agreed with Mr. Taylor about the NEHGR Committee on Heraldry but was otherwise favorable
to my article. Thus, my rebuttal to Mr. Taylor applies here also.
Todd A. Farmerie’s Criticism
Mr. Farmerlie’s criticism though much more detailed was essentially the same as the previous two. Among
his details, he said, “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.”
My Rebuttal
Mr. Farmerlie also ignored the evidence of the College of Arms. In this case the over-simplification applied
and could be used to provide reasonable inferential proof. Mr. Farmerlie correctly stated, “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 reason for this interest was that many of
the immigrants adopted coats of arms for personal gain. However, Thomas Dudley used his seal only once
(on his will) and thus did not use it for personal gain. Thomas Dudley was known for his honesty and
would not have used his seal if he were not entitled to do so.
John Brandon’s Criticism
Mr. Brandon had no explicit criticism, but suggested the direction he would take in the search for
documentary evidence of Thomas Dudley’s paternal ancestry. My rebuttal is not needed.
Douglas Richardson - no criticism
Mr. Richardson merely replied to Mr. Brandon. This initiated a Richardson and Brandon correspondence
which included no criticism of my article. Nat Taylor joined that correspondence. All criticism had ceased.".

2http://www.familypage.org/RogerSonoHenry.pdf.


2666513. Isabel Beauchamp

1Frederick Lewis Weiss, Magna Charta Sureties, 1215, 4/5.


2666530. William Ferrers Earl of Derby

1Frederick Lewis Weiss, Magna Charta Sureties, 1215, 88/3.

2Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots of Sixty colonists, 57/29.


2666531. Countess of Lincoln Margaret de Quincy

1Frederick Lewis Weiss, Magna Charta Sureties, 1215, 88/3.

2Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots of Sixty colonists, 57/29.

3Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots of Sixty colonists.