I get the question about once per week: "Gary, how many branches of the Dudley's are there?" or something to that effect. Well, I will finally try to lay out, as understandably as possible, the various branches (or, "lines") of the Dudley family tree. Understand, before we even begin, that this will be simplistic--and I know some professional Genealogists MAY dispute some of the things that I am going to say. Want to know the truth? I DON'T CARE!!! I have been working on this thing for over 10 years now, and have run this site for 6 years. I have read HUNDREDS of books (all sounded so good--until I read the NEXT one!) and the following is what I have found. So lets begin.

The Genesis of the Dudley's come through the Suttons. There are TWO houses. 1) The Clapton (or Clopton, depending on who you read), and 2) The Sutton. As I have two other articles on this site on our origins, I will not go farther here. NOT all Dudley's come from these houses, however. We will talk about that later... Now the picture will become foggier. You see, some of the Parish records in England seemed to have been burned or lost. All reputable authors admit this, and MUST make conjectures on linking some of the branches. While I have no problem with it, I must admit that it makes it very hard to justify some things. In addition, some sloppy bookkeeping has added more mud to the picture. You see, most parishes never stated the parents of the BRIDE---and while it was undoubtedly because of the (then) cultural feelings about women, it does NOT help us today. You must understand that, in any given parish, there might be UP TO 100 "Thomas Dudley's"', and the nightmare of figuring out which is which comes in. When determining lines, most genealogists (and lets be truthful, most of the major studies of our family occurred at the turn of LAST Century) have had to make the BEST GUESS out of what they had in front of them, and what they knew of the history of the times they were researching. I admire these folk, they did a STUPENDOUS work (even IF we don't agree with them), and I can only imagine what they went through. GOD BLESS THEM!

However, we now have more to work with than they did, and while we find most were perfectly correct, we have found some to have errors, and a few had lots of errors. Now lets move on to our branches.


Gov. Thomas Dudley

This is the most famous, and largest, branch of the family. No matter what your opinion of HIM, his family is the most numerous. I cannot count the number of inquiries I get daily. It is also the most controversial. You see, while we know who his father was, and while we have a COMPLETE lineage of his mother CLEAR BACK TO CHARLEMAIGNE (yes, its true!) we do NOT know who the grandfather was. There are currently three possibilities, all with their strengths and weaknesses. No matter what anyone tells you, the ancestry of Gov. Thomas Dudley has NOT been proven. While it is generally admitted that his descent is through the Sutton-Dudley's (and I agree), this debate is still not settled. His descendants are in the thousands. This is one of the few families that can trace back to England.

The Guilford Branch

Like Gov Thomas's Branch, the ancestry is unknown, and not proven. It is most famous for being one of the first families to settle Connecticut, and is also famous for good ole' Dudleytown! If you can trace your family back to Ct., then chances are you are of this branch. The first volume of The NEW DUDLEY GENEALOGIES, by me, is on this branch. It also has many living descendants. Be careful, there is another Dudley branch in Ct., and it also is very numerous. See below.


The Concord Branch
From Massachusetts, this is often confused with Gov Thomas's Branch. It is one of the MOST widespread, having descendants in California, Washington State, Florida, and the Carolina's. Unfortunately, the ancestry of is line is ALSO in question, and can NOT be traced to England.


The Virginia/Kentucky Branches
From Thomas (son of Edward, 5th Baron of Dudley) through Richard, to Edward (who bought land in Virginia) this used to be what I thought was a PROVED (that is, documented) branch with real descendants from the Sutton's. However, this is has now called into question. Be that as it may, this branch is small in number, but there ARE living descendants among us today. The family split directions in Virginia, and founded the Kentucky line. It also split off into North Carolina. Be careful here, there ARE "Junior" (very small) branches in Virginia also, and these may confuse you as you are researching!


The Bedfordshire Branch
This is the newest branch to be discovered, and is one of the smallest (although it is growing). It is also MY branch of the Dudley's. Like many others, its lineage is not yet connected to either house. It has, so far, been traced to Bedford, and research is continuing. At the present (March, 2001), it can be traced back into the 1500's in England. IF you can trace your ancestry to Bedfordshire, PLEASE contact me immediately. In the last year, many have found this to be so, and the line is adding "leaves" constantly. This branch Survives on BOTH sides of the Atlantic.


Other branches
There are other, smaller, branches out there. Some MAY have died out. Lets take a look at some:

The Irish Dudley's
Dean Dudley has pedigrees in two places in his huge work, but NO one knows anyone living from this branch. It SEEMS to have died out. If you know differently, please contract me. It descended through "Lord Quondrum", through his son George Dudley.

The New Jersey Dudley's
Again, mention was made, and a short pedigree submitted, to Dean Dudley. Unfortunately, again no one knows of any living descendants.

The Virginia Branch of Gwin (Gwynn or other spellings) Dudley
Found in "Pioneer Families of Franklin County, Virginia", this family suddenly appeared in Virginia with no known pedigree! While small, they ARE still among us today! Research is continuing within this family, and it is in the database. Again, it can not be traced to England.


Australian/New Zealand Dudley's
These Dudley's (some of which are in the Database) want to know more about themselves! If you know of any Dudley's that went to either countries, PLEASE either post it on the message board, or email me! Small in number, they are very interested in their lineage.


Other English Branches
Dean Dudley mentions TWO large Dudley branches in 1898---The Russell Hall Branch (descended from Geoffrey (Jefferey) Dudley, and the Stratfordshire Branch. I have had contact with NO one from either. To be perfectly honest---and at the risk of offending some, though I have no intention of doing so---many professional genealogist state the our UK kin are NOT that interested in genealogy. That MAY be why so many of us have found it hard to speak to any one there OTHER than a professional. That may also be why it took me 2 years to find more of MY kin. While Dean Dudley had LARGE pedigrees of these two branches, NO ONE knows what the status of those lines are. The UK is KNOWN to be second only to the U.S. in their number of Dudley's, but contacting any is a chore. Getting information is even harder. Hopefully this will change. I, for one, certainly hope so.


"Pseudo" Branches and Assumed Names
Ah, now HERE is where I may get into trouble! YES, there are branches of the Dudley family that--well---may NOT be Dudley (at least by those who descend from the "Royal" or "Recognized" branches!) Or maybe they are... Well, it works like this: Dudley families (and, admittedly, OTHER families have this also!) seemed to have "sprung" up out of nowhere. One EXCELLENT example is the "Pseudo" Guilford line of John Dudley. The story goes like this: John was "pressed" into service aboard a ship, escaped to Boston, then moved to Guilford. His name was spelled "Deudle", and he changed it to (fanfare---TA-DA!) Dudley. Now, this family was numerous and good enough to make Families of Early Guilford by Alvin Talcott, and the descendants ARE with us today. In fact, a little book entitled Meet the Dudley's in Colonial times (published in 1999!) is about them! Dean Dudley rejected the line. Should we? Are there others LIKE that? Yes, there are...in fact, the Concord branch, Gwinn Dudley branch, and one or two others suddenly appear out of nowhere (see above--IF they can not be traced to England, then they are under question). Unfortunately, THIS Guilford branch is the ONLY branch that was ever questioned. What do we do?
Well, that is a tough question. Technically, WE should be called Sutton (at least most of us). WE assumed the name Dudley due to locale. In fact, there may very well be LARGE lines of Dudleys' that also assumed the name due to locale. SURNAMES were required by law in England ONLY since the 1500's. How many OTHER Dudley lines just named themselves DUDLEY because they lived there? I really do not think anyone really studied that. To be truthful, (as I have said before) there ARE other Dudley lines that we must question--especially if lineage can not be traced to England. The question is one of history...........and that is my forte'.

America was, BEFORE the revolution, a dumping ground for the prisons of Europe. Yes, its true. Oh, sure, many came because they bought land (such as the Virginia/Kentucky Branch), and some to escape religious persecution....but many also arrived because the crown wanted somewhere to send their religious/political prisoners. It is well known that some changed their names. Our question--how many MAY have changed it to Dudley?

See, told you I'd get myself into trouble! So what to do? In the case of the "Pseudo" Guilford Branch, there is a legitimate question if John's name WAS Dudley (Deudle could be a misspelling, but alternate spellings of DUDLEY abound). And, the biggie---if they weren't Dudley before, are they now? That, my kin, is a hard question. Technically, they are--at least until someone can prove otherwise. If not, then we may well question OTHER branches that cannot trace back to England also (where we can be reasonably sure that their name was Dudley).

So what to do? WE ADD IT!!! So many people have found their kin here--including myself--and by adding it we will find others who are researching it also. We cannot exclude one huge branch of the family just because one genealogist has a question with it. Until all branches can trace back to the UK, then all must be included for the purpose of research.


Till later.........God Bless you.