The Ancestry of Gov. Thomas Dudley

There are a number of controversies in our Dudley history, but the two most commented upon on this site, and cause the most email and questions, are those concerning Governor Thomas Dudley and the possible descent through Charlemagne. We will take a VERY short look at both. Be aware that I intend in no way to settle the disputes, in fact I may stir more up. I wish to state from the start that I will entertain comment upon them, but will NOT let this site take a stand upon them. You will soon see why.

NOTE: our first controversy will concern Gov Thomas Dudley. While I AM aware of the book/booklet/pamphlet "The Ancestry of Governor Thomas Dudley" by Frederick Weid (a Fellow of the American society of Genealogists) and Mrs. Elmendorf written in 1962, the article will ONLY concern the article she penned in 1968. Reason? I only have THAT article, and not the book. The other theories will be examined on other pages.

The lineage of Gov. Thomas Dudley has always been in dispute. That his father was Captain Roger Dudley, and his mother Susan Thorne, has never (to my knowledge) been questioned. But who was the good Captain's father? Of this we are NOT really certain. There are (currently) FOUR theories--each with their good points and bad. Be aware that ANY of these theories are proven (or, unproven).

The long standing theory that most genealogists accept is that he came through the Baronial Dudley from John Dudley of the Drapers Guild, back to John Sutton. This was originally promoted in Dean Dudley's monumental History of the Dudley Family and was not questioned until (to the best of my knowledge) Mrs. Elmendorf. and would account for Gov Dudley's obvious "Sutton Dudley" coat of Arms (which, by the way, still is not questioned).

Then came Mrs. Minnie Elmendorf. In the July, 1968 edition of "The American Genealogist" (vol. 44, no.3), she advanced the (rather obscure) theory that Cap. Roger was the son of "John, serg. of the Pastry." (Note: for those unfamiliar with these abbreviations, I will explain them. "serg of the Pastry" means Sergeant of the Pastry...a somewhat military title that implies that he MAY have been a chef. (Actually, it DOES mean he was connected to the bakery of someone in Royalty, However, it is more accepted as just a title....meaning nothing except he knew someone!).
This article touched off a storm of controversy among the descendants of Gov Thomas that continues to this day. When this site came on-line in April of 1997, I was sent over 75 emails DEMANDING that I take a position on this. When I finally did get a copy of the Article, what I read truly surprised me. What evidence does Mrs. Elmendorf put forward? Here are some quotes, and my own notes on them:

NOTE: yes, I am going to get critical of this--but I WILL be critical of ALL of theories. While I DO have a "druther" (A theory I do like) please be aware that---NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE---I REPEAT ANYONE---TELLS YOU, NONE of them are proven.

First, she doesn't directly seem to question the descent from the Baronial Dudley's. Good thing, too. Even heraldry supports this.

Secondly, she attacks Dean Dudley (author of "History of the Dudley Family") outright. Whether she does this simply to call attention to herself, or she truly believes his "evidence" is faulty, is not said. While a critical look at Mr. Dudley's theory is quite acceptable, she make NO acknowledgment of his reasons or research. This, in my opinion, is unprofessional.

Thirdly, her manuscript is (or at least appears to be) well researched. The lady obviously did a lot of homework. Unfortunately, most of the books and manuscripts she cites is UNAVAILABLE for about 90% of us to check. It took me over 6 months before deciding to write this, and still I have not seen half of the books, etc, that she cites. I HAVE seen some, and while I admit that they DO exist, (and will stipulate to the others), I see nothing in them that definitely points a finger.

HOWEVER:
My overall impression of the article is this: any evolution science teacher would be proud! Let's look at some of the quotes and words used to support her work:
She begins on the first page by saying:

"some recent discoveries have strengthened the belief that his father...." No facts is she referring to, just a belief.

"Missing is proof that Roger was the son of John, Serg. of the Pastry." And she offers none, either.

"Who reared this boy can only be conjectured. There is one intriguing possibility. Conjectures and possibilities. That is all Mrs. Elmendorf can offer.

The rest of the article is more of the above. While I must say that the theory IS a possibility, SO is Dean Dudley's and all the rest who went before and after him. The main problem with Mrs. Elmendorf's article is that so many came to accept it as Gospel---and I am not so sure that it was really meant to be taken so. IF she wished to offer it as a theory (which another, who also offers a very intriguing possibly, has done) she should NOT have concluded her article to imply that she had solved the mystery. In addition, her quoting of manuscripts that are NOT available to the general public, (a fact that she knew) allows any researcher to say just about anything they want. I am NOT saying she was lying--but a simple photocopy in the article would have lent support to her theory. In addition, the fact that she bases SO MUCH on assumptions does not--in my mind, at least--lend her credibility.
Again, I am NOT saying that she IS wrong--I just would NOT take and base ANY genealogical claims upon it at all!

The problem with Genealogy is that it is an INEXACT hobby. We can ONLY research what is THERE--and when hard evidence stops, so do we. It is fascinating to delve into "maybe this, or maybe that," but we CAN NOT put forth as factual things that are not.

Now, in saying all of this, I fully realize that research into the ancestry of Gov. Thomas WILL continue--and it MUST. Reports of on-going research SHOULD be made public--as Mrs. Elmendorf's was. I just wish it would NOT be stated, or implied, that mysteries such as this have been SOLVED. They will not be...not until HARD evidence is brought forth....

And it has not been here. KEEP her theory, as it is a valid one--but do NOT add it to your family trees yet.

I will entertain any opposing viewpoint. IF you write a reputable opposing article, email me it, and IF well documented I WILL post it on-site.

and now for your NEXT controversy:

Please forgive any misspellings--they will be fixed quite soon!