Rudd Master Database - Norfolk County Rudds

ON THE PARENTAGE OF BURLINGHAM RUDD

In the study of a family history, we are often faced with the realization that we have met a "brick wall," that immovable blockage that prevents us from proceeding further into the realm of reality and facts. This impediment is positive and perilous to our further research if we allow it to be so.
However, we know that every person has a pair of parents and every living person must have been an issue of some forgotten ancestors; so the brick wall is only an apparition to be dealt with.
One of the ways that I have dealt with the apparition is to leap frog around to some other time or place and attempt to work back to the "wall" in the opposite direction. This sometimes leads to success, but it also is fraught with some pitfalls. I only recommend that we try this with a full realization that the termination of the leaping trajectory may not be relevant to our overall search.
With that realization in mind, I have decided to leap into the far past to attempt to define the present. Therefore, I will first define the "brick wall" and then I'll make my leap.

The "Brick Wall"

We have with some degree of success defined our lineage back to the first Burlingham Rudd who migrated to North Carolina about 1728 and settled in Anson County. We also know that Burlingham came to America at the "insistance" of the Crown because of his arrest and conviction for horsestealing. Whether or not this was a valid charge or a false charge to "encourage" settling of America is not important. What is very important, though, is that the conviction and forced migration provides us with a window into the past.
This window might not have been available to us without the unfortunate event of his conviction for it defined the area of his farewell to England as Norfolk County and his residency at that time in Poringland. Poringland is located a few miles south of Norwich and is contained within the old Parish of Burlingham. (The name similarity may be a clue that is worth exploring.)
The dilemma is that we have been unable to identify Burlingham's parents, even though we know where he lived. It's probable that the records may, at one time, have defined his parentage, but a great deal of research back in England is indicated.
It is interesting that a gleaning of the parish records divulges a story of a bastard son of a well-to-do "gentleman" was born to an Anne Rudd in Norfolk County; and that the local priest named the son after the parish name when the father failed to recognize the union and issue. This story would be an obvious answer to our problem except that it pre-dates Burlingham's birth by a century. Does it indicate, though, a customary means of getting around a social taboo? And, was our Burlingham, similarly endowed with the undefinable legacy? Such questins are provocative.

The "Leap" Backwards

We know that the Rudd family was in England for at least six centuries before the birth of Burlingham. The records are clear and unambiguous attesting to this fact. We don't know, though, whether the Rudds were in England earlier as part of the Danelaw or all descended from the Lord of Meath, in Ireland. It doesn't matter, though, because the exponential increase in the numbers of persons bearing the name of Rudd would make the problem no less solvable by knowing the facts. We are dealing with about thirty generations of Rudds with an average of possibly two male persons per generation per family. This results is the sum of all the persons in the family line of two raised to the thirtieth power. Consider that the results of just ten generations would encompass over 2000 people, and since its an exponential function where we are dealing with a potential family makeup of nearly 200,000 people in the thirtieth generation alone, the problem is monumental for a genealogist.
Obviously, the great leap over the brick wall will not easily come to a solution for our problem, so the only thing appears to be to continue down the path of peeling away each layer as each new fragment of information becomes available.
However, if we are able to define a period of time during these thirty generations, we might explore the persons who were alive at that time and see if there is any connection to our line. If we can further define a location at the indicated period, our problem becomes more manageble.
With that in mind, I have attempted to define a lineage of the Rudds from the Lord of Meath into the general area that we are interested in, the Norfolk County area.

Seventeeth and Eighteeth Century Rudds in Norfolk County

The records of the Rudds in Norfolk County were published in 1920 in a book, "Records Of The Rudd Family," by Mary Amelia Rudd. This is a marvelous work and a necessary starting point for all research into the family in the British Isles from the eleventh century forward. In its pages is the cataloging of a tremendous database of official records (mostly in Latin) for each family group organized by location.

Unfortunately, the Norfolk County area is given a more scant documentation than other areas; but, nevertheless, it presents a morsel of truths.

The most applicable passage is as follows:

"Norfolk Rudds are well represented in the line of those of East Carlton and Surlingham, for those pedegrees (which see) I am indebted to Mr. Arthur Rudd of Lower Massingham. There is said to have been a Robt. Rudd at Surlingham hall as early as 1608. A later Robert of Bramerton and Surlingham, born 1751, married firstly Susan, daughter of Roger Cock, of Rockland St. Mary, a descendant of the Cocks of Norwich, and owner of Stranger's Hall there. A cousin of Robt. Rudd, James Miller, marrying a Cock heiress also, the Cock property at Bramerton and Rockland was divided between them. Robt. Rudd thus held land which enabled him to go from Rockland to Kirby Bedon, about five miles, without quitting his own property. Surlingham Hall was an Elizabethan house which formerly stood in the orchard adjoining the present Grange, where John Rudd lived. The Hall has since been pulled down and the stables are turned into cottages. Robt. Rudd kept a pack of harriers, and these were continued by Robt. Gray Rudd and James Miller for many years.
"Joseph Rudd lived and died at a house in Kirby Bedon, on the gable of which is still to be seen "J.R. 1786."
"When the Millers sold their land it was bought by Mr. England, a relation through the Cocks, and he was in possession of some ancient deeds belonging to the Norwich family of Rudd, who were mercers. It is not known what became of these."

The significance of this exerpt is that the property near Kirby Bedon is no more than five miles from the little village of Poringland, where easily obtainable records show that Burlingham Rudd lived when he was arrested and tried for the horsestealing episode.
Was Burlingham related to the same family that resided in Kirby Bedon? There is a fairly high probability that he was.
Furthermore, a study of old maps of Norfolk County discloses that Kirby Bedon is not more than ten miles from the location of the two Burlingham Parish churches on the highway to the coastal town of Great Yarmouth.
We cannot, but wonder, what the significance of the christian name of our ancestor has with the name of the nearby parish.
If Burlingham was, in fact, related to the Rudds in Kirby Bedon, he would have been of the same age as the Joseph Rudd at that place. Were they brothers, cousins, what have you?
Clearly, the problem of developing a genealogy for Burlingham rests with a thorough study of the records of his arrest and trial. If he can be positively connected to the family at Kirby Bedon, then a modicum of further research might disclose more family members. Ms. Mary Amelia Rudd's book throws some light on the family members in the pedigree chart. This is such a goldmine of information on an, almost otherwise, vague past. It is certainly worth exploring.

Copyright (c) 1999, Walter Rudd, Inverness, Florida