On one hand we are very fortunate that our progenitor bore the given name Burlingham. That name made him identifiable as we sorted through the Rudd families in North Carolina and Virginia. But on the other hand, the name does make it difficult to clearly define the lines back to Burlingham Rudd 1st.
It seems each generation, at least through 1820, named a son Burlingham Rudd. That’s almost a hundred years after the first Burlingham Rudd touched the ground in the American colonies. Can you just imagine what the family gatherings were like? No wonder some of them changed their names to Burrel and Burwell and Burrelham.
On the positive side, it does give us the clue we need to identify the lines of the family as it grew by generations. Unfortunately, it also makes it difficult to clearly establish those lines. One thing that has become clear to me, as I became more intrigued by discoveries, that in turn raised more questions, is that we don’t really know how many sons Burlingham 1st had and therefore, we don’t know how many second generation lines there are. That lack of knowledge appears to be the major missing link for us. The only record we have that identifies the known children of Burlingham 1st is the Prince Frederick’s Parish baptism record that says:
Burlingham Rudd and wife Elizabeth baptized three children on October 27, 1745: Martha born: March 1, 1738/9; Burlingham born: October 13, 1741; Walter born: March 20, 1743.
We have a land deed in North Carolina that confirms that Burlingham Rudd Sr. sold 200 acres of his original 300 acre grant to Burlingham Rudd Jr. in 1757.
That’s the extent of the evidence we have about his children. It is assumed that George Lounsdell Rudd is a son of Burlingham 1st. But there is no evidence of that either. He could be a brother or a nephew. The geographic evidence of their presence in the same location in Anson Co., NC and the appearance of the name Burlingham in the Charleston, SC records provides us with strong circumstantial evidence that they have a family relationship.
It’s curious how you develop an impression about your ancestors when you begin to look at the evidence they left behind and move beyond the census records into the social structure they moved around in, who their neighbors were, who witnessed their legal documents, the extent and content of their material possessions, how much land they owned and how often they bought and sold that land, etc. For example, my impression is that we have two very distinct family groups in South Carolina that developed after they migrated out of North Carolina, one group in Charleston at Four Holes Swamp on the Charleston/Colleton border and another group in Barnwell at the Lower Three Runs near the Savannah River.
I confess I do have two curiosities about George Lounsdell that I will probably never resolve. First is his name, he always used his entire name or he always included his middle initial. As a matter of fact, he used “L” as his mark. Where did the name Lounsdell come from? Did his siblings have middle names too? Seems to me that if parents gave one child a middle name they would tend to give middle names to other children. Maybe they did and that’s what adds to the confusion in tracking them from one census to another. Some of them seem to switch from using one name in one census year to using another name in the next census year.
The other curiosity I have about George Lounsdell is with all the Burlinghams in every generation for a hundred years, why didn’t George Lounsdell have a son named Burlingham? Maybe he did and we just aren’t aware of it because sorting through the Burlinghams is very difficult.
My ultimate goal when I started this investigation into the early family, that generation (be it one or two) between Burlingham 1st and Elias David Rudd, was to discover who Elias David’s father actually was. I began with the theory that his father was George Lounsdell because that’s what I had been told and that’s what a lot of Elias David’s descendents believe. Along the way, as additional pieces of information revealed themselves, that theory began to look weak. Now, I’m convinced Elias David’s father, and subsequently George Washington’s, was not George Lounsdell Rudd Sr. as I outlined in George L. Rudd ~ Deed of Gift Forwarding Stock.
As I mentioned earlier, I do have the distinct impression that Elias David’s parentage lies with the Rudd clan in Barnwell Co., SC so I’ve undertaken a great deal of research into all the records I could find for both Barnwell and Beaufort. I’ve got a feeling the key to our mystery lies in the dilemma of having two 1800 Burlingham Rudd males who both say they were born by 1755. That would indicate second generation or very early third generation. So I want to focus today on sorting out these two Burlinghams:
A long time ago when this discovery was made by a previous researcher, the theory was put forth that these were the same man who had relocated during the census year. Well, evidently that theory was not based on knowing when the census was actually taken. All I’ve been able to discern is that the final census was compiled and certified in April 1801. The individual districts including Barnwell and Charleston do not have a date on them. So let’s review what I discussed earlier in the posting, The Census Taker. Generally, the census was taken during the early summer months, June and July, by persons hired to survey the county and gather the information. That information was then transcribed by someone from those notes, which were written with a quill pen. There were three copies made at the time of the transcription. This certainly took a period of time to complete this entire process. So it might be possible that these two Burlinghams are the same person, if the households didn’t look so different. I think another reason there was an assumption about these two entries is that it appeared there were no Rudd families left in Barnwell County in 1810 and 1820 because the census index books that were available at that time lists them as Reed. That ol’ Rud/Reed problem again!! But as I’ve shown you, the Rudd families are clearly identifiable as remaining in Barnwell at least through the 1830 census.
Unless Burlingham 1st named two sons after himself, let’s start with the theory that one of these men is Burlingham 2nd and the other one is a son of a son of Burlingham 1st, in other words, a grandson. In order for that grandson to be 45+ in 1800 he would be born by 1755 or earlier. That would mean his father being at least 16 years old when he was born would be himself born by 1739 or earlier. The baptismal records document that Burlingham 2nd was born on October 13, 1741 and he had a brother named Walter who was born on March 20, 1743. The first child listed is Martha born on March 1, 1738/9. So the father of this other Burlingham Rudd in the 1800 census was born before Martha.
When I was researching the punishment I outlined in Sentenced to Transportation used by the Old Bailey Court in England I discovered that Burlingham 1st was indeed an indentured convict not an indentured servant. A contractor was engaged by the Court to transport criminals for a fee and they in turn then sold those indentures upon arrival in the colonies. Very much like the practice of slavery, only with a limit on the number of years based on the classification of the crime. Most likely Burlingham 1st had a seven year indenture placed on him. The restrictions placed on him would be dictated by his owner. That probably included not being allowed to marry and raise a family because the point of his indenture was to work for his owner and all of the money he made from his labor belonged to his owner. The record says Burlingham Rudd was sentenced in the summer of 1727 so let’s theorize he arrived about September or October 1727 and was sold about the same time. That would mean he would have completed his indenture toward the end of 1734. If he married Elizabeth after his indenture was completed they could have had a child by 1735 and another one in 1737, then maybe Martha in 1738/9, Burlingham 2nd in 1741 and Walter in 1743. That’s every two years. So it’s possible that Burlingham 1st had at least two children before those documented in the baptismal records at Prince Frederick’s Parish and one of these children is the father of the other Burlingham in the 1800 census.
Another possibility is that one of these 1800 Burlingham Rudd males is Burlingham 2nd and the other is his son but it wouldn’t be the one we all refer to as Burlingham 3rd because he’s going to leave Anson for Tennessee. But I want to remind you about what I revealed to you in the previous posting The Burlingham Rudd who married the Widow Mary Whaley; Burlingham 2nd signs his mark as “X” and the Burlingham Rudd, Sr. in Anson that bought land in January 1790 that he sells to Burlingham Rudd, Jr. in July 1793 signed the deed with his mark “B”. That land listed William Vaughn as an adjacent land owner. I think this is the Burlingham Sr. and the Burlingham Jr. in the 1790 Anson Co., NC census and might not necessarily be Burlingham 2nd.
Another interesting bit of information goes back to the January 1757 sale of 200 acres of his original grant for 200 pounds sterling from Burlingham 1st to Burlingham 2nd, who would have been only 15 years and 3 months old at the time. Was that because he was getting married or starting a family. The dates would only be off 2 years, 1757 instead of 1755.
Lastly, we don’t really know when George Lounsdell was born. He doesn’t appear in the Prince Frederick Parish record, so there evidently was an assumption made he was born after 1745. Maybe he wasn’t. If he was born before Martha, about 1735-7, he very well could have had a son that could be one of those 1800 Burlingham Rudd males. One indication of his potential birth year lies in the North Carolina land grant issued to him on April 20, 1762 for 150 acres on Jones Creek that he named Lounsdell’s Folly. The land was surveyed for him on June 6, 1759. According to the process I’ve researched for the issuing of land grants in the North Carolina colony, George Lounsdell would first apply for the land grant, then have it surveyed, then have the survey filed in order for the grant to be issued. So, if he was at least 16 years old at the time of the application, he would have been born by 1743, but that’s when Walter was born. If he was at least 21 years old, then he would have been born by 1738 and that would be before Martha. One thing that seems clear is that George Lounsdell was not born after 1743 as he applied for a land grant that was surveyed in his name.
Now, let’s recap.
We have two Burlingham Rudd males in the 1800 census, one in Barnwell and one in Charleston. Both say they were born by 1755.
One of them is Burlingham 2nd and the other is:
1) The son of an unknown son of Burlingham 1st born before Martha was born in 1739.
2) The son of Burlingham 2nd with the possibility that the one we refer to as Burlingham 3rd is not his son.
3) The son of George Lounsdell Rudd.
As I pointed out in our theory, one of these households is likely Burlingham 2nd the other is someone else. It’s not possible to tell by the makeup of the households which one is which. But let’s look closer at the age of these two households. Based on that someone else being the child of someone born about 1735-37, the head of that household is probably not much older than 45 years old, born between 1751-55
1800 Charleston, Burlingham Rudd, b. bef. 1755:
1m 45+ (b. bef. 1755)
1f 45+ (b. bef. 1755)
2m 16/26 (b. 1774-1784)
1f 10/16 (b. 1784-1790)
1m -10 (b. 1790-1800)
1800 Barnwell, Burlingham Rudd, b. bef. 1755:
1m 45+ (b. bef. 1755),
1f 45+ (b. bef. 1755)
1f 26/45 (1755-1774)
1m 16/26 (b. 1774-1784)
1m 10/16 (b. 1784-1790)
The Charleston household has 4 children with the last one under the age of ten years. Either these children belong to the 45 and older adults or it's possible the 10/16 years old female is a wife to one of the 16/26 years old males and the under 10 years old male is their child.
In the Barnwell household, either the children listed belong to the 45 and older adults and the 26/45 female could be an unmarried daughter, or she is a sister (or sister-in-law) or a widow (daughter-in-law) and those are her children. Regardless, the household doesn’t have a child under the age of ten years old.
The Barnwell household looks to be the older of the two.