They were busy attacking from around 700 through the 1000s. The first written record of a Rudd (spelled Rud) is, I believe, 10th century in northern Ireland. The 1400s were downright civilized in England. That was the last century of the Plantaget rule and the ascent of the first Tudor, Henry VII. The English had been sending periodic "conquering hoards" to Ireland since the 1100s under Kind Edward of "Braveheart" fame. The Vikings had all been well assimilated into the culture by then. The last of the foreign invaders to have a major impact in England were the Normans, under William the Bastard, or William the Conquerer. He got the throne after his famous slaughter in 1066. Saxon rule bit the dust at the that time. All this was going on in England w/o a whole lot of impact on Ireland until the Normans started settling in for good. It was inevitable, I suppose, their wandering eye would find its way to Ireland. I also believe it is accurate to say that that the Saxons were the English at that time. The Normans, the Plantagenet Kings, considered themselves French since they owned Normandy and Aquitaine and huge other chunks of what is now France. What was actually French in 1066 was a little island on which sat Paris and not much else. At any rate, the Vikings were pretty well assimilated in Ireland, Scotland, and England (and wherever else they went) by the 1100s. The Saxons were the good English being slaughtered by Normans. England wasn't English until the Tudors took the throne away from the Plantagenets in the 1400s, and I'm sure there are people who debate how English the Tudors were. Henry Tudor was part Welsh, which was still considered Celtic at that time. Many of the "new" religions, including the Puritans, began to crop up under the Tudors (except for under Mary). It was Elizabeth, my hero, with her stable country and full coffers that could support a Navy and expeditions to "see what's out there" that got the first of us over here. The Irish aren't that fond of her, I think. The English have insisted Ireland is their's for 900 years and it's getting irritating. My ancestors, allegedly sent to Ireland by Elizabeth, probably weren't the favorite folks on the block. It's all relative. And, our Rudd ancestors were English, Scots, or Irish by then no matter what they started out as during the invasions. You have a lovely fantasy and I've no comment about the debate about Vikings in North America in the Dark Ages. That tends to become a heated discusussion. But, I think it would be impossible to get all the Rudds tied together with a common Viking ancestor. Vikings came from more than one country, too. Denmark and Norway come to mind. This is a simplistic timeline of Irish history: http://www.usm.maine.edu/~mcgrath/cor148/documents/irhist.htm. Notice it says the Normans, not the English, invaded Ireland in 1169. That Norman was a King of England. As for written records, they weren't kept in English until the relatively recent past. Even into the 19th century, the Hanovers were still speaking German. I'm not sure what Victoria spoke at home. By the time she died, and WWI was on the horizon, the royal family changed its name arbitrarily to Windsor, their favorite palace, to separate themselves from their German cousins and I think they were all speaking English by then. .----- Original Message ----- From: <MEJ1@aol.com> To: <RUDD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 9:08 AM Subject: [RUDD] Re: RUDD-D Digest V01 #61 > As usual I still believe all us RUDDs are related when we go back to the > 1400s I know my relatives were with the Viking hoard in Ireland, Scotland and > England...... They came from the Denmark/Norway area. Could it be some of > our RUDD relations were the first to come to America way before the > 1200s????? could be.... > > Mary Elizabeth RUDD Johns