GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986346521


From:
Subject: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:08:41 EDT



We could be on the edge of actually solving or at least getting some better=20
ideas on the relationships here.

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek wrote: "Filius, son, was changed to nepotis ex=20
matre, 2nd generation descendant ... this is clearly obvious on the=20
original..." =20

She is speaking of the original document where Edward Bagley is called nephe=
w=20
of the mother according to Col. Hansen's interpretation. I have not seen=20
that document in person, but if it is true that the words were changed by th=
e=20
magistrate from 'filius' to 'nepoti', then the relationship was not that of=20=
a=20
nephew as assumed by Col. Hansen. Instead, the word nepoti would have meant=
=20
grandson. The only reason that Hansen assumed it meant 'nephew' was that an=
=20
illegitimate child could not administrate her estate. The fact that it was=20
changed to 'nepoti' meaning 'grandson' changes the entire legal picture, as=20
Edward was the legitimate son of John Bagley and his wife and could have=20
legally settled the estate. Hansen's rational for this was wrong from the=20
start.

BELOW IS THE QUOTE FROM TAG OF COL HANSEN'S ARTICLE:

"After a number of years of research on this problem, I recently found the=20
evidence which provided the solution, but not the solution I expected. This=20
was an entry in a court record which stated that on 19 June 1635, the=20
administration in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PCC) of Elizabeth=20
Tomlinson, spinster, of Tipton,=20
county Stafford, was granted to =E2=80=9CEdward Bagley, nephew ex sister.=
=E2=80=9D In the=20
original=20
entry in the PCC Admon Act Book 1634-36, the designation for Edward is nepot=
i=20
ex=20
maitre, that is nephew through his mother. [The Latin nepoti is regularly=20
used in the=20
PCC Admon Books of this period for nephew. It cannot in this case be=20
translated as=20
grandson, for Edward Bagley, to be appointed by the court to administer the=20
estate,
would have been Elizabeth=E2=80=99s legal heir. Since Elizabeth Tomlinson ne=
ver=20
married, none of her children or grandchildren could have been her legal hei=
r=20
or have been appointed=20
administrator.] Therefore, John Bagley=E2=80=99s wife was not an illegitim=
ate =20
daughter of=20
Lord Dudley, but a sister of Lord Dudley=E2=80=99s mistress, Elizabeth Toml=
inson.=20
This kinship
accounts for her bequests to John Bagley=E2=80=99s sons. Dud Dudley=E2=80=
=99s charge that=20
the will=20
was made at the instigation of Lord Dudley, which has led so many researcher=
s=20
to=20
conclude that Lord Dudley has a direct personal interest in the Bagley=20
children, can=20
now be rejected as not true. As the Bagley brothers were actually her=20
nephews, I=20
conclude that in testifying about her nuncupative will, Thomas Dudley=20
accurately=20
reported the last wishes of his mother-in-law."=20
- Col.. Charles M. Hansen, TAG,=20
January 1996, page 37.

There is something wrong with that position. Only John Bagley's wife would b=
e=20
excluded from inheritance if she were the daughter of Edward Sutton. Indeed=20
she was excluded from inheritance. I cannot see that this law would effect=20
Edward Bagley and keep him from being the administrator of Elizabeth=20
Tomlinson's estate, as Hansen assumes. Edward was not the son of Elizabeth=20
Tomlinson, but the grandson. His legitimacy was established as he was the=20
legitimate son of John Bagley and his wife.
It seems that the relationship was not even known by the court until the las=
t=20
moment
if the relationship was actually changed by the magistrate as alleged above.

William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England [book II, p. 224-5]=
=20
states, "A sixth rule or canon therefore is, that the collateral heir of the=
=20
person last seised must be his next collateral kinsman, of the whole blood.=20
First, he must be his next collateral kinsman, either personally or jure=20
representationis; which proximity is reckoned according to the canonical=20
degrees of consanguinity before-mentioned ... The right of representation=20
being thus established, the former part of the present rule amounts to this;=
=20
that, on failure of issue of the person last seised, the inheritance shall=20
descend to the issue of his [her] next immediate ancestor ... On failure of=20
brethren, or sisters, and their issue, it shall descend to the uncle ..., th=
e=20
lineal descendant of his [her] grandfather ..., and so on in infinitum."=20

In my previous articles and the previous conversations the focus was on a=20
sister of Elizabeth Tomlinson as the one who was John Bagley's wife. If one=20
replaces the sister with a daughter, the entire circumstantial case makes=20
much more sense. It had not occurred to me that Elizabeth could well have=20
had a daughter with Edward Sutton (Lord Dudley) who was old enough to be the=
=20
wife of John Bagley. Suddenly it clicks. The pieces come together. =20

SPECULATION: If John Bagley's wife was one of the first illegitimate childre=
n=20
of Elizabeth Tomlinson and Edward Sutton, then she was born while Lord=20
Dudley's father was still alive. The elder Sutton was surely appalled with=20
his son's immoral conduct. He insisted that the affair be covered up and the=
=20
child was to be raised secretly./ probably by Elizabeth's mother and father=20
-- William and Agnes Tomlinson. This girl was probably not told who her=20
father really was until much later, if ever.=20

When The elder Lord Dudley died, the true love (and it was just that) of=20
Edward Sutton for Elizabeth Tomlinson could not be stopped and the affair=20
continued, producing many other children. These children were no longer=20
hidden because Edward Sutton was now the true King of the Hill. The daughte=
r=20
who eventually married John Bagley was not told that her father was also Lor=
d=20
Dudley because she was caught up in a false identity already and the family=20
thought that was sufficient remedy for her. Why ruin an established=20
falsehood and be caught in a lie?

Eventually, the truth leaked out ato Edward Bagley and he knew that he was=20
the grandchild of Edward Sutton. That is why the records were changed. Even=
=20
the magistrate did not know the truth of the relationship, so Edward had to=20
correct it. Who else could have settled Elizabeth's estate? Actually, there=20
was hardly an setate to settle. Her will was noncupative, the major assets=20
distributed in her lifetime, and the court record referred to was simple a=20
contesting of her will brought about by her estranged son, Dudd Dudley. If=20
Elizabeth's children were not eligible to administrate her 'estate' and her=20
brothers and sisters were not about, then what was all this about? Elizabeth=
=20
died in 1629, yet her estate remained in limbo and was not settled until 163=
5=20
when Edward was named the administrator -- six years later. And this was no=
t=20
because of clogged courts. We have clogged courts now and it does not take=20
that long to administrate an estate -- especially a small one. How much did=
=20
she leave? =20

See PART 2.








This thread: