GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986361376


From: (Stewart Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:16:16 GMT
References: <64.ca52dbf.27fbce19@aol.com>


On 3 Apr 2001 19:09:47 -0600, wrote:

>The Latin nepoti is regularly used in the PCC Admon Books of
>this period for nephew. It cannot in this case be translated
>as grandson, for Edward Bagley, to be appointed by the court
>to administer the estate, would have been Elizabeth's legal
>heir. Since Elizabeth Tomlinson was never married, none of her
>children or grandchildren could have been her legal heir or
>have been appointed administrator.

[The above was quoted from Charles Hansen's article in TAG 71 (1996),
37, footnote 8.]

>There is something wrong with that position. Only John Bagley's
>wife would be excluded from inheritance if she were the daughter
>of Edward Sutton. Indeed she was excluded from inheritance. I
>cannot see that this law would effect Edward Bagley and keep him
>from being the administrator of Elizabeth Tomlinson's estate, as
>Hansen assumes. Edward was not the son of Elizabeth Tomlinson,
>but the grandson. His legitimacy was established as he was the
>legitimate son of John Bagley and his wife.

This simply cannot be the case. Col. Hansen's statement in the
footnote was correct exactly as is. Descendants of illegitimate
children were also excluded as legal heirs. The fact that Edward
Bagley was legitimate is ENTIRELY WITHOUT RELEVANCE. A single
illegitimate link in the chain of descent was enough to exclude
someone from being a legal heir. Thus, it is simply not credible to
claim that Edward Bagley might have been Elizabeth Tomlinson's
grandson unless you can establish that Edward Bagley's mother was a
LEGITIMATE daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson, something that would be
awful hard to establish in the face of the compelling evidence that
Elizabeth Tomlinson never married.

Stewart Baldwin

This thread: