GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986361770


From: "Annie Natalelli-Waloszek" <>
Subject: Tr: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART II
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:22:50 +0200


I'm still working my way through parts I & III; will get back to you about them...

Well, this is interesting! And I can see I had a very partial, sketchy information on the whole thing! What is this will quote from? one of the court suits Dud brought? have you seen those? Does anyone know yet what it was Elizabeth thought he would find out, and do harm about? They don't seem to count so well, do they? you get fuzzy when not paying attention or concentrated, folks drop in and out of lists of relatives when non-genealogists are remembering sometimes fondly, but not so carefully...

You say that Elizabeth had only two surviving sons, but Thomas was her executor, Dudley was furious, Rbt has a probate record in PCC Canterbury (a will?)1681 13 May... and I have a (flimsy sourced) marraige for Edward, with issue...

"And of the same her will and testament that said Elizabeth did then ordain and make these now defendants Thomas Duddeley, her son-in-law, and Henry Jevon, her servant, executors, and shortly afterwards died.” But Edw Bagley was her executor... what's all the fuss about, if it was Thomas Dudley, her son in law?

(a son of Theodosia's, if I recall, a bit incestuous, but oh so modern! She married several of her kids to Theo's, which I suppose was Dudley's way of bringing their descendance back into the legitimate line...

I guess it's the provision about Thomas Dudley being the executor, that Dud was bringing a suit about (twice, I think; I ordered the documents, but the order was returned unfilled; another document concerns his brother Robert; perhaps you already have these?) & that may be why Edw Bagley was eventually chosen... Dudley was complaining that Edw Sutton had engineered the so called non-cupative will, to favor his legitimate descendance...

I'm wondering when this eviction from the manor house took place,and whether it was from Lord Dudley's manor, or from the manor they were leasing from Dudley in 1616... together with George Guest... as a threeway split on a rent of 100£?

"John was angry with Dud Dudley for wasting his father's fortune on his coal mining schemes and bringing him to such destitution. He likely never knew even that John's wife was his full-blooded sister. " ARE YOU SERIOUS? HOW COULD HE NOT KNOW? DIDNT THE CHILDREN GROW UP WITH ELIZABETH IN HER HOME?

An LDS file, (therefore to verify carefully) gives John Bagley's 1st wife, as wed 1609 Ann Sutton; she died and he remarried; I haven't been working on this line lately, but hadn't found any OPRs or other documents to confirm that so far... was looking in St Edmund's Parish...the file with the submitter's information to contact them, is damaged, but I'll see if I can find another copy of it.

"she gave and bequeathed to her eight children to be equally divided amongst them." Yet she had only seven living children. The clothes were distributed to her five daughters and she had only two living sons. The visitation said she had six married daughters and gave the names of their husbands. Was one daughter actually denied the clothing? Probably not -- one was probably dead"... or simply forgotten, miscounted... there are ample precedents within the paragraph... she was dying... this was a verbal will... things slipped her mind...

"Also, notice that Elizabeth did bequeath money after death and clothing to her illegitimate children ... so much for bastards not being able to inherit anything. It appears that the letter of the law was not followed in this case." they couldn't (or could only with difficulty... I think there are precedents...) inherit titles, crowns, houses, estates; but I don't think you can find any law prohibiting small amounts of money and clothing, which were merely personal & no problem... & I think the argument wasn't that they couldn't inherit, but that they couldn't be executors or carry legal charge... That's why Dud Dudley brought suit to inherit anyway... twice...

"I still believe that Col. Hansen's article is wrong and his logic is faulty in this case", It surely is in regards two things; the translation of nepotis ex matre, and having overlooked the fact that as legitimate grandson, Edw Bagley could indeed be executor...

"The royal ancestry of the Bagley descendants should be reinstated, or at least not relegated to the delete key or the waste basket." I agree!

THANKS MUCHLY for the pertinent texts and information... a refreshing change!

It's 5 am....my circuits are overloaded... I'd dispaired of seeing anything real happen; now I'd like to rise to the occasion , but am too tired and punch-drunk from the others... let me get back to you ... I last worked on this about a year ago, and had somewhat different lists of marraiges with the children and dates, & the submitters, to contact for refs (tho they didn't answer my letters) I was assuming that, if the "extra" children weren't hers, they might actually be the siblings or cousins, taken from coincidental entries in the parish records... however, if the persons mentioned in the Admon Index are indeed her siblings, that wouldn't be the case either...

and neither does your list of siblings fit,though Joan and Agnes were amongst mine; What's alarming about your list, is that Elizabeth isn't there; was she born elsewhere?

<< What documentation on the sisters? >>
Three children are shown in the baptismal records at St Thomas, Dudley, born to s born to William and Agnes (Oues) who were married in 1561. Agnes Tomlinson was baptized in 1577. Joan in 1569, and John in 1564.

Unfortunately, the files I safeguarded won't open any more, and I can't straighten out the generations (I had worked out 3 generations or more) so I'm not sure at all what this is worth, but maybe you can make something of it: If I can remember or figure out again, how to change back the program it opens with, I'll be able to straighten out the generations, get the names & dates of the grandchildren as well as the submitters, to contact for references (I wrote to them, but without answer) ... but for the moment, I'm not finding all the children I had for her from different sources... please bear with...

I would be very curious to know whether you think there could be a connection between Elizabeth's father William Tomlinson, and some Tomlinsons in Cheshire, including leasers of Tatton Hall, who's dates seem to fit well enough; there are also some interesting marraiges not only of Tomlinsons, but also Baguleys, with Coppock lines there... I'll try to get that together for you tomorrow...


-----Message d'origine-----
De : <>
À : <>
Date : mercredi 4 avril 2001 03:10
Objet : Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART II



THE WILL OF ELIZABETH TOMLINSON

Elizabeth Tomlinson’s nuncupative will, dated 3 July 1629: “set out in the
joint and severall answeres of Thomas Duddeley and Henry Jevon, two of the
defendants to a bill filed in Chancery 23 May 1631 by Dud Dudley of Tipton,
gent. It is as follows: The said Elizabeth, being visited with sickness
whereof she afterwards dyed, did by word of mouth only, without writing, will
and declare how and in what manner her said personal estate should be
disposed of after her decease, which was to this purpose and effect
following, that is to say: She did will and bequeath to her five daughters
all her wearing apparel. And also she did will and bequeath to Edward Bagley,
son of John Bagley, £30, and to Dudde Bagley his brother £30 [sic, most say
£20] to be paid so soon as her executors could pay the same. Also to Thomas
Bagley and to Robert Bagley, sons of the said John Bagley, 20s apiece; and to
the poor people of Dudley all the money to her belonging which was then in
the hands of her son Dudd Dudley. And further she willed that Gilbert Gyllyan
and Ann Rodes should be paid all that which was then by her due to them. And
further she willed that her son, the now complainant, [Dud Dudley] should not
see her writings, because, as she then said, he might do somebody wrong. And
all the rest, etc., she gave and bequeathed to her eight children to be
equally divided amongst them. And of the same her will and testament that
said Elizabeth did then ordain and make these now defendants Thomas Duddeley,
her son-in-law, and Henry Jevon, her servant, executors, and shortly
afterwards died.”

So Elizabeth was not an extremely wealthy woman. She had been a kept woman
all her life. It was up to Lord Dudley to provide for his illegitimate
children in his own lifetime, which he did. Elizabeth also wanted the money
and possessions back that were held by Dudd Dudley, a man who was always
borrowing to promote his coal mining schemes. This surely did not go down
well with him and indicates a long-term sour relationship between mother and
son.

Also, Elizabeth Tomlinson did not want Dud Dudley to see her writings because
something was there that she did not want him to know and she feared he would
hurt someone. Dud Dudley had a very bad relationship with John Bagley. John
evicted him from the manor house when he illegally took possession of it.
John was angry with Dud Dudley for wasting his father's fortune on his coal
mining schemes and bringing him to such destitution. He likely never knew
even that John's wife was his full-blooded sister.

THE ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN OF LORD DUDLEY AND ELIZABETH TOMLINSON

The visitation of Staffordshire lists the issue of Edward Sutton [Lord
Dudley] and Elizabeth, daughter to William Tomlinson of Dudley, concubine to
Edward, Lord Dudley. They are listed in order given, but not necessarily in
order of birth. The information was certified by Dud Dudley, Wolverhampton,
10 April 1663, many years after Elizabeth's death.

Sons:
1.Dud Dudley. listed first, but DNB said he was fourth son born 1599.
2.Edward, died young.
3.John, died young.
4.Robert, of Netherton Hall. He died in 1652, had a daughter bapt. July 21,
1614.
Daughters:
1.Elizabeth, wife to Geffrey Dudley.
2.Jane, wife to Richard Parkhouse.
3.Catherine, wife of Thomas Dudley (the one mentioned in will).
4.Alice, wife of George Guest.
5.Dorothy, wife of Thomas Brooke of Sedgley.
6.Susan, died young.
7.Martha, wife of Thomas Wilmer.

Notice that Elizabeth left clothing to her five daughters in her will, yet
there are six daughters mentioned in the visitation. Perhaps one had already
died. Also notice that the wife of John Bagley is not listed. The only
reason I can think for this is that Elizabeth's first daughter's identity
remained secret, known to only a few and eventually to Edward Bagley. She was
well provided for by the bequests to John Bagley that made him a very wealthy
man. Obviously, Dudd Dudley either did not know that the enemy that made his
life difficult, John Bagley, was married to his sister, or it was convenient
for him to ignore it because he would profit by not relating the truth. Dudd
Dudley did accuse Lord Dudley of influencing Elizabeth's will and was angry
enough to contest it. In fact, the matter went to court because her will was
contested by Dudd Dudley. She had so little to distribute -- clothes and a
few pounds -- that this is probably the reason it took six years to get to
court. Dudd Dudley did not want to give up his mother's money and
possessions and give it to the needy! He had better uses for it, or so he
thought. Just before she died, Elizabeth Tomlinson gave a house to another
of John Bagley's sons -- another John Bagley -- perhaps the very home she
lived in. That probably did not set well with Dudd Dudley either. He was
almost completely shut out by his mother's will. Obviously, there was
something very wrong with their relationship and Dudd Dudley was a very
difficult family member.

Finally, notice that in Elizabeth's will, "all the rest, etc., she gave and
bequeathed to her eight children to be equally divided amongst them." Yet
she had only seven living children. The clothes were distributed to her five
daughters and she had only two living sons. The visitation said she had six
married daughters and gave the names of their husbands. Was one daughter
actually denied the clothing? Probably not -- one was probably dead. So where
is that extra child? This could it have been John Bagley's wife, remembered
after all on the death bed with at least a token inheritance.

Also, notice that Elizabeth did bequeath money after death and clothing to
her illegitimate children ... so much for bastards not being able to inherit
anything. It appears that the letter of the law was not followed in this case.

I really believe, at this point, that John Bagley's wife was an illegitimate
daughter of Edward Sutton, the Lord Dudley, and that is why all the
circumstantial evidence supports this conclusion. Even the naming patterns
testify to this -- there is a Dudd Bagley, son of John as well. We have been
over the naming patterns before, and it has been argued that Lord Dudley
could have been a godfather and there was at least one other person named
Dudley who was no relation -- but we are talking serious naming patterns that
go on for generations. (See THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION OCTOBER 1996 for the
considerable circumstantial evidence.)

I still believe that Col. Hansen's article is wrong and his logic is faulty
in this case,
The royal ancestry of the Bagley descendants should be reinstated, or at
least not relegated to the delete key or the waste basket.

- Ken

Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF="http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm">;
http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm</A>;



This thread: