GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986362648


From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: 04 Apr 2001 05:37:28 GMT
References: <20010403235309.27249.00003634@ng-ch1.aol.com>


I think I'd better make this point more blunt:

The theory has been put out that when the administration of the estate was
granted by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury to

"Edro~ Bagley nepoti ex matre Elizabethe Tomlinson" (FHL #93,252, folio *107*)

that "nepoti" should be interpreted as "grandson" rather than 'nephew by way of
the mother.'

The Prerogative Court of Canterbury was the highest probate jurisdiction in
England. The doctors by whom administrations were granted were VERY learned in
the law and probate practice. It was their job.

Edward Bagley was granted administration of Elizabeth Tomlinson's estate as her
NEXT LEGAL heir. Elizabeth Tomlinson was styled "spinster" in her nuncupative
will. She had many illegitimate children, but none of them could serve as
legal heir for reasons we have discussed.

As Elizabeth Tomlinson had no known brothers, the son of her sister would fit
the bill as next legal heir. Thus, the most logical interpretation of "nepoti"
is nephew (by way of the mother). It cannot **in this case** mean grandson.
The change of the entry "filius" to "nepoti" can easily be explained because
administration was usually granted to the son, which was what the clerk would
expect, but his scribal error was corrected.

Is this point still clear, or have I left anything that can be debated? Ken
did not seem convinced in his last post.

Paul

This thread: