GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986415527


From:
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:18:47 EDT



In a message dated 4/4/01 12:23:32 AM, writes:

<< What changes Hansen's thesis is that the translation of "nepoti ex matre",
the final version, is not, was not, and cannot be, translated as "nephew of
or by, the sister" >>

If you looked at the quote from the article in Part I you would see that he
did not translate it as nephew by the sister, but nephew by the mother. You
must get the facts right ... that is why I included the quotation directly
from the article.

The words were changed by the magistrate from 'filius' to 'nepoti', or from
son to a word that must then be interpreted as grandson, not nephew and that
is the most important fact.

Also, Hansen concluded that Edward could not be a grandson because he would
have been prevented from administrating her estate -- and this is the only
reason for this conclusion -- because illegitimate heirs could not inherit.
There are two important issues that prove this conclusion of Hansen's to be
wrong. 1) Elizabeth did have a will and left goods, money and clothing to
her illegitimate children anyway, proving that the letter of the law was not
followed, and 2) Edward was not so much an administrator of the will as a
respondent to a suit brought by Elizabeth's son Dudd Dudley who was left out
or this supposedly illegal inheritance.

This, along with the change from filios to nepoti, should be enough to make
us conclude that Edward was the grandson, not the nephew, of Lord Dudley. The
grandson of Elizabeth Tomlinson through his mother, a daughter of Elizabeth
that married John Bagley and was not mentioned in the visitation. The only
remaining question is why she was not mentioned in the visitation ... and the
reason for this can only be speculated without actually finding the writings
of Elizabeth Tomlinson. The only thing that makes sense to me is that her
first daughter's identity was kept a secret for long enough that the family
decided not to be tell her that her father was Edward Sutton for the sake of
the child and to avoid being caught up in a falsehood -- even though others
were freely claimed as illegitimate children. In other words, she was adopted
and the deal on the adoption was that she not know her birth parents. This
kind of thing still happens today and is not at all far fetched. It is not
surprising that we cannot find a record of such a thing when there are
millions of adopted children living today that cannot find who their birth
parents are because of agreements made before their birth.

- 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: