GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986448798


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:33:18 -0700
References: <b6.138f1c60.27fcdba7@aol.com>


wrote:
>
> 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.

Why can't it be nephew?

> 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,

In a will, you could leave legacies to entirely unrelated people,
so this is not relevant to their legal standing as heirs (or
not).

> 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.

I don't see why the change of son to grandson is any more likely
than a change of son to nephew - as someone pointed out, the
uncareful scribe would reflexively write "son" as most heirs
were. That this was corrected does not point to either being
more favorable.

> 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.

This kind of thing happens today, but "still"? I know of no
other case from the period in question.

> 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.

Modern adoption is a whole different animal than medieval
adoption.

taf

This thread: