GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986491991


From: Renia <>
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:33:11 +0100
References: <7f.128d98d6.27fdf46e@aol.com>


wrote:

> In a message dated 4/5/01 2:25:00 AM, writes:
>
> << There was an estate, hence the administration granted in the PCC. It did
> not have to be large, just LEGAL. >>
>
> Please bear with me. I do understand the legal arguments, but I have always
> thought that the court record in question must either be in error or
> interpreted wrongly because the conclusions that have been drawn from it do
> not agree with the other evidence that exists.
>
> The problem is that you are treating Elizabeth Tomlinson like a noble lady
> with a will and an estate. We have seen the content of her will and there was
> nothing there to be executor of -- the distributions were simply requests
> that Lord Dudley give the named family members some money. To call her
> possessions an 'estate' is a joke -- and it was a joke when it went to court
> as a contest by Dud Dudley.

Whatever one is possessed of on death, be it 1 penny, or 20,000 acres,
constitutes one's estate. Hence the difference between "estate" (meaning whatever
one is possessed of) and "real estate", meaning property, land. So Elizabeth
Tomlinson, like everyone else (including pauper me when I snuff it) has an
estate, of whatever value.

> By the time this went to court there was
> absolutely no estate to argue about. The case was a just continuation of Dud
> Dudley's attempt to exploit his father.
>
> We simply have a record that there was a court hearing -- not a transcription
> of what was said or a record of what came to pass. There is no real knowledge
> of what it was about. It could not have been about much because Elizabeth did
> not have any possessions to argue about or contest. Thus, Hansen has taken
> the 'translated' record as proof of a relationship when there is much more to
> it that that. Having been in courts myself, I realize they are not the best
> place to look for truth, as there is a dispute to begin with ... and
> generally someone is lying. At the best, the litigants have conflicting
> points of view.
>
> Elizabeth's 1629 will was verbal

Probably because she was too weak, or infirm to write one, or sign one. Perhaps
she was blind.

> and given to her son-in-law, Thomas Dudley
> and Henry Jevon, who were her executors. Edward Bagley was not the executor
> of this verbal will not the one trusted to make her final bequests come to
> fruition.
>
> << If Edward Bagley were GRANDSON of Elizabeth Tomlinson by way of his
> mother, the phrase would have read "nepoti ex filia" as it did here, on that
> same page. "nepoti ex matre" neans nephew out of/by way of his mother--no
> ambiguity. >>
>
> But there was confusion in the original manuscript -- filius (or perhaps even
> filia) was indeed crossed out and repaced by 'matre'. We need to see the
> original document, not the translation.
>
> At the time this went to court it was at the instigation of Dud Dudley who
> was angry with his father. According to my interpretation, Edward Bagley was
> just about to learn the nature of his mother's relationship to Lord Dudley.
> It may have been crossed out because of this situation with the law on the
> advice of attorneys. It is my theory that Edward was brought up to believe
> that his mother was Elizabeth Tomlinson's sister because she was adopted into
> the William Tomlinson household as part of an adoption agreement with the
> elder Lord Sutton, the pregnant Elizabeth Tomlinson, and her parents William
> and Agnes.
>
> Most adoptions of this sort require strict confidentiality.

There have probably been hundreds or thousands of unknown, unheard-of adoptions.
I forget which aristocrat it was, but I read VERY recently, of a 20th century
aristocrat who didn't want the baby she was expecting, and asked her friend if
she would like it, secretly. The friend said yes, but in the event, the natural
mother kept the baby. How many times did such arrangements go on through the
centuries, I wonder? Surrogacy is not new.

Renia



This thread: