GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986575332


From:
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:42:12 EDT



In a message dated 4/6/01 8:25:04 AM, write=
s:

<< Why are you arguing *for* a certain genealogical position ["for the
blood connection to the Suttons"] ---- rather than just listening and
paying heed to what the evidence tells you ---- and letting the chips
fall where they may >>

Good question, Spencer. The best one yet. The chips should indeed fall wher=
e=20
they may. It is the other evidence that I feel brings reasonable doubt to th=
e=20
conclusion that there is no blood link to the Suttons by through Bagleys.=20
Perhaps it is my investment of time in the question and my natural sympathy=20
for the underdog at play ... neither reasons being good enough for these=20
purposes. I began this inquiry long before Hansen wrote his article for TAG=
=20
in 1997. I have carried on correspondence with Leslie Tucker who had some=20
very reasonable observations that made me wonder about the truth of this=20
lineage. His thoughts so impressed me that I have felt it necessary to play=20
devil's advocate to this day. Below is a transcript of this conversation:

WHAT SHOULD WE BELIEVE?
(A response from Leslie Tucker to the=20
new information and interpretations)

Have you heard the proof yet from Col.. Hansen? He would not tell me=20
anything until his article came out, then he sent me a copy. The gist of his=
=20
proof is a court record June 19, 1635, that said: "Edward Bagley, nephew ex=20
sister," of Elizabeth Tomlinson. In other words, the reason the Bagleys were=
=20
named in the will of Elizabeth is that they were her nephews. He feels that=20
is proof that they did not come from Lord Dudley.=20
I am not convinced myself. He dismisses the connections to Lord Dudley.=20
Earlier, he tried to justify why Lord Dudley was so gracious to the Bagleys,=
=20
and thus John named his first two sons after him. In fact, Edward named a so=
n=20
Sutton, which is the surname of Lord Dudley. He ignores the statement by Dud=
=20
Dudley that the Bagleys were included in the will of Elizabeth at the urging=
=20
of Lord Dudley. Why would Lord Dudley demand that Elizabeth leave money to=20
her nephews? Would John Bagley name his sons after the paramour of his=20
sister-in-law? Would Edward in turn name a son after this person? =20
I might also mention that the bequests were rather large to leave one=E2=
=80=99s=20
nephews. I have rarely seen wills where such large bequests were left to=20
nephews when the person had several children of their own. For example, Lady=
=20
Dudley in her will dated 1659 left 30 pounds to her grandchild, Ned Hobart,=20
and twenty pounds each to her grandchildren, John and James Hobart. To her=20
nephew, who was also an executor, she left five pounds. I am sure she had=20
considerably more to leave in her estate.=20
In conclusion, I do not believe this a complete explanation. I suppose tha=
t=20
it is possible that John being married to a sister of Elizabeth Tomlinson=20
could explain all the facts that we do have, yet I do not believe so. I keep=
=20
asking myself if I believe this because I want to have a connection to Lord=20
Dudley, but I say no. In the past I have not hesitated to reject glorious=20
ancestors when the facts show them to be wrong. I have been disappointed whe=
n=20
I find such proof, but have never refused to accept the reality.=20
I am beginning to wonder about something you suggested once which I did no=
t=20
seriously consider at the time. Could it be that Lord Dudley had a previous=20
affair with another Tomlinson? Perhaps she was a sister of Elizabeth. Lord=20
Dudley would not be the first to like two sisters at the same time. Or maybe=
=20
he only accepted the first two sons as his. Perhaps that is why more was lef=
t=20
to the two eldest sons, and that is why they were named after Lord Dudley.=20
Maybe everyone involved knew that was true, including John. John got favors=20
from Lord Dudley, and he looked the other way. To oppose such an affair coul=
d=20
prove disadvantageous, to go along with it could prove to be rewarding. In=20
the seventeenth century, the locals were still pretty powerless against the=20
local baron. Consider the words of Elizabeth Tomlinson in her will. "And=20
further she willed that her son, the now complainant, [Dud Dudley] should no=
t=20
see her writings, because, as she then said, he might do somebody wrong." I=20
think the answer to this problem lies outside the realm of traditional=20
genealogy, but rather in the world of talk shows, soap operas, and "Dear=20
Abby."=20
I am curious to hear your thoughts. It has only been a couple of days sinc=
e=20
I heard from him and I am still mulling it over. Do you think he has solved=20
the problem?

To accept the theory that John Bagley=E2=80=99s wife was a sister of Eli=
zabeth=20
Tomlinson and the Bagley children were no relation to Lord Dudley, we must=20
make four assumptions:=20

1. That Lord Dudley was so taken with the brother-in-law of his mistress=
=20
that he immediately started granting him favors, favors that were not grante=
d=20
to her other kin, except those who were descended from Dudley. This seems=20
unlikely considering that Lord Dudley had financial problems. He might have=20
been encouraged to take in Bagley at the request of his mistress, but this=20
too seems unlikely. She must have realized his financial position and known=20
that anything that went to her sister's family would mean that there was les=
s=20
available for her family.=20
2. That Bagley was so taken with Lord Dudley that he named his first two=
=20
sons after him, and they in turn named sons after him. (Besides Edward namin=
g=20
a son Sutton, Dudley Bagley had a son named Dudley) This was done early in=20
the time that he entered the service of Dudley. This would be more likely if=
=20
he had been in his service for many years, and then named his sons after him=
.=20
The godson theory could explain this, but if Lord Dudley was the godfather o=
f=20
Bagley's sons, then why would all their favors and bequests be handled=20
through his illegitimate family? It was common for a lord to be a godfather=20
to children in the village, but why did he not recognize them in his own=20
will?=20
3. That Elizabeth was so taken with her nephews that she left them a=20
considerable inheritance, even though I have rarely seen such bequests given=
=20
to nephews. This was much larger that the legal wife of Lord Dudley left her=
=20
nephew, who was executor of her estate.=20
4. That Dud Dudley was completely flaky when he claimed that the bequest=
=20
to the Bagleys was at the urging of Lord Dudley, and that the statement made=
=20
by Dud Dudley was not only false, but that he had no reason to make such a=20
claim. Granted, he might lie for personal gain, but surely he would have mad=
e=20
up a story that others would believe. Whether it was true or not, he must=20
have felt that Dudley urged Elizabeth to leave money to the Bagleys. He must=
=20
have had a reason for thinking Dudley would do so, and that others at court=20
also knew that Dudley might do so.

To accept the interpretation that John Bagley=E2=80=99s wife was an ille=
gitimate=20
daughter or granddaughter of Lord Dudley, we need only make two assumptions:=
=20

1. That Lord Dudley had an illegitimate child by Joan, or another sister=
,=20
of Elizabeth Tomlinson. There is nothing far-fetched here. He might have bee=
n=20
involved with an older sister who died, then turned his attentions to=20
Elizabeth, who reminded him of his youthful love. We don't find any other=20
record of Joan, such as her marriage. Since women usually birthed children=20
every few years, the fact that there are no records of her is valid enough=20
reason to question whether she was still living.=20
2. The only other assumption is that the other child married John Bagley=
.=20
This seems very likely. It would explain why he came into favor with Dudley=20
about the same time that he married. It would explain why Dudley's name was=20
passed on in the family. It would explain why Dudley urged Elizabeth to=20
leave the Bagleys money. He had financial troubles, but he did accept res
ponsibility to his offspring regardless of legitimacy. He did seem to=20
keep the funds for his legitimate household separate from that of his=20
illegitimate household. That would be why he urged Elizabeth to leave them=20
money. Dud Dudley would look at it differently. He would say that the money=20
belonged to his mother and her children, not Dudley's issue by Joan (or=20
another sister).=20
Not only does the theory of the Bagley children as grandsons of Lord=20
Dudley require fewer assumptions, but it seems to fit like a glove.=20
The proper approach would be to recognize that this connection is neither=20
proven nor disproven at the present time.=20
- Leslie R. Tucker"
_______________

I took Tucker's words to heart. Maybe that is not a great thing nor a noble=20
endeavor. In fact, I have suffered long from my position in the debate. I=20
have been looking for a specific result that would at least bring reasonable=
=20
doubt to Hansen's conclusion, knowing full well that this is not the way=20
serious genealogy is generally done.=20

I also used Occam's razor as a guide -- as did Tucker -- picking the solutio=
n=20
with the less assumptions. Yet, overcoming the PCC record has proven to be a=
=20
difficult matter requiring an elaborate explanation of why this one small=20
record could possibly have incorrect information. The only counter proof is=20
the very strong circumstantial evidence and psychological profiles of the=20
subjects involved.=20

However, I still believe that when there is a reasonable doubt, such a blood=
=20
connection should be considered tentative or possible, and not relegated to=20
the unproven category. In order for a reasonable doubt to exist, someone lik=
e=20
me must play devil's advocate to the position of the establishment. That is=20
why I have spent the time to make these arguments and wracked my poor brain=20
with these 400 year old mysteries. =20

I suspect that you did not want such a lengthy answer, but we have been=20
agreeing more and more these days, so I felt you were entitled to the entire=
=20
story.

- Ken


This thread: