GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986600521


From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: 06 Apr 2001 23:42:01 GMT
References: <b6.13b14b18.27ff4be4@aol.com>


So, Ken, what you are basically arguing is that Edward Bagley's mother, John
Bagley's wife, was illegitimate, but that Edward was unaware of this, even
though John Bagley was still alive?

You have stated there were large and remarkable bequests given by Elizabeth
Tomlinson to two of John Bagley's sons, one for 30 pounds, the other for 20
pounds. But as Elizabeth was the more prominent and well connected of the
Tomlinson sisters, would it not be possible that she held part of her deceased
parents' estate, and that she was settling on them what was actually their due?
Legally, if Elizabeth held any inheritance which was theirs that had not yet
been settled, she HAD to bequeath it to them.

I repost the following to put what we ACTUALLY KNOW of John Bagley's life and
position to show that the reality of his life and situation is NOT AT ALL
REMARKABLE, and does not require some conspiracy theory of illegitimacy and
coverup to explain.

[The following was NOT published in Plantagenet Connection, as I believe it
should have been. Ken, if you are going to be selective about including some
of my posts and research, you should include that which does not support your
theory as well.]

[part 1]



What of John Bagley's power over Lord Dudley's estate and the vast lands he is
supposed to have enmassed and been given by Lord Dudley?

This is MISCONCEPTION and fantacy that has blown up a simple yeoman into a
mysterious power. There is no evidence that Lord Dudley gave him any sizable
bequests of land or money. And this is not the status he held at the time of
his death.

What are the FACTS? If we examine them carefully they are simple and clear.
John Bagley's father Thomas had an estate valued at 10 pounds when he died in
1587/8. John was baptized at St. Edmund, Dudley 25 Feb. 1571/2. He was called
yeoman in 1599 when accused with others of assault. There was a writ to arrest
the group in 1599, and a different writ to arrest him and others in 1601.

John Bagley's eldest son Edward was baptized at St. Edmund, Dudley 14 Oct.
1602. I should note that I looked through the register and found the given
name Edward to be VERY common in that parish, understandably, so this (naming
pattern) has no great meaning whatsoever, unless taken out of context. John
had other children baptized there, up until his son Samuel in 1614. The next
child, Richard, was baptized at Sedgley 28 July 1616.

A Chancery suit in 1631 stated that he had lived at Old Park, Sedgley, since
1603, where he kept deer for Lord Dudley. Lord Dudley granted him the ancient
[old, not grand] lodge and some land in Old Park for his residence as principal
deer keeper of the Lord in 1611.

SO, we see that John Bagley was about thirty when hired as a deer keeper in
1603, and that it was after eight years of faithful service, when he was nearly
forty years old, that he became principal deer keeper.

Note that this is hardly a position that would indicate that John held sway
over Lord Dudley's vast estate, lands, iron works and coal pits (recall, if you
will, the long list that Dud himself pretended to have claim to, and remember
that Lord Dudley also had a legitimate heir named Sir Ferdinando Sutton who did
indeed have inheritance of lands and the castle). So land in a deer park at
Sedgley seems actually quite reasonable for a deer keeper, even if he were head
deer keeper.

Now, by 1616 we know that John Bagley was one of three men, including George
Guest [son-in-law to Lord Dudley], Robert Dudley [son of Lord Dudley, who may
actually have been the principal grantee of this transaction], of the "Oulde
Park" and Conigree rabbit warren for the term of 21 years at 100 pounds a year.


NOW, isn't it reasonable for Robert and George to have included John Bagley in
this lease, which was certainly NOT A GIFT (a rent of 100 l.?). Recall if you
will that the lease was Old Park and the rabbit warren. As head deer keeper,
John would have known what was going on and how to maintain it. IN FACT, John
Bagley testified in 1631, when Walter Devereux threatened to take it over, that
that he had lived at Old Park for 28 years, as Lord Dudley's deer keeper, and
that if he was turned out, he WOULD LOSE HIS LIVELIHOOD upon which he relied
for his motherless children.

A clear plea for pity, but this is NOT the claim of a wealthy man who held
large parts of Lord Dudley's estate.
AND NOTE THAT HIS WIFE, ELIZABETH TOMLINSON'S SISTER, WAS ALREADY DEAD AT THE
TIME HE WAS PLEADING POVERTY. HE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN A GREAT ENDOWMENT BY LORD
DUDLEY BECAUS EOF HIS WIFE.
This is a widowed deer keeper with children pleading for his means of support.
He still resided at Old Park, Sedgley, in 1633, when that was stated to be his
place of residence, and he was styled "yeoman."

[end part 1]

This thread: