GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986601785


From: "Annie Natalelli-Waloszek" <>
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:03:05 +0200


I didnt say that... I have a will that was bonded; I think I understand what it meant...

We'd all like to have primary sources... you got any?

"...suppositions had not been made that were not based on a proper understanding of English law or records, but on intuition and desire to find conpiracy to defend a position that was not warranted by the facts. "

Well, if we don't understand, why not tell us; I've learned more than I ever wanted to know about the miseries of illegitimate children... what else can you tell me to make this make sense...


Intuition is important to researchers... we use it to find places to look for primary sources nobody knew...

We're all spending a lot of time on this for some reason... it's a neat mystery... does seem to have elements of secrecy and conspiracy... if only from the wording of Elizabeth's will... about not showing the writings to her son, who'd pop a fuse...

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Reedpcgen <>
À : <>
Date : vendredi 6 avril 2001 18:22
Objet : Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I


>However, I doubt seriously that a bond would issued for something of
>such little value, as Elizabeth had no assets to speak of or worth bonding. >>

You clearly do not understand why one posted bond in matters of probate.

Upon what do you base this conclusion? Intuition, or experience in probate law
and records?

Really, Ken, your desire to have a rivetting story of intreague, betrayal and
coverup (didn't you at one time say you'd been writing a novel about this?) has
caused you to be seemingly emotional rather than rational.

You seem to be drawing many conclusions based on intuition, rather than facts,
evidence, law and procedure. I've read English probate records on an almost
daily basis for nearly twenty years, and have really had to bite my tongue not
to remark more about some of the misleading suppositions you've posted. If you
are going to counter statements I've made based on English legal texts (which I
cite) or actual probate records (which I cite), I think you should have some
primary evidence from actual records or texts to back the position up, lest you
mislead those not as experienced in original probate records and research.

But that's just my opinion, I guess.

Paul

PS I wouldn't be so blunt, but I spent dozens of hours over a period of months
wasting time posting explanations to clarify the Amie matter--time that
wouldn't have had to be spent if so many suppositions had not been made that
were not based on a proper understanding of English law or records, but on
intuition and desire to find conpiracy to defend a position that was not
warranted by the facts.



This thread: