GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986658815


From:
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:53:35 EDT



PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY BECAUSE I WILL NO LONGER BE RESPONDING TO THIS=20
SUBJECT IN SUCH DETAIL. I AM QUITE DISAPPOINTED IN NAT TAYLOR AND PAUL REED'=
S=20
REMARKS. ONE MORE TIME, THIS IS WHY: KHF

Even Hansen, before finding the court record -- which I believe is in error=20
-- said "The evidence for concluding that John Bagley married an illegitimat=
e=20
daughter of Lord Dudley certainly seemed persuasive." (TAG. Jan 1996, p37).=20
Then he goes on to show a few of the reasons of why it is persuasive. Since=20
that time both myself and Les Tucker have explained this circumstantial=20
evidence much better and more convincingly, but I have run up against a wall=
=20
with people who seem to believe that these courts can do no wrong, make no=20
errors, and that these little snippets of 'case titles' are good as gospel=20
evidence delivered by the great high God himself!

My points is that the court record does not reflect the true nature of the=20
relationship -- it contains clerical errors and was changed -- that one=20
cannot trust it to be a clear and concise record of the relationship and=20
definitive proof for all time. Furthermore, the litigants themselves were=20
not aware of the true relationships at the time of the court action. If you=20
base all of your findings on court verdicts and records, then OJ Simpson's=20
wife's killer has never been caught, there are no innocent men in jail, ther=
e=20
has been no one falsely accused and convicted, and the court always knows=20
best. This an absurd position to take ... even in a probate situation. In=20
probate they are arguing about money and goods ... litigants have motives to=
=20
lie about such things for their own profit.

In a message dated 4/7/01 5:25:14 AM, writes:

<< So, Ken, what you are basically arguing is that Edward Bagley's mother,=20
John
Bagley's wife, was illegitimate, but that Edward was unaware of this, even
though John Bagley was still alive? PCR>>

Yes, I am saying exactly that. I am saying she was adopted from Elizabeth=20
with a promise of confidentiality and that John Bagley was aware of it eithe=
r=20
because he knew from the very start or Edward Sutton confided in him because=
=20
he knew he could trust him.=20

<<You have stated there were large and remarkable bequests given by Elizabet=
h
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 deceas=
ed
parents' estate, and that she was settling on them what was actually their=20
due?
Legally, if Elizabeth held any inheritance which was theirs that had not ye=
t
been settled, she HAD to bequeath it to them. PCR >>

KHF: We are taking a polar approach. I am making the point that there is=20
reasonable doubt in this case and you are not accepting it. We have no recor=
d=20
that any of Elizabeth Tomlinson's brothers and sisters survived or lived=20
anywhere close. There are no burial records. Her father, William Tomlinson,=
=20
died in 1609, ten years before Elizabeth died and her mother died the next y=
e
ar in 1610. They were not wealthy folk and left no will, so undoubtedly what=
=20
they had was distributed long before Elizabeth's death ten years later.=20

<<What of John Bagley's power over Lord Dudley's estate and the vast lands h=
e=20
is
supposed to have enmassed and been given by Lord Dudley? This is=20
MISCONCEPTION and fantacy that has blown up a simple yeoman into a mysteriou=
s=20
power. There is no evidence that Lord Dudley gave him any sizable bequests=20
of land or money. And this is not the status he held at the time of his=20
death. PCR>>

We have gone through this before and you are reading what you now wish to se=
e=20
without any regard to the evidence. I had sent you an article with this=20
material, yet I have to post it again to show the truth:

WHAT DOES JOHN BAGLEY=E2=80=99S WILL SAY?

John Bagley's will was dated 3 May and proved 8 August 1648 [PCC 127 Essex=20
(FHL #92,169).=20
=20
He stated his desire to be buried in the parish church of St. Thomas, Dudley=
,=20
he bequeathed all his "Lands Tenements and hereditaments in Worstersheire an=
d=20
Staffordsheire w[hi]ch I onely bought unto my twoe sonnes Duddeley Bagley an=
d=20
Samuel Bagley". [This seems to indicate working farms in two counties. There=
=20
are at least two. We do not know how many more there might be,]
=20
He left it to them on condition that his debts be paid and they carry out th=
e=20
other conditions of his will, usual conditions: "I give unto my sonne John=20
Bagley the Howse garden and Smithey nowe in the tenure and occupacon of Susa=
n=20
Lowe ... I give to my sonne Robert Bagley the Howse which the Widdow=20
dickarson dwelleth in ... I give to my Grandchild Sutton Bagley those fower=20
Howses which William Butler, John While, John Mason, and John Juckes they al=
l=20
liveinge in them with all their appurten'ncs thereunto belonginge ... [I=20
count six houses here,] I give unto Elizabeth Jevon thirty poundes beinge my=
=20
Grandchild to bee paid unto her when shee shall come to age [sic] ... I give=
=20
unto my Grandchild Margarett Jevan tenn poundes ... "

"Duddeley Bagley and Samuell Bagley,=E2=80=9D his two sons, were made sole e=
xecutors,=20
and each given twenty shillings, aside from whatever residue might be left o=
f=20
his personal estate. John Willmer, Jeffery Atwood, and Jeffery Finch were=20
witnesses.=20

I count at least two farms and out buildings, probably more, six houses and=20
some cash. Additionally, there is the matter of a =C2=A3600 pound default in=
1629.=20
John Bagley and Lord Dudley were accused by Sir Walter Devereux of combining=
=20
to defeat his claim of default for a debt of =C2=A3600. Elizabeth Tomlinson=20=
and=20
John Bagley were the principal recipients of the monies, but the default on=20
credit was by Lord Dudley. This is the same year that Elizabeth Tomlinson=20
died and the same year she gave a house to her nephew John, son of John the=
=20
elder. It is also close to the time that the wife of John Bagley died.

This loan of =C2=A3600 is very good circumstantial evidence that Lord Dudle=
y was=20
trying to provide for both the family of John Bagley and his children by=20
Elizabeth with what little revenue he had left. He had spent a fortune=20
experimenting with new methods of producing steel by going into business wit=
h=20
Dud Dudley, his son with Elizabeth.

Paul Reed continues: <<What are the FACTS? If we examine them carefully=20
they are simple and clear. John Bagley's father Thomas had an estate valued=
=20
at 10 pounds when he died in 1587/8. John was baptized at St. Edmund, Dudle=
y=20
25 Feb. 1571/2. He was called
yeoman in 1599 when accused with others of assault. There was a writ to=20
arrest
the group in 1599, and a different writ to arrest him and others in 1601. >=
>

All this was in THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION. One interesting note about this=20
assault and that date is that Henry Jevon, his future son-on-law, John's=20
brother Richard and others were implicated as well. The second assault charg=
e=20
was shortly before John's marriage in 1601. There was never such a case=20
brought any other time in John's life, so perhaps it had something to so wit=
h=20
someone's mistreatment his future wife. We have no record that he was a=20
brawling drunkard. If being a brawling drunkard were his character, he would=
=20
not have made a good caretaker for the Suttons. - KHF

<<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 (namin=
g
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 nex=
t
child, Richard, was baptized at Sedgley 28 July 1616. PCR >>

Where are coming from, Paul. Your objectivity is betrayed in this statement.=
=20
Of course Edward is a common English name, but this is the first born son an=
d=20
the first born daughter was named Elizabeth. If you cannot see the symmetry=
=20
there, it is because you do not want to. Numerous other such names crop up=20
in that family such as Dudley and Sutton. This occurs for generations. This=20
is not coincidence. Ancient genealogies have been established on much more=20
flimsy evidence than this. - KHF

<<A Chancery suit in 1631 stated that he had lived at Old Park, Sedgley, sin=
ce
1603, where he kept deer for Lord Dudley. Lord Dudley granted him the ancie=
nt
[old, not grand] lodge and some land in Old Park for his residence as=20
principal
deer keeper of the Lord in 1611. SO, we see that John Bagley was about=20
thirty when hired as a deer keeper in 1603, and that it was after eight year=
s=20
of faithful service, when he was nearly forty years old, that he became=20
principal deer keeper. Note that this is hardly a position that would=20
indicate that John held sway over Lord Dudley's vast estate, lands, iron=20
works and coal pits (recall, if you will, the long list that Dud himself=20
pretended to have claim to, and remember that Lord Dudley also had a=20
legitimate heir named Sir Ferdinando Sutton who did indeed have inheritance=20
of lands and the castle). So land in a deer park at Sedgley seems actually=20
quite reasonable for a deer keeper, even if he were head deer keeper. PCR >>

All of this was in THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION as well, except for your=20
personal comments. There is no question that it took John a while to publicl=
y=20
rise beyond the title deerkeeper and there is also no question that he=20
eventually did control the estate. You conveniently omit that in your=20
comments. Everyone had to prove themselves to the Suttons. The real heir,=20
Francisco, seemed to want to play estate keeper for a time and lived in the=20
manor house, but he abandoned it -- and the estate management -- either=20
because he was not good enough at it or John was much better and running=20
things anyway. His abandonment of the manor house left it open for Dud Dudle=
y=20
to seize. - KHF

<<Now, by 1616 we know that John Bagley was one of three men, including Geor=
ge
Guest [son-in-law to Lord Dudley], Robert Dudley [son of Lord Dudley, who ma=
y
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=20
year.
NOW, isn't it reasonable for Robert and George to have included John Bagley=
=20
in
this lease, which was certainly NOT A GIFT (a rent of 100 l.?). Recall if y=
ou
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. PCR >>

Yes, it is reasonable that John is included. He had the talent to make it pa=
y=20
--even by 1616 -- so he had obviously shown much more talent to Edward Sutto=
n=20
than idly standing by and watching that the deer be kept from poachers. Thi=
s=20
is actually evidence that he has been doing many other things previous to=20
this time in regard to estate management and was turning a profit enough to=20
have credit for that lease, just the opposite of your insinuations. - KHF

<<IN FACT, John Bagley testified in 1631, when Walter Devereux threatened to=
=20
take it over, that that he had lived at Old Park for 28 years, as Lord=20
Dudley's deer keeper, and
that if he was turned out, he WOULD LOSE HIS LIVELIHOOD upon which he relied
for his motherless children. >>

You are misrepresenting the truth here and seeing what you want to see. You=20
omit the fact that John Bagley was called "Gentleman" in the chancery record=
s=20
in 1620 and was bringing cases to court on behalf of the Dudley estate in=20
1619. During this time he likely accumulated many of the properties that wer=
e=20
later bequeathed in his will. Instead of presenting the whole story, you are=
=20
painting a picture of John Bagley as a yeoman clod who could not have=20
possibly married a nobleman's illegitimate daughter ... he is a poor man in=20
your eyes because you want him to be so. -KHF

<<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=20
TOMLINSON'S SISTER, WAS ALREADY DEAD AT THE TIME HE WAS PLEADING POVERTY. H=
E=20
HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN A GREAT ENDOWMENT BY LORD DUDLEY BECAUSE OF HIS WIFE. =20
This is a widowed deer keeper with children pleading for his means of=20
support. He still resided at Old Park, Sedgley, in 1633, when that was state=
d=20
to be his place of residence, and he was styled "yeoman." >>

Such utter bullshit is unbecoming someone who professes to be objective. Now=
=20
you are saying that he was not given an endowment when all the records say=20
otherwise. This poverty plea and the return to the status of yeoman after=20
being termed a gentleman was simply an obvious ploy to win some court=20
sympathy because Dud Dudley had drained away much of the money from the=20
estate a few years earlier to rebuild his iron smelter, as the first one was=
=20
destroyed in a flood. The years around 1629-1631 were very bad years for the=
=20
Dudley estate ... Edward Sutton was out of money and had to borrow to=20
maintain the estate ... and he was later sued for default on this debt. It=20
best served John Bagley's interests to keep a low profile lest he be held=20
responsible for these debts because he handled this borrowed money and used=20
it for support of his interests and the Tomlinson interests before 1629. Thi=
s=20
borrowed money was likely used to pay Elizabeth Tomlinson's bequests to her=20
Bagley nephews -- so John has a hand in the kitty, so to speak, and much=20
reason to keep a very low profile. It did not effect his general wealth not=
=20
that fact that he has a fine estate to share with his family when he died.

You also did not mention the thousand year lease that Edward Sutton granted=20
to John Bagley alone in 1643, the year of Edward Sutton's death, in an=20
obvious attempt to provide for the long term descendants of John Bagley. If=
=20
that is not great evidence of a family tie --- combined with all the other=20
evidence, then color me purple. What do you want -- birth certificates?

Point / counter point / ad infinitum .... It is very disappointing for me t=
o=20
see that the genealogical publishing community cannot be trusted. While=20
professing to be holding up for scholarship in genealogy, they still paint=20
imperfect pictures to fit with their preconceived results. Perhaps I am=20
guilty as well, and maybe it is simply a very human trait, but at least I=20
admit it. =20

- Ken

Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF=3D"http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm">;
http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm</A>;
=20

This thread: