GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986662794


From: (Nat Taylor)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 12:59:54 -0400
References: <d9.12c2f425.280091ff@aol.com>


In article <>, wrote:

>PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY BECAUSE I WILL NO LONGER BE RESPONDING TO THIS
>SUBJECT IN SUCH DETAIL.

Thank God, because most of the long-winded posts on this subject have been
poorly organized and poorly argued.

>I AM QUITE DISAPPOINTED IN NAT TAYLOR AND PAUL REED'S REMARKS.
>ONE MORE TIME, THIS IS WHY:

>Even Hansen, before finding the court record -- which I believe is in error
>-- said "The evidence for concluding that John Bagley married an illegitimate
>daughter of Lord Dudley certainly seemed persuasive." (TAG. Jan 1996, p37).
>Then he goes on to show a few of the reasons of why it is persuasive.

All attempts to show that the Bagleys received some sort of preferential
treatment which could only be explained by kinship with the Sutton-Dudleys
have failed: the evidence I've seen posted here is simply not inconsistent
with the treatment of a trusted retainer. The information is also,
theoretically, not inconsistent with some relationship of bastardy, but
that is inconsistent with the court record, which must be credited.

>Since that time both myself and Les Tucker have explained this
> circumstantial evidence much better and more convincingly...

I disagree.

>I have run up against a wall with people who seem to believe that these
>courts can do no wrong, make no errors

Ken mistakes the role of this document (and a basic genealogical method).
The document should be interpreted at face value unless it manifestly
contradicts the other concrete evidence. There is no inescapable
contradiction: the document can be reconciled with the other
'circumstantial' evidence in the way Paul has summarized.

>My points is that the court record does not reflect the true nature of the
>relationship -- it contains clerical errors and was changed

As has been stated several times, the nature of the visible change
('filius' ['filio' in this instance, I imagine] to 'nepoti ex matre') in
the document is far more easily explicable in a manner which is consistent
with Hansen's and Reed's interpretation than with Ken's conspiracy
theory. And, BTW, it's silly to argue over the obvious dative case
abbreviation 'Edro' for 'Edwardo', which is absolutely scribally and
grammatically correct.

>Furthermore, the litigants themselves were
>not aware of the true relationships at the time of the court action.

I've seen this several times now. Ken is restating his theory as fact,
then using it as evidence with which to suggest why an actual piece of
primary, textual evidence should be rejected. Please, let's keep the
'logical' in 'genealogical'.

I was going to ask someone to make a single post--say 30 lines
maximum--which would simply list the evidence for young Bagley's treatment
which leads inevitably to the conclusion that must have been Sutton-Dudley
bastard grandson? And remember: narrating one's charming but far-fetched
conspiracy theory is not *evidence*. One point I haven't seen
specifically addressed: does the Bagleys' station match or fall short of
that attained by the bastard children/grandchildren of Tomlinson &
Sutton-Dudley?

But then again, in light of the shouting at the top of this message,
perhaps the various participants in this discussion should simply go their
separate ways?

Nat Taylor

This thread: