GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986744895
From:
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:48:15 EDT
In a message dated 4/7/01 10:25:14 PM, writes:
<< 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? >>
That is a hard one, Nat, because Dud Dudley got preferential treatment all
along. He was the one that got the lion's share because his new iron
technology was supposed to make the Suttons and himself rich. The Bagley and
the Tomlinson male children were about equally treated in contract leases and
were often in it together. Also, the Tomlinson children were mostly girls and
all were married well. Some catch up was played with the Bagley boys when
John gave them his property. All in all, I would say the treatment was fair
and equal.
Also, I understand everything you say about the nature of these arguments and
the proofs involved therein and always have. This is not a _conspiracy
theory_ so much as an alternative explanation for a court record that contai
ns confusing errors -- even in the very title of the case. We have nothing
at all about that court case except the _title _ of what was being heard ...
and there is no reason to believe that it was significant at all. The best we
can say is that we simply do not know for certain. This court record does not
"prove" anything with those errors ... and that is my point.
Certainly with all the errors in the title, it must be viewed suspiciously,
especially in the light that we know the content of Elizabeth Tomlinson's
will and can see clearly that her estate was very small and amounted to
bequests that were quite likely paid many years before.
- Ken
This thread: