GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986842397


From:
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:53:17 EDT



In a message dated 4/9/01 8:06:40 AM, writes:

<< How do you rationalize that if we discount illegitimacy, why would a son=20
of a
daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson be granted administration of her estate BEFO=
RE
it was granted to one of her living sons or a son's son? I'm STILL interest=
ed
to hear your answer to this specific point. Please respond. >>

Because you cannot discount the illegitimacy. Her sons were not eligible to=20
administer her estate under law. Everyone knew that because those direct=20
relationships were clear to all involved. The first court action involving=20
this will of Elizabeth Tomlinson took place in 1631. Elizabeth Tomlinson=
=E2=80=99s=20
nuncupative will, dated 3 July 1629: =E2=80=9Cset out in the joint and seve=
rall=20
answeres of Thomas Duddeley and Henry Jevon, two of the defendants to a bill=
=20
filed in Chancery 23 May 1631 by Dud Dudley of Tipton, gent."

Notice that this was an action filed by her son, Dud Dudley, with two of=20
Elizabeth's sons-in-law as defendants and Dud as plaintiff. Edward Bagley wa=
s=20
not involved, but this is where we learn of the content of this verbal will=20
made two years previously.
(Thomas Dudley was the husband of Elizabeth's illegitimate daughter=20
Catherine). These sons-in-law were defendants because they were appointed as=
=20
the administrators of Elizabeth's will. It is important that we remember=20
that the original administrators were Thomas Dudley and Henry Jevon, not=20
Edward Bagley, though Edward was 31 years old at the time.

Once more, I will post the will, as it is important that we notice that the=20
beneficiaries of this will were primarily the male Bagley children. This is=
=20
primary evidence that there was a blood relationship (though unknown to many=
=20
at the time) of Elizabeth Tomlinson and Edward Sutton to the children of Joh=
n=20
Bagley. Elizabeth, who was kept all her life and was not in charge of=20
finance, wanted Edward Sutton to give some cash to the male Bagley children=20
to tide them over until they legally inherited the estate of John Bagley.=20
This was satisfactory to all parties except Dud Dudley, who was=20
disenfranchised by this course of action. Proof is in the will quoted below:

"The said Elizabeth, being visited with sickness whereof she afterwards dyed=
,=20
did by word of mouth only, without writing, will and declare how and in what=
=20
manner her said personal estate should be disposed of after her decease,=20
which was to this purpose and effect following, that is to say: She did will=
=20
and bequeath to her five daughters all her wearing apparel. And also she did=
=20
will and bequeath to Edward Bagley, son of John Bagley, =C2=A330, and to Dud=
de=20
Bagley his brother =C2=A330 [sic, most say =C2=A320] to be paid so soon as h=
er=20
executors could pay the same. Also to Thomas Bagley and to Robert Bagley,=20
sons of the said John Bagley, 20s apiece; and to the poor people of Dudley=20
all the money to her belonging which was then in the hands of her son Dudd=20
Dudley. And further she willed that Gilbert Gyllyan and Ann Rodes should be=20
paid all that which was then by her due to them. And further she willed that=
=20
her son, the now complainant, [Dud Dudley] should not see her writings,=20
because, as she then said, he might do somebody wrong. And all the rest,=20
etc., she gave and bequeathed to her eight children to be equally divided=20
amongst them. And of the same her will and testament that said Elizabeth did=
=20
then ordain and make these now defendants Thomas Duddeley, her son-in-law,=20
and Henry Jevon, her servant, executors, and shortly afterwards died.=E2=80=
=9D =20
[Chancery 23 May 1631]

This evidence, combined with the onomastic evidence of Sutton family names=20
observed in the Bagley family and John Bagley's rise to power and wealth wer=
e=20
considered excellent evidence of a blood relationship until the record of th=
e=20
1635 case was discovered. Evidently, Dud Dudley received no satisfaction fro=
m=20
the 1631 case or he would not have appealed it to the higher court.=20

John Bagley was called gentleman in a court record in 1620, but by 1631=20
Edward Sutton was practically broke and borrowed the money to pay Elizabeth'=
s=20
bequests and other expenses from the estate. Twice (and twice only) in thes=
e=20
lean years, John Bagley was called yeoman in court. The first case was in=20
1631 when John was defending his right to keep lands granted to him by Edwar=
d=20
Sutton and claimed by Sir Walter Devereux. Devereux was the man that loaned=20
Edward Sutton the =C2=A3600 that went toward paying Elizabeth Tomlinson's be=
quests=20
and the the other estate expenses paid by John Bagley. It is obvious that it=
=20
was to John's advantage to plead 'poverty' and revert to his old status of=20
'yeoman' because his family was the beneficiary of this unpaid loan and=20
Devereux was seeking satisfaction of his claim by attempting to some claim=20
property in John Bagley's possession. The second instance of John Bagley=20
reverting to the status of 'yeoman' occurred two years later, in 1633, when=20
John was back in court against Henry Birch over some leases on Dudley land.=20
He was there called "John Bagley, yeoman, of Old Park," as Lord Dudley was=20
practically bankrupt. John was running the estate and raising operating=20
expenses with great cunning. John was protecting his own interests and=20
avoided calling attention to his own property at all costs, as the courts ma=
y=20
have reversed his lucrative estate contracts that provided income for his=20
children and other family members. The courts could have found that the=20
property held by John could be seized for payments of debt because John was=20
managing the estate monies and paying himself with income from properties=20
formally held by the Sutton estate.=20

Previously, Nat Taylor asked that someone briefly list the reasons for=20
believing that there was a blood connection of the Suttons and the Bagley=20
children. All the above and all that has been said before contain these=20
reasons. It is much easier to list the reason why it is not believed, as th=
e=20
sole reason for the disproof of this line is the court record of 1635 that=20
can be viewed as an appeal by Dud Dudley of the above case and named Edward=20
Bagley as the defendant instead of the two previous administrators, Thomas=20
Dudley and Henry Jevon. There, Edward is wrongly abbreviated to Edr and he=20
is called 'nepoti ex matre' ('nephew through his mother'), although the=20
original copy contained a correction and originally was written as 'filio ex=
=20
matre'.=20

Obviously, since the disproof of this line lies only in this phrase, one=20
needs to defeat this court record. It must b incorrect or mistaken in order=20
to establish the line to Edward Sutton. Due to the clerical errors in both=20
the abbreviation of the name of Edward and the correction from 'filio' to=20
'nepoti', it can be concluded that some definite confusion was present at th=
e=20
time of this hearing. Why should Edward Bagley should even be named instead=20
of the original administrators? This is a matter for great concern. We shoul=
d=20
not even assume that Edward was anything but a defendant in the 1635 case, a=
s=20
it was brought again by Dud Dudley to contest his mothers bequests. This=20
being the case, there is no reason to assume that the indicated relationship=
=20
was correct of even known to all parties at the time.

Previously, I have shown how a first-born daughter born to Elizabeth=20
Tomlinson and Edward Sutton whose identity was concealed by agreement betwee=
n=20
Edward Sutton's father and the Tomlinson family could be the link that=20
satisfies the requirements in this case. Edward Bagley and Dud Dudley could=20
well have not been aware if the true relationship until Edward Sutton or Joh=
n=20
Bagley chose to reveal it after the death of Elizabeth Tomlinson. Evidence=20
for such a cover-up is contained in the writings of Elizabeth Tomlinson whic=
h=20
she wanted to be withheld from her son, Lord Dudley.

Further, if we are to accept that the record of 1635 is correct and John=20
Bagley married a sister of Elizabeth Tomiinson instead of the first born=20
daughter, we have a problem with the identity of this sister. Only two=20
sisters are recorded by baptismal records, Joan and Agnes, and both dropped=20
out of sight. Their death records do not exist, nor do any records of=20
children or any marriages. It is easier to assume that they either died=20
young or married out of the area and spent their lives elsewhere. Elizabeth'=
s=20
birth record does not exist either, but she may not have been baptized. Her=20
life and death are properly recorded. However, if she had a daughter whose=20
identity was agreed to be concealed, as seems to me to be the case, one woul=
d=20
not expect this daughter to have a baptismal record or a burial record=20
because her identity was supposed to be kept confidential. That explains the=
=20
lack of a burial record for John Bagley's wife and the lack of a marriage=20
record as well, as we would expect that John's wife would be recorded unless=
=20
there was some compelling reason for her not to be so. We should surely=20
expect the woman to be recorded if she were Elizabeth Tomlinson's sister, as=
=20
she would have died in that parish and should be buried there. The fact that=
=20
this is not so gives us cause for reflection. The two other sisters likely=20
moved from the area and that is why we do not know of their deaths or their=20
children.

The icing on the case is the lease of lands for a thousand years given to=20
John Bagley by Edward Sutton in the year of his death. Obviously, this was t=
o=20
secure the support of John Bagley's children and such a lease is difficult t=
o=20
explain by any other means. Why should Edward Sutton, already in financial=20
difficulty, leave such an asset to a the descendants of a man who has no=20
blood ties to himself instead of his legitimate heirs unless he was trying t=
o=20
provide for illegitimate grandchildren according to the necessities of=20
English law? The legitimate heirs received the rest of the estate and its=20
vast resources as well as the manor house.

For this reason, and the strong naming patterns in the Bagley family, I=20
conclude that the 1635 document does not state the true nature of the=20
relationship of the Suttons to the Bagley children as it was not known to th=
e=20
litigants at the time the case came to trial. We have no record of the=20
outcome of the 1635 case, but we can assume that the outcome was not=20
satisfactory to Dud Dudley, as he tried to seize the manor house in 1637 and=
=20
was evicted by John Bagley and his brother Robert Dudley, who by then had=20
learned where his bread was truly buttered. Dud Dudley sued the estate for=20
damages from this eviction two years later, lost and moved from the area and=
=20
to continue his work with iron refining by coal. =20

Edward helped his father in the management of the Sutton estate and served a=
=20
summons on John Brooke, Esq. in 1643 for breach of contract.=20

Edward's wife bore a son named Sutton Bagley in 1637. The thousand year leas=
e=20
to John Bagley was granted by Edward Sutton in 1643, followed by the death o=
f=20
Lord Dudley in the same year. After having another son in 1644 named John,=20
Edward Bagley died unexpectedly in 1645. Three years later, in 1648, John=20
Bagley died and left his sons well appointed by bequests of property obtaine=
d=20
during his years of service on the Sutton estate.=20

Edward Bagley's widow, Olive, outlived him by thirty years. She became a=20
Quaker and her daughter Ann Bagley (born 1634) married William Brinton. The=20
couple would become the ancestors of thousands, including General George=20
Brinton McClellan and Richard M. Nixon.=20

END OF STORY

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: