RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of

GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986882714

From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:05:14 +0100
References: <df.12f99b47.28035f1d@aol.com>

Where's the succinct answer to Paul's question? -- D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797] Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand. The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45 pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397. All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing. Vires et Honor <> wrote in message news:... 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 of a daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson be granted administration of her estate BEFORE it was granted to one of her living sons or a son's son? I'm STILL interested to hear your answer to this specific point. Please respond. >> Because you cannot discount the illegitimacy. Her sons were not eligible to administer her estate under law. Everyone knew that because those direct relationships were clear to all involved. The first court action involving this will of Elizabeth Tomlinson took place in 1631. Elizabeth Tomlinson's nuncupative will, dated 3 July 1629: "set out in the joint and severall answeres of Thomas Duddeley and Henry Jevon, two of the defendants to a bill 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 Elizabeth's sons-in-law as defendants and Dud as plaintiff. Edward Bagley was not involved, but this is where we learn of the content of this verbal will made two years previously. (Thomas Dudley was the husband of Elizabeth's illegitimate daughter Catherine). These sons-in-law were defendants because they were appointed as the administrators of Elizabeth's will. It is important that we remember that the original administrators were Thomas Dudley and Henry Jevon, not 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 beneficiaries of this will were primarily the male Bagley children. This is primary evidence that there was a blood relationship (though unknown to many at the time) of Elizabeth Tomlinson and Edward Sutton to the children of John Bagley. Elizabeth, who was kept all her life and was not in charge of finance, wanted Edward Sutton to give some cash to the male Bagley children to tide them over until they legally inherited the estate of John Bagley. This was satisfactory to all parties except Dud Dudley, who was disenfranchised by this course of action. Proof is in the will quoted below: "The said Elizabeth, being visited with sickness whereof she afterwards dyed, did by word of mouth only, without writing, will and declare how and in what manner her said personal estate should be disposed of after her decease, which was to this purpose and effect following, that is to say: She did will and bequeath to her five daughters all her wearing apparel. And also she did will and bequeath to Edward Bagley, son of John Bagley, 30, and to Dudde Bagley his brother 30 [sic, most say 20] to be paid so soon as her executors could pay the same. Also to Thomas Bagley and to Robert Bagley, sons of the said John Bagley, 20s apiece; and to the poor people of Dudley all the money to her belonging which was then in the hands of her son Dudd Dudley. And further she willed that Gilbert Gyllyan and Ann Rodes should be paid all that which was then by her due to them. And further she willed that her son, the now complainant, [Dud Dudley] should not see her writings, because, as she then said, he might do somebody wrong. And all the rest, etc., she gave and bequeathed to her eight children to be equally divided amongst them. And of the same her will and testament that said Elizabeth did then ordain and make these now defendants Thomas Duddeley, her son-in-law, and Henry Jevon, her servant, executors, and shortly afterwards died." [Chancery 23 May 1631] This evidence, combined with the onomastic evidence of Sutton family names observed in the Bagley family and John Bagley's rise to power and wealth were considered excellent evidence of a blood relationship until the record of the 1635 case was discovered. Evidently, Dud Dudley received no satisfaction from the 1631 case or he would not have appealed it to the higher court. John Bagley was called gentleman in a court record in 1620, but by 1631 Edward Sutton was practically broke and borrowed the money to pay Elizabeth's bequests and other expenses from the estate. Twice (and twice only) in these lean years, John Bagley was called yeoman in court. The first case was in 1631 when John was defending his right to keep lands granted to him by Edward Sutton and claimed by Sir Walter Devereux. Devereux was the man that loaned Edward Sutton the 600 that went toward paying Elizabeth Tomlinson's bequests and the the other estate expenses paid by John Bagley. It is obvious that it was to John's advantage to plead 'poverty' and revert to his old status of 'yeoman' because his family was the beneficiary of this unpaid loan and Devereux was seeking satisfaction of his claim by attempting to some claim property in John Bagley's possession. The second instance of John Bagley reverting to the status of 'yeoman' occurred two years later, in 1633, when John was back in court against Henry Birch over some leases on Dudley land. He was there called "John Bagley, yeoman, of Old Park," as Lord Dudley was practically bankrupt. John was running the estate and raising operating expenses with great cunning. John was protecting his own interests and avoided calling attention to his own property at all costs, as the courts may have reversed his lucrative estate contracts that provided income for his children and other family members. The courts could have found that the property held by John could be seized for payments of debt because John was managing the estate monies and paying himself with income from properties formally held by the Sutton estate. Previously, Nat Taylor asked that someone briefly list the reasons for believing that there was a blood connection of the Suttons and the Bagley children. All the above and all that has been said before contain these reasons. It is much easier to list the reason why it is not believed, as the sole reason for the disproof of this line is the court record of 1635 that can be viewed as an appeal by Dud Dudley of the above case and named Edward Bagley as the defendant instead of the two previous administrators, Thomas Dudley and Henry Jevon. There, Edward is wrongly abbreviated to Edr and he is called 'nepoti ex matre' ('nephew through his mother'), although the original copy contained a correction and originally was written as 'filio ex matre'. Obviously, since the disproof of this line lies only in this phrase, one needs to defeat this court record. It must b incorrect or mistaken in order to establish the line to Edward Sutton. Due to the clerical errors in both the abbreviation of the name of Edward and the correction from 'filio' to 'nepoti', it can be concluded that some definite confusion was present at the time of this hearing. Why should Edward Bagley should even be named instead of the original administrators? This is a matter for great concern. We should not even assume that Edward was anything but a defendant in the 1635 case, as it was brought again by Dud Dudley to contest his mothers bequests. This being the case, there is no reason to assume that the indicated relationship was correct of even known to all parties at the time. Previously, I have shown how a first-born daughter born to Elizabeth Tomlinson and Edward Sutton whose identity was concealed by agreement between Edward Sutton's father and the Tomlinson family could be the link that satisfies the requirements in this case. Edward Bagley and Dud Dudley could well have not been aware if the true relationship until Edward Sutton or John Bagley chose to reveal it after the death of Elizabeth Tomlinson. Evidence for such a cover-up is contained in the writings of Elizabeth Tomlinson which 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 Bagley married a sister of Elizabeth Tomiinson instead of the first born daughter, we have a problem with the identity of this sister. Only two sisters are recorded by baptismal records, Joan and Agnes, and both dropped out of sight. Their death records do not exist, nor do any records of children or any marriages. It is easier to assume that they either died young or married out of the area and spent their lives elsewhere. Elizabeth's birth record does not exist either, but she may not have been baptized. Her life and death are properly recorded. However, if she had a daughter whose identity was agreed to be concealed, as seems to me to be the case, one would not expect this daughter to have a baptismal record or a burial record because her identity was supposed to be kept confidential. That explains the lack of a burial record for John Bagley's wife and the lack of a marriage record as well, as we would expect that John's wife would be recorded unless there was some compelling reason for her not to be so. We should surely expect the woman to be recorded if she were Elizabeth Tomlinson's sister, as she would have died in that parish and should be buried there. The fact that this is not so gives us cause for reflection. The two other sisters likely moved from the area and that is why we do not know of their deaths or their children. The icing on the case is the lease of lands for a thousand years given to John Bagley by Edward Sutton in the year of his death. Obviously, this was to secure the support of John Bagley's children and such a lease is difficult to explain by any other means. Why should Edward Sutton, already in financial difficulty, leave such an asset to a the descendants of a man who has no blood ties to himself instead of his legitimate heirs unless he was trying to provide for illegitimate grandchildren according to the necessities of English law? The legitimate heirs received the rest of the estate and its vast resources as well as the manor house. For this reason, and the strong naming patterns in the Bagley family, I conclude that the 1635 document does not state the true nature of the relationship of the Suttons to the Bagley children as it was not known to the litigants at the time the case came to trial. We have no record of the outcome of the 1635 case, but we can assume that the outcome was not satisfactory to Dud Dudley, as he tried to seize the manor house in 1637 and was evicted by John Bagley and his brother Robert Dudley, who by then had learned where his bread was truly buttered. Dud Dudley sued the estate for damages from this eviction two years later, lost and moved from the area and to continue his work with iron refining by coal. Edward helped his father in the management of the Sutton estate and served a summons on John Brooke, Esq. in 1643 for breach of contract. Edward's wife bore a son named Sutton Bagley in 1637. The thousand year lease to John Bagley was granted by Edward Sutton in 1643, followed by the death of Lord Dudley in the same year. After having another son in 1644 named John, Edward Bagley died unexpectedly in 1645. Three years later, in 1648, John Bagley died and left his sons well appointed by bequests of property obtained during his years of service on the Sutton estate. Edward Bagley's widow, Olive, outlived him by thirty years. She became a Quaker and her daughter Ann Bagley (born 1634) married William Brinton. The couple would become the ancestors of thousands, including General George Brinton McClellan and Richard M. Nixon. 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="http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm">; http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm</A>;