GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986919224


From:
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:13:44 EDT



In a message dated 4/10/01 2:25:08 AM, writes:

<< No such conclusion is reasonable. First, as pointed out before,
"Edr-" (followed by a Latin ending appropriate to the case) is a
perfectly valid abbreviation for the name Edward, so there is no such
scribal error here. Also, you would not find the expression "filio ex
matre" (son through the mother), which makes no sense. >>

Filio ex matre makes no sense, of course ... no one ever said it did ... it
was changed ... which is evidence that there was confusion with the clerk who
recorded the names and relationship and that the relationship itself was not
on the minds of those party to the hearing, despite the law. It was an appeal
of an earlier case and the original administrators were not present. It is
the calling of Edward Bagley an 'administrator' when he was a defendant that
is truly suspect here. It shows me that the clerk did not know what the suit
was about nor had any idea of its merits.

<<On the contrary, if there is no record of a burial or another marriage
for them, then they make EXCELLENT candidates for the sister who was
married to John Bagley.>>

No, they do not. Everyone else is recorded, at least in death and with
births. The Bagley children were not baptized. It seems that John did not
believe in baptism. However, their marriages and births are recorded.

The fact that the sisters of Elizabeth Tomlinson are unknown and not shown to
be married or have children or died makes no sense if they stayed in the
area, married and had children.

- Ken

This thread: