GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986920694


From: (Nat Taylor)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:38:14 -0400
References: <11.126b9378.28048a8d@aol.com>


In article <>, wrote:

>In a message dated 4/10/01 5:25:07 AM, writes:
>
>>You can't have sons being obviously illegitimate, but not daughters.
>>Elizabeth was well known to have never married.
>
>Exactly ... so why were her daughter's husbands her legal administrators in
>1631?

Huh?

>The answer is that they were defendants and not so much administrators, as
>all the distribution had already taken place. Her verbal will was taken care
>of by the family and no one ever expected it to go to court, but Dud Dudley
>was the type who would sur even over his hangnails.
>
>This term 'administrator' is a misnomer in both court cases, probably a fault
>of the clerk who did not fully understand what the cases were about. Perhaps
>the defendants did not even knew what it was really about ...

Now, just because you seem to confuse things in this CIRCULAR discussion,
don't suppose that the principals didn't know what was going on. Please,
can some disinterested and intelligent person post a *CONCISE* (line-item)
summary of the *EVIDENCE* in this case (the famous nepos ex matre document
& the known documents involving the Bagleys)? I thought it was just that
Annie, but Ken, too, seems to push the goalposts all over the field.

Nat Taylor

This thread: