GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986923579


From:
Subject: Tomlinson, Elizabeth
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:26:19 EDT


<A HREF="http://www.ancestrees.com/pedigree/3532.htm">;
http://www.ancestrees.com/pedigree/3532.htm</A>;

According to this web page, Elizabeth's children used either Sutton or Dudley
as their surname.

~Virginia

<< >>
<< You can't have sons being obviously illegitimate, but not daughters.
Elizabeth
was well known to have never married.

I would also point out that the actual administration of Elizabeth Tomlinson
which appoints Edward Bagley the administrator and next legal heir states
specifically that Elizabeth was a SPINSTER.

This is a direct indication that the Prerogative Court of Canterbury was aware
AT THE TIME IT GRANTED THE ADMINISTRATION that Elizabeth Tomlinson had never
married. With this FOREKNOWLEDGE, the court may have granted the
administration to a nephew, but by definition, could not have granted it to a
grandson.

The court specified that Elizabeth was a spinster, so could not have been
deceived into thinking she had legitimate issue!

The quaker William Brinton, in 1699, stated that his father-in-law Edward
Bagley "was accounted a very honest and loving man." This being the case, I
don't see how one can claim that Edward's mother was actually illegitimate,
and
taht this had not only been kept from him but all the neighborhood too (no one
in the area was around when the girl gave birth to the illegitimate child?).
I
don't see that anything indicates we should disparage Edward's character, so
when he appeared before the court declaring that he was legal heir of
Elizabeth, he certainly was telling the truth.

Paul
>>

This thread: