GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986925267


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:54:27 +0100
References: <11.126b9378.28048a8d@aol.com>, <nltayl0-1004011238140001@atl-tgn-yaj-vty159.as.wcom.net>


Mr. Finton's posts are very difficult to follow because they appear to
be a mixture of fact and conjecture ---- stirred together in a stew.

I'd like to see him present a short, concise post just of the _evidence_
for his position ---- with all the conjecture, the speculation and the
talk of conspiracy leached out of it.
--

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

"Nat Taylor" <> wrote in message
news:...
| 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: