GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986962796


From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: 11 Apr 2001 04:19:56 GMT
References: <9e.12c85c8d.28051d09@aol.com>


>
><< KHF: Exactly ... so why were her illegitimate daughter's husbands her=20
>legal administrators in 1631?
>
>NT: Huh? >>

[Ken replied:]
>
>Huh back to you. It was not legal, so why? What is good for the goose is no
good for the gander? Illegitimacy in any generation makes the person unable to
administer, yet these husbands of illegitimate daughters were called
>administrators. Maybe I am wrong here on the law ..>>

You are indeed wrong here, and have misinterpreted probate law.

I presume you were talking about Elizabeth Tomlinson's nuncupative will in the
first case.

(1) No one was appointed administrator by the court. Elizabeth Tomlinson had
the right to appoint anyone her EXECUTORS. This was not the same thing as
someone who the court appoints ADMINISTRATOR of an intestate estate.

(2) The nuncupative will was never proved in any probate court, was it?

(3) The administration of Elizabeth Tomlinson's estate granted by the PCC was
to be made to her next heir at law. The administration specifically stated
that Elizabeth was a SPINSTER. It was widely known in court never to have
married (you previously quoted a passage from CP which discussed that she and
her children were scandalously blamed for Lord Dudley wasting his estate).
Thus, Edward Bagley could not be a direct descendant, but could be a sister's
son (as the record states).

Paul


This thread: