RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of

GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0987008931

From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:08:51 +0100
References: <9e.12c85c8d.28051d09@aol.com>

Why is there such extraordinary interest in this relationship? Dud Dudley is an interesting character ---- but what is the hook here? -- 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 <> wrote in message news:... In a message dated 4/10/01 7:25:44 PM, writes: << KHF: Exactly ... so why were her illegitimate daughter's husbands her legal administrators in 1631? ?? NT: Huh? >> Huh back to you. It was not legal, so why? What is good for the goose is not 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 ... I am not certain about husbands of illegitimate children. One would think they could have found a less tainted administrator. And why was Edward Bagley drawn into the case when he was not the original administrator? No one has answered this. I wish this were a simple case. You asked for a list of evidence for the blood relationship of the Bagleys and the Suttons and there is nothing _but_ evidence for that relationship. All the evidence points that way. The _only_ evidence against a blood relationship is the later court case that identifies Edward as nepoti ex matre. No one could have been more surprised when this was found because it literally makes no sense with the other evidence. Everyone had to make a 180 degree about face to incorporate it. Suddenly, the naming patterns, the acquired wealth of John Bagley, the will of John Bagley, Elizabeth's bequests to the Bagley children, the leases to the Bagleys and the Tomlinsons, and the thousand year lease had to be explained away in other terms -- and the thought that "well, perhaps they were just godchildren" replaced the original, sensible conclusion that the Bagley's were Sutton's grandchildren. All of this was because of one document ... and no one but me has dared suggest that the court document was in error. Genealogists give a hallowed bow to such findings. Such clerical records take on a truth of their own despite the possibility that the record could be mistaken. It is not as though we have a transcription of what happened it court or that the document was signed by a magistrate. It is simply a clerical record of the event being on the docket on that day. It is fallible. Suppose I am on the docket administrating my aunt's estate and they call me Kenneth Fenton instead of Finton. Will I forever be Fenton in history because they made a mistake? If this was the only record, I probably would be a Fenton to all history, even though I am not! Suppose they describe my relationship in the records as a 'nephew through the mother'. 'My name is Edward and I have always called this woman Elizabeth Tomlinson my 'Aunt Elizabeth' because I was told that she was my mother's sister. Suppose my father has recently told me that my mother was really my aunt's child, so my 'Aunt Elizabeth' was my grandmother. Neither my Mother or my aunt ever told me this. I am not comfortable with this newly found fact and my old ways of thought always come to the front. Elizabeth will always be "Aunt Elizabeth" to me. So, how do I describe my relationship? "Well," I say, "I am the son of my mother, but my mother's mother is my aunt Elizabeth." "Eh," says the clerk. "What was that again?" "My mother's mother is the person I call Aunt Elizabeth." "Very well," the clerk says .... "Son of ..." "No," I correct, "nephew of ... through my mother." Nepoti ex matre, writes the clerk, crossing out the "filio." Of course, I am fooling with you a bit ... but I do believe that it is very hard to reconcile the evidence with the court record that we have. I have never heard of someone being a godfather to an entire group of children. I find it hard to believe that a Lord of the manor would give his faithful servant a thousand year lease on land when they are both old and on the verge of death and a twenty year lease would do as well. A thousand years lease has to be for the benefit of other generations, so why should this lord be so attached to these so called godchildren when he had so many legitimate and illegitimate offspring to care for as well? It does not make sense unless they were actually his illegitimate grandchildren and he had to give them something in his lifetime or they would legally never be able to have an advantage. - Ken