GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0987189240


From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: 13 Apr 2001 19:14:00 GMT
References: <u0vy3J5wAHA.300@cpmsnbbsa07>


>
>None of you have explained why you think these illegitimate descents
>have any particular Genealogical Value.
>--
>
>D. Spencer Hines

This has been one of those hotly debated lines much like the Amie de Gaveston
matter. In spite of knowledge of the administration material and Charles
Hansen's article in TAG, people are still clinging on to the hypothesis of a
Bagley descent from Lord Dudley (who has quite a few royal descents).

The factual evidence we have says one thing quite clearly. The question
remaining is how to interpret the circumstantial evidence. In resolving this,
I had hoped that members of the group (even those who lurk) might eventually
learn more about the period, interpreting evidence, etc., even if not descended
from the links (I'm not a descendant).

The Bagley/Brinton descendants of John Bagley were Quakers and came to America.
I'm not yet aware of any American descent from the actual illegitimate
offspring of Elizabeth Tomlinson.
It is my opinion that many aspects of the circumstantial evidence have been
blown way out of proportion or at least exagerated far beyond actual import,
and that if individuals could understand how those things actually fit in with
other like events of the period, they would find that our interpretation fits
the evidence as Charles, I and others have interpreted it, rather than the
exaggerated account that keeps floating around the Internet.

Paul

This thread: