GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986346524
From:
Subject: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART II
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:08:44 EDT
=20
THE WILL OF ELIZABETH TOMLINSON
Elizabeth Tomlinson=E2=80=99s nuncupative will, dated 3 July 1629: =E2=80=
=9Cset out in the=20
joint and severall answeres of Thomas Duddeley and Henry Jevon, two of the=20
defendants to a bill filed in Chancery 23 May 1631 by Dud Dudley of Tipton,=20
gent. It is as follows: The said Elizabeth, being visited with sickness=20
whereof she afterwards dyed, did by word of mouth only, without writing, wil=
l=20
and declare how and in what manner her said personal estate should be=20
disposed of after her decease, which was to this purpose and effect=20
following, that is to say: She did will and bequeath to her five daughters=20
all her wearing apparel. And also she did will and bequeath to Edward Bagley=
,=20
son of John Bagley, =C2=A330, and to Dudde Bagley his brother =C2=A330 [sic,=
most say=20
=C2=A320] to be paid so soon as her executors could pay the same. Also to Th=
omas=20
Bagley and to Robert Bagley, sons of the said John Bagley, 20s apiece; and t=
o=20
the poor people of Dudley all the money to her belonging which was then in=20
the hands of her son Dudd Dudley. And further she willed that Gilbert Gyllya=
n=20
and Ann Rodes should be paid all that which was then by her due to them. And=
=20
further she willed that her son, the now complainant, [Dud Dudley] should no=
t=20
see her writings, because, as she then said, he might do somebody wrong. And=
=20
all the rest, etc., she gave and bequeathed to her eight children to be=20
equally divided amongst them. And of the same her will and testament that=20
said Elizabeth did then ordain and make these now defendants Thomas Duddeley=
,=20
her son-in-law, and Henry Jevon, her servant, executors, and shortly=20
afterwards died.=E2=80=9D
So Elizabeth was not an extremely wealthy woman. She had been a kept woman=20
all her life. It was up to Lord Dudley to provide for his illegitimate=20
children in his own lifetime, which he did. Elizabeth also wanted the money=20
and possessions back that were held by Dudd Dudley, a man who was always=20
borrowing to promote his coal mining schemes. This surely did not go down=20
well with him and indicates a long-term sour relationship between mother and=
=20
son.
Also, Elizabeth Tomlinson did not want Dud Dudley to see her writings becaus=
e=20
something was there that she did not want him to know and she feared he woul=
d=20
hurt someone. Dud Dudley had a very bad relationship with John Bagley. John=20
evicted him from the manor house when he illegally took possession of it.=20
John was angry with Dud Dudley for wasting his father's fortune on his coal=20
mining schemes and bringing him to such destitution. He likely never knew=20
even that John's wife was his full-blooded sister.=20
THE ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN OF LORD DUDLEY AND ELIZABETH TOMLINSON
The visitation of Staffordshire lists the issue of Edward Sutton [Lord=20
Dudley] and Elizabeth, daughter to William Tomlinson of Dudley, concubine to=
=20
Edward, Lord Dudley. They are listed in order given, but not necessarily in=20
order of birth. The information was certified by Dud Dudley, Wolverhampton,=20
10 April 1663, many years after Elizabeth's death.
Sons:
1.Dud Dudley. listed first, but DNB said he was fourth son born 1599.
2.Edward, died young.
3.John, died young.
4.Robert, of Netherton Hall. He died in 1652, had a daughter bapt. July 21,=20
1614.
Daughters:
1.Elizabeth, wife to Geffrey Dudley.
2.Jane, wife to Richard Parkhouse.
3.Catherine, wife of Thomas Dudley (the one mentioned in will).
4.Alice, wife of George Guest.
5.Dorothy, wife of Thomas Brooke of Sedgley.
6.Susan, died young.
7.Martha, wife of Thomas Wilmer.
Notice that Elizabeth left clothing to her five daughters in her will, yet=20
there are six daughters mentioned in the visitation. Perhaps one had already=
=20
died. Also notice that the wife of John Bagley is not listed. The only=20
reason I can think for this is that Elizabeth's first daughter's identity=20
remained secret, known to only a few and eventually to Edward Bagley. She wa=
s=20
well provided for by the bequests to John Bagley that made him a very wealth=
y=20
man. Obviously, Dudd Dudley either did not know that the enemy that made his=
=20
life difficult, John Bagley, was married to his sister, or it was convenient=
=20
for him to ignore it because he would profit by not relating the truth. Dudd=
=20
Dudley did accuse Lord Dudley of influencing Elizabeth's will and was angry=20
enough to contest it. In fact, the matter went to court because her will was=
=20
contested by Dudd Dudley. She had so little to distribute -- clothes and a=20
few pounds -- that this is probably the reason it took six years to get to=20
court. Dudd Dudley did not want to give up his mother's money and=20
possessions and give it to the needy! He had better uses for it, or so he=20
thought. Just before she died, Elizabeth Tomlinson gave a house to another=20
of John Bagley's sons -- another John Bagley -- perhaps the very home she=20
lived in. That probably did not set well with Dudd Dudley either. He was=20
almost completely shut out by his mother's will. Obviously, there was=20
something very wrong with their relationship and Dudd Dudley was a very=20
difficult family member.
Finally, notice that in Elizabeth's will, "all the rest, etc., she gave and=20
bequeathed to her eight children to be equally divided amongst them." Yet=20
she had only seven living children. The clothes were distributed to her five=
=20
daughters and she had only two living sons. The visitation said she had six=20
married daughters and gave the names of their husbands. Was one daughter=20
actually denied the clothing? Probably not -- one was probably dead. So wher=
e=20
is that extra child? This could it have been John Bagley's wife, remembered=
=20
after all on the death bed with at least a token inheritance.
Also, notice that Elizabeth did bequeath money after death and clothing to=20
her illegitimate children ... so much for bastards not being able to inherit=
=20
anything. It appears that the letter of the law was not followed in this cas=
e.
I really believe, at this point, that John Bagley's wife was an illegitimate=
=20
daughter of Edward Sutton, the Lord Dudley, and that is why all the=20
circumstantial evidence supports this conclusion. Even the naming patterns=20
testify to this -- there is a Dudd Bagley, son of John as well. We have been=
=20
over the naming patterns before, and it has been argued that Lord Dudley=20
could have been a godfather and there was at least one other person named=20
Dudley who was no relation -- but we are talking serious naming patterns tha=
t=20
go on for generations. (See THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION OCTOBER 1996 for the=20
considerable circumstantial evidence.)
I still believe that Col. Hansen's article is wrong and his logic is faulty=20
in this case,=20
The royal ancestry of the Bagley descendants should be reinstated, or at=20
least not relegated to the delete key or the waste basket.
- Ken
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF=3D"http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm">;
http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm</A>;
=20
This thread: