GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986348014


From: "Leo van de Pas" <>
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:33:34 +0800
References: <64.ca52dbf.27fbce19@aol.com>


Dear Ken,
You make it obvious that I owe this French lady an apology, she seems to
have contributed something of interest after all. Being in Australia, the
work of Col. Hansen and the questions about Elizabeth Tomlinson are new to
me. However, I find them very interesting in the way you presented the
events.

Still, you present it it a way that you presume people know who you are
talking aboutand, people knowing the Hansen article, do just that. May I ask
and try to establish part of the official family tree. I hope you will tell
me where I go wrong.

Using your dates, I can only presume that father Lord Dudley is
Edward Sutton, 4th Lord Dudley who died in 1586.

Son Lord Dudley is then Edward Sutton, 5th Lord Dudley who lived from 1567
till 1643. Which means that he was alive when his (and Elizabeth
Tomlinson's) grandson was the executor of the estate. 5th Lord Dudley
married Theodocia Harrington (her parents are N 12327 and N12328 in Paget's
book on the ancestors of Prince Charles. Edward was only about 15 when he
married, how old was Theodocia? I have five children recorded from this
marriage and am not certain of their dates of birth.
Mary born 2 October 1586
Sir Ferdinando born in 1588
Anne born about 1590 (?)
Margaret born about 1592 (?)
Theodosia born about 1594 (?)
The years for the last three are only guess work.
Ken, you tell that the 5th Lord Dudley already had one daughter by Elizabeth
Tomlinson before his father died in 1586 and that others were born after
1586. Was he fathering children simultaneously by wife and mistress? Can
you give the names and dates of birth for his children by Elizabeth
Tomlinson?

I am very interested in hearing what others, who know more about this
situation, can contribute, whether they accept the proposition made or not.
You may be settling a very interesting question.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 9:08 AM
Subject: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I



We could be on the edge of actually solving or at least getting some better
ideas on the relationships here.

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek wrote: "Filius, son, was changed to nepotis ex
matre, 2nd generation descendant ... this is clearly obvious on the
original..."

She is speaking of the original document where Edward Bagley is called
nephew
of the mother according to Col. Hansen's interpretation. I have not seen
that document in person, but if it is true that the words were changed by
the
magistrate from 'filius' to 'nepoti', then the relationship was not that of
a
nephew as assumed by Col. Hansen. Instead, the word nepoti would have meant
grandson. The only reason that Hansen assumed it meant 'nephew' was that an
illegitimate child could not administrate her estate. The fact that it was
changed to 'nepoti' meaning 'grandson' changes the entire legal picture, as
Edward was the legitimate son of John Bagley and his wife and could have
legally settled the estate. Hansen's rational for this was wrong from the
start.

BELOW IS THE QUOTE FROM TAG OF COL HANSEN'S ARTICLE:

"After a number of years of research on this problem, I recently found the
evidence which provided the solution, but not the solution I expected. This
was an entry in a court record which stated that on 19 June 1635, the
administration in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PCC) of Elizabeth
Tomlinson, spinster, of Tipton,
county Stafford, was granted to “Edward Bagley, nephew ex sister.” In the
original
entry in the PCC Admon Act Book 1634-36, the designation for Edward is
nepoti
ex
maitre, that is nephew through his mother. [The Latin nepoti is regularly
used in the
PCC Admon Books of this period for nephew. It cannot in this case be
translated as
grandson, for Edward Bagley, to be appointed by the court to administer the
estate,
would have been Elizabeth’s legal heir. Since Elizabeth Tomlinson never
married, none of her children or grandchildren could have been her legal
heir
or have been appointed
administrator.] Therefore, John Bagley’s wife was not an illegitimate
daughter of
Lord Dudley, but a sister of Lord Dudley’s mistress, Elizabeth Tomlinson.
This kinship
accounts for her bequests to John Bagley’s sons. Dud Dudley’s charge that
the will
was made at the instigation of Lord Dudley, which has led so many
researchers
to
conclude that Lord Dudley has a direct personal interest in the Bagley
children, can
now be rejected as not true. As the Bagley brothers were actually her
nephews, I
conclude that in testifying about her nuncupative will, Thomas Dudley
accurately
reported the last wishes of his mother-in-law."
- Col.. Charles M. Hansen, TAG,
January 1996, page 37.

There is something wrong with that position. Only John Bagley's wife would
be
excluded from inheritance if she were the daughter of Edward Sutton. Indeed
she was excluded from inheritance. I cannot see that this law would effect
Edward Bagley and keep him from being the administrator of Elizabeth
Tomlinson's estate, as Hansen assumes. Edward was not the son of Elizabeth
Tomlinson, but the grandson. His legitimacy was established as he was the
legitimate son of John Bagley and his wife.
It seems that the relationship was not even known by the court until the
last
moment
if the relationship was actually changed by the magistrate as alleged above.

William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England [book II, p. 224-5]
states, "A sixth rule or canon therefore is, that the collateral heir of the
person last seised must be his next collateral kinsman, of the whole blood.
First, he must be his next collateral kinsman, either personally or jure
representationis; which proximity is reckoned according to the canonical
degrees of consanguinity before-mentioned ... The right of representation
being thus established, the former part of the present rule amounts to this;
that, on failure of issue of the person last seised, the inheritance shall
descend to the issue of his [her] next immediate ancestor ... On failure of
brethren, or sisters, and their issue, it shall descend to the uncle ...,
the
lineal descendant of his [her] grandfather ..., and so on in infinitum."

In my previous articles and the previous conversations the focus was on a
sister of Elizabeth Tomlinson as the one who was John Bagley's wife. If one
replaces the sister with a daughter, the entire circumstantial case makes
much more sense. It had not occurred to me that Elizabeth could well have
had a daughter with Edward Sutton (Lord Dudley) who was old enough to be the
wife of John Bagley. Suddenly it clicks. The pieces come together.

SPECULATION: If John Bagley's wife was one of the first illegitimate
children
of Elizabeth Tomlinson and Edward Sutton, then she was born while Lord
Dudley's father was still alive. The elder Sutton was surely appalled with
his son's immoral conduct. He insisted that the affair be covered up and the
child was to be raised secretly./ probably by Elizabeth's mother and father
-- William and Agnes Tomlinson. This girl was probably not told who her
father really was until much later, if ever.

When The elder Lord Dudley died, the true love (and it was just that) of
Edward Sutton for Elizabeth Tomlinson could not be stopped and the affair
continued, producing many other children. These children were no longer
hidden because Edward Sutton was now the true King of the Hill. The
daughter
who eventually married John Bagley was not told that her father was also
Lord
Dudley because she was caught up in a false identity already and the family
thought that was sufficient remedy for her. Why ruin an established
falsehood and be caught in a lie?

Eventually, the truth leaked out ato Edward Bagley and he knew that he was
the grandchild of Edward Sutton. That is why the records were changed. Even
the magistrate did not know the truth of the relationship, so Edward had to
correct it. Who else could have settled Elizabeth's estate? Actually, there
was hardly an setate to settle. Her will was noncupative, the major assets
distributed in her lifetime, and the court record referred to was simple a
contesting of her will brought about by her estranged son, Dudd Dudley. If
Elizabeth's children were not eligible to administrate her 'estate' and her
brothers and sisters were not about, then what was all this about? Elizabeth
died in 1629, yet her estate remained in limbo and was not settled until
1635
when Edward was named the administrator -- six years later. And this was
not
because of clogged courts. We have clogged courts now and it does not take
that long to administrate an estate -- especially a small one. How much did
she leave?

See PART 2.










This thread: