GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986956553


From:
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:35:53 EDT



In a message dated 4/10/01 7:25:44 PM, writes:

<< KHF: Exactly ... so why were her illegitimate daughter's husbands her=20
legal administrators in 1631? =E2=89=A5=E2=89=A5

NT: Huh? >>

Huh back to you. It was not legal, so why? What is good for the goose is no=
t=20
good for the gander? Illegitimacy in any generation makes the person unable=20
to administer, yet these husbands of illegitimate daughters were called=20
administrators. Maybe I am wrong here on the law ... I am not certain about=
=20
husbands of illegitimate children. One would think they could have found a=20
less tainted administrator. And why was Edward Bagley drawn into the case=20
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=20
blood relationship of the Bagleys and the Suttons and there is nothing _but_=
=20
evidence for that relationship. All the evidence points that way.

The _only_ evidence against a blood relationship is the later court case tha=
t=20
identifies Edward as nepoti ex matre. =20

No one could have been more surprised when this was found because it=20
literally makes no sense with the other evidence. Everyone had to make a 18=
0=20
degree about face to incorporate it. Suddenly, the naming patterns, the=20
acquired wealth of John Bagley, the will of John Bagley, Elizabeth's bequest=
s=20
to the Bagley children, the leases to the Bagleys and the Tomlinsons, and th=
e=20
thousand year lease had to be explained away in other terms -- and the=20
thought that "well, perhaps they were just godchildren" replaced the=20
original, sensible conclusion that the Bagley's were Sutton's grandchildren.=
=20
All of this was because of one document ... and no one but me has dared=20
suggest that the court document was in error.

Genealogists give a hallowed bow to such findings. Such clerical records tak=
e=20
on a truth of their own despite the possibility that the record could be=20
mistaken. It is not as though we have a transcription of what happened it=20
court or that the document was signed by a magistrate. It is simply a=20
clerical record of the event being on the docket on that day. It is fallible=
.=20

Suppose I am on the docket administrating my aunt's estate and they call me=20
Kenneth Fenton instead of Finton. Will I forever be Fenton in history becaus=
e=20
they made a mistake? If this was the only record, I probably would be a=20
Fenton to all history, even though I am not!

Suppose they describe my relationship in the records as a 'nephew through th=
e=20
mother'. 'My name is Edward and I have always called this woman Elizabeth=20
Tomlinson my 'Aunt Elizabeth' because I was told that she was my mother's=20
sister. Suppose my father has recently told me that my mother was really my=
=20
aunt's child, so my 'Aunt Elizabeth' was my grandmother. Neither my Mother o=
r=20
my aunt ever told me this. I am not comfortable with this newly found fact=20
and my old ways of thought always come to the front. Elizabeth will always=20
be "Aunt Elizabeth" to me. So, how do I describe my relationship? =20

"Well," I say, "I am the son of my mother, but my mother's mother is my aun=
t=20
Elizabeth."

"Eh," says the clerk. "What was that again?" =20

"My mother's mother is the person I call Aunt Elizabeth." =20

"Very well," the clerk says .... "Son of ..." =20

"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=20
hard to reconcile the evidence with the court record that we have. =20

I have never heard of someone being a godfather to an entire group of=20
children. I find it hard to believe that a Lord of the manor would give his=20
faithful servant a thousand year lease on land when they are both old and on=
=20
the verge of death and a twenty year lease would do as well. A thousand year=
s=20
lease has to be for the benefit of other generations, so why should this lor=
d=20
be so attached to these so called godchildren when he had so many legitimate=
=20
and illegitimate offspring to care for as well? It does not make sense=20
unless they were actually his illegitimate grandchildren and he had to give=20
them something in his lifetime or they would legally never be able to have a=
n=20
advantage.

- Ken











This thread: