The Unproven Nixon Genealogy
KHF...@aol.com
In response to my post stating:
<<John Bagley was born in 1571 and married this woman in 1601, at age 30.
Joan
would have been older than John, or 32 if it were her. Agnes would have
been
24 in 1601. The women in this era married quite young and Joan would have
been not only older, but out of childbearing age. This unknown Tomlinson
woman would have had to bear nine children between 1602 and 1616. In
1616,
Joan would have been 47, so she was not the mother. >>
In a message dated 3/1/1999 6:44:58 PM, a private post stated:
<<Disagree . . . On the one hand, thirty is older than usual
for a first marriage in 1600. I suppose they couldn't have been second
marriages? On the other hand, a bridegroom of thirty is not too young for a
thirty-two year old bride. Joan absolutely was NOT out of childbearing age
at thirty and could have had a child at 47 (especially if she was having
children every two years or so) without pushing Mother Nature particularly.>>
No, they were not second marriages. Neither Joan nor Agnes have left any
other records of their existence except their birth dates. This in itself is
strange, since most women began to have families by 16 to 18 and had a child
almost every year or two. One possibility that occurs to me as that both Jane
and Agnes died young and that is why we never heard about their marriage or
their children. For John Bagley to marry a woman two years older than he who
is a spinster or even a woman of 24, like Agnes, is possible but it seems a
little odd. These other Tomlinson daughters must have been quite spinsterish,
if they were even alive! This is in great contrast to their sister Elizabeth
who bore Lord Dudley's children regularly from about age 16. Though Elizabeth
was called a spinster, it was only because she was not able to marry Lord
Dudley, the father of her eleven children. She did receive plenty of property
and had some sizable bequests in her will.
In a letter to me from 1996, before Col. Hansen found the later court record
that said Edward Bagley was the nephew of Elizabeth Thompson through his
mother, Charles Hansen wrote: "Why Lord Dudley would cause such relatively
large bequests to be made to two Bagley brothers could be explained by the
fact that they were sons of an early illegitimate daughter, born before his
relationship with Elizabeth Tomlinson."
Col. Hansen was quite willing to accept the fact that John Bagley's wife could
be an illegitimate child of Lord Dudley because the circumstantial evidence
supports it.
It was not until he found the court records identifying the woman as a
Tomlinson that he changed his mind about the kinship implied in the
circumstantial evidence.
Likewise, Neil Thompson wrote to me before Col. Hansen found the court record.
In 1996, he said: " My own view is that there are some suggestive things about
the proposed connection, but that it is far from being proved, and that the
wife of John Bagley cannot have been a daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson, even
though she may have been a daughter of Lord Dudley."
Well, that is what I am theorizing as well. You see, the only two other
Tomlinson sisters, besides Elizabeth, were Agnes and Joan. If they died
young, then who could this Tomlinson woman be? I do believe they died young
because there is no record of them whatever except their birth record.
In the following post I will reconstruct a chronology of events that help us
to understand this circumstantial evidence.
- Ken
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
_____________________HT COMMUNICATIONS____________________
PO Box 1401 Arvada, CO 80001 USA
Voice: 303-420-4888 Fax: 303-420-4845 e-mail: K...@AOL.com
Homepage: http://members.aol.com/TPConnect/Page2.html
Associated with: Thompson Starr International
[Films ... Representation ... Publishing ... Marketing]
KHF...@aol.com
Chronology of Events:
1561. William Tomlinson and Agnes Dues, parents of Elizabeth and Joan, are
married at St. Thomas.
1564. John Tomlinson is born, brother to Elizabeth and Joan.
1567. Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley, is born.
1569. Joan Tomlinson is born.
1571. John Bagley is born.
1577. Agnes Tomlinson is born, sister to Elizabeth and Joan.
1579. Conjecture: Elizabeth Tomlinson born. (The date is assumed from
baptismal records and should not be more than a year off the mark in either
direction.)
1583. Conjecture: Lord Dudley begins an affair with Joan Tomlinson. His age in
1582 was 16; her age was 14. She becomes pregnant with a daughter, name
unknown, who later married John Bagley in 1601.
1586. Lord Dudley is married to Lady Theodosia, daughter of Sir James
Harrington. His age is 19.
1586. Daughter Mary, born to Lord Dudley and Theodosia.
1588. Sir Fernando Sutton born to Lord Dudley and Theodosia. His daughter,
Frances, later married Sir Humble Ward and the title passed through this line.
1586-1593. Several more legitimate children are born to Lord Dudley and
Theodosia. Ann, married in 1615 to Hans Meinhard vol Schonberg, Margaret,
married Sir Miles Hobart, and Theodosia.
1593. Elizabeth Tomlinson, now fourteen, becomes the mistress of Lord Dudley,
begins to bear children with him.
1593-1597. Three boys and one daughter are born to Elizabeth. Two of the boys,
Edward and John, died young.
1595. Elizabeth bears another illegitimate child with Lord Dudley, possibly
Alice, the daughter who married George Guest. Guest signed a lease with John
Bagley around 1614. Alice would have been 19 by that time.
1596-1697. Elizabeth bears another illegitimate child with Lord Dudley.
Perhaps Robert Dudley, the only living older brother to Dud Dudley. Robert
signed a lease with John Bagley around 1614-16. He would have been 18 to 21 by
that time. He also was married and had a child by 1614.
1599. Dud Dudley is born to Elizabeth and Lord Dudley.
1599. John Bagley, his brother, and others arrested for assault. John is
called "yeoman" in the court records. “Yeoman” means that his social status
was that of a man who owned and worked a small piece of land, one step under
the gentry.
1601. John Bagley marries. (Was she the illegitimate daughter of Joan
Tomlinson and Lord Dudley?) John Bagley and others are again arrested on
assault charges.
1602. Edward Bagley is born and named after his possible grandfather, Lord
Dudley.
1603. According to John's testimony in court in 1631, he was employed by Lord
Dudley and kept the deer and the forest since 1603.
1603. John Bagley Jr., is born and named after his father.
1605. Dudley Bagley, 3rd son of John, is born and named after his possible
grandfather.
1606. Infant daughter of John is born and dies.
1607. Elizabeth Bagley, 1st living daughter, m John Jeavon, is born to John
and his wife.
1609. William Tomlinson dies and is buried at St. Thomas.
1610. Agnes Dues Tomlinson dies and is buried at St. Thomas.
1611. John is granted the old lodge and land around Old Park for his personal
residence by Lord Dudley. [From Exchequer Court testimony in 1631.]
1611-1616: On 12 Sept. 1616, Simon Rider testified that he had witnessed a
lease by Lord Dudley, signed at an undetermined previous time, granting John
Bagley, Robert Dudley, and George Guest "the Oulde Park and Connigree [rabbit
warren]" for twenty-one years at £100 a year. Robert was one of Lord Dudley's
illegitimate children by Elizabeth Tomlinson and George Guest was the husband
of another of her illegitimate daughters. This suggests a very close
relationship between the children of both families with both John Bagley and
Lord Dudley. In other words: kinship.
1612-1619. John Bagley’s sphere of influence in the Dudley estate grows in
leaps and bounds. He becomes responsible for leasing and property management,
which included timber and ore deposits. He receives many properties in his own
name which he can lease and pass on to his children and grandchildren.
Elizabeth benefits from the arrangement as well, receiving properties and
monies in her own name.
1612. Robert Bagley born, 4th son of John.
1613. Samuel Bagley born, 5th son of John.
1616. Richard Bagley born, 6th son of John.
1619. Dud Dudley summoned back from Balliol College by Lord Dudley to
supervise his father’s ironworks at Pensnet in Worcestershire. He begins
experiments using coal instead of charcoal to produce iron. (DNB.)
1619. John Bagley brings complaints of debt and trespass charges to court
against Thomas Hampton and William Haden on behalf of the Dudley estate.
1620. John Bagley is called "Gentleman" in Chancery court records. He has come
up greatly in worldly matters in the past twenty years and is the trusted
confidant of Lord Dudley and Elizabeth Tomlinson.
1621. Lord Dudley and Dud Dudley jointly obtain a patent from the king to
produce iron from coal on the Dudley estate.
1622. A disastrous flood wipes out the iron industry in the region, including
Dud Dudley’s ironworks.
1623. Lord Dudley helps his son Dud Dudley rebuild the ironworks.
1621-1628. John Bagley’s wife, _________ [Tomlinson] Bagley dies. Dud Dudley
produces large quantities of merchantable iron made from coal which sold for
12£ per ton.
1626. Dud Dudley marries Elinor, daughter of Francis Heaton of Groveley Hall.
1629. Elizabeth Tomlinson dies and is buried July 3.
1629. John Bagley and Lord Dudley are accused by Sir Walter Devereux of
combining to defeat his claim of default for a debt of £600. Elizabeth
Tomlinson and John Bagley were the principal recipients of the monies, but the
default on credit was by Lord Dudley.
1631. John Bagley defends his right to the Old Park lands in court against
Walter Devereux, who won some compensation from the previous suit. John
establishes that his wife is dead and that he relies on his position and the
land for the support of his motherless children.
1633. John Bagley in court against Henry Birch over some leases on Dudley
land. He was called John Bagley, yeoman, of Old Park. It suited him to take a
humbler station now that Lord Dudley was practically bankrupt. Much of the
Lord Dudley’s money was already in John’s pocket.
1633. Edward Bagley marries Olive _______.
1634. Ann Bagley born to Edward and Olive. She later married William Brinton,
and the couple would become the ancestors of General George Brinton McClellan
and Richard M. Nixon.
1635. Edward Bagley named administrator of the estate of Elizabeth Tomlinson
and recognized in court as nephew or grandson through his mother.
1637. John Bagley brings suit against Thomas Russell over lands occupied by
Thomas Jukes and Edward Bagley. He testified that the lands were due to him
from Erasmus Coleborne of Dudley, deceased, and that Edward and Jukes had
permission from him to use these lands.
1637. Sutton Bagley born to Edward and Olive. Sutton could have been named for
his grandfather, Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley. He was granted four farms and
their appurtenances by John Bagley in his will.
1637. Dud Dudley has taken over the Dudley manor home on the Dudley estate and
John Bagley does not like it. They storm the house, remove Dud Dudley, and
occupy the manor for several days. Dud Dudley's brother, Robert Dudley, and
John Bagley take possession of the property.
1638. Dud Dudley (together with Sir George Horsey, David Ramsay and Roger
Foulke), in the face of much opposition, obtains a 21 year patent to be the
exclusive producers of iron made from pit coal. (DNB)
1639. Dud Dudley sues the Dudley estate for damages in his eviction from the
manor house. One deposition is from John Bagley who testifies that William
Ward and his son, Humble Ward, had possessed the manor home (called Hymley
Hall) and had felled trees, which John had sold on Lord Dudley's orders. [It
should be noted that trees were used to produce charcoal for the making of
iron. Timber reserves were being depleted rapidly. Dud Dudley used coal, also
found on the Dudley estate, but the charcoal cartel violently opposed his
ideas.] Dud Dudley took possession of the manor house illegally (i.e., without
the approval of John Bagley, who by this time literally ran the Dudley
estate). Humble Ward was married to Lord Dudley's legitimate granddaughter and
heiress to his title. John's protection of their interests made him look good
in the eyes of the legitimate heirs who had little or nothing to do with every
day affairs.
1641. Edward Bagley, Jr., born to Edward and Olive.
1643. John Bagley granted a thousand year lease of lands in Sedgely by Lord
Dudley.
1643. Edward Bagley, helping John Bagley with estate matters, serves a summons
on John Brooke, Esq, for breach of contract.
1643. Lord Dudley dies, age 76.
1644. John Bagley (3) born to Edward and Olive.
1645. Edward Bagley dies suddenly and unexpectedly. His widow Olive outlived
him by thirty years and became a Quaker.
1647. John Bagley appointed to administer the will of his brother George.
1648. John Bagley dies 15 May, age 77. He was a wealthy man.
1648. Dud Dudley is a colonel in the army of Charles I.
1651. Dud Dudley and two partners begin to erect new furnaces for ironworks at
Bristol.
1663. Dud Dudley certifies the information for the herald's visitation on
information about his family. His resentment toward John Bagley’s control
over the Dudley affairs has colored his entire life. He does not feel that he
has been granted favors according to his “birth right.”
1665. Dud Dudley published his book on making iron from coal, Metallum
Martis.
1684. Dud Dudley dies and is buried at St. Helen’s Church, Worcester.
Reedpcgen
discovery of new evidence which had to be thrown out.
You post private statements Charles Hansen and Neil Thompson made before the
evidence was discovered. Both men are intelligent and shrewd. They were able
to come to like conclusions based on the new factual evidence and throw out
what is now unsupported speculation, both being convinced of the evidence after
very careful scrutiny and evaluation. If it were reasonable to still make the
connection you propose, I know they would have done so in the article,
proposing it as a possibility. But they did not.
The evidence they have put forth is clear. What do you have that is concrete,
or documented? Wishful thinking is one of the most dire pitfalls of our field.
pcr
Reedpcgen
>in
>1582 was 16; her age was 14. She becomes pregnant with a daughter, name
>unknown, who later married John Bagley in 1601.
Really, this is extraordinary conjecture! Without documentation it's extreme
to the absurd. It's one thing to have a child, assuming she could at age
fourteen. It's another thing to assume an ongoing relationship between
children which was not stopped by his family. One might believe that as an
adult he could carry on such a thing, but as a minor before his own marriage
ruining better future prospects?
>Yeoman” means that his social status
>was that of a man who owned and worked a small piece of land, one step under
>the gentry.
It's also one step above husbandman, and varied greatly in use, depending on
the region.
How about that Bagley was a loyal and faithful servant, and thus trusted
service accounts for the favor of Lord Dudley? And that through hard work and
ambition he rose to the status of gentleman, though still servant? Would this
simple explanation not satisfy the evidence?
pcr
KHF...@aol.com
Elizabeth Tomlinson’s nuncupative will, dated 3 July 1629: “set out in the
joint and severall answeres of Thomas Duddeley and Henry Jevon, two of the
defendants to a bill filed in Chancery 23 May 1631 by Dud Dudley of Tipton,
gent. It is as follows: The said Elizabeth, being visited with sickness
whereof she afterwards dyed, did by word of mouth only, without writing, will
and declare how and in what manner her said personal estate should be disposed
of after her decease, which was to this purpose and effect following, that is
to say: She did will and bequeath to her five daughters all her wearing
apparel. And also she did will and bequeath to Edward Bagley, son of John
Bagley, £30, and to Dudde Bagley his brother £30 [sic, most say £20] to be
paid so soon as her executors could pay the same. Also to Thomas Bagley and to
Robert Bagley, sons of the said John Bagley, 20s apiece; and to the poor
people of Dudley all the money to her belonging which was then in the hands of
her son Dudd Dudley. [Aha! I will bet Dud Dudley was not happy with that
provision.] And further, she willed that Gilbert Gyllyan and Ann Rodes should
be paid all that which was then by her due to them. And further she willed
that her son, the now complainant, [Dud Dudley] should not see her writings,
because, as she then said, he might do somebody wrong. And all the rest, etc.,
she gave and bequeathed to her eight children to be equally divided amongst
them. And of the same her will and testament that said Elizabeth did then
ordain and make these now defendants Thomas Duddeley, her son-in-law, and
Henry Jevon, her servant, executors, and shortly afterwards died.”
Besides the bequests to John Bagley's children, she said that she willed that
her son, "the now complainant, [Dud Dudley] should not see her writings,
because, as she then said, he might do somebody wrong."
We do not know what she meant by that, but she was obviously hiding something.
My entire point with all this verbiage is that when Col. Hansen found that
record that stated that Edward Bagley (son of John) was a nephew of Elizabeth
through his mother, he only considered that either Joan or Ann was the person
referred to. Since they both have no record of having children or marriages or
even a death record, I think they could well have died young and I consider
this the best explanation of their disappearance from the records while
everyone else in the family is recorded.
That is why I surmise that 14-year-old Joan may have had a pregnancy with
Edward, Lord Dudley ... and she may have died in childbirth or shortly after.
That child, then, would still have been a Tomlinson (making Elizabeth the aunt
of Edward). I conjecture that this infant was taken in as a daughter of the
Tomlinson family, though she could have been raised elsewhere. If Agnes also
died young, then Elizabeth would have been five years old when the girl was
taken into the family and raised as another sister.
Later, when Elizabeth has an affair with Lord Dudley, Elizabeth could have
reminded Lord Dudley of Joan, his first true love, and the family would have
resolved to keep the other "sister's" true father as much of a secret as
possible due to the stigma of Lord Dudley having children with two sisters
from the same family, even though these relationships were spread over a
period of time. It would be impossible to keep this knowledge from Elizabeth,
as she could remember at age five that a new baby came into their lives.
However, Elizabeth and Lord Dudley himself could have agreed that it should
not be common knowledge that he had a child by Joan, especially so after they
began bearing a string of children. It would be most awkward to talk about the
dead Joan on a regular basis. If Lord Dudley had been so infatuated with Joan
that he sought her out again in her sister, then he would know to keep his
mouth closed about the resemblance that he carried in his memories. They could
both have well decided to hide this fact from their children and nothing came
out about the actual relationship of John Bagley's wife until after Elizabeth
died in 1629. Her child, Dud Dudley, and his brother Robert were the only
surviving males.
Elizabeth's son, Dud Dudley had already been in business with his father, Lord
Dudley, in the iron works. Dud Dudley was an inventive, creative, and
ambitious man. Yet, John Bagley was in charge of practically the entire
estate. John and Dudley clashed and actually went to court. Could Dud Dudley
have been surprised in 1635, when Elizabeth's will was resolved, to find that
all the children of John Bagley were as much sons and daughters of Lord Dudley
as he was? This information could have come directly from John Bagley, the
man who married this unnamed Tomlinson woman. That would open a can of worms
about inheritance and help to explain the desperate acts of Dud Dudley in
taking over then manor house in 1637.
To me, John Bagley's rise to such power can best be explained by kinship.
Though it is possible that he rose on his own merits, all the other affairs of
the estate were handled by kin, as is usual for such families.
As one person wrote to me: "... in Elizabethan England, Arthur Tudor & Henry
VIII and Catherine of Aragon, and Henry VIII and Mary & Anne Boleyn, would be
an EXCELLENT reason not even to THINK about becoming involved with two
sisters. The 'dead wife's sister' was a public question in Victorian times
[the quotation is from a Gilbert & Sullivan lyric which mentions it in
passing, clearly expecting the audience to follow the reference] and the law
changed after World War I. Remember, when you and the wife or mistress became
One Flesh, her sister became your sister and
therefore off limits. In recent decades, I have known a few couples who were
in-laws for many years and on being widowed, married each other."
That Elizabeth and Edward Dudley loved one another deeply is shown in the
seven children Elizabeth birthed with Lord Dudley. Elizabeth continued to be
well provided for by Lord Dudley her entire life.
The naming patterns in both the John Bagley family (down to grandchildren) and
Elizabeth Tomlinson's family are filled with Dudley names. Though the Bagley
family could have been godchildren, I do not think that explanation is
satisfactory.
Though others in the parish that are unrelated are sometimes named for the
Dudleys, we have lots of onomastic evidence that John's wife was Lord Dudley's
illegitimate daughter. In1637, Sutton Bagley was born to Edward and Olive.
Sutton was likely to have been named for his grandfather, Edward Sutton, Lord
Dudley. He was granted four farms and their appurtenances by John Bagley in
his will. If the Bagley children were only godchildren, why would these naming
patters persist for generations?
Up until Col. Hansen discovered that John Bagley's wife was a Tomlinson, most
experts agreed that circumstantial evidence pointed toward John's wife being
an illegitimate daughter of Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley. They began to sing a
different tune afterward because they thought that the legal evidence
suggested otherwise.
I have shown another alternative. If this is this stuff of historical fiction
and an exercise in creative writing, then it is a great romantic story with
the roots in soundly supported by possibility. If this conjecture is
accurate, then the descendants of the Bagley family have been divested of
their birthright.
It is not likely that we will ever know beyond the shadow of a doubt if this
conjecture is historical fact. There still may be some record somewhere that
may shed some more light, but it seems that all the facts that can be known
are already in. Are these facts enough to tip the scales and accept that John
Bagley's wife was a daughter of Lord Dudley? People will disagree about this.
Either alternative is quite plausible.
Thus, this genealogy, like many other unproved connections, comes down to a
matter of belief. It is neither proved nor unproved and will likely forever
be that way.
Reedpcgen
>record that stated that Edward Bagley (son of John) was a nephew of Elizabeth
>through his mother, he only considered that either Joan or Ann was the person
>referred to.
No, that is not true. He took into account your scenario too, but had to
discard it. (After all, he's a descendant and would like nothing better than
to have this descent added to what's left of his noble ancestry.) It's just
that they were the most likely candidates to have been the mother, according to
KNOWN facts. Just because no marriage record survives does not mean they died
young or did not marry. They may have married in a different parish, and then
been known by a different surname, thus disappearing from your scrutiny. That
there is NO burial record for them would suggest one of them (or both) lived
and married (though possibly in a different parish). Once married to John
Bagley, her identity in records would have changed.
> I consider
>this the best explanation of their disappearance from the records while
>everyone else in the family is recorded.
If everyone else in the family is recorded, then where is the name of John
Bagley's wife? He was baptized and resided at Dudley too.
>That is why I surmise that 14-year-old Joan may have had a pregnancy with
Edward, Lord Dudley ... and she may have died in childbirth or shortly after
[**so then where's her burial record?**]. That child, then, would still have
been a Tomlinson (making Elizabeth the aunt of Edward)>
NO, if John Bagley's wife were daughter of Joan Tomlinson by Lord Darcy, it
would make that child Elizabeth Tomlinson's niece. Edward Bagley would be a
generation further removed. One would expect different Latin terminology to
have been used in the probate act if the relationship were as you claim.
But the inference you are missing is that Edward was the LEGAL administrator,
and a legal heir, being legitimate (not illegitimate) son of Elizabeth
Tomlison's sister, and thus able to withstand any legal dispute brought by Dud
Dudley, who later sued on the authority of a claimed deed or indenture.
>Later, when Elizabeth has an affair with Lord Dudley, Elizabeth could have
reminded Lord Dudley of Joan, his first true love,>>
ARGHH! First true love?!?!? HOW do you know these details? What rampant
supposition are you proposing as fact? This is the very same type of thing
those armchair dilettantes produced that was so abhorred by Donald Lines
Jacobus. Facts, man, we want facts! You are dragging us back to that period
when genealogists were despised and ridiculed by legitimate historians! Let's
hold up some level of scholarship here!
(1) William Brinton, in writing the account of his wife's family (she was
daughter of Edward Bagley, son of John Bagley), stated that "they were not of
mean rank as to worldly account." We might interpret this to mean that they
were not husbandmen or laborers. Yeomen would work. BUT if they were of the
gentry or illegitimate descendants of a Lordly house, this would seem a very
odd phrasing. Elizabeth Tomlinson's sons were styled gentlemen, and recorded
in the Visitation of Stafford.
(2) Lord Dudley had eleven illegitimate children by Elizabeth Tomlinson. This
is not in dispute.
(3) A MAIN point of fact is that John Bagley's eldest son Edward Bagley
administered the estate of Elizabeth Tomlinson as 'NEPOTI EX MATRE' or nephew
by way of his mother. Therefore John's wife was Elizabeth Tomlinson's legal
sister. HER (Elizabeth's) own children could not administer her estate by law
because they were illegitimate, and thus legally incapable, children of no one.
(4) William Tomlinson of Dudley, co. Stafford, married Agnes Dues at St.
Thomas, Dudley, in Feb. 1561/2. Elizabeth Tomlinson and her sister [whose
given name is not documented], wife of John Bagley, were two of their children
[Elizabeth's father is specifically stated to be William Tomlinson of Dudley in
the Visitation of Stafford, 1663-4, p. 114]. There is NO reason to believe
that John Bagley's wife and Elizabeth were not the legitimate children of this
couple. You have to fly in the face of facts and common sense to make her
otherwise.
(5) Elizabeth Tomlinson, Lord Dudley's mistress, is called "spinster" in her
nuncupative will, and thus never legally married another man. Edward Bagley
was her legal administrator, as her nephew, son of her sister. If her sister
were illegitimate, and John Bagley's wife were not daughter of William and
Agnes (Dues) Tomlinson, the relationship would not have been stated thus in the
legal record. Further, Lord Dudley had provided handsomely for Elizabeth and
her children. If John Bagley's wife were also a daughter, why would she be
shunned or given so much less?
(6) John Bagley's wife could not have been an illegitimate daughter of Lord
Dudley as it would mean her sister Elizabeth would also be an illegitimate
daughter [as Elizabeth was unmarried and sister of John Bagley's wife], and
thus Lord Dudley would have had to take his own illegitimate daughter as
concubine! There is, of course, pushing the interpretation, but you see what
I'm getting at. You are going to extraordinarily absurd lengths to force
something that just isn't there.
>To me, John Bagley's rise to such power can best be explained by kinship.
>
It could also more simply be explained if John Bagley were a loyal retainer
(whether relative or no, we know he was loyal and hard working or he would not
have been advanced in Lord Dudley's service). He was deer keeper for some
years before granted the lodge. After all, Dud Dudley had been set up with
enough money to erect minin goperations, etc. Was a park keeper on the same
level as this?
And what about the naming patterns? John Bagley had been a yeoman, and thus
not mean status. What if Lord Dudley (Edward Sutton) were godfather of John's
eldest son, and therefore Edward Bagley named after him?
What of the bequests to John Bagley's children? The sums are not that great,
as Dud Dudley claimed his mother had 600 l. in goods and had already provided
for her children. She would therefore be trying to help the children of her
sister advance to a reasonable degree, as her own children were already well
provided for. This was a fairly common practice at that period. After all,
the residue of her estate was to be divided among her own children, so the
Bagley boys were not getting a greater share than they were.
There is no reason to interpret the evidence other than Charles Hansen has in
his article (TAG 71:36-48).
pcr
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/3/1999 4:19:09 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<<Wishful thinking is one of the most dire pitfalls of our field.>>
Yes, it is, but this is not so much wishful thinking as it is an attempt to
point out what I believe are solid inconsistencies in the now 'closed' case
before us. I have no wish, either way, as I am not personally effected by this
line. Had I not had so much research on hand before Col. Hansen made his
discovery that Edward was a nephew of Elizabeth Tomlinson, I would not have
known any of this material. I was corresponding with some descendants, Col
Hansen and Neil Thompson about this before that court record was found and I
was rather shocked, like Col. Hansen was, at the new evidence. To me, the
discovery did not make sense in view of the circumstantial evidence.
<<How about that Bagley was a loyal and faithful servant, and thus trusted
service accounts for the favor of Lord Dudley? And that through hard work and
ambition he rose to the status of gentleman, though still servant? Would this
simple explanation not satisfy the evidence? Paul Reed>>
Yes, it does loosely 'satisfy' the evidence, but not enough for my
satisfaction.
John Bagley had extraordinary control over the Dudley estates. He ended up
with a lot of property that he could pass on to his family. His grandson,
Sutton, received four farms and their appurtenances from John Bagley in his
will ... and this is just one grandchild.
<<1583. Conjecture: Lord Dudley begins an affair with Joan Tomlinson. His age
in1582 was 16; her age was 14. She becomes pregnant with a daughter, name
unknown, who later married John Bagley in 1601. KHF>>
<<Really, this is extraordinary conjecture! Without documentation it's
extreme
to the absurd. It's one thing to have a child, assuming she could at age
fourteen. It's another thing to assume an ongoing relationship between
children which was not stopped by his family. One might believe that as an
adult he could carry on such a thing, but as a minor before his own marriage
ruining better future prospects? Paul Reed>>
But this was 'stopped' by the family and the girl could have been older than
14.
This IS extraordinary conjecture. I cannot fault Col. Hansen, Neil Thompson or
David Greene for not thinking of it. Only a creative writer like myself would
postulate something like this. The only reason I let my imagination dream up
alternatives is that I was inherently unsatisfied with the conclusion. It did
not seem to fit with the circumstantial evidence, as far as I was concerned.
I began to look for another possibility.
The actual dates for this hypothetical child of Joan should have been set a
few years later. She could have been 14, but it makes even more sense that she
would be 16 and Lord Dudley 18. If it were 1585, when Joan was 16, then the
hurried marriage to the proper Lady Theodosia that was arranged by Edward
Sutton's father would be even more logical.
1583-1585. Conjecture: Lord Dudley begins an affair with Joan Tomlinson. His
age in 1583-1585 was 16-18; her age was 14-16. She becomes pregnant with a
daughter, name unknown, who later married John Bagley in 1601.
1586. Lord Dudley is married to Lady Theodosia, daughter of Sir James
Harrington. His age is 19
All of the circumstantial evidence can be and has been explained away without
having to postulate that there was yet another Tomlinson girl. However, since
this same evidence was used before the discovery that John Bagley's wife was a
Tomlinson to point toward a familial connection with another unknown mistress
who was another illegitimate daughter of Lord Dudley, I find it difficult to
abandon this reasoning. The evidence has not changed. We just know that the
Bagley wife was a Tomlinson. Positing another illegitimate daughter of Edward
Sutton borne by Joan is the only was we can get around this obstacle. No
wonder no one else thought of it.
Recent history has made famous things known as 'sticky facts'.
These are the sticky facts that are not presently explained in this case:
1) There are no records for Joan and Agnes except their baptismal records.
The rest of the family members are fairly well documented for the time. Why
should this be? I theorize it is because they died young and there was a
family cover up to hide information that they did not want made public. There
was no reason for a cover up until Lord Dudley began his affair with Elizabeth
Tomlinson and began to have children with her c1593-1597. If he did indeed
have another illegitimate daughter in the Tomlinson house, this would not set
well with the Tomlinson parents. This hypothetical daughter would have been
around ten-years-old when Elizabeth began seeing Lord Dudley and Elizabeth
Tomlinson would have been 14 to 15.
2) There is no name for John Bagley's wife despite having a good record of
all his children. There is not even a marriage record. Nowhere is his wife's
name mentioned along with the birth of her nine children. Now this is truly
odd. It could suggest a coverup.
3) The onomastic evidence: John Bagley's first born child was named Edward
after Lord Dudley, Edward Sutton. His second born child was named John. His
third born child was named Dudley. His first daughter was named Elizabeth,
probably for Elizabeth Tomlinson. Other children were named Thomas and
Robert, names found in the Dudley family or in the illegitimate children with
Elizabeth Tomlinson. Yes, this could be excused by saying they were
godchildren, but that is a lot of god children. Also, Edward Bagley's son was
named Sutton, another generation of Dudley family naming. To me this truly
smacks of real family ties.
4) John Bagley's control over the estate and his wealth and property that was
in his name. Yes, being a good servant rewarded for his services could
explain this, but there is quite a bit of money and property involved. No way
could John have embezzled or gotten his name illegally recorded on land and
property without Lord Dudley's consent. This is more than is reasonable for a
servant.
5) Elizabeth on her deathbed warned that her son Dud Dudley should not see
her writings as he might do harm to somebody. They flags really fly here.
What on earth could he read that would cause such emotional distress? What
could she have possibly written down? Who is covering up what and from whom?
Summary:
Stranger things that what I have theorized have occurred in this world. A
family cover up would leave few records and a lot of word-of-mouth rumor.
That is exactly what we have.
Paul Reed stated that "this is extraordinary conjecture! Without
documentation it's extreme to the absurd."
We do have documentation that Edward Bagley was Elizabeth Tomlinson's nephew.
What has not been examined is: how is this so? We have assumed that it is
through her sister Joan or Agnes. Neither one of these woman actually fits the
bill. In my opinion, Joan is too old (2 years older than John) and Agnes is on
the edge. Why, if the Bagley wife were Joan or Agnes, would there be no record
it it? The best reason, in my opinion, for the Bagley wife to be unidentified
while John and all the children are well recorded is that the families covered
up her name, her origin and circumstances of her birth because of the
embarrassing, if not illegal, fact that Lord Dudley committed the sin of
cohabiting with two sisters.
Like a defense attorney, I have not presented documented proof, but I have
provided reasonable doubt about the conclusion reached by Col Hansen that the
family of John Bagley has no genetic connection with Lord Dudley. In the
presence of reasonable doubt, we cannot convict this lineage and relegate it
to the garbage bin of history.
Perhaps we should call in the grand jury. If I were a member of this family, I
would want DNA testing.
- Ken
Reedpcgen
ended up
>with a lot of property that he could pass on to his family.
Who was Lord Dudley supposed to trust? His illegitimate son Dud Dudley who was
not even trusted by his mother Elizabeth in her dying wish that he be prevented
from seeing her writings and that whatever money was in his hands be
distributed among the poor? And then if he gave property to his illegitimate
children it could later be disputed by his legitimate heirs, who would not be
without infl
uence at court.
As to the property, what SPECIFICALLY is your idea of "a lot of property"? And
what was the value of those four farms? And is it amazing that during the
reign of King James I that a trusted man like John Bagley would prosper enough
to acquire several farms?
If you're going to make a claim, you need to be able to back it up with
documentation IF what you are claiming is supposed to be FACTUAL.
FURTHER, it is vital to your point to understand exactly what the value of John
Bagley's estate was at his death. Was it in reality such a LARGE PROPORTION
[which seems to be what you are stating] of Lord Dudley's estate and that which
he had already settled upon his children and mistress? After all, the children
were legally incapable of direct inheritance, so he had to set them up before
his death.
KHF: >The evidence has not changed. >>
Yes, it has, which was the reason the conclusions had to change.
KHF: >We just know that the
>Bagley wife was a Tomlinson. Positing another illegitimate daughter of Edward
>Sutton borne by Joan is the only was we can get around this obstacle. No
>wonder no one else thought of it.
No, you are wrong, we thought of this, but it DOESN'T work taking the factual
matters into account. You have SKIPPED over how to explain the Latin
terminology used in the probate act book which described Edward Bagley as
"nepoti ex matre". This is the obstacle YOU must get around and explain, which
so far you haven't.
Now to your points, or 'sticky facts':
>1) There are no records for Joan and Agnes except their baptismal records.
>The rest of the family members are fairly well documented for the time. Why
>should this be?
Have you seen the actual parish register? Parts of it appear to be incomplete,
and parts are illegible. Further, it was QUITE common to marry outside the
parish of birth. Not all parishes in that neighborhood have records surviving
from that period.
And again, you keep skipping over the fact that there is no burial record for
Agnes or Joan. How do you account for that? If they died young, where is the
burial record?
Is it not more likely that they married in a neighboring parish, like Oldbury,
Cradley or Romsley, co. Worcester, or West Bromwhich, Great Barr, Aldridge,
Rushall, Stonnall, or Kingswinford, co Stafford, none of which have surviving
marriage records in the form of parish registers early enough to serve your
requirements? Have you taken this into consideration?
Why should we theorize a cover up to hide information when a marriage in a
neighboring parish is a more likely and reasonable answer?
KHF: >2) There is no name for John Bagley's wife despite having a good record
of
>all his children. There is not even a marriage record. Nowhere is his wife's
>name mentioned along with the birth of her nine children. Now this is truly
>odd. It could suggest a cover up
>
Again, ARGGHH! Again, WHAT IF John Bagley married in one of those parishes
without surviving records for the year of their marriage? That would explain
it. As to the mother not being mentioned in the baptismal entries, HAVE YOU
CHECKED the register to see if the names of the other mothers were given during
this period before making such a claim? [!] And good thing they hired the
rector of that parish and clerk to aid and abet them in this comprehensive
cover up over a period of years.
>3) The onomastic evidence:
Elizabeth, Robert, and Thomas are common English names, as is John. Godparents
to the rescue for Edward, Dudley and Sutton. This is one of the weakest
points. I suggest that until you can resolve my other points that this cannot
be considered proved or disproved.
>4) John Bagley's control over the estate and his wealth and property that was
>in his name. Yes, being a good servant rewarded for his services could
>explain this, but there is quite a bit of money and property involved.
EXACTLY HOW MUCH AND WHAT PROPORTION OF HIS ESTATE was this? A good way to
determine this would to be to have the Subsidy Rolls checked for both men to
see how their holdings fluctuated.
FURTHER, Lord Dudley became heavily indebted in later years. It is quite
believable that he would shuttle some of the property to John Bagley to try to
preserve it, or at least keep it out of the hands of debtors.
>5) Elizabeth on her deathbed warned that her son Dud Dudley should not see
>her writings as he might do harm to somebody. They flags really fly here.
>What on earth could he read that would cause such emotional distress?
Uh, could it be that Dud was a hot head and had already wasted the monies he
had received? And that he would try to weasel out his siblings' inheritance
through law suits?
KHF: >We do have documentation that Edward Bagley was Elizabeth Tomlinson's
nephew.
>What has not been examined is: how is this so?
Who has not examined how this is so? Me? Charles? Neil? Dave? The other
readers who proof TAG and are experts in this period? Again,
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE PHRASE nepoti ex matre?
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE PHRASE
nepoti ex matre? [repeated in case glossed over the first four times]
Looking forward to your explanation.
Cheers!
pcr
Sharp, Ann
> If either sister were in a different parish, how in the world would one of
> them have met and married John Bagley? At this time he did not leave the
> forests of the Dudley estate.
>
Or he regularly went to the next parish to have Sunday dinner at his
married sister's. Or he had a matchmaking aunt or sister-in-law [to
re-taste the exact flavor of this, re-read the Paston letters that deal with
John Paston's efforts to find a wife].
> A. Sharp
> ax...@pge.com
>
> Feudalism: when it's your Count that votes.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
KHF...@aol.com
John Bagley is identified with the name Joan or Agnes, the only sisters of
Elizabeth Tomlinson. If it is neither person, then my hypothetical
illegitimate daughter is the only other possibility.
If Joan or Agnes survived to maturity and bore children, we should find a
record of this -- perhaps in another parish.
Identifiying the woman is essential to closing the case and this has not been
done.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/4/1999 3:56:47 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<<No, that is not true. He [Hansen] took into account your scenario too, but
had to
discard it. >>
Col. Hansen and I did have contact on this matter, but well after he wrote the
article and had made up his mind.
<<That there is NO burial record for them would suggest one of them (or both)
[that is, sisters Joan and Agnes] lived and married (though possibly in a
different parish). >>
That is why more research might turn up some data. Without a complete
prosopography for that era, this could be a very difficult task. If parish
records were on computer files, one could search by names. If either sister
were in a different parish, how in the world would one of them have met and
married John Bagley? At this time he did not leave the forests of the Dudley
estate.
<<If everyone else in the family is recorded, then where is the name of John
Bagley's wife? He was baptized and resided at Dudley too.>>
Yep, that's what I am asking too.
<<if John Bagley's wife were daughter of Joan Tomlinson by Lord Darcy, it
would make that child Elizabeth Tomlinson's niece. Edward Bagley would be a
generation further removed. One would expect different Latin terminology to
have been used in the probate act if the relationship were as you claim. >>
With nepoti one never knows. Grandchild, nephew, or just plain relation. So
far as I know there is not another Latin term used in this time. If they used
that awful word nepoti for grandson or nephew or relation, surely they were
not into fine distinctions in relationships.
<<the inference you are missing is that Edward was the LEGAL administrator>>
No, this is not lost on me. It is entirely irrelevant. He was legal
administrator because he was the legitimate son of John Bagley who was legally
married.
Elizabeth's children with Lord Dudley were from illegitimate.
<<ARGHH! First true love?!?!? HOW do you know these details? >>
Ah, that is just the storyteller in me coming out to make a possible point.
Of course I do not know the details. I am merely trying to recreate the
possible psychology of the matter. No reason to vomit.
<<(1) William Brinton, in writing the account of his wife's family (she was
daughter of Edward Bagley, son of John Bagley), stated that "they were not of
mean rank as to worldly account." We might interpret this to mean that they
were not husbandmen or laborers. Yeomen would work. BUT if they were of the
gentry or illegitimate descendants of a Lordly house, this would seem a very
odd phrasing. Elizabeth Tomlinson's sons were styled gentlemen, and recorded
in the Visitation of Stafford. >>
This proves nothing. John Bagley was called yeoman, then gentleman, and back
to yeoman again in the court records.
1599. John Bagley, his brother, and others arrested for assault. John is
called "yeoman" in the court records. “Yeoman” means that his social status
was that of a man who owned and worked a small piece of land, one step under
the gentry.
1620. John Bagley is called "Gentleman" in Chancery court records. He has come
up greatly in worldly matters in the past twenty years and is the trusted
confidant of Lord Dudley and Elizabeth Tomlinson.
1633. John Bagley in court against Henry Birch over some leases on Dudley
land. He was called John Bagley, yeoman, of Old Park. It suited him to take a
humbler station now that Lord Dudley was practically bankrupt. Much of the
Lord Dudley’s money was already in John’s pocket.
<<(2) Lord Dudley had eleven illegitimate children by Elizabeth Tomlinson.
This
is not in dispute. >>
Yes,. What is the point?
<<(3) A MAIN point of fact is that John Bagley's eldest son Edward Bagley
administered the estate of Elizabeth Tomlinson as 'NEPOTI EX MATRE' or nephew
by way of his mother. Therefore John's wife was Elizabeth Tomlinson's legal
sister. HER (Elizabeth's) own children could not administer her estate by law
because they were illegitimate, and thus legally incapable, children of no
one.
Yes, what is the point?
(4) William Tomlinson of Dudley, co. Stafford, married Agnes Dues at St.
Thomas, Dudley, in Feb. 1561/2. Elizabeth Tomlinson and her sister [whose
given name is not documented], wife of John Bagley, were two of their children
[Elizabeth's father is specifically stated to be William Tomlinson of Dudley
in
the Visitation of Stafford, 1663-4, p. 114]. There is NO reason to believe
that John Bagley's wife and Elizabeth were not the legitimate children of this
couple. You have to fly in the face of facts and common sense to make her
otherwise.>>
You are not looking at it correctly. The argument is made that Edward could
not have been the legal representative for Elizabeth Tomlinson if his mother
were actually an illegitimate daughter of Lord Dudley. But this is not
correct. Edward was legitimate because John and his wife were legally married.
It has nothing to do with the mother's status as legitimate of illegitimate
and everything to do with the known illegitimacy of Elizabeth's children.
<<(5) Elizabeth Tomlinson, Lord Dudley's mistress, is called "spinster" in her
nuncupative will, and thus never legally married another man. Edward Bagley
was her legal administrator, as her nephew, son of her sister. If her sister
were illegitimate, and John Bagley's wife were not daughter of William and
Agnes (Dues) Tomlinson, the relationship would not have been stated thus in
the
legal record. Further, Lord Dudley had provided handsomely for Elizabeth and
her children. If John Bagley's wife were also a daughter, why would she be
shunned or given so much less? >>
What other way would this have been stated in what legal record? The only
record that exists is the chancery record that calls Edward nepoti. This has
never been a clear term. We all know that. And John Bagley did receive much
property and money. His wife shared in this. What is the point? I never said
she was shunned, just that the family would want to cover up affairs between
two different sisters.
<<(6) John Bagley's wife could not have been an illegitimate daughter of Lord
Dudley as it would mean her sister Elizabeth would also be an illegitimate
daughter [as Elizabeth was unmarried and sister of John Bagley's wife], and
thus Lord Dudley would have had to take his own illegitimate daughter as
concubine! There is, of course, pushing the interpretation, but you see what
I'm getting at. You are going to extraordinarily absurd lengths to force
something that just isn't there. >>
Elizabeth was not the daughter of Lord Dudley. This is circular logic, the
same as before. No one ever said that Lord Dudley took his own illegitimate
daughter as concubine. It is not me that is pushing the envelope. I am simply
suggesting a coverup to explain the strange facts.
The additional research that needs to be done is to properly identify the
Bagley wife. If it was Joan, then where is the record. It is the same with
Agnes. If either were previously married in another parish, we need to find
that record to prove the point. If either was married to John Bagley in
another parish we need to find that record. I do not think it will be found,
personally. If anything is found, I would be surprised if the marriage was not
to someone other than John Bagley, as I do not think either Joan or Agnes
married John Bagley.
<<There is no reason to interpret the evidence other than Charles Hansen has
in
his article (TAG 71:36-48). >>
This is not the proper response. I have definitely made a case for reasonable
doubt. The proper response is: "This is an interesting possibility in view of
the facts. Perhaps we should not be so hasty to conclude that there is no
relationship blood relationship between John Bagley's wife and Lord Dudley."
Reedpcgen
complete
>prosopography for that era, this could be a very difficult task. If parish
>records were on computer files, one could search by names.
How can you be so ignorant of research and the facts and make such definite
conclusions? I listed about a dozen neighboring parishes, the parish registers
of which do not survive early enough to solve our problem. Further, most of
the surrounding parishes, INCLUDING those in Dudley, HAVE computer indexes.
There were generated parish by parish in what was called a Parish Print-out
(PPO). And all this has been entered into the IGI. So we DO have such a data
base, and IT HAS BEEN USED! Sorry for shouting, but you are missing the most
basic fundamental points of research here, and drawing incredibly erroneous
conclusions from your ignorance. I don't mean to be rude, but those are the
facts. You wouldn't be stating these things if you had the most basic
understanding of the records and research in them. Further, Charles and Neil
both suspect that there were other Tomlinson children who were born whose
baptisms were not recorded in the register, so we don't HAVE to choose between
Joan and Agnes. [More on htis later, as I many have stumbled across the real
name of John's wife.]
>With nepoti one never knows. Grandchild, nephew, or just plain relation. So
>far as I know there is not another Latin term used in this time. If they used
>that awful word nepoti for grandson or nephew or relation, surely they were
>not into fine distinctions in relationships.
ARGGH! Terms were used in exact ways in these probate acts at this period.
Consanguineus was used when refering to distant relative. Nepos might be
grandchild, BUT YOU KEEP MISSING THE FACT that Edward Bagley could not have
been grandson & legitimate heir because Elizabeth died unmarried without
LEGITIMATE issue. Does this begin to sink in? IN FACT, the act reads "Edro~
Bagley nepoti ex matre Elizabethe Tomlinson" (FHL #93,252, folio *107* [not
207, as stated in the article]). So Edward's mother had to be the LEGITIMATE
sister of Elizabeth or she would have been legally 'heir of no one' and
incapable of inheritance. Your ignorance of the law here is what keeps you
going. You CANNOT escape the fact that Edward's mother HAD TO BE LEGITIMATE,
wether sister OR cousin. She COULD NOT have been illegitimate or Edward would
not be the legal heir! (Hello?) Can you comprehend this point? It blasts
all of your other conclusions out of the water. Just because his FATHER was
legally married does not mean there can be an illegitimacy elsewhere. It was
NOT Edward Bagley's father who was involved in this matter, but the MOTHER who
was the immediate heir of her sister, and it was Edward who was HIS MOTHER's
heir. You see how this works? It's really not that difficult. Just take it
in steps. Read it twice, and take a deep breath. You have just not understood
this point of English law clearly before, so be prepared to accept it now. I
think other readers will catch on withou tso much help.
>It has nothing to do with the mother's status as legitimate of [sic, or]
illegitimate
>and everything to do with the known illegitimacy of Elizabeth's children.
>
ARGGHH! (For reasons just stated.) Edward's mother had to be the legitimate
heir of her sister FIRST. If she wasn't, Edward could not be heir BY her. Get
it now? No illegitimacies in the chain of legitimate inheritance. That's why
they call it legitimate (they didn't mince words).
pcr
Reedpcgen
[part one:]
Edward Sutton, alias Dudley, Lord Dudley, was baptized at St. Edmund's, Dudley,
Worcester on 17 Sep. 1567. He married, 12 June 1581, at St. Benet's Fink,
London, when he would have been (apparently) about thirteen or fourteen years
old, to Theodocia Harington [CP 4:482].
Having married so young, and probably not entirely to his liking, it is not
surprising that Edward should find a local girl, Elizabeth Tomlinson, with whom
he was truly in love (or at least physically attracted to). I would think it
would have actually been love, as he was still with her some eleven children
later, long after infatuation would have worn off; and also as he had endowed
her so handsomely with lands and goods.
The State Papers state that he "betook himself wholly to a concubine [Elizabeth
Tomlinson, of Dudley], on whom he begot divers [eleven] children, and so wasted
his estate in support of her and them that he left not much of that fair
inheritance which descended to him, and it so clogged with debts that, for the
disengaging thereof, he married Frances, his granddaughter and heiress, to
Humble Ward, the only son of William Ward, a wealthy goldsmith in London,
jeweller to the late Queen." [CP 4:482, note b.]
But I think this is rather exaggerated. It is more likely that he indebted
himself not only on behalf of his mistress and their children, but also in the
pursuit of coal and ironworks, which definitely became a preoccupation of the
Lord and his illegitimate son Dud Dudley.
Lord Dudley and his son Dud were at the forefront of advancement and
experimentation with coal, iron and related fields in England, as well as the
glass making industry. Dud Dudley, born about 1599 [his baptism is not
recorded at Dudley], was "summoned from Balliol College, Oxford, to superintend
his father's ironworks at Pensnet in Worcester in 1619. These ironworks
consisted of one furnace only and two forges, all of them being worked with
charcoal." [DNB] Dud claimed to have introduced the use of coal as charcoal
and wood were becoming more scarce in the region. "On 22 Feb. 1621(-2)
Dudley's father obtained for him a patent of the king for fourteen years. [Dud
sent some of his iron to the Tower of London, and it proved successful.] The
result was favorable to Dudley, and he with his father, Lord Dudley, obtained a
special exemption from monopolies. He continued to produce annually a large
quantity of good merchantable iron, which he sold at 12 l. per ton." [DNB]
His story goes on that he was foiled by enemies, then erected a furnace at
Himley, Staffordshire, and was foiled again. He then constructed a larger
furnace at Askew/Hasco Bridge, in Sedgley, using larger than normal bellows,
"and produced what was then the record of seven tons of pig-iron weekly."
[DNB] Dudley claims he was again molested and his bellows cut to pieces. "He
was also greatly harassed by lawsuits and imprisoned in the Compter in London
for a debt of several thousand pounds, until the expiration of his patent."
But Dud came back, and with Sir George Horsey and two others, obtained a new
patent for twenty-one years on 2 May 1638. He then entered into partnership
and erected works near Bristol, but was again molested and brought into
Chancery in litigation. [DNB]
Sounds like poor Dud ,according to his own account, was in frequent conflict
with people, resulting in great trauma and litigation. No wonder his mother
might have wanted to steer clear. She knew her son, how heavily indebted he
already was in his youth, and protected the lands and goods she had by dividing
it up among her other children, even going so far as to give the money Dud had
of her to the poor. Dud was obviously obsessed with what he was doing, and not
that successful at it. Elizabeth Tomlison was simply acting intelligently and
trying to preserve her family's wealth, no thide some great family secret.
In his later age, Dud wrote "Metallum Martis: or, Iron made with pit-coal,
sea-cole, etc. and the same fuell to melt and fine imperfect metals, and refine
perfect" metals (London, 1665), but managed not to provide the details of his
process. [This is listed as no. 2438 in Early English Books, "by T. M. for the
author."]
The VCH Stafford also substantiates Lord Dudley's involvement in these
enterprises.
[2:98] "Lord Dudley had held substantial coalworks at Blackwells (Gornalwood),
Desseldine (Pensnett Chase), Hasco Bridge (Himley), and elsewhere.... In the
19th century the Dudleys were still the greatest of the South Stafford
coal-owners." [2:112] In 1595, "a blast furnace [for ironworking] at
Gornalwood was leased by Lord Dudley to Richard Hamnett." There was a forge at
Sedgley as early as 1578-85. And, a "furnace and forge, the property of Lord
Dudley, had been built on the Sour at Cradley by 1610 [2:113]."
The use of coal and furnaces also brought about glass work at some of Lord
Dudley's properties. Paul Tyzack, one early master glassmaker, relocated to
his lands. "His migration to this part of the country may well have been
encouraged by news of the experiments in the industrial use of pit coal which
were being carried out on Lord Dudley's land at Kingswinford. Dudley, when Sir
Robert Mansell's glass monopoly was being attacked ... in 1624, declared that
two years before any patent was granted glass had been made with coal on his
land by native glassmakers [Cal. S. P. Dom. 1623-5, p. 215]. The claim was
later repeated by his son Dud Dudley, who stated that the manufacture of glass
with pit coal had first been accomplished near his house--Greene Lodge, near
Greensforge in the north-west corner of Kingswinford." In the debates in 1614
about the glass patent, it was stated that Tyzack "'had the like invention' of
using coal for glass-making in Lord Dudley's woods in Staffordshire." Again in
1621 it was claimed that "Tyzack had made glass by the same process for Lord
Dudley in Staffordshire. Lisko also stated that Claude and Ambrose Henzey had
made window-glass and green-glass (i.e., bottles and phials) in Staffordshire,
using coal as fuel. By 1614 Paul Tyzack seems to have set himself up as an
independent glassmaker, possibly under the protection of Lord Dudley.... Tyzack
continued to live in Kingswinford and to makae window-glass as Colemans, a
glasshouse built by him at Hungary Hill in Stourbridge." [VCH Staff. 2:225]
Quite a number of foreign glaziers had settled in this area of England, and it
is theorized some came from as far away as Hungary. Remember that the
Conklins, early glassmakers in New England and New York, where from
Kingswinford, etc.
A new type of furnace was developed, called a 'furnace of division' where metal
was not in direct contact with the fuel, so that the heat/flame was the only
contact. "The new device was immediately taken up by Edward Lord Dudley who
owned blast furnaces and forges in the vicinity of Dudley, in the Black Country
of Staffordshire. In 1618 he made a contract with Robinson which gave him for
a limited period the use of a patent granted to Robinson in 1613 to produce
iron with mineral coal over a period of thirty-one years. In the contract of
1618 Lord Dudley not only asserted that he was the one who had paid for
Robinson's previous trials, but also that a the 'newe invencion' of smelting
with mineral coal had been imparted by him to Robinson. The purpose of the
contract was, further, to 'perfect the same worke and invencion' at Lord
Dudley's expense and to pay Robinson four shillings from each ton of iron
produced with mineral coal alone.... Apparently Lord Dudley had first given
financial assistance to Robinson and then, realizing the tremendous
possibilities, had secured for himself the right to use the new method under
Robinson's patent for further trials."
In following this up, Dud Dudley claimed he had produce at first three tons of
iron per week, and later seven tons. "At a time at which the weekly production
of pig iron was from two to three times as high, Dud Dudley's production could
not be accepted as a success ... as he asserted.... Any ironworks with a
production as small as that reported by Dud Dudley would have been condemned as
an economic failure within a short period." [H. R Shubert, _History of the
British Iron and Steel Industry from c. 450 B. C. to A. D. 1775_, 228-9.]
The point in all this is that Lord Dudley and Dud Dudley were entrepreneurs.
He was not wasting his money on the luxuries of life in London as others like
Sir Francis Baildon did (practically bankrupting his family). Lord Dudley was
investing in invention and the prospects of hitting it rich[er that he had
been]. He extended himself to purchase land that produced coal and iron, and
funded the research. So the gossip that he spent all his money on his mistress
and illegitimate children is not entirely true. And note that Lord Dudley was
heavily invested in this well before he called his son Dud back from college in
1619 to work with him at about the age of twenty.
[end of part one] pcr
Reedpcgen
It had been accepted that Dud Dudley was "the founder of the English coal-iron
industry." But that was based mainly on his own book and statements made
therein. Dr. H. R. Schubert, in "The Truth about Dud Dudley" [_Journal of the
Iron and Steel Institute, v. 166 (1950), pp. 184-5, shows that this was not the
case, and that Dud's claims were inflated, as there is no actual proof that he
had successfully produced iron using only pit-coal before 1638, and there was
actual evidence against it from contemporaneous depositions. On the plus side,
the information about Lord Dudley is true. In 1613, he was indeed "one of the
principall freindes and meanes for and to the said John Robinson for the
meltinge, produceinge and makeinge of iron stone or iron ewre (i.e., ore) into
sowe iron" with mineral coal by "a certain newe invencion and meanes which the
said Lord Dudley latelye imparted and discovered".
Depositions in 1635 by William Cope show that Dud was still trying to do this
then, and "hath bin for divers yeares last past at an extraordinarye great
charge and trouble on the said premisses for the findinge out and discoveringe
of diverse coleworkes or colemynes and of diverse ironstone mynes anad hath
likewise spent much labour, coste and travell in the invencion to make the said
iron".
Now to the estate which Dud Dudley had of his parents. We have already recited
that he had sued against his mother's estate in 1631. It is stated that his
mother Elizabeth made a nuncupative [verbal] will on 3 July 1629. This will
was never proved. THAT is why Edward Bagley, son of her sister, was found to
be her legitimate heir.
Dud stated (and this does not seem to have been disputed) that she had over 600
l. in goods and plate at the time of her death, even though her children had
already been provided for. Dud also sued for lands, ironworks, and works of
stone and coal, at Tipton Park Sedgley, Kingswinford, Rowley-Regis, and
Oldbury. Also for Tipton Park and Parkfield. Also for a farm called Priory
Lands in Sedgley. Also for Green's farm in the parish of Wombourne. Also
ground called Penset Chase containing 2,000 acres.
Dud claimed that Edward, Lord Dudley [his father!], Thomas Dudley and Henry
Jevon [his mother's executors] had "in a violent and outrageous manner" entered
into Dud's lands and house and expelled him, and again later entered his house
at Tipton and took all of his deeds and evidences. Thus Dud was left without
any proof of his claims. He claims they also forcibly took away all his stock
of ironstone and coals, and his tools and implements, and various other times
to have assaulted him and beaten him up.
Now recall in what I posted above and before that Dud had already appeared in
Chancery several times claiming that he and his works had been attacked several
times by his competitors and countrymen who also took all he had and destroyed
his works, so this is one of his favorite refrains. Also recall that there is
documentary proof that several of the claims and statements in his account
published in his own book which are certainly false. He did not go to aid his
father in 1619 to oversee the works, but was still recorded as attending Oxford
until about March 1622. So Dud's claims that not only were all his enemies
against him, but his father and family were too, begins to sound a little
paranoid. He had no proof of deeds or other evidence to substantiate his
claim, but still brought his family to court. I myself would be moved to keep
the properties out of his hands.
Dud Dudley served as a Colonel on the Royalist side by 9 March 1643/4. On
February 18, "the same morning Colonel Dudley from his quarters about Prudhoe
marched over the river with some horse and dragoons and fell into a quarter of
the enemy's in Northumberland, and slew and took all that was in it, 55
prisoners, and gave such an alarum to four of their quarters that hey quitted
them in disorder and with some loss... and Colonel Dudley perceiving a greater
force preparing to assault him retreated, and in his retreat took 8 of the
Scots prisoners both horses and men, but they took 4 of his dragoons whose
horses were so weak they could not pass over the Tyne...." [Calendar of State
Papers, Domestic, 1644, v. 19, pp. 42-3.] There was a royalist garrison at
Dudley. Dud was among the list of those [a great host] in the garrison at
Worcester at its surrender. [Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1645-7, v.
21, p. 456.]
Col. Dud Dudley, alias Sutton, of Tipton, co. Stafford, was compounded. He had
been sequestered in 1646, and compounded in 1650, 1651, and 1653 [Calendar of
... the Committee for Compounding..., p. 2611]. The Calendar of ... the
Committee for Advance[ment] of Money, pt. 3, p. 1418, states that an estate of
36 l. a year payable from Lord Ward's estate [the legitimate heir to Lord
Dudley] to Dud was discovered.
The point is, in spite of the lack of the other lands, Dud still had a sizable
estate that was on a different level than that of the Bagleys. He was a proper
gentleman. His brother Robert was described as Esquire at his death in 1653, a
distinct step above gentleman, but below knight. The Bagleys were simple
yeomen. They did not marry into the gentry, as Dud did. John Bagley was
called gentleman only once, and that in later life after he had established
himself. BUT this same John Bagley was styled yeoman many times (EVERY other
time), and also called yeoman many times AFTER the one instance he was styled
gentleman. HE CALLED HIMSELF yeoman in his own will. He knew wherewith he
stood.
So what of John Bagley's power over Lord Dudley's estate and the vast lands he
is supposed to have enmassed and been given by Lord Dudley? This is
MISCONCEPTION and fantacy that has blown up a simple yeoman into a mysterious
power. There is no evidence that Lord Dudley gave him any sizable bequests of
land or money. And this is not the status he held at the time of his death.
What are the FACTS? If we examine them carefully they are simple and clear.
John Bagley's father Thomas had an estate valued at 10 l. when he died in
1587/8. John was baptized at St. Edmund, Dudley 25 Feb. 1571/2. He was called
yeoman in 1599 when accused with others of assault. There was a writ to arrest
the group in 1599, and a different writ to arrest him and others in 1601.
John Bagley's eldest son Edward was baptized at St. Edmund, Dudley 14 Oct.
1602. I should note that I looked through the register today and found the
given name Edward to be VERY common in that parish, understandably, so this has
no great meaning whatsoever, unless taken out of context. John had other
children baptized there, up until his son Samuel in 1614. The next child,
Richard, was baptized at Sedgley 28 July 1616.
A Chancery suit in 1631 stated that he had lived at Old Park, Sedgley, since
1603, where he kept deer for Lord Dudley. (But it seems strange that his
children continued to be baptized at Dudley through 1614.) Lord Dudley granted
him the ancient [which means old, not grand] lodge and some land in Old Park
for his residence as principal deer keeper of the Lord in 1611.
SO, we see that John Bagley was about thirty when hired as a deer keeper in
1603, and that it was after eight years of faithful service, when he was nearly
forty years old, that he became principal deer keeper.
Note that this is hardly a position that would indicate that John held sway
over Lord Dudley's vast estate, lands, iron works and coal pits (recall, if you
will, the long list that Dud himself pretended to have claim to, and remember
that Lord Dudley also had a legitimate heir named Sir Ferdinando Sutton who did
indeed have inheritance of lands and the castle). So land in a deer park at
Sedgley seems actually quite reasonable for a deer keeper, even if he were head
deer keeper.
Now, by 1616 we know that John Bagley was one of three men, including George
Guest [son-in-law to Lord Dudley], Robert Dudley [son of Lord Dudley, who may
actually have been the principal grantee of this transaction], of the "Oulde
Park" and Conigree rabbit warren for the term of 21 years at 100 l. a year.
NOW, isn't it reasonable for Robert and George to have included John Bagley in
this lease, which was certainly NOT a gift (a rent of 100 l.?). Recall if you
will that the lease was Old Park and the rabbit warren. As head deer keeper,
John would have known what was going on and how to maintain it. IN FACT, John
Bagley testified in 1631, when Walter Devereux threatened to take it over, that
he had lived at Old Park for 28 years, as Lord Dudley's deer keeper, and that
if he was turned out, he WOULD LOSE HIS LIVELIHOOD upon which he relied for his
motherless children. A clear plea for pity, but this is not the claim of a
wealthy man who held large parts of Lord Dudley's estate. This is a widowed
deer keeper with children pleading for his means of support. He still resided
at Old Park, Sedgley, in 1633, when that was stated to be his place of
residence, and he was styled "yeoman."
[end of part two, of three] pcr
Reedpcgen
[part three of three:]
John Bagley was again called yeoman in 1637/8. He was associated with Robert
Dudley and Lord Dudley's retainers, but as Lord Dudley's chief deer keeper at
Old Park, this is no surprise. In 1639 he was again called John Bagley of Old
Park, yeoman. In 1647 he claimed that Lord Dudley had granted him a lease of
1,000 years for lands in Sedgley some three years previous (about 1644). It is
not surprising that Lord Dudley would grant a lease to his faithful old
retainer, then over seventy years old, especially as it was at a time of
turmoil and Civil War when Lord Dudley's lands could go either way. "old John
Bagley" was buried at St. Thomas, Dudley, on 15 May 1648.
John Bagley's will was dated 3 May and proved 8 August 1648 [PCC 127 Essex (FHL
#92,169). As there are some small inaccuracies in the summary given in the
article, I'll extract from the original. After the usual preamble, and stating
his desire to be buried in the parish church of St. Thomas, Dudley, he
bequeathed all his "Lands Tenements and hereditaments in Worstersheire and
Staffordsheire w[hi]ch I onely bought unto my twoe sonnes Duddeley Bagley and
Samuel Bagley". Remember that he lived on the border of the two counties,
Sedgley being on the Staffordshire side, and Dudley on the Worcestershire side.
He left it to them on condition that his debts be paid and they carry out the
other conditions of his will. "I give unto my sonne John Bagley the Howse
garden and Smithey nowe in the tenure and occupacon of Susan Lowe.... I give to
my sonne Robert Bagley the Howse which the Widdow dickarson dwelleth in.... I
give to my Grandchild Sutton Bagley those fower Howses which William Butler
John While John Mason and John Juckes they all liveinge in them with all their
appurten'ncs thereunto belonginge.... I give unto Elizabeth Jevon thirty
poundes beinge my Grandchild to bee paid unto her when shee shall come to age
[sic].... I give unto my Grandchild Margarett Jevan tenn poundes...." John
Bagley then stipulated that none of the legacies should be paid unless his
goods, etc., were of a sufficient amount to pay his debts. Duddeley Bagley and
Samuell Bagley his two sons were made sole executors, and each given twenty
shillings, aside from whatever residue might be left of his personal estate.
John Willmer, Jeffery Atwood, and Jeffery ffinch were witnesses.
Note that there were no farms, just houses which would have provided some small
rent. The statement that Sutton Bagley was given four farms was inaccurate and
misleading.
So analyzing this will, we see that old John Bagley, approaching eighty, was of
modest, but respectable means at the time of his death. He was what one would
expect a yeoman to be. He did not have extensive estates, and might even be
considered a modest yeoman compared to the lands some yeomen I am aware of held
at their deaths.
SO, what do we make of all this? John Bagley was deer keeper of Lord Dudley, a
modest yeoman, and a faithful retainer of Lord Dudley, who supported his lord
and was associated with his family. It would be because his wife was Lord
Dudley's mistress that he rose to the level he did, and the bequests of 30 l.
and 20 l. she made to two of his sons must have been a great help, but were
only a small token of the 600 l. in goods and many landholdings she had at her
death. And it is likely that John Bagley was closely associated with and knew
his sister-in-law Elizabeth Tomlison's family, probably aiding her and her
eleven children when Lord Dudley was unable to be around. That is completely
believable. Not a flight of fancy.
So what of the naming patterns of John Bagley's sons? Well, that his eldest
son was named after his master and in reality his common law brother-in-law
[though they were of completely different means and status], Edward Sutton,
alias Dudley, is not in the slightest bit amazing. Edward was a common given
name in the parishes at Dudley. As to Dudley and Sutton, they were not only
the surnames of his lord, but his sister-in-law had an older child named Dudley
born before John's third son who bore that name.
Were there others at the parish of Dudley who bore these given names who are
entirely unrelated? Well, one person is Dudley Cary, baptized 9 Oct. 1591, 4th
son of John Carey of Dudley, Stafford, who was in turn fourth son of Thomas
Carey of Cockington, Devon, second son of Robert Carey of Carey. We know this
Dudley Carey's ancestry for generations and there is no overlap with Lord
Dudley's ancestry until you go back many generations into royalty and the
higher peerage. So it happened, and is not definite proof of anything.
And what of Ferdinando Ward Bagley, living in 1716?!? By KHF's logic, he would
have to be an illegitimate connection or love child of one of the descendants
of Frances, daughter and heir of Sir Ferdinando Dudley (Lord Dudley's only
legitimate son and heir), which Frances married Humble Ward, whose children
succeeded as Lord Dudley and Baron Ward.
Now, in looking over things I wish I had access to here (but are at the PRO), I
noted the following, which looks mighty interesting. Chancery Proceedings,
Series II, Bundle 395, no. 11 [L & I, v. 30, p. 137], is a suit brought by John
Bagley and MARGERY his wife, against Thomas Eld. The calendar states that it
involved land in Alrewas, co. Stafford, and was dated between 1626 and 1639.
This could pertain to our John, but the original is mutilated. Alrewas is
about seventeen miles northeast of Sedgley, so it may be another John Bagley
entirely. We will have it checked, just in case.
Now to the mysterious conspiracy of missing baptisms. Let's use a little
common sense and what we know from factual records to test KHF's hypothesis.
Richard Bagley was baptized 1567. He married Alice, but we have no marriage
date! If Richard were a female, his name would have changed, he would have
disappeared from records, and KHF would have concluded he died young, even
though there was no burial record. This Richard had an eldest son named
Richard, but there is no recorded baptism! Must be a conspiracy to hide an
illegitimacy. Oh, but the Kingswinford register does not begin until 1603,
after the time of his birth. Hmmm. Then we have George Bagley, Thomas's
brother. No baptism! But the REST of the family is recorded there! Must be a
conspiracy. Who hired these clerics anyway? At least George was buried and
left a will. Ooh, ooh, John's eldest son Edward was baptized in 1602 , and
married Olive, but we have no marriage date! Again, had this been Agnes or
Joan, KHF would have concluded he/she died young, even though there was no
burial. After all, Edward MUST have married at Dudley, not a neighboring
parish. Ah, oh, ... John's second son John had a wife named Margaret, but
again we have no marriage record! Ditto on KHF's hypothesis. Dudley Bagley's
second daughter has no baptism. But the rest of the family is there at
Dudley!, except the sister Elizabeth. Whoops. Oh, and we know the second
daughter, for whom we have no baptism, or marriage record, married Jevon Harper
from other records. KHF would have concluded that not only was she not
baptized, she died young! This is mainly tongue in cheek, but his theory and
conclusions are utterly silly. If you apply it in one place, you should apply
it in the other. And you see how well it works here. ; )
So, what leg is there left to stand on? Please summarize for me what you have
left as I don't see anything immediately except wishful thinking.
It's been fun, and I hope a little enlightening.
pcr
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/5/1999 3:10:07 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<<Lord Dudley became heavily indebted in later years. It is quite
believable that he would shuttle some of the property to John Bagley to try to
preserve it, or at least keep it out of the hands of debtors. >>
That is a very good point, Paul. And I am as tired of speculation as you are.
Perhaps a little cooperation by list members could find some pertinent
information and bring this matter to a just conclusion. I am very grateful
for your pointers in showing where more information could be located. All we
need is for someone in the geographic area to take up the banner and check it
out.
<<Is it not more likely that they married in a neighboring parish, like
Oldbury,
Cradley or Romsley, co. Worcester, or West Bromwhich, Great Barr, Aldridge,
Rushall, Stonnall, or Kingswinford, co Stafford, none of which have surviving
marriage records in the form of parish registers early enough to serve your
requirements? Have you taken this into consideration? >>
I am actively seeking help in locating this information. Anyone with access to
these records, please let me know. It may be that records do exist.
From the librarian in charge of these records (Mrs. K. H. Atkins, Archivist):
"A check on the physical condition of the Register 1540-611 has revealed the
following:
1. The volume has been rebound and extensive conservation work carried out (we
believe prior to their deposit here in 1969) so there is no physical evidence
of a sheet having been torn out.
2. The pages themselves have been numbered, and run consecutively. There are
no page numbers missing; however, the pagination is not in the same hand as
the register entries and so may have been done at a later date. At this
juncture, I would like to point out that the entries for 1601 start on a new
page (p.57).
It is, however, important to note that until 1598, registers were often kept
on loose sheets of paper. In 1598, Queen Elizabeth approved an order that
registers be kept in parchment books and that all the old registers be copied
into such volumes. The original sheets have not usually survived.
The entries in St. Edmund’s Register from 1540 to 1599 are, in fact, all in
the same hand, however, the entries for 1601 are in a different hand. Perhaps
this is of some significance? From 1598, copies also had to be sent annually,
at Easter, to the Bishop’s Registry. If these Bishop’s Transcripts have
survived, they may shed some light on the “missing” year. Bishop’s Transcripts
for the Worcester Diocese are available for inspection at the Hereford and
Worcestershire Record Office, Spetchley Road, Worcester, WR5 2NP."
So perhaps these microfilm copies are not enough and the record office above
must be checked for entries in this time frame. This must be done in England,
if one is to search for the loose leaves that preceded the bound volumes.
Perhaps someone on the list lives close to the Spetchley Road record office?
<<Oldbury, Cradley or Romsley, co. Worcester, or West Bromwhich, Great Barr,
Aldridge, Rushall, Stonnall, or Kingswinford, co Stafford>>
Are these the only likely areas? Would the bishops records possibly have
preserved marriages and deaths for this era?
<<it is vital to your point to understand exactly what the value of John
Bagley's estate was at his death. Was it in reality such a LARGE PROPORTION
[which seems to be what you are stating] of Lord Dudley's estate and that
which
he had already settled upon his children and mistress? After all, the
children
were legally incapable of direct inheritance, so he had to set them up before
his death. >>
I agree wholeheartedly. Does anyone have the actual will of John Bagley or
know where it can be found? I do not have it nor have I been able to find it,
though I know it exists, as it had been quoted.
Also a comparison of the holdings of John Bagley and Lord Dudley from the
Subsidy Rolls would be a proper search. Now that we are getting down to the
brass tacks of what needs to be done, I am quite pleased. I am primarily
concerned that we check further into this lineage to make certain that we do
have all the facts before making a conclusion.
<<HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE PHRASE nepoti ex matre? [repeated in case glossed
over the first four times]
I do not understand. I have not glossed over it. It means nephew through the
mother, in this case, of grandson through the mother. Occasionally nepoti
simply means a family connection that is not known. It has never been a
specific term and the use of this term has always caused a lot of confusion.
If you mean that this hypothetical daughter of Lord Dudley could not have been
the source, as this would have made Edward Bagley a grand nephew, then I
disagree, as nepoti is broad enough to include this relationship--if indeed it
were even known. If there was a coverup, perhaps that relationship was not
even known to Edward Bagley.
I am tired of this hypothetical woman. The real task lies in determining what
happened to Joan and Agnes Tomlinson. Is Agnes the daughter the one mentioned
in the record as dying in 1610, or was that her mother Agnes, wife of the
father William Tomlinson? Is the name Dues or Oues?
Does anyone but me find it hard to believe that Joan, two years older than
John Bagley, 32 at the time of her marriage, came up from a spinster status
and bore nine children between 1602 and 1616. Yes, it is possible, but John
was scraping the bottom of the barrel in his search for a wife if this were
true. The fact that Joan is two years older than John and seems to have
remained unmarried until age 32 should properly make us wonder if this is the
right woman. I have already granted that this is possible, but it seems very
unlikely in view of the times they lived in and a woman's perceived role in
these times.
Agnes is a better match, but if that is the same Agnes that died in 1610, then
she could not have been John's wife as John had children until 1616. This
woman is most likely Agnes, the wife of the father, William Tomlinson.
However, we need to know this for certain, because if she is not, Agnes the
sister goes swirling down the drain of possibility.
- Ken
Reedpcgen
William Tomlinson at St. Thomas Dudley, today. The microfilm (FHL #378,759)
and six others which are later St. Thomas, Dudley registers were not in the
appropriate droor. I searched the entire British floor four times, but no one
had them, and checked the International and US floors, but they were not there
either. They will check at "Distribution" tomorrow to see if they have a copy
they could send. No one knew where the films had gone.
We do have two transcripts of St. Thomas, but they, of course, will not answer
our question. One transcript claims to read:
"Willm Tunlenson toke to wife Agnes Dues" Feb. 1562
But the IGI lists no other Dues entry (at all) for this region, and there is no
probate, so it is clearly a misreading.
I thought it interesting that the names Humble and Ferdinando also became
popular in the parish, though there was certainly no blood relation to Humble
Ward, Lord Dudley and Baron Ward.
I thought the surname Whorwaddle was interesting too, and might have some
connection [joking] to the 1604 entry, "Thear was a wench born at the Crowne
named barbaro iiijth May".
Humble sonne to Thomas Dudley of the Cunnigree was bp. at St. Edmund 20 Aug.
1629, and Hannah daughter to Thomas and Catharine Duddeley of the Cunnigrove
was bp. 20 Aug. 1635.
The most interesting entry I ran across seems to show that our John Bagley was
mayor of Dudley in 1637:
Memorandum that in the year Anno dom 1637 William Gorton of london had a
certivicate made him of the serving of his Apprentishipe und[er] the hand and
seale of Dudley by whose name ar[e] under written.
John Bagely Maior
William Wilson Vicar
Edward Smith Baylife
Richard Foly Cunstable
John Shawe Churchwarden
Humphry Bradly
So, I'm very hopeful that the FHL Distribution will have a copy so I can check
the original tomorrow.
pcr
Reedpcgen
>in the record as dying in 1610, or was that her mother Agnes, wife of the
>father William Tomlinson? Is the name Dues or Oues?
>
>Agnes is a better match, but if that is the same Agnes that died in 1610,
>then
>she could not have been John's wife as John had children until 1616.
Ken,
I'm glad we are coming to a consensus. The reason I initially replied to this
discussion is that I was trying to stop the propegation of another "what if"
line just as we are trying to get the APSG Gateway Immigrant Web Page up. So,
I guess one more comment might be made to help you resolve this point.
William Tomlinson was buried at St. Thomas, Dudley, on 17 July 1609. The
burial entry for Agnes on 9 Dec. 1610 reads, "Old Agnes Tomlinson" so it would
seem to have to be William's widow, as there was no other Tomlinson family in
the register. Agnes baptized 25 June 1577 would not be all that "Old" in 1610,
so hopefully that resolves your question.
And hopefully the original registers will be available to me in some form or
other Saturday.
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/6/1999 11:37:07 PM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<<Ken,
I'm glad we are coming to a consensus. The reason I initially replied to this
discussion is that I was trying to stop the propagation of another "what if"
line just as we are trying to get the APSG Gateway Immigrant Web Page up.>>
And I am reprinting some materials that could use a proper denouement. That is
why
I said that I brought the subject up with regret in the first place ...
opening an uncomfortable can of worms, I think I said. Our goals are similar.
Your research was very swift. What a wonderful thing it must be for you to
live in Salt Lake City and have so much at your fingertips. Knowing how to
retrieve such information is part of the journey as well. Honestly, Paul, you
should write a book about it.
<<Now, in looking over things I wish I had access to here (but are at the
PRO), I
noted the following, which looks mighty interesting. Chancery Proceedings,
Series II, Bundle 395, no. 11 [L & I, v. 30, p. 137], is a suit brought by
John
Bagley and MARGERY his wife, against Thomas Eld. The calendar states that it
involved land in Alrewas, co. Stafford, and was dated between 1626 and 1639.
This could pertain to our John, but the original is mutilated. Alrewas is
about seventeen miles northeast of Sedgley, so it may be another John Bagley
entirely. We will have it checked, just in case. >>
You have made some interesting discoveries that I have not seen elsewhere.
Certainly this one is the most interesting, as it identifies a John Bagley and
his wife Margery. So how many men named John Bagley were in that small area in
that time slot? Dudley is only a few miles from Sedgely, only a few miles from
Alrewas.
In order for this to be our John Bagley, the date would have to be before
1631, as that was, I have heard when John Bagley defended his right to the Old
Park lands in court against Walter Devereux. John established at this date
that his wife is dead and that he relies on his position and the land for the
support of his motherless children.
Should we find that this _is_ our John Bagley and his wife was named Margery,
then the argument will be that Margery is a previously unknown legitimate
daughter of William Tomlinson instead of an illegitimate daughter of Lord
Dudley with Joan.
I was hoping that we would find a record of John Bagley's wife's actual name.
Now it appears that it might exist. I am thankful that it is not Joan or
Agnes, for I thought there were some real problems with their age. One would
think that I would argue that this Margery is the hypothetical daughter, but I
agree with Paul that that the circumstantial evidence is not strong enough.
It makes even more sense to me that the unknown sister is the baby sister of
Elizabeth with the facts that we now have before us.
There was, I acknowledge, a problem with the hypothetical OOW daughter
hypothesis in that it requires a family coverup quite early on--from the time
that Elizabeth began to copulate and conceive with Edward Sutton. I see now
that such a coverup could be not proven at all, because that is the nature of
a coverup. I should have thought of that before. Somehow, I thought better
information could actually shed some light on that, but I was mistaken.
In the modern era, we rely on people making errors or whistle blowers to
expose coverups. With all the holes in the old records from this time,
reconstructing events even when people are telling the truth is quite
difficult.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/6/1999 2:46:56 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<<So analyzing this will, we see that old John Bagley, approaching eighty, was
of
modest, but respectable means at the time of his death. He was what one would
expect a yeoman to be. He did not have extensive estates, and might even be
considered a modest yeoman compared to the lands some yeomen I am aware of
held
at their deaths. >>
Let us examine this a little more.
You quoted the will as saying: "he bequeathed all his "'Lands Tenements and
hereditaments in Worstersheire and Staffordsheire w[hi]ch I onely bought unto
my twoe sonnes Duddeley Bagley and Samuel Bagley.'"
We do not know the size and value of these lands. They could be significant?
Also, could you please tell me where you found that will for future reference?
If one wants to believe in the possibility that John's wife is actually a
daughter of Joan, one certainly can. A coverup by the few involved in the
family, not a conspiracy by church clerics and record keepers, could have kept
this from the children and grandchildren and negate the nepoti argument.
However, this position is unprovable in its essence and that has always made
me uncomfortable. The very fact that we do not have a birth record for
Elizabeth makes it quite possible that another daughter was born to William
and Agnes Tomlinson after the birth of Elizabeth and I am not prepared nor
willing to argue this point to the death. Unless DNA evidence shows otherwise,
there is always the possibility that Joan had an illegitimate daughter with
Edward Sutton, but the likelihood of ever proving it is very slim indeed.
In the interim, based upon the facts that we can lay our hands on, it would
appear that John Bagley's wife was Elizabeth Tomlinson's previously unknown
baby sister.
- Ken
Reedpcgen
>We do not know the size and value of these lands. They could be significant?
>
If they were significant, (1) he would not have styled himself yeoman, (2) he
probably would have taken more care in making reversions of the land, which was
more typical for extensive estates, and (3) he would not have been worried that
his lands aand goods might not have covered his debts. Look at the internal
evidence.
>Also, could you please tell me where you found that will for future
>reference?
I thought I posted that it was FHL #92,169, PCC 127 Essex. That is the
reference.
> A coverup by the few involved in the
>family, not a conspiracy by church clerics and record keepers, could have
>kept
>this from the children
Ken, I'm really beginning to have reservations about your ability to think in a
clear and critical manner when editing your publication. If there were a
conspiracy on the level to whic hyou have suggested, i twould have had to
involve clerics, and probate judges. And do you think for a moment Dud Dudley
would not have challenged such a false administration?
Reedpcgen
conclusion:]
[KHF wrote:]
>In the interim, based upon the facts that we can lay our hands on, it would
>appear that John Bagley's wife was Elizabeth Tomlinson's previously unknown
>baby sister.
>
>- Ken
>
Ken, THANK YOU. Yes, based on the FACTS, we are able to come to no other
conclusion than that John Bagley's wife was the legitimate daughter of William
Tomlinson. If you look at the parish register, there are gaps of several years
between the known children of William Tomlinson listed among the baptisms. One
or two other children could easily have been born in that period. I will
double-check the register for a burial, but as there are such gaps in many
families, it appears the parish register is incomplete, especially as Dudley
was a well established town with more than one church, but there are periods of
very few entries.
If all the records do not survive, we have to draw the best and most logical
conclusions from what we have onhand, taking into account what may be missing,
which I have tried to do, based on my experience in just this type of research.
pcr
Reedpcgen
>retrieve such information is part of the journey as well. Honestly, Paul,
>you
>should write a book about it.
This had been planned for some years, and a book form will probably eventually
be produced as a publication of the American Society of Genealogists. For now,
this is planned to be part of the APSG web site.
The English Source: British Records 1066-1649
will not only list all records created during that period which have some type
of index, calendar or abstract, but it will eventually explain how to use those
records and conduct research during this period in detail, aside from an online
tutorial in how to read English probate, parish and other records century by
century, etc. It's an ambitious project, but one that can be accomplished, and
fill a great need for all.
For a brief explanation, check out www.apsg.org BUT be forewarned that the
links are not connected so the page is for now technically inactive.
>With all the holes in the old records from this time,
>reconstructing events even when people are telling the truth is quite
>difficult.
>
Yes, but that's what makes an excellent account of people like this, and the
details of their lives, so rewarding. Instead of names, dates and places, you
attempt a real biography, exhausting all sources that survive. Also, having
already reserached a number of other families in and around Dudley and
Kinswinford, and all families of gentry who intermarried with Lord Dudley's
family, it does give you a sense of prosopography.
I was already aware of the circles and politics these families roamed in, which
may be part of the reason I reacted with ARGGHH to a number of your statements.
To me it was already clear, but I was not able to immediately explain the
reasons to you.
But we take it all as a learning experience.
pcr