Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/9/01 8:06:40 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<< How do you rationalize that if we discount illegitimacy, why would a son
of a
daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson be granted administration of her estate BEFORE
it was granted to one of her living sons or a son's son? I'm STILL interested
to hear your answer to this specific point. Please respond. >>
Because you cannot discount the illegitimacy. Her sons were not eligible to
administer her estate under law. Everyone knew that because those direct
relationships were clear to all involved. The first court action involving
this will of Elizabeth Tomlinson took place in 1631. 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."
Notice that this was an action filed by her son, Dud Dudley, with two of
Elizabeth's sons-in-law as defendants and Dud as plaintiff. Edward Bagley was
not involved, but this is where we learn of the content of this verbal will
made two years previously.
(Thomas Dudley was the husband of Elizabeth's illegitimate daughter
Catherine). These sons-in-law were defendants because they were appointed as
the administrators of Elizabeth's will. It is important that we remember
that the original administrators were Thomas Dudley and Henry Jevon, not
Edward Bagley, though Edward was 31 years old at the time.
Once more, I will post the will, as it is important that we notice that the
beneficiaries of this will were primarily the male Bagley children. This is
primary evidence that there was a blood relationship (though unknown to many
at the time) of Elizabeth Tomlinson and Edward Sutton to the children of John
Bagley. Elizabeth, who was kept all her life and was not in charge of
finance, wanted Edward Sutton to give some cash to the male Bagley children
to tide them over until they legally inherited the estate of John Bagley.
This was satisfactory to all parties except Dud Dudley, who was
disenfranchised by this course of action. Proof is in the will quoted below:
"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. 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.”
[Chancery 23 May 1631]
This evidence, combined with the onomastic evidence of Sutton family names
observed in the Bagley family and John Bagley's rise to power and wealth were
considered excellent evidence of a blood relationship until the record of the
1635 case was discovered. Evidently, Dud Dudley received no satisfaction from
the 1631 case or he would not have appealed it to the higher court.
John Bagley was called gentleman in a court record in 1620, but by 1631
Edward Sutton was practically broke and borrowed the money to pay Elizabeth's
bequests and other expenses from the estate. Twice (and twice only) in these
lean years, John Bagley was called yeoman in court. The first case was in
1631 when John was defending his right to keep lands granted to him by Edward
Sutton and claimed by Sir Walter Devereux. Devereux was the man that loaned
Edward Sutton the £600 that went toward paying Elizabeth Tomlinson's bequests
and the the other estate expenses paid by John Bagley. It is obvious that it
was to John's advantage to plead 'poverty' and revert to his old status of
'yeoman' because his family was the beneficiary of this unpaid loan and
Devereux was seeking satisfaction of his claim by attempting to some claim
property in John Bagley's possession. The second instance of John Bagley
reverting to the status of 'yeoman' occurred two years later, in 1633, when
John was back in court against Henry Birch over some leases on Dudley land.
He was there called "John Bagley, yeoman, of Old Park," as Lord Dudley was
practically bankrupt. John was running the estate and raising operating
expenses with great cunning. John was protecting his own interests and
avoided calling attention to his own property at all costs, as the courts may
have reversed his lucrative estate contracts that provided income for his
children and other family members. The courts could have found that the
property held by John could be seized for payments of debt because John was
managing the estate monies and paying himself with income from properties
formally held by the Sutton estate.
Previously, Nat Taylor asked that someone briefly list the reasons for
believing that there was a blood connection of the Suttons and the Bagley
children. All the above and all that has been said before contain these
reasons. It is much easier to list the reason why it is not believed, as the
sole reason for the disproof of this line is the court record of 1635 that
can be viewed as an appeal by Dud Dudley of the above case and named Edward
Bagley as the defendant instead of the two previous administrators, Thomas
Dudley and Henry Jevon. There, Edward is wrongly abbreviated to Edr and he
is called 'nepoti ex matre' ('nephew through his mother'), although the
original copy contained a correction and originally was written as 'filio ex
matre'.
Obviously, since the disproof of this line lies only in this phrase, one
needs to defeat this court record. It must b incorrect or mistaken in order
to establish the line to Edward Sutton. Due to the clerical errors in both
the abbreviation of the name of Edward and the correction from 'filio' to
'nepoti', it can be concluded that some definite confusion was present at the
time of this hearing. Why should Edward Bagley should even be named instead
of the original administrators? This is a matter for great concern. We should
not even assume that Edward was anything but a defendant in the 1635 case, as
it was brought again by Dud Dudley to contest his mothers bequests. This
being the case, there is no reason to assume that the indicated relationship
was correct of even known to all parties at the time.
Previously, I have shown how a first-born daughter born to Elizabeth
Tomlinson and Edward Sutton whose identity was concealed by agreement between
Edward Sutton's father and the Tomlinson family could be the link that
satisfies the requirements in this case. Edward Bagley and Dud Dudley could
well have not been aware if the true relationship until Edward Sutton or John
Bagley chose to reveal it after the death of Elizabeth Tomlinson. Evidence
for such a cover-up is contained in the writings of Elizabeth Tomlinson which
she wanted to be withheld from her son, Lord Dudley.
Further, if we are to accept that the record of 1635 is correct and John
Bagley married a sister of Elizabeth Tomiinson instead of the first born
daughter, we have a problem with the identity of this sister. Only two
sisters are recorded by baptismal records, Joan and Agnes, and both dropped
out of sight. Their death records do not exist, nor do any records of
children or any marriages. It is easier to assume that they either died
young or married out of the area and spent their lives elsewhere. Elizabeth's
birth record does not exist either, but she may not have been baptized. Her
life and death are properly recorded. However, if she had a daughter whose
identity was agreed to be concealed, as seems to me to be the case, one would
not expect this daughter to have a baptismal record or a burial record
because her identity was supposed to be kept confidential. That explains the
lack of a burial record for John Bagley's wife and the lack of a marriage
record as well, as we would expect that John's wife would be recorded unless
there was some compelling reason for her not to be so. We should surely
expect the woman to be recorded if she were Elizabeth Tomlinson's sister, as
she would have died in that parish and should be buried there. The fact that
this is not so gives us cause for reflection. The two other sisters likely
moved from the area and that is why we do not know of their deaths or their
children.
The icing on the case is the lease of lands for a thousand years given to
John Bagley by Edward Sutton in the year of his death. Obviously, this was to
secure the support of John Bagley's children and such a lease is difficult to
explain by any other means. Why should Edward Sutton, already in financial
difficulty, leave such an asset to a the descendants of a man who has no
blood ties to himself instead of his legitimate heirs unless he was trying to
provide for illegitimate grandchildren according to the necessities of
English law? The legitimate heirs received the rest of the estate and its
vast resources as well as the manor house.
For this reason, and the strong naming patterns in the Bagley family, I
conclude that the 1635 document does not state the true nature of the
relationship of the Suttons to the Bagley children as it was not known to the
litigants at the time the case came to trial. We have no record of the
outcome of the 1635 case, but we can assume that the outcome was not
satisfactory to Dud Dudley, as he tried to seize the manor house in 1637 and
was evicted by John Bagley and his brother Robert Dudley, who by then had
learned where his bread was truly buttered. Dud Dudley sued the estate for
damages from this eviction two years later, lost and moved from the area and
to continue his work with iron refining by coal.
Edward helped his father in the management of the Sutton estate and served a
summons on John Brooke, Esq. in 1643 for breach of contract.
Edward's wife bore a son named Sutton Bagley in 1637. The thousand year lease
to John Bagley was granted by Edward Sutton in 1643, followed by the death of
Lord Dudley in the same year. After having another son in 1644 named John,
Edward Bagley died unexpectedly in 1645. Three years later, in 1648, John
Bagley died and left his sons well appointed by bequests of property obtained
during his years of service on the Sutton estate.
Edward Bagley's widow, Olive, outlived him by thirty years. She became a
Quaker and her daughter Ann Bagley (born 1634) married William Brinton. The
couple would become the ancestors of thousands, including General George
Brinton McClellan and Richard M. Nixon.
END OF STORY
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF="http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm">
http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm</A>
KHF...@AOL.com
Stewart Baldwin
[much snipping]
...
>There, Edward is wrongly abbreviated to Edr and he is
>called 'nepoti ex matre' ('nephew through his mother'),
>although the original copy contained a correction and
>originally was written as 'filio ex matre'.
...
>Due to the clerical errors in both the abbreviation of
>the name of Edward and the correction from 'filio' to
>'nepoti', it can be concluded that some definite
>confusion was present at the time of this hearing.
...
No such conclusion is reasonable. First, as pointed out before,
"Edr-" (followed by a Latin ending appropriate to the case) is a
perfectly valid abbreviation for the name Edward, so there is no such
scribal error here. Also, you would not find the expression "filio ex
matre" (son through the mother), which makes no sense.
...
>Further, if we are to accept that the record of 1635 is
>correct and John Bagley married a sister of Elizabeth
>Tomiinson instead of the first born daughter, we have a
>problem with the identity of this sister. Only two
>sisters are recorded by baptismal records, Joan and
>Agnes, and both dropped out of sight. Their death
>records do not exist, nor do any records of children or
>any marriages. It is easier to assume that they either
>died young or married out of the area and spent their
>lives elsewhere.
...
On the contrary, if there is no record of a burial or another marriage
for them, then they make EXCELLENT candidates for the sister who was
married to John Bagley.
Stewart Baldwin
A side note: Ken, have you changed Internet Service Providers, or are
you using different software to send postings than you used to? The
reason that I ask is that your recent postings have been exceptionally
hard to read because of some extra garbage that has attached to them
(like "=20" attached to the end of each line) that did not used to be
present in your postings.
Reedpcgen
<<Because you cannot discount the illegitimacy. Her sons were not eligible to
administer her estate under law. Everyone knew that because those direct
relationships were clear to all involved. >>
You can't have sons being obviously illegitimate, but not daughters. Elizabeth
was well known to have never married.
I would also point out that the actual administration of Elizabeth Tomlinson
which appoints Edward Bagley the administrator and next legal heir states
specifically that Elizabeth was a SPINSTER.
This is a direct indication that the Prerogative Court of Canterbury was aware
AT THE TIME IT GRANTED THE ADMINISTRATION that Elizabeth Tomlinson had never
married. With this FOREKNOWLEDGE, the court may have granted the
administration to a nephew, but by definition, could not have granted it to a
grandson.
The court specified that Elizabeth was a spinster, so could not have been
deceived into thinking she had legitimate issue!
The quaker William Brinton, in 1699, stated that his father-in-law Edward
Bagley "was accounted a very honest and loving man." This being the case, I
don't see how one can claim that Edward's mother was actually illegitimate, and
taht this had not only been kept from him but all the neighborhood too (no one
in the area was around when the girl gave birth to the illegitimate child?). I
don't see that anything indicates we should disparage Edward's character, so
when he appeared before the court declaring that he was legal heir of
Elizabeth, he certainly was telling the truth.
Paul
Renia
> On 9 Apr 2001 12:53:38 -0600, KHF...@aol.com wrote:
>
> [much snipping]
>
> Stewart Baldwin
>
> A side note: Ken, have you changed Internet Service Providers, or are
> you using different software to send postings than you used to? The
> reason that I ask is that your recent postings have been exceptionally
> hard to read because of some extra garbage that has attached to them
> (like "=20" attached to the end of each line) that did not used to be
> present in your postings.
I don't get anything like this.
Renia
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
> > A side note: Ken, have you changed Internet Service Providers, or are
> > you using different software to send postings than you used to? The
> > reason that I ask is that your recent postings have been exceptionally
> > hard to read because of some extra garbage that has attached to them
> > (like "=20" attached to the end of each line) that did not used to be
> > present in your postings.
>
> I don't get anything like this.
Interesting. Under normal viewing conditions, they did not
appear, but when I looked at the source document (the exact text
that was received) it had the =20 on it, while those of Stewart
and Renia did not, so it is clearly specific to Ken. What are
you using?
taf
Renia
Far too technical for me! My newsreader shows posts in text and html,
depending on how they are sent. I have no option (that I can see) to look at
"the source document". My newsreader is mcmail.com, which came with Nynex when
I had that installed years ago. That was taken over by Cable & Wireless
(cwc.com) which has now been taken over by ntl.
I have now found the "source" and yes, the =20s are there. I've never had to
use this before, because I can look at any message in full screen if I want
to.
What I have noticed on my "ordinary" screen, on Ken's posts, is this
Tomlinson’s
I don't know how it has come over on everyone else's machines, but the
apostrophe has been replaced by 3 other symbols.
Renia
Stewart Baldwin
>What I have noticed on my "ordinary" screen, on Ken's posts, is this
>
>Tomlinson’s
>
>I don't know how it has come over on everyone else's machines, but the
>apostrophe has been replaced by 3 other symbols.
This happens with quotes too. I think what is going on here is that
there is a difference between the "ordinary" quotes and apostrophes
(also used as "single" quotes), in which the "left" and "right"
version is the same (which most systems seem to handle without
difficulty), and "smart" quotes and apostrophes (at least that is what
they are called by my word processor), in which the "left" and "right"
versions are different. This latter type of quote and apostrophe does
not seem to transfer well from one system to another. If the system
on which the messages are being typed allows a choice between ordinary
and smart quotes and apostrophes, then using the former will aid the
readability of the messages when they are transferred to other
systems.
Stewart Baldwin
KHF...@aol.com
If we are ever going to come together and agree that there are possibilities
that this Bagley line relates to the Suttons, the time is now. I see no
reason to disenfranchise thousands and thousands of descendants by insisting
that the line is impossible to connect when it obviously is not impossible.
There is the possibility that a some other record will be found that will
further enlighten us one day. If Jacobus can pronounce a connection possible
or probable but still uncertain, then so can today's TAG team.
In a message dated 4/10/01 5:25:07 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<< I don't see that anything indicates we should disparage Edward's
character, so
when he appeared before the court declaring that he was legal heir of
Elizabeth, he certainly was telling the truth. >>
There is no disparagement there at all. He did not know until later ... it
was not until 1637 that he named his child Sutton Bagley, so I expect that he
learned after the hearing from either his father or Edward Sutton, or both.
I would suspect that Elizabeth was sent away to relatives to have the baby,
if the baby were to be kept secret. That is what happened in small towns
everywhere, then and now. Perhaps her mother even accompanied her, so that
she could claim the child as her own when she returned.
I would not know where to look, but I would suspect that William and Agnes
Tomlinson were rewarded on an ongoing and regular basis for their complicity
in this affair. I suspect that Edward Dudley paid for support somehow in the
early years as well as the years after marriage. Obviously, he paid support
for Elizabeth and her new brood ... perhaps the payment was cash and slipped
into that lump sum, of perhaps there are records of Edward Sutton's expenses
somewhere.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/10/01 5:25:07 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<< You can't have sons being obviously illegitimate, but not daughters.
Elizabeth
was well known to have never married. >>
Exactly ... so why were her daughter's husbands her legal administrators in
1631?
The answer is that they were defendants and not so much administrators, as
all the distribution had already taken place. Her verbal will was taken care
of by the family and no one ever expected it to go to court, but Dud Dudley
was the type who would sur even over his hangnails.
This term 'administrator' is a misnomer in both court cases, probably a fault
of the clerk who did not fully understand what the cases were about. Perhaps
the defendants did not even knew what it was really about because Dud Dudley
was filing these frivolous law suits. He filed another frivolous suit for
damages when he was evicted from the manor house when he had no right at all
to possess it. That was heard in court as well, so irrelevant and frivolous
suits were part of the docket occasionally.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/10/01 2:25:08 AM, sba...@mindspring.com writes:
<< No such conclusion is reasonable. First, as pointed out before,
"Edr-" (followed by a Latin ending appropriate to the case) is a
perfectly valid abbreviation for the name Edward, so there is no such
scribal error here. Also, you would not find the expression "filio ex
matre" (son through the mother), which makes no sense. >>
Filio ex matre makes no sense, of course ... no one ever said it did ... it
was changed ... which is evidence that there was confusion with the clerk who
recorded the names and relationship and that the relationship itself was not
on the minds of those party to the hearing, despite the law. It was an appeal
of an earlier case and the original administrators were not present. It is
the calling of Edward Bagley an 'administrator' when he was a defendant that
is truly suspect here. It shows me that the clerk did not know what the suit
was about nor had any idea of its merits.
<<On the contrary, if there is no record of a burial or another marriage
for them, then they make EXCELLENT candidates for the sister who was
married to John Bagley.>>
No, they do not. Everyone else is recorded, at least in death and with
births. The Bagley children were not baptized. It seems that John did not
believe in baptism. However, their marriages and births are recorded.
The fact that the sisters of Elizabeth Tomlinson are unknown and not shown to
be married or have children or died makes no sense if they stayed in the
area, married and had children.
- Ken
Nat Taylor
>In a message dated 4/10/01 5:25:07 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
>
>>I don't see that anything indicates we should disparage Edward's
>>character, so when he appeared before the court declaring that he
>>was legal heir of Elizabeth, he certainly was telling the truth.
>
>There is no disparagement there at all. He did not know until later...
Aargh! At least you could have prefaced this with "I suspect..." which
you use for the other elements of the cover-up theory propounded in this
post.
Nat Taylor
Nat Taylor
>In a message dated 4/10/01 5:25:07 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
>
>>You can't have sons being obviously illegitimate, but not daughters.
>>Elizabeth was well known to have never married.
>
>Exactly ... so why were her daughter's husbands her legal administrators in
>1631?
Huh?
>The answer is that they were defendants and not so much administrators, as
>all the distribution had already taken place. Her verbal will was taken care
>of by the family and no one ever expected it to go to court, but Dud Dudley
>was the type who would sur even over his hangnails.
>
>This term 'administrator' is a misnomer in both court cases, probably a fault
>of the clerk who did not fully understand what the cases were about. Perhaps
>the defendants did not even knew what it was really about ...
Now, just because you seem to confuse things in this CIRCULAR discussion,
don't suppose that the principals didn't know what was going on. Please,
can some disinterested and intelligent person post a *CONCISE* (line-item)
summary of the *EVIDENCE* in this case (the famous nepos ex matre document
& the known documents involving the Bagleys)? I thought it was just that
Annie, but Ken, too, seems to push the goalposts all over the field.
Nat Taylor
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/10/01 7:25:44 PM, nlt...@pop.uky.edu writes:
<< KHF: Exactly ... so why were her illegitimate daughter's husbands her
legal administrators in 1631? ≥≥
NT: Huh? >>
Huh back to you. It was not legal, so why? What is good for the goose is not
good for the gander? Illegitimacy in any generation makes the person unable
to administer, yet these husbands of illegitimate daughters were called
administrators. Maybe I am wrong here on the law ... I am not certain about
husbands of illegitimate children. One would think they could have found a
less tainted administrator. And why was Edward Bagley drawn into the case
when he was not the original administrator? No one has answered this.
I wish this were a simple case. You asked for a list of evidence for the
blood relationship of the Bagleys and the Suttons and there is nothing _but_
evidence for that relationship. All the evidence points that way.
The _only_ evidence against a blood relationship is the later court case that
identifies Edward as nepoti ex matre.
No one could have been more surprised when this was found because it
literally makes no sense with the other evidence. Everyone had to make a 180
degree about face to incorporate it. Suddenly, the naming patterns, the
acquired wealth of John Bagley, the will of John Bagley, Elizabeth's bequests
to the Bagley children, the leases to the Bagleys and the Tomlinsons, and the
thousand year lease had to be explained away in other terms -- and the
thought that "well, perhaps they were just godchildren" replaced the
original, sensible conclusion that the Bagley's were Sutton's grandchildren.
All of this was because of one document ... and no one but me has dared
suggest that the court document was in error.
Genealogists give a hallowed bow to such findings. Such clerical records take
on a truth of their own despite the possibility that the record could be
mistaken. It is not as though we have a transcription of what happened it
court or that the document was signed by a magistrate. It is simply a
clerical record of the event being on the docket on that day. It is fallible.
Suppose I am on the docket administrating my aunt's estate and they call me
Kenneth Fenton instead of Finton. Will I forever be Fenton in history because
they made a mistake? If this was the only record, I probably would be a
Fenton to all history, even though I am not!
Suppose they describe my relationship in the records as a 'nephew through the
mother'. 'My name is Edward and I have always called this woman Elizabeth
Tomlinson my 'Aunt Elizabeth' because I was told that she was my mother's
sister. Suppose my father has recently told me that my mother was really my
aunt's child, so my 'Aunt Elizabeth' was my grandmother. Neither my Mother or
my aunt ever told me this. I am not comfortable with this newly found fact
and my old ways of thought always come to the front. Elizabeth will always
be "Aunt Elizabeth" to me. So, how do I describe my relationship?
"Well," I say, "I am the son of my mother, but my mother's mother is my aunt
Elizabeth."
"Eh," says the clerk. "What was that again?"
"My mother's mother is the person I call Aunt Elizabeth."
"Very well," the clerk says .... "Son of ..."
"No," I correct, "nephew of ... through my mother."
Nepoti ex matre, writes the clerk, crossing out the "filio."
Of course, I am fooling with you a bit ... but I do believe that it is very
hard to reconcile the evidence with the court record that we have.
I have never heard of someone being a godfather to an entire group of
children. I find it hard to believe that a Lord of the manor would give his
faithful servant a thousand year lease on land when they are both old and on
the verge of death and a twenty year lease would do as well. A thousand years
lease has to be for the benefit of other generations, so why should this lord
be so attached to these so called godchildren when he had so many legitimate
and illegitimate offspring to care for as well? It does not make sense
unless they were actually his illegitimate grandchildren and he had to give
them something in his lifetime or they would legally never be able to have an
advantage.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/10/01 7:25:29 PM, nlt...@pop.uky.edu writes:
<< the cover-up theory propounded in this post. >>
Please, let us not call this a conspiracy or a cover-up theory. That is not
what I proposed. I proposed a type of adoption agreement that retained the
element of parental confidentiality so that no one would be harmed. This is
a very common thing now and I would truly imagine these arrangements are as
old as marriage itself. There is nothing evil or sinister about it. On the
contrary, these arrangements are made because consenting adults consider it
in the child's best interest.
- Ken
Nat Taylor
>legal administrators in 1631?
>
>NT: Huh? >>
>
>called administrators.
I'm confused. Are you led astray by Annie's blunder, running several
entries into one? Bagley was the sole administrator. See Paul's
quotation of the abstract, posted again just this evening.
>I wish this were a simple case. You asked for a list of evidence for the
>blood relationship of the Bagleys and the Suttons and there is nothing
>_but_ evidence for that relationship. All the evidence points that way.
>
> ... the naming patterns,
>the acquired wealth of John Bagley, the will of John Bagley, Elizabeth's
>bequests to the Bagley children, the leases to the Bagleys and the
>Tomlinsons, and the thousand year lease had to be explained ...
Almost good: this is a simple list of the data you should be basing your
position on.
But it is not 'evidence for that [a blood] relationship'. It is evidence
for some connection, which you refuse to believe are consistent with some
relation other than blood (for example, the pseudo in-law relationship
they have as trusted retainer and close kin of Sutton's concubine.
You seem to be hung up on the fact that what has been accepted in the past
as circumstantial evidence of kinship can also be explained (by those who
actually have experience reviewing the terms of the transactions, or
naming patterns, in question) as appropriate for some other close
relationship. Hansen changed his mind on this. But you don't seem to be
able to. I hope you don't take it personally when I say that, given their
experience and scholarship that I've read, I trust Hansen's and Reed's
familiarity with these sources, and their instinct in interpreting them,
more than yours.
<snip>
>Suppose they describe my relationship in the records as a 'nephew through
>the mother'...
>
<snip>
>
>Of course, I am fooling with you a bit ...
You're fooling with yourself! I've already tried to point out just what
poor genealogical thinking this is, this whole attempt at impugning the
administration by constructing a fantasy scenario.
Basically, you're putting the cart before the horse with any attempt at
explaining why the court record is in error before proving, by OTHER
evidence, that it MUST be in error. You have not been able to do this.
So I'm now going to stop asking you to.
Nat Taylor
Nat Taylor
nlt...@pop.uky.edu (Nat Taylor) wrote:
>>In a message dated 4/10/01 7:25:44 PM, nlt...@pop.uky.edu writes:
>>
>><< KHF: ... so why were her illegitimate daughter's husbands her
>>legal administrators in 1631?
>>
>>NT: Huh? >>
>>
>>Huh back to you. ... these husbands of illegitimate daughters were
>>called administrators.
>
>I'm confused. Are you led astray by Annie's blunder, running several
>entries into one? Bagley was the sole administrator. See Paul's
>quotation of the abstract, posted again just this evening.
Oh, wait, I see: you're confusing "executors" from the original will
(1631) with the administration granted in 1635. Totally different
positions, legally.
Anyone could be appointed executor (or could receive a bequest) in a will:
but if that will is challenged, or if there is no will, Hansen and Reed
have told us again and again that the person who would be next heir in an
intestacy (next of kin in a legal sense) would be granted administration,
as was Bagley in 1635.
Nat Taylor
Reedpcgen
><< KHF: Exactly ... so why were her illegitimate daughter's husbands her=20
>legal administrators in 1631?
>
>NT: Huh? >>
[Ken replied:]
>
>Huh back to you. It was not legal, so why? What is good for the goose is no
good for the gander? Illegitimacy in any generation makes the person unable to
administer, yet these husbands of illegitimate daughters were called
>administrators. Maybe I am wrong here on the law ..>>
You are indeed wrong here, and have misinterpreted probate law.
I presume you were talking about Elizabeth Tomlinson's nuncupative will in the
first case.
(1) No one was appointed administrator by the court. Elizabeth Tomlinson had
the right to appoint anyone her EXECUTORS. This was not the same thing as
someone who the court appoints ADMINISTRATOR of an intestate estate.
(2) The nuncupative will was never proved in any probate court, was it?
(3) The administration of Elizabeth Tomlinson's estate granted by the PCC was
to be made to her next heir at law. The administration specifically stated
that Elizabeth was a SPINSTER. It was widely known in court never to have
married (you previously quoted a passage from CP which discussed that she and
her children were scandalously blamed for Lord Dudley wasting his estate).
Thus, Edward Bagley could not be a direct descendant, but could be a sister's
son (as the record states).
Paul
Reedpcgen
>Filio ex matre makes no sense, of course ... no one ever said it did ... it
>was changed ..>>
It was not changed. Filio had been written on the main line (which originally
read the quivalent of the usual, 'natural and legitimate son' [fil' nat'
leg']). This was crossed out. In superscript, the correct description of the
relationship was given. That it was changed actually bears towards it being
correct, as it shows that the clerk actually verified the relationship given in
the record.
>It was an appeal
>of an earlier case and the original administrators were not present. >>
No, it was not an appeal. Where was the nuncupative will mentioned in the
court case proved? No testament was mentioned in this administration, as would
be typical if a will were involved.
If it were an appeal, there would have been a sentence and decree, or
administration with will attached, etc. The executors named in the nuncupative
will are not the same thing as "administrators," as I have mentioned in another
post.
Ken, I don't know how you can be ignorant of even general knowledge concerning
probate procedure and law, professing errant opinions as if they were fact,
telling us to adjust to your misinterpretations (not even seeing the actual
documents), and then be so opinionated in demanding that we change our
conclusions based on speculation. Amazing.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
<KHF...@aol.com> wrote in message news:df.12f99b4...@aol.com...
D. Spencer Hines
be a mixture of fact and conjecture ---- stirred together in a stew.
I'd like to see him present a short, concise post just of the _evidence_
for his position ---- with all the conjecture, the speculation and the
talk of conspiracy leached out of it.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Nat Taylor" <nlt...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:nltayl0-1004...@atl-tgn-yaj-vty159.as.wcom.net...
KHF...@aol.com
Paul, you are missing the point entirely because your mind is made up. This
conversation is practically useless at this point because you are not reading
my posts and understanding them.
There is another court case entirely before the 1635 case that went to court
in 1631. This is the case I am talking about. The first court action
involving this will of Elizabeth Tomlinson took place in 1631. In this
court record, the admininistrator was not Edward Bagley but two of Elizabeth
Tominlinson's sons-in-law, Thomas Duddley and Henry Jevon (husbands of her
illegitimte daughters). These men were called 'administrators' in court --
although they, like Edward later, were defendants in a suit brought by Dud
Dudley. The question is how can they be legal administrators and more than
Edward Bagley?
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/11/01 4:27:34 PM, D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu
writes:
<< Where's the succinct answer to Paul's question? >>
In a message dated 4/9/01 8:06:40 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<< How do you rationalize that if we discount illegitimacy, why would a
son of a daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson be granted administration of her
estate
BEFORE it was granted to one of her living sons or a son's son? I'm STILL
interested to hear your answer to this specific point. Please respond. >>
You _cannot_ get rid of the illegitmacy question and discount it. There were
two separate court cases, not one, and both had administators. In 1631 the
administrators were husbands of the illegitimate daughters. This 1631 suit
was also brought by Dud Dudley and these men were also defendants.
In 1635, the suit was named Edward Bagley as the defendant and administator
-- and he clearly was not the administrator if the administrators in the
other case were her sons-in-law -- despite what the court record says. Unless
an administator is changed, the same one should continue for the life of the
case. Paul will say that this is another case, but both dealt directly with
the estate of Elizabeth Tomlionson. The later was in a higher appellate type
of court.
_Ken
Nat Taylor
>There were two separate court cases, not one, and both had administators.
>In 1631 the administrators were husbands of the illegitimate daughters.
>This 1631 suit was also brought by Dud Dudley and these men were also
> defendants.
>
>In 1635, the suit was named Edward Bagley as the defendant and administator
>-- and he clearly was not the administrator if the administrators in the
>other case were her sons-in-law -- despite what the court record says. Unless
>an administator is changed, the same one should continue for the life of the
>case. Paul will say that this is another case, but both dealt directly with
>the estate of Elizabeth Tomlionson. The later was in a higher appellate type
>of court.
Ken quoted the 1631 suit himself on a post on April 4. It describes
Elizabeth Tomlinsons' nuncupative (oral) will, with the words:
"[the] said Elizabeth did then ordain and make ... Thomas Duddeley, her
son-in-law, and Henry Jevon, her servant, executors..."
Ken should understand the difference between an executor (chosen by a
testator) and an administrator (granted administration of an estate by a
probate court). Executors, like beneficiaries, can be freely chosen
(within certain limits) in a will. Paul Reed has clearly discussed how
and why courts choose administrators, and the implication for Edward
Bagley's parentage.
Nat Taylor
Reedpcgen
NOPE. It is still willing to listen to evidence and reason and change it's
position if justified. Funny that my mind is that way.
>you are not reading
>my posts and understanding them.
>
I think I understand what you are trying to say, I'm just questioning them when
they don't match the facts.
> In this
>court record, the admininistrator was not Edward Bagley but two of Elizabeth
>Tominlinson's sons-in-law, Thomas Duddley and Henry Jevon (husbands of her
>illegitimte daughters).
N.B.: YOU HAVE AGAIN USED THE TERM ADMINISTRATOR !!!!
Do you understand the difference as we have explained it between executors and
administrators? They were administering her estate AS EXECUTORS. It ain't the
same thing as administrators appointed by the court in matters of intestacy.
[!!!] One is an apple, the other is an orange. You can only make apple pie
out of one.
>The question is how can they be legal administrators and more than
>Edward Bagley?
No it isn't. From records we have quoted, the two were chosen Elizabeth's
executors when she uttered her nuncupative will on her deathbed. They would
administer her estate as executors.
If you have not grasped what we have explained time and again, it would seem
that it is you who do not want to listen to simple explanations of fact. I
have not been expounding any great mystery. These are simple rules of probate
law and procedure that anyone working with probate records of this period have
to deal with (and understand) on a daily basis.
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/12/01 7:25:54 PM, nlt...@pop.uky.edu writes:
<< Paul Reed has clearly discussed how and why courts choose administrators,
and the implication for Edward Bagley's parentage. >>
Not really. Why was Edward Bagley appointed by the court as an administrator
in 1635 when he was a defendant? Why not chose the husbands of the daughters
that were the executors in the 1631 case? That was the question #1/.
Question #2 is who appointed Edward Bagley as administrator and why, when he
was a defendant and the suit was brought by Dud Dudley? Why was there need
for an administrator when only a lawyer was necessary to represent the
defendant?
I have myself been an executor and an administrator ... both court appointed.
There is damned little difference in the roles. They perform exactly the same
functions.
- Ken
D. Spencer Hines
Dud Dudley is an interesting character ---- but what is the hook here?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
<KHF...@aol.com> wrote in message news:9e.12c85c8...@aol.com...
In a message dated 4/10/01 7:25:44 PM, nlt...@pop.uky.edu writes:
<< KHF: Exactly ... so why were her illegitimate daughter's husbands her
legal administrators in 1631? ??
D. Spencer Hines
have any particular Genealogical Value.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010412154539...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
A Channing
are not named in the Will, or decline to act or are barred from acting),
anybody can apply for letters of Administration, but the court will
normally only grant letters to someone who has an interest in the Estate,
it is not uncommon for a creditor to be granted letters.
BTW Until a few years ago a trust, required at least two trustees to deal
in land. I am fairly certain that the same would have applied to an
estate, ie at least two executors/administrators required - but I don't
know when this rule was introduced.
Adrian
(Chartered Accountant and Chartered Tax Advisor)
Nat Taylor wrote
>
Ken should understand the difference between an executor (chosen by a
testator) and an administrator (granted administration of an estate by a
probate court). Executors, like beneficiaries, can be freely chosen
(within certain limits) in a will. Paul Reed has clearly discussed how
and why courts choose administrators, and the implication for Edward
Bagley's parentage.
Nat Taylor
<
Reedpcgen
>None of you have explained why you think these illegitimate descents
>have any particular Genealogical Value.
>--
>
>D. Spencer Hines
This has been one of those hotly debated lines much like the Amie de Gaveston
matter. In spite of knowledge of the administration material and Charles
Hansen's article in TAG, people are still clinging on to the hypothesis of a
Bagley descent from Lord Dudley (who has quite a few royal descents).
The factual evidence we have says one thing quite clearly. The question
remaining is how to interpret the circumstantial evidence. In resolving this,
I had hoped that members of the group (even those who lurk) might eventually
learn more about the period, interpreting evidence, etc., even if not descended
from the links (I'm not a descendant).
The Bagley/Brinton descendants of John Bagley were Quakers and came to America.
I'm not yet aware of any American descent from the actual illegitimate
offspring of Elizabeth Tomlinson.
It is my opinion that many aspects of the circumstantial evidence have been
blown way out of proportion or at least exagerated far beyond actual import,
and that if individuals could understand how those things actually fit in with
other like events of the period, they would find that our interpretation fits
the evidence as Charles, I and others have interpreted it, rather than the
exaggerated account that keeps floating around the Internet.
Paul
Reedpcgen
>Why was Edward Bagley appointed by the court as an administrator in 1635 when
he was a defendant? >
When was Edward Bagley a defendant?
>Why not chose the husbands of the daughters that were the executors in the
1631 case? >
Because the executors named in her nuncupative will (a) NEVER legally served as
her executors (her will was NEVER proved), and (b) the one was an illegitimate
son, the other would represent the interests of his illegitimate wife, and thus
would not have been next heir at law.
>who appointed Edward Bagley as administrator and why, when he
>was a defendant and the suit was brought by Dud Dudley?
What are you talking about? When was Edward Bagley defendant in a suit brought
by Dud Dudley?
> Why was there need
>for an administrator when only a lawyer was necessary to represent the
>defendant?
An administrator was NECESSARY because Elizabeth Tomlinson had an estate. The
court needed to appoint an administrator on legal grounds. As Elizabeth was
not indebted to creditors, and had LAND and personal property of worth, the
court would, according to legal precedent, appoint the next legal heir as
administrator. That was the law.
Probate law in AMerica is not what it was in ENgland at that time. It is
erroneous and misleadng to apply your personal experience to this problem. It
even varies county by couty and state by state. I've testified as an expert
witness in probate cases before, but that has nothing to do with the Tomlinson
problem.
Also, I thought it interesting that no one was disputing that Elizabeth
Tomlinson had bequeathed 40-50 pounds to the poor of the town of Dudley, and
that this was not in dispute. Thomas Tomlinson alias Dudley and Henry Jevon
even announced this in the local churches.
So, if Elizabeth Tomlinson bequeathed 50 pounds to the poor of Dudley, why
should the bequest of that amount to her nephews be remarkable?
Paul
Reedpcgen
>son, the other would represent the interests of his illegitimate wife, and
>thus
>would not have been next heir at law.
>
Oops. Mybad. Thomas Dudley was husband of Catherine Tomlinson, Elizabeth's
daughter, so both men were husbands of Elizabeth's daughters.
(That presents an interesting question. If the daughters were children of no
one, were their husband still a son-in-law? : )
BUT the important point at law here is that Thomas Dudley, of Tipton, and Henry
Jevon professed that THEY NEVER PROVED Elizabeth Tomlinson's nuncupative will.
They were never LEGAL EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS of Elizabeth's estate at that
time, though they moved personally to take charge of it.
The FIRST legal administrator of Elizabeth Tomlinson's estate was Edward
Bagley. Comparison cannot be made, on legal grounds, to the executors named in
her will.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
of King Edward III.
That's the bottom line and that's why so many seem to be lusting after a
descent from him ---- even if it is from his concubine, Elizabeth
Tomlinson, "on whom he begot divers [eleven] children" ---- as CP puts
it.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
> None of you have explained why you think these illegitimate descents
> have any particular Genealogical Value.
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
Dear Spencer,
I think Ken Harper Finton revealed the "importance" as apparently the
Bagleys are ancestors of President Richard Nixon. This is perhaps one reason
why some people so passionately try to attach the Bagleys to the Dudleys, as
this would give a royal line to Richard Milhous Nixon. Apart from that, it
would be great if an definitive answer could be found, Ken Finton says there
isn't one in the affirmative and Paul Reed says there shouldn't be one as,
with the documentation at present, the opposite is more likeley to be the
case. Personally, my vote still goes to Paul Reed, he sticks to facts
whereas Ken Harper Finton pursues a more romantic "possibility".
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
You make some excellent points, Leo.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:002701c0c47b$63aede80$5dc03bcb@leo...
Séimí mac Liam
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:ui4TIiHxAHA.302@cpmsnbbsa09...
> Edward (Sutton, or Dudley) [1567-1643], 5th Lord Dudley, is a
descendant
> of King Edward III.
>
> That's the bottom line and that's why so many seem to be lusting
after a
> descent from him ---- even if it is from his concubine, Elizabeth
> Tomlinson, "on whom he begot divers [eleven] children" ---- as CP
puts
> it.
>
G-Grandfather of Gov. Thomas.
D. Spencer Hines
Except Governor Thomas Dudley is thought, by David Faris at least, to be
the grandson of Captain Henry Dudley ---- not his great-grandson.
With the Suttons, as I prefer to call the earlier ones ---- rather than
Dudley, come all sorts of interesting connections to Massachusetts and
Virginia worthies.
Sutton Place in New York City?
You also get your own residential College at Harvard ---- Dudley
House ---- as well as the Cafe Gato Rojo.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~dudley/
'Strod'nry.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:l8OB6.1017$Hp.4...@typhoon.aracnet.com...
Séimí mac Liam
> Quite.
>
> Except Governor Thomas Dudley is thought, by David Faris at least,
to be
> the grandson of Captain Henry Dudley ---- not his great-grandson.
Of course you are correct, I was thinking of Edward and John's father
and wrote Henry.
>
> With the Suttons, as I prefer to call the earlier ones ---- rather
than
> Dudley, come all sorts of interesting connections to Massachusetts
and
> Virginia worthies.
Various sources call them differently, I tend to call all the Barons
up to the end of the male line, Sutton. I think that makes the last
one I call Sutton the father -in-law of Humble Ward. It appears to me
that for several generations before that, younger sons had used Dudley
as a surname while the oldest son retained the surname Sutton, though
once he asceded to the title, he would have been called "Dudley" by
his peers rather than his name.
>
> Sutton Place in New York City?
>
> You also get your own residential College at Harvard ---- Dudley
> House ---- as well as the Cafe Gato Rojo.
Not to mention a scholarship for descendants of the good Gov. If I'd
known that in 1966 when I was accepted for admission there, who
knows,? I coulda grew up to be Al Gore.. or the Unibomber. Had to
settle for the UofU and endiing up a nut ... farmer.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/13/01 6:45:07 PM, leov...@iinet.net.au writes:
<< Personally, my vote still goes to Paul Reed, he sticks to facts whereas
Ken Harper Finton pursues a more romantic "possibility". >>
Romantic? I don't think that it the word. The word is frustrated because I
had it right four years ago and no one would believe it. This last round was
a lot of circular meanderings based in the overwriting in the 1635 document.
The circumstantial evidence of a blood tie was strong enough in the past for
genealogists to claim a connection since well before the turn of the last
century. Even Charles Hansen was surprised to find that the 1635 court called
Edward Bagley a nephew of Elizabeth Tomlinson. Before that everyone thought
John Bagley's wife was an illegitimate daughter of Edward Sutton, perhaps
through another woman altogether.
I have a letter from Neil Thompson that says just that before Col. Hansen
wrote his article.
The 1635 record found by Hansen narrowed the field. John's wife 'had to be' a
sister of Elizabeth Tomlinson, because it was now known that Edward Sutton
could not be her father. The only other possibility -- without speculation --
is that Edward had a first child with a sister of Elizabeth Tomlinson and
that child married John Bagley. This is only possible with Joan Tomlinson (b
1569) who could have had a child in 1585 when she was fourteen. That daughter
would have been 16 when she married John Bagley around 1601.
This relationship would make Edward Bagley a grandnephew of Elizabeth
Tomlinson and a grandson of Edward Sutton. This is the only way the
relationships can be explained with the court evidence and the circumstantial
evidence. In other words, John Bagley's wife would have been Elizabeth
Tomlinson's niece, not her sister, yet Edward would still be her nephew
through his mother and the grandson of Edward Sutton. These are the facts
without speculation, if the Bagels and the Sootiness have a blood
relationship.
The problem here is not that there is no answer, but the self-appointed
experts will not now accept the circumstantial evidence that there is a blood
tie because they had to revamp their conclusions when it was discovered that
Edward was a nephew of Elizabeth Tomlinson. Instead of looking for a way that
the relationship could exist (by Edward being a grand-nephew instead of a
nephew, which I proposed in 1997) they chose to tear the circumstantial
evidence apart piece by piece and argue that a godchild arrangement with the
Bagley children satisfied all the criteria of bequests, leases, and naming
patterns.
They chose to believe that John Bagley was so enamored of his boss that he
named his children after him and his children named their children after him.
They chose to ignore the name Franciso Sutton Bagley in a later generation.
They chose to rationalize away the 1000 year lease given to a 72 year old man
(John Bagley) the year of Edward Bagley's death. They chose to rationalize
away the tidy sum that John Bagley accumulated and willed to his children.
They chose to rationalize away the fact that Elizabeth Tomlinson left sizable
amounts of money to the Bagley children to be paid by Edward Sutton while
leaving her own children only some clothes and household residue. They chose
to rationalize away the fact that Elizabeth Tomlinson gave her only home to a
son of John Bagley before his death. They chose to rationalize away the 21
year contract entered into jointly by the Bagley and Tomlinson family for the
rabbit warren in Old Park. They chose to ignore that these same lands in Old
Park were later in John Bagley's possession and he had to fight in court to
keep them to the extent that he reverted his title from gentleman to yeoman
to obtain court sympathy. They chose to rationalize away that when Lord
Dudley was in financial trouble he borrowed 600 pounds and used it to support
Elizabeth Tomlinson's bequests, then defaulted on the loan, bringing down the
wrath of the creditor on John Bagley -- who had received the Old Park lands
and other properties that he later gave his children.
All of this rationalizing has been frustrating for me, as I do not believe
these things should have been ignored. The answer has always been right in
front of our noses. Instead of accepting the truth of the relationship, they
had to protect their 'reputations' for scholarly expertise and mere amateurs
could not possibly stumble upon the truth through a bit of speculation and a
lot of common logic.
I am sorry if I seem bitter, but I am. This should have been settled four
years ago.
- Ken
Reedpcgen
>experts will not now accept the circumstantial evidence that there is a blood
>
>tie because they had to revamp their conclusions
Um, I've never had to revampt my conclusions. I came onto this thing fresh.
The facts do not seem confusing to me, but plain. I've read well over 20,000
English wills and administrations in the last 20 years, doing this thing every
day. Anyone who had to wade through that many documents would get some
knowledge of the way things work, aside from studying the law. Yet you act as
if I am doing my best to contort these things to prove a point, rather than
arrive and the simplest solution. The circumstantial evidence actually matches
the scenario by which Edward Bagley is a nephew of Elizabeth Tomlinson much
better than any other scenario you have put forth, in my humble opinion. That
is why I have even bothered to work on a disussion of how to properly interpret
this circumstantial evidence. If there were any reasonable question, do you
think I would bewasting my time?
The Chancery suit by Dud Dudley claimed Elizabeth Tomlinson's estate was worth
600 pounds. Thomas Dudley and Henry Jevon answered it had worth, but was not
quite that valuable. The overseers of the poor at Dudley brought their own
suit, stating that in plate, jewels, etc., her estate was worth 1,500 pounds.
These were locals who would have been at her house many times and were familiar
with her. Lord Dudley specifically ordered after her death that NO ONE enter
the house until he was able to remove "his" things> I would expect he was
trying to recoup the jewels, etc. It is undisputed that Elizabeth bequeathed
40-50 pounds to the poor of the parish of Dudley, which was eventually settled
on them by decree of the judges. Yet you, based on intuition[?], rather than a
knowledge of the factual evidence, have stated that Elizabeth Tomlinson had NO
estate or any worth. By the testimony of her son Dud and others, it is clear
she also held various land holdings.
Yours has not been an accurate summation of the circumstantial evidence. This
is what I have attempted to correct, for the benefit of decsendants.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, Sutton.
University of Utah?
You seem to have turned out just fine.
Harvard would probably have corrupted you ---- as it does so many. <g>
You grow nuts? What kind? : )
Hell, that's a hell of a lot more socially responsible than the sorts of
things many Harvard graduates do.
The world needs more nuts and fewer Harvard graduates.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:DRPB6.1021$Hp.4...@typhoon.aracnet.com...
Reedpcgen
>named his children after him and his children named their children after him.
>
John Bagley would not have named any of his sons in honor of his
"brother-in-law" Lord Edward Sutton alias Dudley, the most prominent man in the
area, who was likely a godfather of at least one? Wasn't William Bagley
blacksmith, and didn't John or Edward Bagley mention iron works in their will?
Lord Dudley's illegitimate sons were always styled "gentleman," not yeoman
(except Dud, at the end of his life, after he lost his estate due to
sequestration), and many of the sons-in-law were also of good gentry. Wheras
John Bagley was styled gentleman ONCE in a deposition in which he likely wanted
to inflate his position to aid his brother-in-law. In ALL OTHER references,
John Bagley was styled yeoman. Ken, how many times was Edward Bagley styled
"gentleman"?
We have a distinct difference in status between Lord Dudley's illegitimate
children and John Bagley's children.
I'm trying to get at an accurate portrayal, based on SPECIFIC FACTS, not
intuition. If we're going to discuss things, let's discuss the evidence that
leads to the circumstantial evidence, rather than intuition or hunches. Is
that a blatant enough challenge (nudge, nudge).
Paul
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <KHF...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
>
> In a message dated 4/13/01 6:45:07 PM, leov...@iinet.net.au writes:
>
> << Personally, my vote still goes to Paul Reed, he sticks to facts whereas
> Ken Harper Finton pursues a more romantic "possibility". >>
>
> Romantic? I don't think that it the word. The word is frustrated because
I
> had it right four years ago and no one would believe it.
Ken, you were right and everybody else is wrong?
This last round was
> a lot of circular meanderings based in the overwriting in the 1635
document.
>
> The circumstantial evidence of a blood tie was strong enough in the past
for
> genealogists to claim a connection since well before the turn of the last
> century.
Claim a connection is one thing, establishing one another. For instance have
a look at Burke's Presidential Families of the USA, ISBN 0 85011 017 3
Appendix 13 "The Descent of President Nixon from Edward III
On that page a beautiful line has been printed---it was established and then
someone comes and claimes that Harry Thomas Owen, who became a Quaker, was
not a son of Thomas Owen of Machynlleth and the whole link is broken.
Even Charles Hansen was surprised to find that the 1635 court called
> Edward Bagley a nephew of Elizabeth Tomlinson.
Haven't we been told about Latin terms that can mean grandson as well as
nephew? The only aunt of mine that played a role in my life was not an aunt
at all.
Before that everyone thought
Everyone "thought" i.e. it was not proven/accepted/established?
> John Bagley's wife was an illegitimate daughter of Edward Sutton, perhaps
> through another woman altogether.
"Perhaps through another woman". That sounds like guess work to me.
> I have a letter from Neil Thompson that says just that before Col. Hansen
> wrote his article.
>
> The 1635 record found by Hansen narrowed the field. John's wife 'had to
be'
"Had to be" sounds like guess work to me. It can be guessed as highly likely
but "had to be" is not accepted/proven/established.
a
> sister of Elizabeth Tomlinson, because it was now known that Edward Sutton
> could not be her father. The only other possibility -- without
speculation --
> is that Edward had a first child with a sister of Elizabeth Tomlinson and
> that child married John Bagley. This is only possible
again "this is only possible" to me guess work, perhaps educated guesswork,
but not proven/accepted/established.
with Joan Tomlinson (b
> 1569) who could
who "could" what is more uncertain than "could"?
have had a child in 1585 when she was fourteen. That daughter
> would have been 16 when she married John Bagley around 1601.
>
> This relationship would make Edward Bagley a grandnephew of Elizabeth
> Tomlinson and a grandson of Edward Sutton. This is the only way the
> relationships can be explained with the court evidence and the
circumstantial
> evidence. In other words, John Bagley's wife would have been Elizabeth
> Tomlinson's niece, not her sister, yet Edward would still be her nephew
> through his mother and the grandson of Edward Sutton. These are the facts
> without speculation, if the Bagels and the Sootiness have a blood
> relationship.
This last sentence I find incredible----These are the facts? when all I hear
is "would be" "could be" "has to be" ?
>
> The problem here is not that there is no answer, but the self-appointed
> experts
I think it is very unkind to call Paul Reed an self-appointed expert, simply
because he does not agree with you.
will not now accept the circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence is not proof. It may make things highly likely but
it does not proof anything beyond doubt.
Ken, I think you have identified yourself too much with one possibility and
you disagree with everyone who suggests that you could be wrong. You MUST be
correct with this, you seem a lone voice in a desert, perhaps because you
could be wrong?
I think you have intimated before that the end will have to be a "Agree to
disagree" you may well be right but there is nothing forthcoming that makes
it "acceptably proven".
Sorry to say all this.
Reedpcgen
>
As I have posted, such a lease was typical of the period, and may have brought
as little as 12 pence per annum.
> They chose to rationalize
>away the tidy sum that John Bagley accumulated and willed to his children.
What was remarkable about the amound, and who rationalized it? It is
remarkable in no way for a yeoman.
>They chose to rationalize away the fact that Elizabeth Tomlinson left sizable
>amounts of money to the Bagley children to be paid by Edward Sutton while
>leaving her own children only some clothes and household residue.
Here you are VERY innacurate. Elizabeth left her clothing to her daughters,
but she left THE RESIDUE OF HER ESTATE to be divided equally among her
children. Now, given that Dud claimed her personal estate (not real estate)
was worth 600 pounds, and the men of the parish of Dudley claimed it was worth
1,500 pounds, and as she gave 40-50 pounds to the poor of Dudley, what is
remarkable about bequeathing 50 pounds to her nephews, the representatives of
her Tomlinson descent?
>They chose
>to rationalize away the fact that Elizabeth Tomlinson gave her only home to a
>son of John Bagley before his death.
This was NOT Elizabeth Tomlinson's only home. How on earth did you arrive at
that absurd conclusion?
>They chose to rationalize away the 21
>year contract entered into jointly by the Bagley and Tomlinson family for the
>rabbit warren in Old Park.
How is it odd that Lord Dudley's "brother-in-law" who happened to be chief
forester there, was involved in a lease by which the parties had to pay Lord
Dudley 100 pound per year? What great benefit or gift was deried from that?
>They chose to ignore that these same lands in Old
>Park were later in John Bagley's possession and he had to fight in court to
>keep them to the extent that he reverted his title from gentleman to yeoman
>to obtain court sympathy.
Yes, he claimed that he was in poverty without it (where was the great sum of
money he had squirrelled away?), and his children would have been impoverished
(and thus need to be supported by the parish)? If he were that border line,
what is the great worth of these lands or his position?
>They chose to rationalize away that when Lord
>Dudley was in financial trouble he borrowed 600 pounds and used it to support
>Elizabeth Tomlinson's bequests,
Where do you get that he used it to support Elizabeth Tomlinson's beuqests?
Where do you get THIS from?
>All of this rationalizing has been frustrating for me, as I do not believe
>these things should have been ignored. The answer has always been rig
Um, who ignored it? I took it all into account.
> Instead of accepting the truth of the relationship, they
>had to protect their 'reputations' for scholarly expertise and mere amateurs
>could not possibly stumble upon the truth through a bit of speculation and a
>lot of common logic.
>
Um, do you owe me two subscriptions to PC?
> who could have had a child in 1585 when she was fourteen.
I'll let that stand without much comment, given that we do not know which of
Elizabeth's sisters it would be or when she was born.
>This is the only way the
>relationships can be explained with the court evidence and the circumstantial
>evidence.
The court evidence ONLY allows Edward Bagley to be legitimate, a nephew of
Elizabeth Tomlinson (this would agree most favorably with chronology, if his
mother were 21 or older at the time of his birth, which would be by FAR the
most likely estimate).
Ken has tried to compare the executors of Elizabeth Tomlinson to the
appointment of the highest court in England of Edward Bagley as administrator.
By their OWN admisions, Thomas Dudley and Henry Jevon never proved her will,
and were NEVER legally appointed administrators of her estate. They were
acting of their own accord. the FIRST legally or court appointed administrator
of Elizabeth Tomlinson's estate was Edward Bagley. By law (and the judges of
the highest court knew the law), Edward Bagley MUST be legitimate. Elizabeth
Tomlinson was known in court circles to be a mistress, and the VERY document
that appoints Edward as administrator states she was a SPINSTER, acknowledging
the court's knowledge that she was UNMARRIED, hence Edward could not be a
descendant.
I cannot see, Ken, that you have prevailed on ANY point of circumstantial
evidence. The only and best argument you have is th eonomastic evidence, and
we have already showed that entirely UNRELATED people at Dudley named sons who
bore Lord Dudley's names. Since it was likely Lord Dudley's nephews, baptised
at Dudley, would be godchildren, what is remarkable? ALso, as, by thetime of
her death, Elizabeth (according to the PCC record) had no closer relative that
Edward Bagley's mother, wouldn't it be likely that John Bagley, husband of
Elizabeth's ONLY close relative, would be expected to take care of her and her
affairs when Lord Dudley was not around?
Hmmmm.
I must be very dense.
Pau l
Reedpcgen
>Yes, Sutton.
>
>University of Utah?
>
Actually, the University of Utah, is a decent place for Communications (top
three to five in the nation or something when I was there studying in that sort
of thing as a diversion), so not anything to be ashamed of (tho their history
department is soreley lacking [grateful for training within the family]).
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
I have no problem at all with the University of Utah. I'm sure it's a
fine institution.
I just didn't understand for sure what he meant by "UofU" ---- and you
snipped that part.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010414014400...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
Elizabeth willed 50£ to the poor, and that surprised nobody, because willing things to the poor was supposed to buy one forgiveness of one's sins, and she had 11-13 illegitimate, adulterin children to be forgiven...
That she should leave as much to the nephews, is only surprising because she left so much less to her own children... & is doubly surprising if one supposes the Bagley children to be descended of Lord Dudley, because she had so little to give her own children, and he was wealthy enough (despite what you call his financial problems... I wish I had his financial problems!) to take care of them himself; this was like the poor giving charity to the rich... which they do tend to try to arrange... that's how they get and stay rich...
Annie
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Reedpcgen <reed...@aol.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : samedi 14 avril 2001 10:23
Objet : Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
[Ken writes:]
>Why was Edward Bagley appointed by the court as an administrator in 1635 when
he was a defendant? >
When was Edward Bagley a defendant?
>Why not chose the husbands of the daughters that were the executors in the
1631 case? >
Because the executors named in her nuncupative will (a) NEVER legally served as
her executors (her will was NEVER proved), and (b) the one was an illegitimate
son, the other would represent the interests of his illegitimate wife, and thus
would not have been next heir at law.
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
the Bagley/Brintons are for the moment, considered to be descended from Elizabeth's daughter who married John Bagley... unless it be proven or accepted that he indeed married a daughter of Elizabeth's sister Joan, or Mother (Ann or Agnes) which is still under debate...
there is other definite descent from Elizabeth's children; I find it quite intriguing that Dudley's cousin Thomas was so taken with the Romanticism of Edward's flying in the face of convention and priviledge, that he married one of Elizabeth's illegitimate daughters, and his son Cornelius married another...This despite the fact that they were in line for the considerable fortunes and titles of the Barons Ward, Viscounts Dudley & Ward... for which they were obligatorily skipped over, with everything going to his younger brother William!
There are also lines followed out for a good number of Elizabeth's children... this data is unfortunately all on Ancestry files... needs reverification but is nonetheless indicative... & no longer posted... & while there are errors, there is also a whole lot of very detailed information from OPRs which is much easier to verify, than to go and fetch...
I only took 3 generations at the time, because I was checking the nepotis candidates...
Perhaps one of you has enough pull with LDS to get them updated, reposted & referenced more specifically, with submitters? The former urls were until dec 2000, (don't work now) I had, by curiosity, followed out a number of Elizabeth's children, (but didn't keep it all) & they went on longer than my patience did... I was looking for the Brintons and stopped there, but might have found other lines if they were still there when I went back... of course, the data is of only moderate reliability, still, the OPRs they have... & this batch was done by LDS stafffers, supposedly more reliable than amateur submitters...
Sutton/Tomlinson :http://www.familysearch.com/Search/af/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1786269
Bagleys, Brintons et al: http://www.familysearch.com/Search/af/ancestral_file_frame.asp?recid=12600637
In any case, Sutton seems to have managed to marry many of Elizabeth's children to nobles in his own family, on the Ward branches, but also elsewhere on the tree; I wonder if he didn't even marry someone to some of Theodosia's kids?
In any case, here, for the record, is the list of children for Edward's cousin, Thomas...who married one of Elizabeth's daughters, Catherine; you will recall that his son Cornelius, married another, Dorothy... & that for this reason, their line was skipped over for the succession...
Thomas DUDLEY</a> (AFN:97C6-38)
<a href="pedigree_chart.asp?recid=7489083&familyid=1786502"
Born:1592
Place:Dudley, Staffordshire, Engl
Christened:3 Sep 1592
Place:Tipton, Stafford, England
Buried:9 Jan 1674/1675
Place:
Married:&16 Nov 1612
Place:St Edmunds, Dudley, Staffordshireng, Engl
Father:<Edward DUDLEY(AFN:97C5-P7)
<a href="family_group_record.asp?familyid=1786501" target="main">
Mother:Elizabeth SHELDON
<a href='individual_record.asp?recid=7489082' target=main>
Wife's Name : Catherine SUTTON(AFN:97BJ-QS)
<a href="pedigree_chart.asp?recid=7488502&familyid=1786502" target="main">
Born:1589 Of, Dudley, Stafford, England<
Died:31 Oct 1675
Place: Tipton, Staffordshire, Engl
Buried:31 Oct 1675
Place:Tipton, Stafford, England
Married:16 Nov 1612
Place:St Edmunds, Dudley, Staffordshireng, Engl
Father:Edward SUTTON</a> (AFN:97BC-SG)
Mother:Elizabeth TOMLINSON</a> (AFN:97BJ-M9)
</font>
Children
Name: Edward DUDLEY</a> (AFN:97C6-4F)
Born:1621
Place:24 Mar 1621/1622
Place:St Thomas, Dudley, Stafford, England<
Buried:15 Aug 1674<
Place:Tipton, Stafford, England
Name William DUDLEY</a> (AFN:97C6-5L)
<a href='individual_record.asp?recid=7489085' target=main>
Born:1625
Christened:19 Apr 1625
Place:St Edmunds, Dudley, Stafford, England
Name : Cornelius DUDLEY</a> (AFN:97C6-6R)
<a href='individual_record.asp?recid=7489086'
Born:1627
Christened:30 May 1627
Place:St Edmunds, Dudley, Stafford, England
Buried:12 Jul 1685
Place:West Bromwick, Stafford, England
Name: Humble DUDLEY</a> (AFN:97C6-7X)
<a href='individual_record.asp?recid=7489087' target=main>
Born:1629
Christened:20 Aug 1629
Place:St Edmunds, Dudley, Stafford, England
Buried:9 Aug 1687
Place:West Bromwich, Dudley, Stafford, England
Name:Katherine DUDLEY</a> (AFN:97C6-84)
<a href='individual_record.asp?recid=7489088' target=main>
Born:&1631
Christened:&15 Dec 1631
Place:St Edmunds, Dudley, Stafford, England
Buried:28 Aug 1705
Place:
Name : Hannah DUDLEY</a> (AFN:97C6-99)
<a href='individual_record.asp?recid=7489089' target=main>
Born:1635
Christened:20 Aug 1635
Place:St Edmunds, Dudley, Stafford, England
English approval: 3/1999
Annie
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Reedpcgen <reed...@aol.com>
Ą : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : samedi 14 avril 2001 09:23
Objet : Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
>
>None of you have explained why you think these illegitimate descents
>have any particular Genealogical Value.
>--
>
>D. Spencer Hines
Tim Powys-Lybbe
nlt...@pop.uky.edu (Nat Taylor) wrote:
> In article <3c.a3ed64...@aol.com>, KHF...@aol.com wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Ken should understand the difference between an executor (chosen by a
> testator) and an administrator (granted administration of an estate by a
> probate court). Executors, like beneficiaries, can be freely chosen
> (within certain limits) in a will. Paul Reed has clearly discussed how
> and why courts choose administrators, and the implication for Edward
> Bagley's parentage.
>
Modern practice in England is that there is very little different
between executors and administrators. Agreed that executors are those
appointed by the testator; but these days an executor has to get court
authority, probate, to do any legal distribution of assets.
If the testator fails to appoint or if the chosen executors retire, then
the family invites someone to do the job and then takes their proposal
to the court who rubber stamp it.
(Obviously there is something different where the family does not agree
on anyone.)
How did the late medieval practice differ from the current one?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/13/01 11:15:14 PM, leov...@iinet.net.au writes:
<< > evidence. In other words, John Bagley's wife would have been Elizabeth
> Tomlinson's niece, not her sister, yet Edward would still be her nephew
> through his mother and the grandson of Edward Sutton. These are the facts
> without speculation, if the Bagels and the Suttons have a blood
> relationship. -KHF
This last sentence I find incredible----These are the facts? when all I hear
is "would be" "could be" "has to be" ? LVdP >>
Not incredible, Leo ... but logical. It shows where to look, I saId:
If there is a blood relationship between the Bagleys and the Suttons
(If the wind blows from west to east)
the Edward would have to be the grandnephew of Elizabeth Tomlinson
(the low pressure system would have to be to the east of the high pressure)
If there is no blood connection, one need look nowhere at all because the
wind is not blowing.
That is all you possibly can hear ... could be .. would be ... because that
is all there is and that is all there will likely ever be. These people had
no birth certificates and few written records. The only mention of Joan
Tomilinson in history is the record of her birth, yet we cannot ignore her if
we are reconstructing the lives of the people around her and trying to
reconcile the facts with the few existing court records and slim
documentation on common folk four centuries ago.
Reconstructions have to deal with reasonable ideas that explain the existing
circumstances. These reconstructions change as perspective changes and that
is why we are constantly rewriting history and genealogies.
-Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/13/01 11:15:14 PM, leov...@iinet.net.au writes:
<< I think it is very unkind to call Paul Reed a self-appointed expert, simply
because he does not agree with you. >>
It is not kind. Actually, I was not thinking of Paul at that moment but
others to whom I showed the circumstantial evidence much earlier. I have
detected a closedness about this circumstantial evidence from almost everyone
associated with Hansen;s article ... they explain it away in other terms as
though they do not want that line to connect. They gang up on the evidence,
seemingly.
The reason for this is that the solution for this blood link requires
speculation of an event that we cannot prove took place and will probably
never find proof of taking place. However, if one does make that assumption
that a birth event did occur where somehow John Bagley's wife was blood kin
to Edward Sutton, the circumstantial evidence does support it quite well. To
defeat the circumstantial evidence we have to make excuses piece by piece by
piece and lose track of the forest for the trees, in my opinion. That is
what I meant.
I am not from this family, so it does not matter to me personally. It was
very hard to understand Charles Hansen's attitude -- as I do not think he
looked far enough, though he is from that family. He is the self-appointed
expert to whom I was referring, but the rest of his group falls in line ...
so yes, I am not being kind.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/13/01 11:15:14 PM, leov...@iinet.net.au writes:
<< Ken, I think you have identified yourself too much with one possibility and
you disagree with everyone who suggests that you could be wrong. You MUST be
correct with this, you seem a lone voice in a desert, perhaps because you
could be wrong? >>
I think I love being a lone voice in the desert.
I have lots of fault, you know. I like to be thought of as being a nice guy
-- but I have a secret part of me that wants to be Spencer Hines -- and it is
coming out pretty strong these days. Don't get me wrong, I think Spencer is
one of the most colorful characters I have ever met outside Professor David
Howlett at Oxford University. I have grown to love his style and personality
-- even though he dislikes me immensely. That, I feel, is good for my
character.
I will know when the time to admit that I am wrong arrives. I have no problem
with apologies. I am not really attached to the outcome. I am a lover of
philosophy even more than a lover of history.
-Ken
A Channing
> An administrator was NECESSARY because Elizabeth Tomlinson had an estate.
The
> court needed to appoint an administrator on legal grounds. As Elizabeth
was
> not indebted to creditors, and had LAND and personal property of worth,
the
> court would, according to legal precedent, appoint the next legal heir as
> administrator. That was the law.
Sorry to labour the point, but this is not quite right, at least as the law
stands now.
The court does not initiate the appointment of the Administrators, it is up
to an individual to apply for letters of Administration. The court will
usually only approve someone with an interest in the estate (or their
proxies etc) and will often be the heir, but there is nothing to force the
heir to apply or for the court to appoint him. If no one applies, the
estate goes to the crown (or more specifically the Duchy of Cornwall or of
Lancashire -alternatively between the two). I don't believe there is any
limit on the number of Administrators that can be appointed. I think it
would be a mistake to assume that an administration was necessarily the
heir.
Adrian
Chris Dickinson
>that is all there is and that is all there will likely ever be.
>These people had no birth certificates and few written records.
>The only mention of Joan Tomilinson in history is the record of
>her birth, yet we cannot ignore her if we are reconstructing the
>lives of the people around her and trying to reconcile the facts
>with the few existing court records and slim documentation on
>common folk four centuries ago.
It may be that the facts about Joan Tomlinson will forever remain
as bare as you say, but by the seventeenth century there are
actually quite a lot of sources to illuminate the lives of 'common
folk'.
The problem is not so much that the documentation doesn't exist,
more that a great deal of research is required to dig it all up.
Generally more than is possible to do from a distance.
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
Elizabeth's son Robert married twice Margaret had 4 kids, Anne had 7=11 kids... all of them reproducing like little bunnies... his son Edward married twice, Anne had 2 kids, Elizabeth had more...etc...
Cousin Thomas & Catherine had 6 kids reproducing legitimate Dudley lines with Tomlinson daughters; 1st son Edward married twice, Sarah had2 kids, Mary had 6; 3rd son Cornelius married a Dorothy Sutton, had 8 kids...
Elizabeth's daughter Elizabeth married Jeoffrey Dudley, probably a brother of Thomas' on the Ward line, had 9 kids...
So, even if only three of Elizabeth's kids were reproducers, they did their best to make up for the rest... & there is surely issue, and they probably got to the americas... if you can get them to repost OR forward the ged & refs, I'll be glad to check... IS THERE SOMEWHERE ONE CAN EMAIL TO REQUEST SUCH A FILE SPECIFICALLY? I has obvious errors, & needs to be taken with caution, but it has so much OPR detail and complete lines, that it's still a useful starting place...
Dud Dudley wed Elinor Heaton, no kids shown; Edward died young; John died young; Alice Sutton wed George Guest, no kids shown; Martha married twice, no kids; Susan died young, no kids; Dorothy wife of Thomas Brookes, no kids known, (she may have been married 2nd time to Cornelius) Jane married to Richard Parkhouse no kids that I know of, but I didn't look further, because that wasn't the question at the time...
Annie
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Annie Natalelli-Waloszek <Xan...@Wanadoo.fr>
Ą : Medieval list <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>; Reedpcgen <reed...@aol.com>
Date : samedi 14 avril 2001 12:24
Objet : Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
John Steele Gordon
> With the Suttons, as I prefer to call the earlier ones ---- rather than
> Dudley, come all sorts of interesting connections to Massachusetts and
> Virginia worthies.
>
> Sutton Place in New York City?
No. It's named for Effingham B. Sutton, a New York dry goods merchant, who
made a fortune in the California gold rush, sending a fast ship with
shovels, etc., and bringing back gold. He then established the first clipper
service between New York and San Francisco. He later organized a real estate
syndicate to promote the east 50s as a residential area, and the street was
named for him, but it didn't become fashionable until long after his death.
JSG
Séimí mac Liam
> Thank you kindly.
>
> Yes, Sutton.
>
> University of Utah?
>
> You seem to have turned out just fine.
>
> Harvard would probably have corrupted you ---- as it does so many.
<g>
>
> You grow nuts? What kind? : )
Let's see if you can guess from the sig. :-)
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
>
> Hell, that's a hell of a lot more socially responsible than the
sorts of
> things many Harvard graduates do.
>
> The world needs more nuts and fewer Harvard graduates.
Or Yale graduates.
Séimí mac Liam
some time ago. And became history herself sometime in the eighties.
I have her to thank for a lot of the genealogy done on my Dudley line.
I have, sitting in my garage, the desk made by my Grandfather, Hiram
Smith Dudley, when he was a student there and the students had to make
their own desks.
--
James C. Woodard
"Too many laws make scofflaws of all"
http://www.aracnet.com/~gwyddon/
gwy...@aracnet.com
Nat Taylor
>I have
>detected a closedness about this circumstantial evidence from almost everyone
>associated with Hansen;s article ... they explain it away in other terms as
>though they do not want that line to connect. They gang up on the evidence,
>seemingly.
Several people, have, independently, and with no vested interest in
'Hansen's circle' (what is that?) have stepped in, not to 'gang up on the
evidence' but to point out that you and Annie have engaged in much
misinterpretation of the alleged evidence, through lack of experience
interpreting seventeenth-century English law and custom regarding probate,
leases, etc. This has not, I think, been mean-spirited or conspiratorial:
such exchange represents what this medium can provide to posters and
readers--hands-on experience in how to responsibly interpret the evidence.
>It was very hard to understand Charles Hansen's attitude -- as I do not
>think he looked far enough, though he is from that family. He is the
>self-appointed expert to whom I was referring...
Hansen has demonstrated his expertise in a long career of well-respected
genealogical publishing, and what others have said here corroborates his
reasoning in his article on this question. That does not mean everything
he has written is unimpeachable, but it is simply not right to impugn his
expertise.
Nat Taylor
Chris Phillips
> Paul wrote,
> > An administrator was NECESSARY because Elizabeth Tomlinson had an
estate.
> The
> > court needed to appoint an administrator on legal grounds. As Elizabeth
> was
> > not indebted to creditors, and had LAND and personal property of worth,
> the
> > court would, according to legal precedent, appoint the next legal heir
as
> > administrator. That was the law.
>
> Sorry to labour the point, but this is not quite right, at least as the
law
> stands now.
>
> The court does not initiate the appointment of the Administrators, it is
up
> to an individual to apply for letters of Administration. The court will
> usually only approve someone with an interest in the estate (or their
> proxies etc) and will often be the heir, but there is nothing to force the
> heir to apply or for the court to appoint him.
It's useful to have that pointed out - and I think I have seen creditors
appointed as administrators, where there was no apparent blood relationship
(I think that was in the 18th century, from memory).
But isn't the crucial point in this argument that the son of an illegitimate
daughter would not have been described as the grandson in any legal
document, so that "nepos" must be translated as nephew here?
In fact, I think all the participants in the argument now agree that "nepos"
must translate as nephew - or, at any rate, not as grandson - and the
argument seems to have moved on to whether the circumstancial evidence is
strong enough to overcome the plain meaning of this evidence.
One small point that bears on the circumstancial evidence, that I don't
think has been mentioned before, is that geographically the parish of Dudley
(in Worcestershire) is an enclave of Staffordshire, so the reference to
lands in Worcestershire and Staffordshire may simply mean lands near the
county border, rather than two distinct estates.
Chris Phillips
D. Spencer Hines
Edward Bagley a nephew of Elizabeth Tomlinson. Before that everyone
thought John Bagley's wife was an illegitimate daughter of Edward
Sutton, perhaps through another woman altogether.
I have a letter from Neil Thompson that says just that before Col.
Hansen wrote his article."
----------------------
What does Thompson have to say about that?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
<KHF...@aol.com> wrote in message news:22.14cb201...@aol.com...
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:xLYB6.48846$uk.53...@news02.optonline.net...
Willette Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@aracnet.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth: Estate of
>
> D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
> news:OPcR$MJxAHA.291@cpmsnbbsa09...
> > Quite.
> >
> > Except Governor Thomas Dudley is thought, by David Faris at least,
> to be
> > the grandson of Captain Henry Dudley ---- not his great-grandson.
>
> Of course you are correct, I was thinking of Edward and John's father
> and wrote Henry.
>
> >
> > With the Suttons, as I prefer to call the earlier ones ---- rather
> than
> > Dudley, come all sorts of interesting connections to Massachusetts
> and
> > Virginia worthies.
>
> Various sources call them differently, I tend to call all the Barons
> up to the end of the male line, Sutton. I think that makes the last
> one I call Sutton the father -in-law of Humble Ward. It appears to me
> that for several generations before that, younger sons had used Dudley
> as a surname while the oldest son retained the surname Sutton, though
> once he asceded to the title, he would have been called "Dudley" by
> his peers rather than his name.
> >
> > Sutton Place in New York City?
> >
> > You also get your own residential College at Harvard ---- Dudley
> > House ---- as well as the Cafe Gato Rojo.
>
> Not to mention a scholarship for descendants of the good Gov. If I'd
> known that in 1966 when I was accepted for admission there, who
> knows,? I coulda grew up to be Al Gore.. or the Unibomber. Had to
> settle for the UofU and endiing up a nut ... farmer.
>
> >
> > http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~dudley/
> >
> > 'Strod'nry.
> > "Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:l8OB6.1017$Hp.4...@typhoon.aracnet.com...
> > |
> > | D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in
> message
D. Spencer Hines
Please don't snip the substance of my posts, as well as the
attributions, and then make false accusations ---- even if only by sly
insinuation. In fact ---- especially, if only by sly insinuation.
To do so is quite fraudulent and charlatanesque. N'est-ce pas?
Thank you.
Deus Vult.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| Perhaps you misunderstood, Paul.
|
| I have no problem at all with the University of Utah. I'm sure it's a
| fine institution.
|
| I just didn't understand for sure what he meant by "UofU" ---- and you
| snipped that part.
| "Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
| news:20010414014400...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
| | >
| | >Yes, Sutton.
| | >
| | >University of Utah?
| | >
| |
| | Actually, the University of Utah, is a decent place for
Communications
| (top
| | three to five in the nation or something when I was there studying
in
| that sort
| | of thing as a diversion), so not anything to be ashamed of (tho
their
| history
| | department is soreley lacking [grateful for training within the
| family]).
| |
| | Paul
Reedpcgen
>things to the poor was supposed to buy one forgiveness of one's sins,
It was typical in English wills of the period to make bequests to the churches
or poor where you lived or had ties, but it was generally a matter of shillings
and pence at that time. Even 10 pounds would have been considered a large
amount for the poor.
Paul
Reedpcgen
If the goods of a person who died without making a will were administered by
someone, that person was chargeable in common law as an executor, but the
Statute of Westminster (2, 1275) committed the disposition of such goods to the
ecclesiastical courts which were bound to settle the debts of the deceased as
far as his goods extend.
By the statute 31 Edward III c. 11, the courts were given authority to appoint
_administrators_, to gather up and dispose of the goods of the deceased and to
account for them as if they were executors. Letters of administration ... were
granted firstly to the husband or wife, secondly to the children (sons or
daughters), thirdly to the father or mother, fourthly to a brother or sister of
the full or half blood, fifthly to the next of kin (i.e. an uncle, aunt or
cousin), sixthly to a creditor of the deceased, and seventhly for want of all
these, to any other person at the discretion of the court....
In cases where a creditor or other person interested in the estate of the
deceased wished to prevent probate or administration being granted to a
particular person without being first heard they entered a caveat which stood
in force for three months, cautioning the court. This would be entered in the
probate or administration act book or in a separate series of caveat books or
registers, and of course would ante-date the grant of probate or
administration. ...
After litigation the decision or _sentence_ (sententia) of the court was
recorded. There are many types of sentence but they are usually judgments for
the validity or nullity of the will, or to revoke or confirm a grant or some
action taken by the court or the executors.....
Both types of sentence are frequently found in the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury and the full sentence was always entered in Latin in the will
registers there, the will itself, whether valid or not, being registered in the
normal way. The probate act at the end would show if it had been registered by
sentence or interlocutory decree....
[end quote]
There was no caveat or dispute recorded when Edward Bagley was appointed
administrator of Elizabeth Tomlinson by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury.
We have already heard testimony that Dud Dudley and the representatives of the
parishes at Dudley brought suits against Thomas Dudley and Henry Jevon.
I cannot see that one could theorize that Edward Bagley was son of an
illegitimate daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson. EVEN IF one claimed that this
knowledge were kept from Edward, Dud Dudley and others associated with the
family would have known it. Dud was illegitimate, but not stigmatized beyond
legal inheritance (he attended university, etc.). Why, if they did not rush
into secrecy with Elizabeth's eleven children, baptized in public and supported
publicly by Lord Dudley, would they rush into great secrecy concerning a
hypothetical illegitimacy for Edward's mother? Dud Dudley would have
challenged the appointment of Edward Bagley as administrator if Edward's mother
were illegitimate.
I cannot see how the circumstantial evidence can be fitted to make the opposite
true.
Paul
A Channing
given in your posting, seems to have been the same in Elizabethan times
(Preface to the late F G Emmison's "Essex Wills" Vol 7 "letters of
Administration were granted to the next of kin..."). I am sorry (the new
US definition of this word) if I misled anyone over this.
Paul wrote,
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/14/01 12:26:20 PM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<< given that Dud claimed her personal estate (not real estate)
was worth 600 pounds, and the men of the parish of Dudley claimed it was worth
1,500 pounds, and as she gave 40-50 pounds to the poor of Dudley, what is
remarkable about bequeathing 50 pounds to her nephews, the representatives of
her Tomlinson descent? >>
This is what people "claim" the estate was worth. it is not surprising that
the poor of Dudley wanted more than was there.
Remember the 600 pounds that was borrowed and defaulted upon? This, I
believe, is the 600 pounds in question. We saw her will. It had no such sums
mentioned, and no such property as jewels or other houses mentioned. People
take care of their valuable assets in their wills with a great degree of
specificity. That is the entire idea of making a will -- verbal or written.
All estates have residual assets -- household pots and pans, pictures,
bedding, common furniture, hand tools, etc.
As to the amount of the bequests to the nephews, it can be pointed out that
the bequests to the same family that Lady Dudley in her will dated 1659 left
30 pounds to her grandchild, Ned Hobart, and twenty pounds each to her
grandchildren, John and James Hobart. To her nephew, who was also an
executor, she left five pounds. I am sure she had considerably more to leave
in her estate.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/14/01 4:26:50 PM, ch...@dickinson.uk.net writes:
<< The problem is not so much that the documentation doesn't exist,
more that a great deal of research is required to dig it all up.
Generally more than is possible to do from a distance. >>
Yes, and few of us have such interest that we will look it up properly.
Though the internet has made some research easy and living in or visiting
Salt Lake City gives one access to some things, nothing really can be assumed
to be complete until one digs it all up on ths spot.
There werer many questions under the surface of this discussion that could
probably be found in records that no one has probed. Even Hansen never
probed in England and hired someone to look for him in a few parish records.
This person made many errors that were found by Kathy several years ago and
posted to this forum. Obviously, all is not in. - Ken
Gryphon801
records". More than 100 Chancery suits, local Dudley town records, and Dudley
family papers were extensively examined locally. If they were not mentioned in
his article it is because nothing useful was found in the search.
Reedpcgen
Record Office (I assume, Ken, that you know who he is), and had extensive
searches done in the Dudley archives and in Worcestershire and Staffordshire.
I think it extraordinarily dense of you to assume you know what was done, that
it was done on a very limited basis, and then assume the least amount of
knowledge on the part of those who do not hold your view!
As Charles had such extensive searches made, do you not begin to comprehend
that, combined with the extensive amount of experience many have had in records
and law of this period, when we agree in unanimity with his conclusions, they
are sound?
You made the comment in another post, 'how did a yeoman manage to get six
houses?' WHAT do you think a yeoman was? Many yeomen had fairly extenisve
holdings. Six houses would be a modest holding for a yeoman, not anything
extraordinary.
Again and again you take things out of the context of the period, unaware, and
misapply it, thinking it must add credence with your hopes, rather than just
applying it as it is. That is EXTREMELY POOR methodology and dangerous in
drawing conclusions. If I could pound one thing in to you more than anything
else, that would be it. DO NOT take things out of context. Try to FIRST learn
what the context was, and then take it at face value.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
points of critique, [which is very sad, in itself] therefore I'm going
to hit him 'upside the head' with the 2 x 4 again:
1. Mr. Reed is obviously a competent and qualified genealogist. He has
worked with the primary sources and knows what he is talking about. My
belief is that he would not be an FASG if he were not competent and
skillful in his genealogical analyses. So, in my opinion, the question
of his technical genealogical and analytic skills is not at issue here.
2. His problem is that he has become so enmeshed in the legal and
technical details that he has lost sight of the FOREST for the TREES.
3. His *presentation* and *articulation* of the genealogical facts he
has unearthed has been quite inadequate, often confusing, as well as
incomplete and not well organised.
4. Perhaps he is distracted by the demands of Real Life. Perhaps he
has deadlines for work due to Real Paying Customers and Clients [RPC's]
and editors of journals ---- and is trying to compose these SGM posts of
his on the quick and dirty. I can well understand if that be the case.
We all understand. But we still eschew gibberish and bad, unfocused,
genealogical writing.
4. Mr. Reed has lost sight of what he needs to do here.
5. His objective should be to show that this postulated descent from
King Edward III through Edward Sutton, 5th Lord Dudley, and Elizabeth
Tomlinson and on to some bloke named "Edward Brinton", or a name of that
sort, is not particularly credible.
6. Some folks here, including Mr. Finton, seem to believe that this
"Edward Brinton" is possibly a GARD [Gateway Ancestor of Royal Descent]
who emigrated to the New World.
7. THAT is the focus, Gentle Readers ---- that is the canard that needs
to have the spotlight of truth focused on it.
8. SO, Mr Reed needs to step back a bit, throw some cold water on his
face ---- and look at the FOREST not just the bark of that ONE tree ----
six inches away from his nose ---- that he has been worrying to death
about. He also needs to clean up his articulation and presentation of
the facts he has uncovered.
More Light, Less Heat.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Exitus Acta Probat.
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
Reedpcgen
the forest, then tried to look at each of the trees, then took a look at the
forest again to see if I had seen it correctly the first time.
I am indeed distracted by Real Life, etc. I must face that, and get to it.
The problem on this line is not at the Gateway Ancestor, William Brinton. The
alleged problem is at the point of Edward Bagley's mother.
I see no confusion there, other than the illusion that Ken has spun.
I am not stating this in a derogatory way--just a plain assessment that it is
an illusion. He has a right to live in the illusion, but there is no factual
basis to it whatsoever, and the circumstantial basis, having been examined,
allows a plain and simple conclusion: that Edward Bagley was a yeoman, that his
mother was sister of Elizabeth Tomlinson, and that the royal descents that
would have come through forcing or inventing some type of blood descent from
Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley, is missed by the Bagley/Brinton descendants.
A detailed and concise explanation of documents and circumstances (including
the inventory of Elizabeth Tomlinson and proper assessment of her estate) will
appear in an article.
I do not, however, have faith in Ken's ability to be independent in his
editorial practice. The last article he produced on this matter, using much of
the material I posted on this group, but being selective of what was presented
to favor a side he put forward, is evidence of that. And I have seen NONE of
the page proofs of any article that included my material until after it
appeared in print in his journal, so the article will appear elsewhere.
Paul
>Subject: Sutton-Tomlinson Fiasco [Was: Tomlinson...]
>From: "D. Spencer Hines" D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu
>Date: 4/16/01 2:33 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ObTGUSrxAHA.287@cpmsnbbsa09>
D. Spencer Hines
6. Some folks here, including Mr. Finton, seem to believe that this
"Edward Brinton" is possibly a GARD [Gateway Ancestor of Royal Descent]
who immigrated to the New World.
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
Reedpcgen
>Perhaps you misunderstood, Paul.
>
>I have no problem at all with the University of Utah. I'm sure it's a
>fine institution.
>
>I just didn't understand for sure what he meant by "UofU" ---- and you
>snipped that part.
>--
>
>D. Spencer Hines
>
When I wrote my reply that the U of U was not a bad school, and that the Comm
department in which I studied was actually very good when I was there, I did
not mean to imply I thought you were disparaging the institution. My post was
more tongue-in-cheek. A problem with the present type of communication I
learned early on is that you cannot see facial expressions or hear voice
inflections to interpret subtleties in meaning, leaving things to be
misunderstood, though the best was intended by both parties.
Paul
[Actually, I am grateful that there were at one time professors at the U of U
that did take an interest in Medieval English history, as they at least
acquired collections and books like the Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, State
Papers, etc., which are not held at the FHL. Other history books that are
valuable, unfortunately, have been swiped by someone, leaving me frustrated on
a number of occasions.]
D. Spencer Hines
I simply was not sure what "UofU" referred to, so I asked, as follows.
"University of Utah?"
Your comment seemed to imply that I had said something negative about
the University of Utah and you were setting the record straight.
I'm happy you understand that was by no means the case.
In my experience, "tongue-in-cheek" doesn't work very well in this
medium.
Cheers,
Spencer
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010417022451...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
Séimí mac Liam
I have been trying to get my cousin's son to sort through his mother's
papers and send me all the history and genealogy related
material(which he says he doesn't want and will throw away) she
collected in her research. I offered to pay the UPS and sort it my
self if he would just box it and ship it. I fear he will just
dumpsterize the lot.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/17/01 1:26:18 PM, D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu
writes:
<< 6. Some folks here, including Mr. Finton, seem to believe that this
"Edward Brinton" is possibly a GARD [Gateway Ancestor of Royal Descent]
who immigrated to the New World. >>
Whoa -- I believe there is a 'possibility' of it. There is a difference! All
of this discussion with Paul Reed was about the 'possibility' of a royal
descent -- not the proof of the pudding.
Paul lost the argument because he could not admit that the descent is
'possible'. Since he cannot prove is 'impossible', it was a waste of time.
My entire point if that people like Paul and Charles Hansen do not have the
right to make a godlike pronouncement that this line is a dead end on the
slim evidence they have. It is wrong to do so and will always be wrong. When
uncertainty exists, acknowledge it. Who cares whether John Bagley was a
yeoman or a bowman -- it was where he got his money that was the point in
question.
-Ken
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Paul lost the argument because he could not admit that the descent is
> 'possible'. Since he cannot prove is 'impossible', it was a waste of time.
It is not possible to absolutely disprove any genealogical
relationship, as one can always develop an ad hoc hypothesis that
all of the contradictory records are
flawed/forged/misinterpreted. (Even with DNA, you can only
produce a statistical assessment of improbability.) Thus
"impossible" in an impossible standard to achieve (and an unfair
one to demand).
taf
Leo van de Pas
I am very disappointed in your attitude and some of the remarks you made.See
below.
----- Original Message -----
From: <KHF...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Sutton-Tomlinson Fiasco [Was: Tomlinson...]
>
> In a message dated 4/17/01 1:26:18 PM, D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu
> writes:
>
> << 6. Some folks here, including Mr. Finton, seem to believe that this
> "Edward Brinton" is possibly a GARD [Gateway Ancestor of Royal Descent]
> who immigrated to the New World. >>
>
> Whoa -- I believe there is a 'possibility' of it. There is a difference!
All
> of this discussion with Paul Reed was about the 'possibility' of a royal
> descent -- not the proof of the pudding.
>
> Paul lost the argument because he could not admit that the descent is
> 'possible'.
I think he made it clear he believed the opposite, that it was more likely
not to be the case. "Not possible", in my opinion, is the wrong approach.
Lets say, Hitler was in The Netherlands in early 1942
and I am born late 1942, I demand of you to say that it is "possible" I was
fathered by him. That is basically what you expect from Paul Reed to do.
Since he cannot prove is 'impossible', it was a waste of time.
I am disappointed by this attitude. In my opinion it was not a waste of time
as it seems all indications available were examined and the end result was
"no indications, no hints, therefor only speculation a few hundred years
after the events". It is you who does the speculation.
>
> My entire point if that people like Paul and Charles Hansen do not have
the
> right to make a godlike pronouncement that this line is a dead end on the
> slim evidence they have.
This is a bit of a colourful overstatement, don't you think? I understand
that what "they have" is also what you have, only you interpret it
differently. Also, knowing Paul (I do not know anything about Hansen) I am
convinced he is the first to agree to the opposite if additional information
came to light. However, at the moment, there is nothing wrong with "a
godlike pronouncement that this line is a dead end on the silm evidence".
That is the cold fact, to romanticise and demand they "admit" your
interpretation "is possible", to me, seems a lot to ask as you move into the
"what if" territory and that is where we should stay away from.
.
It is wrong to do so and will always be wrong. When
> uncertainty exists, acknowledge it.
Uncertainty is one thing, demanding that speculation is approved of another.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
The concept of Reasonable Doubt comes into play here.
It is Unreasonable Doubt to hold someone to a criterion of Absolute
Certainty that some sort of possibility of a descent does NOT exist. It
is also logically farblondjet.
Incidentally, "Willette Smith" is still sending out viruses.
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:006001c0c842$bf85fd40$2ac03bcb@leo...
D. Spencer Hines
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010416183619...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
| In reply to Spencer's post [quoted in its entirety below], I first
looked at
| the forest, then tried to look at each of the trees, then took a look
at the
| forest again to see if I had seen it correctly the first time.
I have no doubt that you did that, Paul.
It was your *writing* ---- your articulation and presentation of the
arguments that was inadequate.
You can't make half-baked posts here, Paul ---- with only half your mind
engaged, because you construe SGM as not "Real Life."
There are too many smart and clever people here to permit that. Two or
three years ago you could get away with it ---- as could some others
here ---- who also tried it.
No way, José ---- today.
| I am indeed distracted by Real Life, etc. I must face that, and get
to it.
Yes, as I suspected.
| The problem on this line is not at the Gateway Ancestor, William
Brinton. The
| alleged problem is at the point of Edward Bagley's mother.
Indeed.
But one needs to insert William Brinton and Edward III in the
NARRATIVE ---- for CLARITY ---- among other reasons.
| I see no confusion there, other than the illusion that Ken has spun.
Both of you have jointly contributed to turning this into a dog's
breakfast. Finton is certainly not faultless. I've never said that he
was not ---- quite the contrary.
| I am not stating this in a derogatory way--just a plain assessment
that it is
| an illusion. He has a right to live in the illusion, but there is no
factual
| basis to it whatsoever, and the circumstantial basis, having been
examined,
| allows a plain and simple conclusion: that Edward Bagley was a yeoman,
that his
| mother was sister of Elizabeth Tomlinson, and that the royal descents
that
| would have come through forcing or inventing some type of blood
descent from
| Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley, is missed by the Bagley/Brinton
descendants.
Fair Enough.
You COULD have simply laid the proof for that out in a simple series of
bullets.
It's a great pity that you did not.
| A detailed and concise explanation of documents and circumstances
(including
| the inventory of Elizabeth Tomlinson and proper assessment of her
estate) will
| appear in an article.
Fine. For that, you'll be paid ---- so, you'll work harder and more
carefully on it. The Discipline of the Market.
You'll also have an Editor ---- who will keep you on track.
Good Luck On It.
| I do not, however, have faith in Ken's ability to be independent in
his
| editorial practice.
Yep. Neither do I.
| The last article he produced on this matter, using much of
| the material I posted on this group, but being selective of what was
presented
| to favor a side he put forward, is evidence of that. And I have seen
NONE of
| the page proofs of any article that included my material until after
it
| appeared in print in his journal, so the article will appear
elsewhere.
We certainly can't blame you for that.
That too is the Discipline of the Market. People vote with their feet
and their dollars.
Aloha,
DSH
----
Gryphon801
A "cannot" have been the son of B, though if we know that A was born ten years
after B died we can be reasonably certain of it. The standard remains that of
the late J. Horace Round, often quoted [Peerage and Pedigree, 2:76]: "Such a
claim is in no way absurd in itself; the story is perfectly possible; we only
ask for the proof. Show us the proof; make out every step by authentic
documents; then we will believe. Without such a proof we will not believe."
Col. Hansen has shown by such evidence as he could find that Edward Bagley [not
Edward Brinton, by the way] was nephew and not grandson of the spinster
Elizabeth Tomlinson, mother of eleven children by Lord Dudley. No evidence has
been presented in opposition, only conjecture and speculation and wishful
thinking. Genealogy's engine may be started by speculation but it will not run
very long on it. Neil D. Thompson
Reedpcgen
others are in the wrong because we will not admit the "possibility" that Edward
Bagley's mother might have been an illegitimate daughter of Lord Dudley.
I ALWAYS, where there is any reasonable doubt, point out anything that would
qualify my conclusions, so that readers know I've taken it into account, and so
that should it prove to be right in the future, it will give me or others
something to go on.
THIS, however, is not one of those cases.
It is POSSIBLE that aliens from another planet landed and impregnated Edward
Bagley's mother artificially with semen from Yemen. It is POSSIBLE that she
was a wandering gypsy princess, and that this was all covered up. It is
POSSIBLE she is Queen Elizabeth's love child, the one we have all been hunting
for. I will admit these things are possible.
But are any of those possibilities REASONABLE? In my judgment, no.
I take exception to Ken because his circumstantial arguments have TIME AND
AGAIN been based on a completely false understanding of direct and
circumstantial evidence, and that he then puts forward those conclusions as
fact, attacking us as idiots and vainglorying deaf self-styled "experts"
[ouch?] if we do not say he's come up with something.
For instance, Ken posted that the 600 l. debt on which Lord Dudley had
defaulted was obviously money he had borrowed to fulfill Elizabeth Tomlinson's
bequests and estate.
PRO D47/61, a suit brought by Sir Walter Devereux, says that Lord Dudley
entered into the agreement on 10 June 22 James I [1624]. According to Ken,
Elizabeth Tomlinson's nuncupative will was not made until 3 July 1629. Though
Dud Tomlinson, her son, had claimed that her estate was worth 600 l., that
coincidence had nothing in fact to do with the amount Lord Dudley had already
defaulted on before her death. Yet Ken errantly connected these two things
together touting it in my face as hard fact (which it indeed isn't).
Ken also said that Elizabeth Tomlinson's "only house" ended up in the hands of
the Bagleys. That also is flat out wrong. She had many houses, lands and
holdings, as is evidenced in the numerous Chancery Proceedings I have abstracts
of, and Tipton was where her chief residence was. Her inventory listed goods
at several different places/residences.
These are just two statements that can be tested and proved WRONG. No
possibility that his statement is true on these two points.
It is this type of false reasoning and conclusions strung together in a long
line, which I cannot condone upon which Ken has built his case.
Ken, if your circumstantial reasoning had ANY VALIDITY at all I would admit it.
But it doesn't. Even now you have lately posted (when it was pointed out that
you didn't know what a yeoman of this period was) that you didn't care if he
were a yeoman or a bowman. But that is one of the reasons you had based your
conclusions on!
When you present any reasonable circumstances that support any type of
different conclusion, I will acknowledge it. But as it is, you have
misconstrued almost everything in this case I've seen you touch. That facts I
have seen (which are more than I have posted) all fit perfectly with the
scenario Charles Hansen had to arrive at. It is the simplest explanation and
fits the facts and circumstances.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
Much, MUCH clearer and ----- DIRECT.
Good Show.
Spencer
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010418201529...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
Stewart Baldwin
>Paul lost the argument because he could not admit that the descent is
>'possible'. Since he cannot prove is 'impossible', it was a waste of time.
Ken,
I feel compelled to steal Paul's line and say "Arrgh" here. Your mind
must be residing in Fantasyland if you are under the completely
ridiculous illusion that Paul lost that argument. It was you who
wasted the time of people on this newsgroup by aggressivley pursuing a
line of argument that was so completely without merit. I feel pity
for whatever innocent victims might have swallowed your fallacious
arguments in a desperate attempt to hold onto a completely nonexistent
royal line. As for your suggestion that a disproof requires a proof
of impossibility, the complete absurdity of that statement has already
been pointed out by others.
>My entire point if that people like Paul and Charles Hansen do not have the
>right to make a godlike pronouncement that this line is a dead end on the
>slim evidence they have. It is wrong to do so and will always be wrong. When
>uncertainty exists, acknowledge it. Who cares whether John Bagley was a
>yeoman or a bowman -- it was where he got his money that was the point in
>question.
I saw no "godlike pronouncement" from either Paul or Charles Hansen.
What I saw from them was an argument based quite clearly on the
EVIDENCE and the proper interpretation thereof, compared to insults
from you suggesting that a couple of the most respected experts in
medieval genealogy were somehow incapable of understanding your
arguments, which were nothing more than a bunch of conspiracy theories
piled upon hunches piled upon guesses, and were weaker than a house of
cards during a tornado. It is obvious from the comments that you have
made, and from the false charges you have levelled against some of the
best genealogists in the field, that you regard yourself as some sort
of "grand poobah" of medieval genealogy, and that these experts are
regarded by you as incapable of understanding your grandiose ideas.
However, I can assure you that in the REAL world, the question of who
won that argument is answered in a very different way than in the
delusional world in which you reside.
Stewart Baldwin
Renia
which seems to have been ignored) was to pay the debts of the deceased, and to
receive the moneys due by his/her creditors. In 1925, the numbers of
administrators of an estate was REDUCED to 4. They need not have been members
of the family, or kith and kin, but could have been the chief creditor. Letters
of administration could be renounced, particularly if the deceased's financial
affairs were complex.
Renia
A Channing wrote:
> Paul wrote,
> > An administrator was NECESSARY because Elizabeth Tomlinson had an estate.
> The
> > court needed to appoint an administrator on legal grounds. As Elizabeth
> was
> > not indebted to creditors, and had LAND and personal property of worth,
> the
> > court would, according to legal precedent, appoint the next legal heir as
> > administrator. That was the law.
>
> Sorry to labour the point, but this is not quite right, at least as the law
> stands now.
>
> The court does not initiate the appointment of the Administrators, it is up
> to an individual to apply for letters of Administration. The court will
> usually only approve someone with an interest in the estate (or their
> proxies etc) and will often be the heir, but there is nothing to force the
> heir to apply or for the court to appoint him. If no one applies, the
> estate goes to the crown (or more specifically the Duchy of Cornwall or of
> Lancashire -alternatively between the two). I don't believe there is any
> limit on the number of Administrators that can be appointed. I think it
> would be a mistake to assume that an administration was necessarily the
> heir.
>
> Adrian
Reedpcgen
>The point of the administrator of an estate (as I said in an earlier post,
>but
>which seems to have been ignored) was to pay the debts of the deceased, and
>to
>receive the moneys due by his/her creditors. In 1925, the numbers of
>administrators of an estate was REDUCED to 4. They need not
>have been members
>of the family, or kith and kin, but could have been the chief creditor.
Again, I was discussing probate practice in the Tudor and Stuart period, which
is what we need to understand for the application to posts in our group. Later
probate law and practice is not really applicable. We have already posted taht
creditors might be appointed after kinsmen renounced.
Paul