"Ancestrees"

Joan TOMLINSON ¹

  General Notes:

For years it has been stated that Edward Bagley was the grandson of Lord Dudley, the 5th and Elizabeth Tomlinson, his mistress. Anyone familiar with this line, knows that that idea came crashing down when Col. Hansen published his 1996 article in Tag that noted that Edward, when he was the administrator court case involving Elizabeth Tomlinson's estate, he was listed as "neopoti ex matre". This latin term in medieval terms of law for the court case he was in, is recognized by all "experts" to mean that he was Elizabeth's nephew through his mother's side. In otherwords, the belief that Edward was Elizabeth Tomlinson and Lord Dudley's grandson disappeared. However, there were nagging occurances and close relationships between Lord Dudley, Elizabeth and Edward's brother and siblings that kept the controversy going. Why would both Lord Dudley and Elizabeth show her nephews preference over their own children? There is a theory as proposed by Ken Harper Finton, publisher of the Plantagenet Collection, and possibly Annie Natelleli Waloszek that would explain both the definition of "neopoti ex matre" and the continued interest of Lord Dudley in John Bagley and his sons who includes Edward. That theory is that Lord Dudley, the 5th, had a love affair with Elizabeth Tomlinson's older sister, Joan, by which they had a daughter. When Joan died, her parents likely raised Joan's daughter. In the meantime, Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley the 5th, had a love affair with her sister Elizabeth. Even after he married, he continued to love her and have 11 children with her. In Elizabeth Tomlinson's verbal will she was possibly directed by Lord Dudley to give money to his illegitimate grandsons and her nephews. If this is the case, it fits all the known facts.

Let's look at Elizabeth Tomlinson to see why. Elizabeth's will, it was given verbally to relatives and is provided here from the following site: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2001-04/0986346524 provided by Kenneth Harper Finton.
"Elizabeth Tomlinson nuncupative will, dated 3 July 1629: set out in the joint and severall answeres of Thomas Duddeley and Henry Jevon, two of the defendants to a bill filed in Chancery 23 May 1631 by Dud Dudley of Tipton, gent. It is as follows: The said Elizabeth, being visited with sickness whereof she afterwards dyed, did by word of mouth only, without writing, will and declare how and in what manner her said personal estate should be disposed of after her decease, which was to this purpose and effect following, that is to say: She did will and bequeath to her five daughters all her wearing apparel. And also she did will and bequeath to Edward Bagley son of John Bagley, and to Dudde Bagley his brother [sic, most say] 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." (sons Robert and Edward were dead as well as Susan.)

1. All of the illegitimate children of Lord Dudley and Elizabeth (or their spouses if they were female) were given extensive holdings by their father, Lord Dudley.... John Bagley was one of these persons - and he is the only one that would not have been a child of Lord Dudley if his wife was only a niece to Elizabeth Tomlinson. Lord Dudley would have no obligation to a nephew. .

2. As Kenneth Finton points out, Elizabeth is certainly not fond of her son, Dud Dudley, and tries to use her verbal will to take away his funds and give them to the poor. She also makes a statement that clearly leads one to believe she has information she doesn't want son Dud Dudley to have because she is afraid he will cause them harm. "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."

3. The execution of her estate is contested by son, Dud Dudley, six years after her death.

4. Dud Dudley and John Bagley were at definite odds. John Bagley evicted him from the manor house when Dud had illegally taken possession of it. According to Kenneth Finton, John appeared angry with Dud "for wasting his father's fortune on his coal mining schemes" and "bringing his father to such destitution."

6. The count on the children in her will is not accurate. She wanted her possessions divided amongst her 8 children, but she only had 7 living children according to her son, Dud Dudley's account of the family in the 1663 Visitation of Staffordshire lists which Dud Dudley provided years after her death. Might this 8th child be a niece raised by Elizabeth Tomlinson after her sister's death?

7. Though this is not mentioned in the will, Elizabeth gave a house to John Bagley (Jr.), son to the John Bagley whom I believe is her nephew and Lord Dudley's possible grandson. This home was possibly the one she lived in though she is listed in court cases with more than one residence. She obviously cared greatly for John Bagley's children or was asked to care for them in her last words by her life-long love, Lord Dudley, the 5th. Though, she did not specify her relationship to them, this could have been in the "writings" she did not want her son Dud to know about.

8. The naming patterns also suggest that the Bagley line descends from Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley between these generations.

9. Lastly, Elizabeth Tomlinson had little to give to her children. Therefore, why would she provide funds to her nephews in her will as well unless there was some reason, like Lord Dudley wanting them to be provided for?