prolonged noble property disputes – anu lahtinen 147 of Claes Claesson seem to have been beside the point. However, they were considered relevant at least to a certain extent by both Planting and the court. Planting took the task of responding to at least some of the accusations, although one may notice that he disregarded others. He did his best to emphasize that Agneta’s behaviour had been forgiven at least by her mother. This way, he could to some extent contest the insinuation that Agneta has forfeited the good will of her family. In fighting for the Tursunperä estate, Joen Planting had given the court a copy of a document from the 1560s, in which Birgitta Johansdotter had given her morning gift estate to Agneta who, she claimed, had shown obedience and love “as can be expected of children”. Other children, Birgitta complained, had not been living up to the ideals of an obedient child. The same favor fell to the lot of Agneta’s brother, Ivar Torstensson Ram, and both grants had been given and confirmed before the High Council of King ErikXIV.413 While even these grants and words of praise may look good at first sight, in the light of other archival sources one may suspect that the grants made by Birgitta were partly caused by the scrapes the son and daughter had got themselves into (Ivar barely escaped a death sentence because of his proven bigamy, mentioned above), and that the mother, using the morning gift that she was at liberty to give, tried to help them by securing them a modest income. Given the amount of paper and ink dedicated to the accusations of promiscuity and criminality, it may be surprising that when the Court of Appeal gave its sententia definitiva, it did not comment on these controversial topics. On the other hand, it may have been understandable that the Court did not want to delve into endless polemics, and it was the habit of the Court of Appeal to keep its verdict curt.414 The judgement merely stated that the Court could and would not invalidate Lars Torstensson’s will, which Claes Claesson had presented. Thus, the property of Lars Torstensson Ram and his wife was considered legally granted to King JohnIII. Consequently, his son, Duke Johan, had had the right to give it as well. 413 The gift by Birgitta Johansdotter (Fleming) to Ivar Torstensson Ram, Stockholm 25 July 1566, RA, Biographica (Ram, Ivar Torstensson); the said person’s gift to Agneta Torstensdotter Ram, Stockholm 25 July 1566, a copy among the appendices inRA, SHA, E VI a 2aa, Liber causarum 18; Lahtinen, Anu 2009a pp. 104-111. 414 Trolle Önnerfors, Elsa 2010 p. 135. For the decision-making by the court, see ibid. pp. 133-134.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=