On 31/05/2017 5:24 AM, taf wrote: > On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:42:18 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >> Or why not insist on Thomasse instead, since native English speakers >> don't generally indulge in extra syllables where these can be dropped? > A lack of indulgence amply demonstrated by the popular forms in England these days (if trends on FreeBMD are any indication), Tamsin or Tamzin. > Tamsin is probably the closest approximation to an English "vernacular" feminine form of Thomas (which itself is, of course, a name exotic to the British Isles). But then it's not a point worth fussing over, as Thomasina is a perfectly sensible alternative. The crackpot idea that English communication should avoid latinity - much less in a post half-full of latinate words - is too silly to contemplate. No sensible researcher would waste a moment over such nonsense. Peter Stewart

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:20:08 PM UTC+2, Peter Stewart wrote: > Q. Slip 78. Sherif Abd el Mayin of Slip 68 becomes el Main, el Mayein, > el Muein, el Mayin, and el Muyein. > > A. Good egg. I call this really ingenious. The poor editor. :) Of course he still had to do his job somehow I suppose.

I would think it more likely to be correct as relayed as Hugh de Mortimer was a husband of a daughter as well.

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 8:13:36 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 31/05/2017 4:20 PM, John Watson wrote: > > On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 04:49:24 UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> On 31/05/2017 1:18 PM, taf wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > >>> > >>>> Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying, > >>>> rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton. > >>>> Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the > >>>> initial W. is given there under 1225. > >>> I have seen the same slip in reverse, where an ipm gives Walter when the person in question was clearly William, and I always suspected a similar cause, the use of a W. somewhere in the transmission process. > >> This can't very well be the case with the Sele priory record "excepting > >> the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their > >> heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse", since it was dated July > >> 1227 and William the (generally supposed) husband of Berta de Braiose > >> had died in 1197. > >> > >> Where did this information come from? How certain is it that the > >> original text doesn't mean "and their heirs descended from the daughters > >> of William de Brewse", i.e. allowing for Walter de Beauchamp himself to > >> be the son rather than husband of Berta? > >> > >> Peter Stewart > > Hi all, > > > > It occurs to me that this particular fine relating to property in Gloucestershire should be in print somewhere. > > > > Does anyone have access to: > > L. F. Salzman, ed., The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Peter at Sele (1923) > > or, > > C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003) > > > > Doug Thompson noted that it came from "the unpublished transcripts of > the Sele Priory Charters at Magdelen College, Oxford" - I was wondering > where he found this information. I assume it doesn't appear in Salzman's > edition of the cartulary. > > Peter Stewart No. It doesn't. There are many documents in the Sele Priory archive at Magdalen College of which Salzman's book are just a few. Someone called Macray catalogued them all and his transcripts / descriptions are held at Magdalen. A friend of mine visited the archive and photographed these catalogues. The particular document in question has a history of its own. This is actually a description, rather than a transcript, of a copy, on paper, in the fifteenth century of a fine at Westminster between John and Reginald de Braose. That fifteenth century copy is at Magdalen catalogued under "Bidlington and Bramber 20". I have not seen it. I realise that there is room to question the accuracy of copies and transcripts but think that this just adds to the long debate about the Braose Beauchamp marriage and who the wife /wives of Walter de Beauchamp were. I suppose we have to acknowledge that the documents available are contradictory so at least some of them must be mistaken! It will have to be down to each person's judgement as to what conclusion to come to. Doug Thompson

On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 04:49:24 UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 31/05/2017 1:18 PM, taf wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > > > >> Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying, > >> rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton. > >> Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the > >> initial W. is given there under 1225. > > I have seen the same slip in reverse, where an ipm gives Walter when the person in question was clearly William, and I always suspected a similar cause, the use of a W. somewhere in the transmission process. > > This can't very well be the case with the Sele priory record "excepting > the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their > heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse", since it was dated July > 1227 and William the (generally supposed) husband of Berta de Braiose > had died in 1197. > > Where did this information come from? How certain is it that the > original text doesn't mean "and their heirs descended from the daughters > of William de Brewse", i.e. allowing for Walter de Beauchamp himself to > be the son rather than husband of Berta? > > Peter Stewart Hi all, It occurs to me that this particular fine relating to property in Gloucestershire should be in print somewhere. Does anyone have access to: L. F. Salzman, ed., The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Peter at Sele (1923) or, C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003) Regards, John

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying, > rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton. > Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the > initial W. is given there under 1225. I have seen the same slip in reverse, where an ipm gives Walter when the person in question was clearly William, and I always suspected a similar cause, the use of a W. somewhere in the transmission process. As far as I can tell, only Caligula A VII, XIV and XV are currently online. taf

On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 02:29:17 UTC+1, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-7, Doug Thompson wrote: > > > > Wow! Great find. Hugh de Mortimer died Nov 1227 so this fine was only > > > months before his death. If Bertha was a wife of Walter de Beauchamp > > > then it was a wife between Joane Mortimer (died 1225) and his surviving > > > wife Ankarat (married by 1256, survived to 1280s). > > > > Not that simple I'm afraid. One or both of these other wives will probably > > have to be discarded. The evidence for their marriages will have to be > > reassessed. May take a while. > > With all the caveats the use of the source entails, Cawley in MedLands says (footnotes removed) that "The Annals of Worcester record that “Rogerus de Mortuo Mari…filiam suam” married “Waltero de Bello Campo.” The Annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of “Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo.”" If the same source (is this the only source?) says William in one place and Walter in the other, then I know where I would start this reevaluation. > > taf Hi all, The evidence is as follows: In 1212, Roger de Mortimer paid 3,000 marks to have the custody of Walter de Beauchamp and married him to his daughter:- 1212, Rogerus de Mortuo Mari finem fecit pro Waltero de Bello Campo et terris ejus pro iii. m. marcis, et maritaviit ei filiam suam. Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 400. The annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of Joan wife of William de Beauchamp:- 1225, [Died] Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo. Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 418. The fine of 3,000 marks was still outstanding in 1229, after the death of Hugh de Mortimer:- 8 July 1229, For Ralph de Mortimer. To the barons of the Exchequer. The king has pardoned to Ralph de Mortimer, brother and heir of Hugh de Mortimer, for his faithful service, up to £500 of the £511 2s. 4d. that is exacted from the same Ralph at the Exchequer for the same Hugh of the fine which Roger de Mortimer, father of Hugh and Ralph, made with King John, the king’s father, for having custody of Walter de Beauchamp. Calendar of Fine Rolls 13 Henry III, No. 255. I can't imagine Roger de Mortimer paying (or owing) such a huge amount of money if Walter de Beauchamp did not marry his daughter. Regards, John

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-7, Doug Thompson wrote: > > Wow! Great find. Hugh de Mortimer died Nov 1227 so this fine was only > > months before his death. If Bertha was a wife of Walter de Beauchamp > > then it was a wife between Joane Mortimer (died 1225) and his surviving > > wife Ankarat (married by 1256, survived to 1280s). > > Not that simple I'm afraid. One or both of these other wives will probably > have to be discarded. The evidence for their marriages will have to be > reassessed. May take a while. With all the caveats the use of the source entails, Cawley in MedLands says (footnotes removed) that "The Annals of Worcester record that “Rogerus de Mortuo Mari…filiam suam” married “Waltero de Bello Campo.” The Annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of “Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo.”" If the same source (is this the only source?) says William in one place and Walter in the other, then I know where I would start this reevaluation. taf

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:41:50 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:58:55 PM UTC-4, Doug Thompson wrote: > > <snip> That Bertha was a daughter of William de Braose and Maud de St Valery and that she married William Beauchamp (d 1197). > <snip> > > This indicates that Bertha married Walter de Beauchamp, still alive then, not his father William! > > Wow! Great find. Hugh de Mortimer died Nov 1227 so this fine was only months before his death. If Bertha was a wife of Walter de Beauchamp then it was a wife between Joane Mortimer (died 1225) and his surviving wife Ankarat (married by 1256, survived to 1280s). > --Joe C Not that simple I'm afraid. One or both of these other wives will probably have to be discarded. The evidence for their marriages will have to be reassessed. May take a while. Doug

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:58:55 PM UTC-4, Doug Thompson wrote: > <snip> That Bertha was a daughter of William de Braose and Maud de St Valery and that she married William Beauchamp (d 1197). <snip> > This indicates that Bertha married Walter de Beauchamp, still alive then, not his father William! Wow! Great find. Hugh de Mortimer died Nov 1227 so this fine was only months before his death. If Bertha was a wife of Walter de Beauchamp then it was a wife between Joane Mortimer (died 1225) and his surviving wife Ankarat (married by 1256, survived to 1280s). --Joe C

Fifteen years ago (Sep 2002!) we had a discussion on this list about the Braose Beauchamp marriage between Bertha and William or Walter. I joined in with Chris Phillips, Cris Nash and John Ravilious trying to come to a considered conclusion, which I think we did - That Bertha was a daughter of William de Braose and Maud de St Valery and that she married William Beauchamp (d 1197). I have just come across a piece of information which throws that conclusion out! There is a fine recorded in the unpublished transcripts of the Sele Priory Charters at Magdelen College, Oxford between John de Braose and Reginald de Braose dated July 1227. In it Reginald acknowledges the Honour of Bramber and the Manor of Tetbury to belong to John “excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse, grandfather of John & father of Reginald which, with whatever else accrues in escheats etc in Normandy, England or Wales, they are to divide.” This indicates that Bertha married Walter de Beauchamp, still alive then, not his father William! Comments? Doug Thompson

________________________________ From: Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: 29 May 2017 22:38 > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > In the online Discovery catalogue, the archivist has indexed a record copied further below as being for Thomasina de Fornivall. This record comes from the SC class of records, which are petitions to Parliament (or the king) and is dated c.1383. This woman was the wife of John de Dagworth, Knt. [died 1360] and William de Furnival, Knt., 4th Lord Furnival [died 1383]. She has many modern descendants. > > When the original record written is checked, however, I find her given name is spelled "Thomasine" not "Thomasina." > > Here is a weblink to the original record: > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062501#imageViewerLink Petitioners: Thomasina de Fornivall (Furnival), wife of ...<http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062501#imageViewerLink> discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk Petitioners: Thomasina de Fornivall (Furnival), wife of William de Fornivall: Name(s): de Fornivall (Furnival), Thomasina: Addressees: King and council > > In this instance, the archivist has taken a perfectly good name in the vernacular, Thomasine, and Latinized it as Thomasina. For reasons that I do not understand, historians often wobble back and forth between English name forms and Latin name forms. > > In another petition available online involving the same woman, this woman's name is spelled "Thomesine." > > See the following weblink: > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062573#imageViewerLink > > I should note that I elsewhere find the Latin form of this woman's name as Thomasia. See for example the following record in Latin: > > Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1486, image 1787f (available at > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1486/aJUST1no1486fronts/IMG_1787.htm). > > Reviewing the above, we see that Thomasia occurs as a Latin form of this woman's name; Thomasine and Thomesine are the vernacular forms. > > Here is another example. In the online Common Pleas lawsuit index, the following entry is listed for CP 796 (Year: 1460) for a lawsuit written in Latin: > > d 1436 London debt Plaintiff: Fallan, William, clerk > Defendants: Leventhorp, Lawrence, of London, esq., Thomasina, his wife > > This woman's name is indexed as Thomasina. The woman's name is actually "Thomesiam" [Latin form] in the original record in Latin. > > This same couple is found in another Chancery lawsuit which is written in English. Here the plaintiffs are Laurence Leventhorp and "Thomasyn" his wife. The wife's name also occurs as "Thomyssyn" in the same lawsuit. > > Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no25/IMG_0273.htm > > So in Latin form of this woman's name is given in one record is Thomesiam. But her name in another record written in English is Thomasyn and Thomyssyn. > > In summary, here are the vernacular forms employed for the two women in question: "Thomasine," "Thomesine," "Thomasyn," and "Thomyssyn." No Thomasina. No Thomasia. No Thomesia. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > ------------------------------- Thank you for posting that, Douglas - it's very useful. Though I wish you had discovered it two or three years ago, when I was puzzling over this name in connection with a number of texts I was working on. I forget what the others were, but three were the 1419 ipms of Richard Hankeford (nos. 328 - 330 in volume 21 of the Calendars of IPMs), whose wife is called Thomasia in the original Latin inquisitions. In the printed calendar the name has been rendered as Thomas ('his wife Thomas', 'his mother Thomas'), a translation I was doubtful about, but I could not discover any satisfactory evidence for the contemporary vernacular form of the name. I considered Thomasine or Thomasina, but did not feel justified in deriving either of them from Thomasia. In the end I changed Thomas to Thomasia in the on-line version of the ipms - see here: http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/21-328/330 Next time I'll plump for Thomasine. Matt Tompkins

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:42:18 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > Or why not insist on Thomasse instead, since native English speakers > don't generally indulge in extra syllables where these can be dropped? A lack of indulgence amply demonstrated by the popular forms in England these days (if trends on FreeBMD are any indication), Tamsin or Tamzin. taf

On 30/05/2017 7:38 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > In the online Discovery catalogue, the archivist has indexed a record copied further below as being for Thomasina de Fornivall. This record comes from the SC class of records, which are petitions to Parliament (or the king) and is dated c.1383. This woman was the wife of John de Dagworth, Knt. [died 1360] and William de Furnival, Knt., 4th Lord Furnival [died 1383]. She has many modern descendants. > > When the original record written is checked, however, I find her given name is spelled "Thomasine" not "Thomasina." > > Here is a weblink to the original record: > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062501#imageViewerLink > > In this instance, the archivist has taken a perfectly good name in the vernacular, Thomasine, and Latinized it as Thomasina. For reasons that I do not understand, historians often wobble back and forth between English name forms and Latin name forms. Don't you understand that the masculine original of this name, Thomas, is not English - or French or Latin for that matter? Since Thomas is borrowed, why do you think it takes that form derived from Latin rather than one closer to the Aramaic original? And since Thomasine is also not English, why is that form borrowed from French necessarily preferable to another, in this case a Latin version on which this particular French form was modelled? Or why not insist on Thomasse instead, since native English speakers don't generally indulge in extra syllables where these can be dropped? Your personal likes and dislikes are not binding on others. Most people learn this in infancy. Then in childhood they discover that variety is not a fearsome monster. Peter Stewart

Thanks for that advice. I'll pursue it when I get to the UK next, probably in a couple of years (alas).

I'm searching for the parents of Agnes Butler or Boteler wife of John de Broughton. She died October 11, 1399 in Buckinghamshire. John died December 21, 1403 also in Buckinghamshire. He had been a member of parliament twice.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:17:10 AM UTC+10, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > On 5/15/2017 12:26 AM, Hans Vogels wrote: > > > H. Dobbertin's self-admitted starting point was the plaque and 999 as > > Gisela's birthyear. Published research, as well as contributions here > > on the newsgroup, has proven him wrong on this account, therefore some > > topics continue to buzz. > > The other piece of evidence which keeps Dobbertin's theory from being > stopped dead in its tracks is Annalista Saxo, which incorrectly places > Gisela's marriage to Ernst before her marriage to Bruno, consistent with > what it necessary for Dobbertin's theory to work. The plaque and > Annalista Saxo are both reasonable pieces of evidence that one should be > reluctant to set aside without good reason, but there are so many pieces > of evidence pointing in the other direction that their combined weight > is sufficient to overturn the plaque and Annalista. However, when > considered individually, none of these other pieces of evidence > qualifies as a "smoking gun" by itself. Thus, someone who has already > made up their mind based on the plaque and Annalista Saxo might very > well believe that they could argue away the other pieces of evidence > individually without considering their combined weight. So, it seems > likely that some version of Dobbertin's theory will be making an > appearance from time to time. A further argument against Dobbertin's preferred order of Gisela's marriages is implicit in an article published last year about the birth date of her son Heinrich III (Gerhard Lubich & Dirk Jäckel, Das Geburtsjahr Heinrichs III.: 1016, in *Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters* 72 pp 581-592). They made a strong case that Heinrich's birth on 28 October was in 1016, not in 1017 as has been almost universally accepted since the 17th century. If this is correct, then Gisela must have married Konrad II by January 1016 at the latest - and since her previous husband Ernst was killed on 31 May 1015, it would be impossible for her to have married Bruno of Brunswick and to have given birth to a son by him in the interval. Peter Stewart

Dear Douglas, I have seen similar onomastic variability in my research. I record the instances faithfully and generally choose a standard one for anything I write, citing the originals in their original, of course. Perhaps what happened here was that the archivist or historian who gave a "standardised name" for the lady in question chose Thomasina because she had encountered her first in a form that made her immediately recognise it as a form of that name. Perhaps he or she was a fan of the Hailey Mills movie about a cat of that name which came out in my natal year in stuck in my memory! One simply doesn't know. This sort of thing can be a source of frustration, regret, or even annoyance. In my research into the ERNLE sib, some entries in the ODNB spell it one way, whilst others use an alternate spelling. This makes hyperlinking and cross-referencing more difficult to be sure, but one must spare a thought for its non-genealogist compilers who may be less aware of the fact that such variant instances all refer to the same family. On the subject of the Christian name you mention: In the published version of the earliest parish register for Denchworth in Berkshire (https://archive.org/details/registersofdench00denc), where the heir of the Wiltshire ERNLEs had his first child, Michael ERNLE (despite the n-less spelling used here) baptised as this was his wife's home parish (she was a HYDE of Denchworth), viz.: p.1 1541 Mr. Michaell Earlye, sone and heire of Mr. John Earlye, gentleman, was baptized the xxix daie of September, 1541. (i.e. the Feast of St Michael and All Angels, whence his name) I found a puzzling entry for the burial of a person who looks as though his name is a form of the female Christian name Thomasine, viz.: p. 16 1545 buried in Denchworth. The X day of September was Thomasson Yerly, the sonne of John Yerly, buried in the yere and day above written. especially as earlier in the register appeared a HYDE baptism for some of the same name who was clearly denoted as female, viz.: p.2 1555 Thomyson, dau. of John Hide (Thomasine), 2 Feb. I have wondered whether there may be an error in the sex of the child buried in 1545, as Thomas was a name that did appear in this generation of the ERNLE family as shown in the 1565 Visitation of Wilts. It shows that the 2nd (and surviving) son of John ERNLE of Bishop's Cannings, Wilts., by his wife, Mary, daughter of William HYDE, of Denchworth was called Thomas ERNLE (founder of the Brembridge in Dilton line of the family, and my ancestor, who was born around the same time at the child bur. 1545, and died 1595 [bur. Westbury, Wilts.]). Since I know that ERNLE was sometimes recorded with the n-less variants shown in the Denchworth registers, I wonder if the Thomasson YERLY of 1545 was not also a member of the Wilts. ERNLE family. Could Thomasson refer to a person of either sex? Was it perhaps a diminutive of male Thomas along the lines of Tom(p)kin? Perhaps recourse to the original PR will sort this matter out. I await (avec impatience) the release of Berkshire's parish registers on ancestry.com as I did those for Wilts., Glos., Dorset, Somerset (etc.) (all of which are now available there due to cooperation with those counties' respective record offices/archives). Thank you for your interesting contribution on this subject. I hope some lister may be able to shed light on this puzzle. All the best, Richard On 29/05/2017, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > In the online Discovery catalogue, the archivist has indexed a record copied > further below as being for Thomasina de Fornivall. This record comes from > the SC class of records, which are petitions to Parliament (or the king) and > is dated c.1383. This woman was the wife of John de Dagworth, Knt. [died > 1360] and William de Furnival, Knt., 4th Lord Furnival [died 1383]. She has > many modern descendants. > > When the original record written is checked, however, I find her given name > is spelled "Thomasine" not "Thomasina." > > Here is a weblink to the original record: > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062501#imageViewerLink > > In this instance, the archivist has taken a perfectly good name in the > vernacular, Thomasine, and Latinized it as Thomasina. For reasons that I do > not understand, historians often wobble back and forth between English name > forms and Latin name forms. > > In another petition available online involving the same woman, this woman's > name is spelled "Thomesine." > > See the following weblink: > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062573#imageViewerLink > > I should note that I elsewhere find the Latin form of this woman's name as > Thomasia. See for example the following record in Latin: > > Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1486, image 1787f (available at > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1486/aJUST1no1486fronts/IMG_1787.htm). > > Reviewing the above, we see that Thomasia occurs as a Latin form of this > woman's name; Thomasine and Thomesine are the vernacular forms. > > Here is another example. In the online Common Pleas lawsuit index, the > following entry is listed for CP 796 (Year: 1460) for a lawsuit written in > Latin: > > d 1436 London debt Plaintiff: Fallan, William, clerk > Defendants: Leventhorp, Lawrence, of London, esq., Thomasina, his wife > > This woman's name is indexed as Thomasina. The woman's name is actually > "Thomesiam" [Latin form] in the original record in Latin. > > This same couple is found in another Chancery lawsuit which is written in > English. Here the plaintiffs are Laurence Leventhorp and "Thomasyn" his > wife. The wife's name also occurs as "Thomyssyn" in the same lawsuit. > > Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no25/IMG_0273.htm > > So in Latin form of this woman's name is given in one record is Thomesiam. > But her name in another record written in English is Thomasyn and Thomyssyn. > > In summary, here are the vernacular forms employed for the two women in > question: "Thomasine," "Thomesine," "Thomasyn," and "Thomyssyn." No > Thomasina. No Thomasia. No Thomesia. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > > + + + + + + + + + > > Reference: SC 8/46/2291 > Description: > Petitioners: Thomasina de Fornivall (Furnival), wife of William de Fornivall > Name(s): de Fornivall (Furnival), Thomasina > Addressees: King and council > Nature of request: Thomasina, wife of William de Fornivall, states that on > her marriage she brought her husband rents and possessions to the value of > 100 marks annually, with other money and goods and chattels to the value of > 4000 marks, but that through his cruelty and harshness she has been unable > to live with him for fear of her life, as is well known, although no blame > attaches to her for this. She has often humbly requested her sustenance from > him, as he was adjudged by law of Holy Church to give her £100 annually, but > he has refused to do anything. Therefore she asks that a remedy might be > ordained for her, so that she might be able to have sufficient security of > peace, and a suitable maintenance. > Nature of endorsement: [None] > People mentioned: William de Fornivall (Furnival) > Note: Dated on the guard to? before 1383, with reference to CFR 1377-83 > p.373. It also notes 'Thomasina de Fornivall apparently a widow and fairly > active in 1386 seq.', quoting CPR 1385-9 p.175 (dated at Westminster, 12 > March 1386) and CPR 1385-9 p.533 (dated at Westminster, 26 November > 1388).CCR 1381-5 p.279 is dated at Westminster, 9 June 1383, and the > petitioner is clearly a widow by then. This petition may well date from the > reign of Edward III rather than Richard II. > Date: [c. 1383] > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear Newsgroup ~ In the online Discovery catalogue, the archivist has indexed a record copied further below as being for Thomasina de Fornivall. This record comes from the SC class of records, which are petitions to Parliament (or the king) and is dated c.1383. This woman was the wife of John de Dagworth, Knt. [died 1360] and William de Furnival, Knt., 4th Lord Furnival [died 1383]. She has many modern descendants. When the original record written is checked, however, I find her given name is spelled "Thomasine" not "Thomasina." Here is a weblink to the original record: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062501#imageViewerLink In this instance, the archivist has taken a perfectly good name in the vernacular, Thomasine, and Latinized it as Thomasina. For reasons that I do not understand, historians often wobble back and forth between English name forms and Latin name forms. In another petition available online involving the same woman, this woman's name is spelled "Thomesine." See the following weblink: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062573#imageViewerLink I should note that I elsewhere find the Latin form of this woman's name as Thomasia. See for example the following record in Latin: Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1486, image 1787f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1486/aJUST1no1486fronts/IMG_1787.htm). Reviewing the above, we see that Thomasia occurs as a Latin form of this woman's name; Thomasine and Thomesine are the vernacular forms. Here is another example. In the online Common Pleas lawsuit index, the following entry is listed for CP 796 (Year: 1460) for a lawsuit written in Latin: d 1436 London debt Plaintiff: Fallan, William, clerk Defendants: Leventhorp, Lawrence, of London, esq., Thomasina, his wife This woman's name is indexed as Thomasina. The woman's name is actually "Thomesiam" [Latin form] in the original record in Latin. This same couple is found in another Chancery lawsuit which is written in English. Here the plaintiffs are Laurence Leventhorp and "Thomasyn" his wife. The wife's name also occurs as "Thomyssyn" in the same lawsuit. Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no25/IMG_0273.htm So in Latin form of this woman's name is given in one record is Thomesiam. But her name in another record written in English is Thomasyn and Thomyssyn. In summary, here are the vernacular forms employed for the two women in question: "Thomasine," "Thomesine," "Thomasyn," and "Thomyssyn." No Thomasina. No Thomasia. No Thomesia. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah + + + + + + + + + Reference: SC 8/46/2291 Description: Petitioners: Thomasina de Fornivall (Furnival), wife of William de Fornivall Name(s): de Fornivall (Furnival), Thomasina Addressees: King and council Nature of request: Thomasina, wife of William de Fornivall, states that on her marriage she brought her husband rents and possessions to the value of 100 marks annually, with other money and goods and chattels to the value of 4000 marks, but that through his cruelty and harshness she has been unable to live with him for fear of her life, as is well known, although no blame attaches to her for this. She has often humbly requested her sustenance from him, as he was adjudged by law of Holy Church to give her £100 annually, but he has refused to do anything. Therefore she asks that a remedy might be ordained for her, so that she might be able to have sufficient security of peace, and a suitable maintenance. Nature of endorsement: [None] People mentioned: William de Fornivall (Furnival) Note: Dated on the guard to? before 1383, with reference to CFR 1377-83 p.373. It also notes 'Thomasina de Fornivall apparently a widow and fairly active in 1386 seq.', quoting CPR 1385-9 p.175 (dated at Westminster, 12 March 1386) and CPR 1385-9 p.533 (dated at Westminster, 26 November 1388).CCR 1381-5 p.279 is dated at Westminster, 9 June 1383, and the petitioner is clearly a widow by then. This petition may well date from the reign of Edward III rather than Richard II. Date: [c. 1383]

Hello my name is Joseph Gallagher, I've found your research to be quite amazing. The reason that I'm researching this family is because I believe that I own a table that belonged to Sir Thomas Palmer, 4th Baronet, of Wingham. This said Table has a crest with the words Palma Virtuti carved on to it an know that was his or there motto. If I could send you a photo via email to see what you think of it that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again Joe gallagher [email protected]