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