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]

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