> The suffix "kin" in a name such as Tomkinson is described as a > diminutive, suggesting an affectionate connotation. Is it possible > that it might have been used in the present sense of the addition of > "Junior" after a name? Tomkinson would then be the "son of the son > of Tom", which seems to make sense. > I may have got to the first user of the name Tomkinson, and > have several names in the area without surnames, who could > be possible forebears. It struck me that I could looking for > Tom, the son of Tom. Hello again Don, your recent posts on a subject so close to my own heart have enticed me to resubscribe. It must be likely that some medieval men named Thomas were called Thomkin to distinguish them from a father who was also named Thomas, but unfortunately it wasn't the case that ALL Thomkins were so-called for that reason. Many had fathers with a different forename and were presumably nicknamed Thomkin for other reasons. One likely reason might have been to distinguish them from other people, not necessarily related, also called Thomas. Medieval people used diminutive forms of forenames a great deal (and -kin was just one method for creating diminutives, others included adding -in, -un, -et, -ot, -el, and -cock), presumably because so few forenames were in use. When nearly everyone in the village was called John, Thomas, Richard or Robert it may have helped distinguish them if one was nicknamed Thom, another Thomkin, a third Thomlin, a fourth Thomcock, and so on. There are known cases of men with -kin forenames whose father did not have the same forename. In their Dictionary of English Surnames under Dickinson (which means 'son of Richard') Reaney and Wilson mention the case of John and Henry Dicounesson de Clenesse whose father was Richard son of Henry de Clenesse. But I'm fascinated to hear that you may have got back to the first person to be surnamed Tomkinson, and would love to hear more about it. Regards, Matt