Forename variants (18th century)

I have an ancestor with the forename Thomasine (spelt variously), born around 1766 and married in 1789. I have so far been unable to find where she was born or who her parents were, although for various reasons I've always suspected her father may have had the forename Walter.

I've now come across the baptism of a Tamar not too far from where my Thomasine married; the baptism is in 1766, the surname is correct and the father is a Walter.

I know that there are sort of links between the forenames Thomasine and Tamar via Tamsin, Tam etc, but none of the resources I've checked actually give Tamar as a variant of Thomasine. So I'm wondering if I am just being over-hopeful in thinking that this Tamar baptism might well be my Thomasine.

One thing possibly in favour of my theory is that Thomasine had descendants with the middle name Tamar, and I'm not aware of anyone named Tamar earlier in this line. Also, confirmed variants I have found for Thomasine in censuses and registers include Tamsin and Tamarine.

Any thoughts?

 

According to my "Dictioary of first names" Tamar fem palm tree (Hebrew) : diminutive forms are Tammie, Tammy.
Tamsin masc a dimutive form of Thomas
Tamsin fem a Cornish contraction of Thomasina now used independently; a diminutive form is Tammy.
Tam masc (Scots) a diminutive form of Thomas

Not sure if this helps or not? I think the fact that Thomasine having descendants with the middle name Tamar is a positive pointer.

 

Not very scientific but, sometimes I seem to have an intuitive/instinctive feeling about some records(as Heather says 'Tamar' as a middle name is a positive). Such instincts are often..."no this is not right"...but where a marker such as a recurring middle name keeps popping up well...?

 

Many thanks for the input. Heather, what your dictionary says seems much the same as what I've read elsewhere, with Tamar and Thomasine sharing diminutive forms but nothing to indicate that either is a derivative or variation of the other.

Emjay - I did get an intuitive feeling about this Tamar baptism, and similar instincts in the past have often proved right. However, I hesitate (as I'm sure you do too) to claim someone as an ancestor based on intuition alone, but I have so far failed to find any supporting evidence for this one.

I guess I am also hoping for some clear evidence of someone being called Thomasine and Tamar interchangeably. So far the closest I have been able to get to that is my Thomasine's daughter whose name was spelt Thomasine at her baptism in 1803 but spelt Tamarine when she had an illegitimate child baptised in 1823 (same parish).

 

I'd be very cool and relaxed about names, particularly so far back. The bits quoted from the dictionary of first names will apply to 21st century or late 20th, not necessarily further back in time. Everything we know about variants in spelling, parish clerk writing what he thought he heard, etc, etc apply fully. I have one relative who appears in one census with the delightful name of Imogene, but who was actually registered with the less exciting names of Emma Jane.

More relevant to your case, I have a line where the name Amphillis crops up again and again in succeeding generations, spreading out. But like a study in Chinese whispers or distortion, in certain cases it becomes Ann Phillis, then the girl (and her descendants with the same name) appears in other documents as Ann or Phillis or even Phillis Ann. Nicely demonstrates, I think, that the family had lost track of where the name came from originally. I wouldn't say that Tamar was ever a variant of Thomasine, but the one could morph into the other. Perhaps some vicar insisted on giving some baby the Biblical name Tamar in preference to a feminine form of Thomas.

 

The reference I have is "First Name Variants" by Alan Bardsley, which was written for family historians and, from the introduction, primarily covers the 17th to 19th centuries. So 1766 sits pretty much in the middle of the period covered.

Nevertheless, I appreciate what you say about exactly what went down in the register being as much down to the individual parish clerk as anything else. I guess the difficulty I am having here is with lack of any concrete evidence that the 1766 Tamar baptism relates to my Thomasine - circumstantially it looks good, but so far that's as far as it goes.

 

Good thinking - one of the tips I was given in my early days of researching is that if you can't prove something try disproving it instead!

So far the only record I have found for Tamar is her baptism which leaves open the possibility that she was my Thomasine. However, I have as yet only been able to check records available online and whilst the coverage in the relevant area is pretty good, there's always a chance she slipped under the online radar and got married or died somewhere unexpected.