PGM ? LNAB Dibble/Deeble/ etc. [closed]

Question

These two Thomas' need merging.  The LNAB is written Deeble, Dibble, Dible, Deble.   We probably need to settle on one variation.

Alicia Crane Williams lists all these variations in ENEF: Thomas Dibble (m. 1637) (subscription) https://www.americanancestors.org/databases/early-new-england-families-1641-1700/image?pageName=1&volumeId=13723&rId=29469813

And although Anderson GM:II: 345 calls his father Robert Dibble as a featured name, the bio within list his name as Deeble in various documents. (subscription)  https://www.americanancestors.org/databases/great-migration-immigrants-to-new-england-1634-1635-volume-ii-c-f/image?pageName=346&volumeId=7373&rId=22175411

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Deeble-1

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Dibble-93

Answer 1

Another Thomas Dibble descendant here.  I'm not sure if it would help, but this page has a screenshot of his actual signature: http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/genealogy/earlydib/thomas.htm

It looks like Deebbell here.  I've always been lazy and just used Dibble in my files, but it definitely seems like that spelling change came in later generations.

Comments

I agree with you K.  I think we should use he used in his signature.

---

"Fascinating, Captain" -- thank you for sharing that link, cousin.  I'm also a descendant, and have been contributing to Thomas's profile. On the one hand (no pun intended), the man's signature would seem to deserve some kind of particular recognition; by WikiTree convention, however, I'm not sure it takes precedence over other spellings -- except for a demonstrable surname-at-birth.

In the general debate, the signature does influence me to lean to a spelling that at least shows a double "e" (rather than to "Dibble").  One of the two profiles now awaiting a merge is Deeble-1, and I think I'd now prefer we retain that version of the name.  The signature would seem to at least suggest that Thomas grew up hearing the name pronounced more nearly to that than to Dibble.

---

Glad to share it!  And I agree about precedence-I've never seen Deebbell anywhere other than in that document, and know that some people likely got very creative with spelling, even with their own names-as most of my ancestors from this time period were illiterate, it's always very interesting to see examples of the few that were able to read and write.  I would also cast my vote for Deeble.

---

Thanks for the link

---

You're very welcome-big thanks goes to Jo Edkins for posting the document on the site.

Answer 2

I descend from Thomas (9x GG).  I would use Dibble and add the variant spellings to "Other Last Names".  Just my opinion.

Comments

And another descendant here. I use Dibble and add variations to other last names. There were no standard spelling conventions in the 1600s and as long as you are sure to the exclusion of all others that the person is one in the same, then note the spelling change and move on. Pomeroy is another good example of multiple spellings.