Introduction

I think It’s time to address an important facet of my research - the various ways I’ve found the name “Nims” spelled and how these variations have impacted the research.

To review, Godfrey Nymm’s baptismal record which was finally located in 2018, provided a clue that his surname be found in various spellings. And since then, I’ve encountered many different spellings, leading to detailed discussions with my researchers about whether or not we had the right ‘NIms’ family.

To date, variations have included: Nims, Nimes, Nimms, Nymm, Nyms, Neemes, and Nemms. Additionally, There have been several Minns or Mynns, that on close inspection are almost certainly variations of NIms. 

Close inspection

By scrutinizing different documents dealing with similar types of records such as tax rolls, whether originals or transcriptions, there are details related to the person “suspected” to be a Nims under a different spelling, and the recorded event

• The “suspect’s” location such as a street, parish, or neighbourhood

• Date and a it’s possible relationship to the Nims’ chronology

• Associates, family, or neighbours listed in the record or in records that are adjacent or near, and in the same time frame

As an example, I recently found Henry listed as “Henry Mines” in a transcript of the 1666 London Hearth Tax rolls for Drury Lane Ward. I noted that this Henry is in the correct neighborhood, Drury Lane being very close to St. Clement-Danes Church; that 1666 is consistent with our Henry Nims’ residence in the St. Clement-Danes parish; and that the tax payers listed near him track closely with the ones listed near him in the St. Clement-Danes ratebooks.

The evidence suggests that this is our Henry and that the rushed notary, scribe with bad handwriting, or transcriber with eyestrain, generated the entry as Henry Mines.

Repeated computer searches in the Hearth Tax for “Nims” or “Nymms” had turned up nothing. It was only when I printed the whole ward that I found him by visually checking each entry.

Handwriting

Over time, our eyes become accustomed to various scripts. Some are downright impossible to read and require a specialist’s eyes. But for the most part, 17th century English script is quite readable. We have to remind ourselves that some letters are written differently than they are today. 

A notable example is the written letter “o” which I’ve seen variously represent ”e” or “s” and finally “o”. There are subtle differences in the script itself, but it takes looking at many examples - and comparing words that contain the same symbol - to decipher which letter was written.

Spelling

Importantly, It took me some time to understand just how “loose” the spellings were during this era. Many names did not have an accepted written form, and clerks or notaries simply wrote down what they heard (even “Shakespeare” is spelled differently in different contemporary documents).

That said, there’s a definite upside to this spelling lottery, and a huge clue: as mentioned above “...clerks simply wrote down what they heard “. This explains why Henry was first seen in Bristol as “Nimes” and shows up a few years later in London as “Neemes”.  In all likelihood the spoken name would have sounded like we would pronounce “Neemes” today, however it was spelled. 

There’s even a clue to this spelling quandary in the ”Story of Godfrey Nims” by Francis Nims Thompson (when the name was thought to be “Godefroi de Nismes”) which states that the name was changed “to suit the Colonial way of pronouncing it”.

There appears to be quite a bit of truth to that because, I recently reviewed some of the Colonial documents with this in mind, only to find four different spellings of Godfrey “Nims” in only three documents.

Tracking and including additional variations of our Nims family’s name will assist in further research.