And the ancient Romans did one better. The eldest son would be named for the father so historians have a hard time figuring out who did what sometimes since you have a "John Smith" son of "John Smith" sort of situation going on. That also has occurred in a branch of my own family. Every other generation the son of one of my ancestors was name John and since the surname was always the same it's sometimes hard to be certain who is who. Surnames in a lot of cases came from the profession that a person had. i.e. Tailor, Carpenter, Cooper, etc. or were based on some aspect of geography. Atgate, Attwater, Gates, etc. and sometimes changed if the family moved or there was a change in profession. And some surnames have a stigma attached to them. The Fitz in names like Fitzwalter for example meant 'illegitimate'. Tolkien was a master of naming things and people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AprilHare
In fact that is the traditional way to name someone. Surnames are a fairly new invention. In parts of the world (e.g. East India) they still haven't caught on.
And yes, I've met people with no surname. I suggested for soothing the bureaucratic beast that they choose a surname that suggests what they do, e.g. Cedric the Entertainer is a valid (and aesthetically pleasing) name.
|