4 ms·
Formal surnames attached to a family are a later invention than aristocratic titles. In fact, surnames were originally introduced for the sole purpose of identi
by Zuider 5y ago
Formal surnames attached to a family are a later invention than aristocratic titles. In fact, surnames were originally introduced for the sole purpose of identifying individuals for the purpose of taxing them. When the English tried this on the Welsh, they mass rebelled by all choosing the name "Jones."
This was especially the case for commoners, or non aristocrats, who only had first names, and had to be uniquely identified by their professions, the names of their fathers or a well known relative. If Bob the Builder got a knighthood for exceptional diligence in building siege engines for the noble and perennial cause of annoying the French, then the only real name the title could be attached to would have been "Bob."
The reason it is different for other titles is that those titles belonged to the landed aristocracy, and were generally titles to the fiefdoms of that territory, so titles like Lord Acton, Lord Dunsany, or Alfred, Lord Tennyson, referred to actual places. If a higher title is awarded to a commoner who does not possess a hereditary fiefdom, then a fiefdom will be invented for them such as when William Thompson became Lord Kelvin.
- loudmax 5y agoAlong similar lines, the name of the famous renaissance polymath Leonardo da Vinci is "Leonardo". He was born in the city of Vinci, so calling him "Leonardo from Vinci" was an easy way of distinguishing him from the other Leonardos around. Nobody during his lifetime would have addressed him as "Da Vinci".
- Zuider 5y agoBy the same token, it is strange that one of the pioneering visionaries of computing is commonly known as Ada Lovelace, even though her actual surname was 'King' (née Gordon) Her full title was 'Ada King, The Right Honourable The Countess of Lovelace,'