Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:53 pm
Incidentally, the earlist example I know of this is the original Spencer Compton, born 1601
This is still the case. However, I was just looking at a list of governors of the bank of england, and I realised that this practice (surnames as forenames) was more common much earlier than I realised. It seems to have been a thing in the late 17th century.
Among the governors, it first shows up with Delillers Carbonnel, born 1654. I don't know for sure where 'Delillers' came from, but it surely must be a surname originally. Delillers' successor was Stamp Brooksbank, born 1694, whose mother's maiden name was indeed 'Stamp' (and he was his maternal grandfather's heir, which may be relevant). Thirteen years after Stamp left office, we get Matthews Beachcroft (wikipedia doesn't even have a birthdate), who was followed in turn, two years later, by Merrik Burrell, grandson of a John Merrik.
However, after Burrell, the phenomenon doesn't arise again until Sheffield Neave*, born 1799 - interestingly, Sheffield was NOT the grandson of a Mr Sheffield. He was succeeded by Bonamy Dobrée - I've no idea whether 'Bonamy' comes from a surname or is just a weird first name (bonhomie?). Two years after Bonamy left office, Kirkman Hodgson came to office (born 1814). Now, here's a really weird thing: Kirkman Hodgson married Frances Butler, and their son was called... Robert Kirkman. So the surname has become a forename, and then become a surname again!?
Ten years later there's a sort-of-example with Hucks Gibbs, but apparently he was really Henry Hucks Gibbs, and just went by Hucks. But it didn't start in earnest again until the 20th century, with Montagu Collett Norman (born 1871) and Cameron Fromanteel Cobold (born 1904). Cameron was mother's maiden name, but I don't know about Montagu. And then there was Leslie O'Brien (born 1908).
Now, just looking at one list of people is hardly a robust survey. But it clearly goes back longer than I thought, at least among the ruling class. But it also seems - at first sight - to go in pulses - one in the late 17th, one in the late 18th, and one in the late 19th (and early 20th) centuries. Interestingly, the first pulse came at a time of extreme nomenclative chaos. The middle 17th century saw two huge expansions of the naming system, that to a large extent did away with the relatively restricted saints-and-germans dominance: first, the Puritans introduced biblical names (Daniel, Samuel, Jonathan, etc); then, because these became popular with non-puritans and hence useless as markers of in-group legitimacy, they introduced a wave of virtue, vice and praise names (Faith, Grace, No-Merit, Humiliation, If-Jesus-Had'st-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Woulds't-Be-Damned, etc). The former have been very influential, particularly for men, while the latter have largely died out for men but persist for women. It makes sense that there'd be a burst of surname-naming following this (although Spencer Compton proves that it didn't begin the practice). Around this time, people would have had difficulty knowing what things were and weren't names, as the pool of acceptible names had, in two generations, massively expanded.
I wonder if a similar process explains the recent boom, and perhaps why these names became more entrenched in the US than the UK - maybe they're a reaction to multiculturalism? The inflow of new names creates a naming-pool instability allowing surnames to be accepted? It's also notable that 'hippy names' (plants and climatic phenomena) have expanded at the same time, implying that the current burst of surnamings is part of a broader instability, rather than a specific limited phenomenon.
[I've found one person from the mid-18th century: Hucks Gibbs named his son Vicary Gibbs, after an earlier Vicary Gibbs born in the 1750s]
*Sheffield Neave's grandson was Sheffield Airey Neave, whose son was the famous Airey Neave - Airey also being originally a surname.
