DOUBLE CHRISTIAN NAMES: THEIR RISE AND PROGRESS.
I. Royal Double Names.
“But two christian names are rare in England, and I only remember now his Majesty, who was named Charles James, as the Prince his sonne Henry Frederic: and among private men, Thomas Maria Wingfield and Sir Thomas Posthumus Hobby.”—Camden.
If we take this sentence literally, the great antiquary, who knew more of the families and pedigrees of the English aristocracy than any other man of his day, could only recall to his mind four cases of double Christian names. This was in 1614.
At the outset, therefore, there is significance in this statement. Mr. Blunt, in his “Annotated Prayer-Book,” says of “N. or M.” in the Catechism—
“N. was anciently used as the initial of Nomen, and ‘Nomen vel Nomina’ was expressed by ‘N. vel NN.,’ the double N being afterwards corrupted into M.”
If this be a correct explanation, “M.” must refer to cases where more than one child was brought to the priest, N. standing for an occasion where only one infant was presented. In a word, “N. or M.” could not stand for “Thomas or Thomas Henry,” but for “Thomas or Thomas and Henry.” If this be unsatisfactory, then Mr. Blunt’s explanation is unsatisfactory.
Camden’s sentence may be set side by side with Lord Coke’s decision. In his “First Institute” (Coke upon Littleton) he says—
“And regularly it is requisite that the purchaser be named by the name of baptism, and his surname, and that special heed be taken to the name of baptism; for that a man cannot have two names of baptism, as he may have divers surnames.”
Again, he adds—