Or just me? I find it peculiar when child has regular name (or whatever) as first name and then a surname as a middle that us not a family name. It just sounds like you are giving them a character name or something? I realise this is a really popular thing to do now and I mean no offense whatsoever, it is just me not up on the style after all!
Surnames as first names aren’t really my thing so much either, unless a family/ friend honour name, or a name very much integrated into common use over decades of use. (And I am not a stickler really, I don’t mind made up names or word names). My own surname (not through genetics or relationship, I kind of have it randomly) is now a REALLY popular first name for boys (and girls in [name_u]America[/name_u]) so funnily enough my less than usually named kids would often get called to appointments by their surname, with the presumption we had reversed their names on the form.
People here are often suggesting lists of middle names almost entirely all surnames and have seen many parents (here) using them. But yes, previous to this I would have presumed, as you, that the names were from family.
I do not understand the preoccupation with this subject. I’ve noticed many people around here write off entire groups of names for belonging to groups they think are bad - surnames as first names, “boy” names on girls, etc. All very silly and narrow-minded imo. To me surnames are an excellent source of inspiration. There are oodles of rare surnames out there that would make great given names. [name_m]Just[/name_m] gotta find them.
I agree with @wandsworth, people get way to caught up with these over generalizations of names and categories. If I like a name, I don’t really care if it’s a “first” name or a “last name” or whatever. I personally tend to like surnames because they are established names/not made up and therefor easy to pronounce, but yet there are so many fun/different names that are not common enough (as firsts) that there are going to be 5 kids who turn around when you say it.
I feel like people are only getting caught up when it’s not a common name, too. For instance, you never hear anybody complain about somebody wanting to use [name_m]Jackson[/name_m], [name_m]Wyatt[/name_m], [name_m]Bennett[/name_m], [name_u]Ellis[/name_u], etc. (which are also surnames) because they are so popular as first names also. Is [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] really that different from, say, [name_m]Anderson[/name_m]? Is [name_u]Ellis[/name_u] really that different from [name_m]Davis[/name_m]? What makes one acceptable as a first (or middle) and the other not? [name_m]Just[/name_m] my opinion.
I’m English and live in [name_f]Ireland[/name_f] so actually surnames as given names is pretty rare here I think (at least as a modern phenomena/ fashion, I appreciate this has happened over the years)? Other than my surname that is. So I am not particularly familiar with it really irl.
I don’t think I am a purist about naming at all but the regular first name ([name_m]Jack[/name_m] etc) followed by a random surname ([name_m]Smith[/name_m] etc) just seems peculiar to me. This may be very normal in [name_u]America[/name_u]?
ETA in response to above… No all of those do sound like surnames to me. I have no issue with them being used as first names (I don’t like those myself but there have been a few surname turned given names I have liked) but in middle spot I find it odd.
I guess it’s just a difference in cultures, perhaps. It’s extremely common in the south (US). I actually know two boys named [name_m]Smith[/name_m], neither are the mother’s maiden name (not sure where they got the name, and frankly never thought much of it). I don’t see [name_m]Smith[/name_m] and think of it as either a last or first name, to me it’s just a name. I guess personally growing up in the south and constantly meeting people with surnames as first names my entire life, it’s just normal to me. I mean even as a young child I had friends named [name_u]Langley[/name_u], [name_u]Campbell[/name_u], [name_m]Brooks[/name_m], etc. so I guess I just don’t think much of it.
My example was of a first name, but it’s still the same point even for middle names. I was saying I have seen so many surnames used as first names that I don’t differentiate between the two (unless it’s really out there)… some names I couldn’t even tell you if it was a surname or given name originally (like [name_m]Oliver[/name_m]), so I often recommend what some people consider strictly surnames as first or middles because to me they are all just names, I don’t really stop and categorize them a lot of times. For example, I know of 3 people named [name_u]Sullivan[/name_u] but have never even met anybody with the last name [name_u]Sullivan[/name_u], so for quite a while I didn’t even realize it was considered a surname by most people. Or just like I’ve met more Tuckers and Jacksons than I could begin to count, so I don’t see them as a surname like many others do and therefore I don’t hesitate to recommend them.
Granted, I usually only recommend most of the more obvious and out-there surnames to people looking for “different” or “quirky” names in particular, if somebody clearly likes classic style names I’m not going to recommend something like [name_m]Wilder[/name_m] or [name_u]Sinclair[/name_u]. For me personally, I just choose/recommend a middle name that I think flows best with the first name, regardless of what that name is classified as by others.
Sorry if that previous post wasn’t as clear as I thought, I was just trying to give you some perspective into why some people (or at least myself) often recommend surnames as either first or middle names. Honestly, A lot of times I don’t even realize it’s regarded as a surname by others, I just think it’s a great name in general.
Yeah, ok, I see that. I would probably get used to it also if I were familiarised. To me it looks peculiar (say [name_m]David[/name_m] + list of ‘surnames’) and like a full name, but it isn’t, and I haven’t knowingly come across this irl (or if I have I have presumed the middle name to be a family name).
Before I stopped truly caring what people thought of my name choices (other than feedback here and there), things like this were stopping me from considering names that I really liked. For instance, my husband and I had [name_m]Ivan[/name_m] [name_m]Gallagher[/name_m] as one of our top combos. [name_f]Do[/name_f] we have any connection to the surname [name_m]Gallagher[/name_m]? No. We still really like it and the sound. We don’t need a “valid” reason to use a “random” surname as a middle any more than anyone else needs a “valid” reason to use a “normal” middle name. We all have different tastes and preferences, which we don’t need to justify.
Am not looking to hear justifications (I wouldn’t discount picking something technically a surname as a middle myself in different circumstances). I genuinely wasn’t slyly casting judgment on the practice in a passive way, but actually really looking to see if others felt similarly. It seems nobody does (other than the first to reply), or they are not wanting to offend. It IS foreign to me, and I imagine would be for many people, but may not strike others as odd.
In my country you can have two surnames, but not everyone has it.
I I were to name my son [name_m]Arthur[/name_m] [name_u]Darcy[/name_u] [name_u]Sullivan[/name_u] (let’s say [name_u]Sullivan[/name_u] is a father surname) people here would assume [name_u]Darcy[/name_u] is child second surname.
I know it’s different in the states. But here? Child can have father’s surname, mother’s surname (even if father is married to mother), both mother and father surname (if both mother and father has their own surname). It’s not uncommon to mother/wife have two surnames one maiden, one husbands, even to keep it’s own surname no matter how unsuccessful or unknown she is.
So, my point is this random surname as middle only works in [name_u]America[/name_u].
That happens in [name_f]England[/name_f] also, although not so much I don’t think (and less in [name_f]Ireland[/name_f] I believe where I am now), but as such I would presume two seemingly surnames meant they were from both parents (or possibly a grandparent); it’s historically common in wealthy families. (As an example we recently passed through “the ancestral home of [name_m]John[/name_m] F [name_u]Kennedy[/name_u]”, and found it was the [name_m]Fitzgerald[/name_m] side, from his mum).
I have [name_f]Anita[/name_f] Wilde high on my list. Wilde, a surname, is random if it’s definition is “not a family surname”, but is not random if we consider it’s significance - I picked after [name_m]Oscar[/name_m] Wilde.
I am not generally a fan of surnames as first names (or middles etc.). My boyfriend actually has one that technically has family significance and is passed down the male line, but neither he or his father understand from where or who it’s connected to, but he’s already said however much he hates the name (he admits it’s quite ugly), he’d want to pass it onto a son anyway.
So I guess I’m going to have to add to the surname as middle trend anyway!
As for the people saying it’s silly to dislike sweeping generalisations of names, I agree it probably is silly, but aren’t people’s tastes in general silly? It’s a bit weird that as humans there’s something in us or our backgrounds that means we like names other people hate and dislike names other people love. I don’t think it’s much worse than someone saying ‘As a general rule, I hate old lady names/traditional names.’ There are a couple of surname names I like and would use as a middle possibly, but a lot of them are GP and not something I’d actually do. People’s tastes are different and I do find it hard to look at a name that screams surname to me and suddenly think of it as a first name, a lot of them sound wholly ‘American’ to me in a way that I can’t properly explain. That doesn’t mean people are wrong for liking it, it just means there are people with different tastes surely?
I don’t think that’s random then, no real choice would be I guess, but, personally, I can relate to that far easier than the lists of traditional surnames given here just for the sound of them. As I said, I would not discount doing this myself (though believe I am done naming people) and I think Wilde is a good one.
@emelfem I think people are annoyed by questioning this as it is so ubiquitous now in the States. That’s irritating you’ll need to give a middle name you don’t love but it is definitely still a family name so you have a good excuse! (Could you not adapt it into something nicer and alter the course of this tradition as the person who begun it did??).
Yeah, I think this is one of those moments that naming hits a cultural wall. I never mean to come across as insensitive but there are times I just see a name and can never imagine it as a first, though I’m sure if I met someone with it I’d get over that pretty quickly.
As for changing it… potentially? I believe it’s an Anglicised form of an Irish surname but it’s not all that common (I’ve never come across it) and I’m not sure how I’d even attempt to adapt it. Plus I think trying to change it might actually insult his father and grandfather more than just removing it altogether! Unfortunately I think it’s really, really ugly. [name_m]Ah[/name_m] well, some battles have got to be lost.