Jane Smith? What do you think?

[name]Seven[/name] weeks until [name]Baby[/name] is due, and the expectant mother (a close relative of mine) is pining for her first choice name, the one she set aside, choosing Chlo” (or [name]Chloe[/name]) [name]Jane[/name] instead. She has always wanted to name her daughter [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] after her sister’s middle name [name]Jane[/name] and her mother [name]Catherine[/name]. She LOVES the name [name]Jane[/name]! But… the baby’s surname will be [name]Smith[/name]. When she announced her pregnancy, she said at the same time that she couldn’t name the baby [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] – too plain, too common; “like [name]Jane[/name] [name]Doe[/name],” said her sister.

I did an internet search for “[name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name]” and concluded that [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] can be quite a chic name, including a trendy boutique in [name]CA[/name] called “[name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] Boutique” and a hatmaker in [name]London[/name] whose company logo has “[name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name]” above a jaunty early 19th century top hat. I put together a 4 page “report” on the name [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] and titled it “Reconsidering [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name]” because I knew how much the young mother liked the name [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name].

But Chlo”/[name]Chloe[/name] was chosen instead, because the parents [name]DO[/name] like that name, but also to avoid the name that some say, “you can’t name your baby.” ([name]Even[/name] Swistle recently wrote when discussing possible names for another [name]Baby[/name] Girl [name]Smith[/name]: “[name]Smith[/name] is such a tricky surname! It rules out the common end of the spectrum ([name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name], [name]Elizabeth[/name] [name]Smith[/name])…”)

I’d be interested in hearing others’ thoughts on [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name].

PS I decided to remove the poll. This issue isn’t so much which name is better – Chlo”/[name]Chloe[/name] [name]Jane[/name] or [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name], but hearing what others think of the name [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name].

I think that now days [name]Jane[/name] is fresh, and it’s a lot less popular than [name]Chloe[/name]. There may actually be more [name]Chloe[/name] [name]Smith[/name]'s out there than [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name]'s.

I found this website: http://howmanyofme.com/search/
Lets you search how many there are of a particular name in the US (if that’s where you are)
Keep in mind that is of ALL ages…

There are 95 people in the U.S. named [name]Chloe[/name] [name]Smith[/name].
There are 3,392 people in the U.S. named [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name].

I actually know someone named [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] and she quite liked her name. To her, it almost seemed like an alias, but in reality there aren’t too many people with the name. My first name is also [name]Jane[/name] and can’t recommend it enough! I love my name! [name]Chloe[/name] is cute, but not nearly as classic as [name]Jane[/name].

I’ve seen that website too and concluded that it’s not very helpful in this case because, as you said, it included people of all ages. [name]Chloe[/name] was out of the SSA Top 1000 list for almost 40 years (1944-1981). As another poster said, there are most likely more young girls named [name]Chloe[/name] [name]Smith[/name] than [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name].

My concern actually wouldn’t be with the popularity of the full name, but rather with the flow. [name]Jane[/name] and [name]Smith[/name] both being one syllable names, it’s not the best.
Would they consider hyphenating the baby’s last name to include her Mom’s maiden name as well?

I agree with the above poster. [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] is too short, and does need a name with more syllables. I like [name]Chloe[/name] [name]Smith[/name] better, but [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name], despite its shortness is nice too. I like [name]Chloe[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Smith[/name], though. Maybe she should just stick all her favourite names in there, it sounds good.

I suggested using a hyphenated surname, but they don’t want that. And they have no problem with both names being one syllable, it’s just the combination of [name]Jane[/name] and [name]Smith[/name] that has them concerned. As another poster mentioned, it almost sounds like an alias.

[name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] enforces the plain [name]Jane[/name] stereotype that I think put people off [name]Jane[/name] for a long time.

I really like [name]Jane[/name] maybe you could name her [name]Jane[/name] [name]Bellamy[/name] [name]Smith[/name] and she could use her middle and last name as a surname?

Can you find a family surname that would fit eg if your maiden name was [name]Fletcher[/name] then [name]Jane[/name] [name]Fletcher[/name] [name]Smith[/name] would sound terrific.

I [name]LOVE[/name] the name [name]Jane[/name]. In fact, I sometimes wish I hadn’t used it as a mn for my first daughter so I could use it as a first. HOWEVER, paired with [name]Smith[/name] it’s pretty boring. With such a nondescript surname, [name]Jane[/name] doesn’t retain that surprising, back-to-basics snap somehow. It just sounds…zzz… I think your friend is right to give it up. Like with any of us, we have to veto names that don’t work with our last names. I, for instance, can’t choose a name that ends in ‘S’ because it runs into my surname.
Maybe she could call her daughter ‘[name]Chloe[/name] [name]Jane[/name]’ as a first? Or, and this would be totally acceptable in the South where I am from, even call her ‘[name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name]’? Its really no more of a mouthful than [name]Mary[/name] [name]Catherine[/name].

I second this! :slight_smile:

Take care!