[name_m]Just[/name_m] out of curiosity, how does everybody feel about names that were traditionally only used as surnames but have also started being used for first names as well (i.e. [name_u]Carson[/name_u], McClane, [name_m]Ford[/name_m] etc.)?
I personally feel a bit conflicted as I really like the sound of a lot of them, but also am not always sure they work the best. They often sound a little clunky and feel incomplete as a name to me, and I’d worry a little bit that the person would end up feeling like they don’t get a unique identifier in the form of a “traditional” first name like other people do. I also feel like it’s mostly a pretty recent trend and might sound overly modern to a lot of people, which is something I’d personally rather avoid, though I’m not entirely sure when it started commonly being done. It really does depend on the specific name though- some sound much more natural to me than others.
Anyway what’s your opinion? If you have a surname name (or know someone who does), do you like your name, and has it ever caused any problems for you or impacted you at all?
I generally quite enjoy them! I have a surname that’s been rising as a first name recently, and I’ve encountered it on a few boys (as a first name) so far. It makes me giddy!
I also think surname names are such meaningful ways to honor, and I have several on my own list for this purpose.
Over all, I am a fan! I’ve had many friends and family members with surname names (eg. [name_m]Pierson[/name_m], [name_u]Mason[/name_u], [name_u]Bridger[/name_u], [name_m]Nicholson[/name_m], [name_u]Dawson[/name_u], [name_u]Sterling[/name_u], [name_u]Jackson[/name_u], [name_u]Taylor[/name_u], [name_u]Ellis[/name_u], [name_m]Winston[/name_m], [name_u]Austin[/name_u], [name_u]Miller[/name_u], [name_u]Lawrence[/name_u], etc.) whose names seem perfectly nice as first names, too. [name_u]Jackson[/name_u] is one that’s a particular good shout—he is just so popular!
I guess it depends on the name, but I do enjoy quite a lot of them - admittedly there are some that sound less ‘namey’ at first, but I think once I’ve got used to them, it’s fine
It’s not really my taste but quite a lot are ‘mainstream’ now - [name_u]Bailey[/name_u], [name_u]Morgan[/name_u], [name_u]Mason[/name_u], [name_u]Taylor[/name_u], [name_u]Tyler[/name_u] etc - that you’d equally expect them as a first name as you would a surname. There’s no reason over time [name_u]Carson[/name_u], [name_m]Ford[/name_m], McClane etc won’t go the same way. I understand how they can be seen as clunky and I’d personally want to avoid confusion between first and last names because I knew a kid growing up who had this - and it wasn’t even with surname names, think [name_u]James[/name_u] [name_u]Ryan[/name_u] being called [name_u]Ryan[/name_u] [name_u]James[/name_u] by teachers on the regular - and he hated it.
Using the mother’s maiden name as a first name for a child has a long history in Great Britain (especially Scotland). Also using saint’s surnames as given names has history in Catholic countries (e.g. Xavier).
Personally I wouldn’t choose one unless it’s a family/honour name (it’s a cultural thing). I would feel comfortable choosing a surname from my family tree, but the idea of picking a random surname that has no personal meaning for me just feels odd.
I’m not particularly a fan of ‘occupational’ surnames as firsts, like [name_u]Taylor[/name_u], [name_m]Fletcher[/name_m], [name_u]Sawyer[/name_u].
Anything that ends in -son only makes sense to me if it actually relates to an older generation of the family, eg. [name_u]Prince[/name_u] [name_u]Harry[/name_u] giving his son the middle name [name_m]Harrison[/name_m]. I’d find it odd if a [name_u]Jackson[/name_u] didn’t have an ancestor named [name_u]Jack[/name_u] somewhere in the family tree
I absolutely love when people use old family surnames as middles or firsts, especially when they are maiden names which often get lost otherwise. It’s a really old tradition in the U.K. so I’m all for that.
And then there’s using the surname of someone you admire, like [name_u]Austen[/name_u], [name_u]Keats[/name_u], [name_f]Earhart[/name_f], which I think is pretty cool (but personally I prefer them in the middle)
It comes down to the individual name for me. The ones I like usually are well established as given names, so it’s not super obvious they were originally surnames (Carter, Winston, Ellis, Scott, Bailey etc).
When it’s an occupation (Mason, Taylor, Baker, Fisher, Hunter) I mostly don’t think of it as a surname name but as a word name. I don’t like most of those but I think that’s just coincidence, there are exceptions.
Would someone with a surname for a first feel like they were not given a name? Impossible to tell, you can never predict how people might feel about their names when they grow up. They might, but they might feel the same with a very common name. It also heavily depends on how established it already is as a given name - is anyone going to blurt “But that’s a last name!” at Allison?
I tried to answer that question with math (like I do) but mostly found that it’s impossible to tell because so many surnames came from given names. For example George, Oliver, Michael, Robert, John have been both first and last names for so long that they make the question when the line between those categories started to get blurry hard to answer. I mean, I get the difference, but what would a hard criterion look like that can tell last names as firsts from first names as lasts?
Also, just a thought, but using surnames as given names can’t be entirely a new trend. Robinson Crusoe came out in 1719 and has a protagonist named Robinson.
Surname names aren’t really a thing here in Germany anyway. When people have problems with first and last being mixed up it’s usually because their surname is a given name, not the other way around. Fabian for example is a common given name in my generation, and much less common as a surname, so the surname-Fabians get accidentally called by their surname a lot.
That again is something I absolutely don’t like, but it’s not about the surnames, I just don’t like obvious celebrity honours. Most of them feel like one-person-names and not very usable.
One of my sons has a surname as a first name, from my mom’s maiden name. [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] It’s very rare as a first name - fewer than 50 boys given that name the year he was born, including alternate spellings - but we’ve only ever heard positive comments on it. He mostly goes by the first syllable as a nickname.
Our last name is solidly a surname. If it were less so, something like [name_u]James[/name_u] or [name_u]Carson[/name_u], I probably wouldn’t have used a surname first name, to avoid confusion.
A lot of times it sounds weird and clunky to me especially because I personally prefer slightly softer names but some of the mainstream ones like [name_u]Carter[/name_u] and [name_m]Harrison[/name_m] are on my long list so I suppose I could eventually get used to some of the others as well. It does feel pretty modern to me but that might just be because its a pretty big trend at the moment, its definitely not actually a new idea.
It comes down to the name for me. I don’t like surnames like [name_m]Ford[/name_m], [name_u]Campbell[/name_u], [name_u]Ripley[/name_u], [name_u]Hayes[/name_u] or [name_u]Remington[/name_u] as first names. They just come across too try hard to me even if that isn’t the case. But I like most surnames that are well established already as first names, like [name_u]Bailey[/name_u], [name_m]Harrison[/name_m], [name_u]Marlow[/name_u], [name_u]Piper[/name_u], [name_u]Harper[/name_u] etc.
[name_m]Fletcher[/name_m] and [name_m]Thatcher[/name_m] are two that don’t really fit into either that I like, too.
The one-person names are also sort of taking off in the UK, like after famous people (Lennon, [name_u]Presley[/name_u] etc). [name_f]My[/name_f] son’s nursery class has 30 children, including a [name_u]Presley[/name_u] and a [name_u]Hendrix[/name_u], which shocked me! But I see why, I love these kinda names.
