Using a Boy's Name as Part of a Girl's Double: Fashionable or Folly?

All right, Berries, I’m back!

After the hub nixed all of the beautiful classic names you suggested for us, we are back to the drawing board.
[name]One[/name] thing I’ve always loved is the Double Name, which seems to be a bigger cultural thing in the South than other parts of the USA.

After endless brainstorming sessions, we seem to have found a name we love: [name]Edison[/name]-[name]Rose[/name]. She would be a double barrel first name (middle name [name]Pauline[/name].) We know it’s a mouth full, but in a world of Seraphinas and Evangelines we’re not so worried about that.

[name]Edison[/name], when heard at all, is usually heard as a boy’s name. Does that make the name too out there? I know little girls who go by [name]Dillon[/name], [name]Taylor[/name], and [name]Ryan[/name]…Is this a logical next step or are we dooming our little lady to confusion all her days? Is [name]Rose[/name] too generic or just the right touch of feminine style?

Thanks for your feedback!

If I met a little girl named [name]Edison[/name]-[name]Rose[/name] my first impression would be ‘southern’ as using surnames for 1st names ( on girls and boys) is a very southern tradition, as is the double- barreled name. That being said, I don’t particularly care for [name]Edison[/name], I like the way it looks on paper but I’m not fond of the sound

I think it can be fashionable, depending the name, and the significance behind it. I am southern, and thought about using [name]Tate[/name], as it is a last name that goes back generations on my mother’s side of the family… [name]Anna[/name]-[name]Tate[/name].

As for [name]Edison[/name], well, I think I would prefer to see [name]Addison[/name]-[name]Rose[/name], but I wouldn’t call it bad, just different…

It strikes me as you liking [name]Madison[/name]/[name]Addison[/name] but fearing their popularity, grasping around for something slightly different from the pack, and adding a signal onto the end that this is, in fact, a girl.

I genuinely don’t understand how you can simultaneously be attracted to a masculine/surname for your daughter, with the word -son right there, but also feel nervous about it being masculine and attaching [name]Rose[/name]. It’s like the ultimate mixed signal.

Is there something in particular you like about [name]Edison[/name]? Or just the idea of a boy/unisex-[name]Rose[/name] combo? To me, it is such a masculine name where other traditionally boy names would have a softer sound ([name]Elliott[/name], for example). I understand the [name]Addison[/name]/[name]Madison[/name] trend because [name]Addie[/name] and [name]Maddie[/name] are appealing for girls but I don’t have the same response to [name]Eddie[/name]. Since traditional doesn’t seem to be your thing, you might look into more surname-y types (or I’m sure we can suggest some!) if it isn’t [name]Edison[/name] specifically you like.

I actually don’t hate it. I like the nn [name]Edie[/name] (pronounced ee-dee, like [name]Edie[/name] Sedgwick) for girls A LOT!
I’m not a big [name]Rose[/name] fan normally, but used with [name]Edison[/name], I think it gives it a little feminine flair.

Absolutely this. There are surnames that work for girls; anything with ‘son’ or meaning ‘son of’ does not work. At all.

If I were a little girl I’d not want to be stuck with the name [name]Edison[/name]-[name]Rose[/name]. It’sjust not a nice name.

[name]Addison[/name] [name]Rose[/name]
[name]Madison[/name] [name]Rose[/name] overused? Yes, but not [name]Edison[/name].

From reading your prior posts it looks like you want to avoid something common [who doesn’t :)] and would like a strong girl’s name which is nickname-proof.

Thoughts:

[name]Maeve[/name]
[name]Blythe[/name]
[name]Eve[/name]
[name]Fern[/name]
[name]Laine[/name]
[name]Pearl[/name]
[name]Sian[/name] (if you’re in the UK)
[name]Vale[/name]
[name]Adair[/name]
[name]Adele[/name]
[name]Arden[/name]
[name]Bridget[/name]
[name]Camille[/name]
[name]Candace[/name]
[name]Cecile[/name]
[name]Cleo[/name]
[name]Delphine[/name]
Eirlys
[name]Edythe[/name]
[name]Esther[/name]
[name]Florence[/name]
[name]Hazel[/name]
[name]Justine[/name]
Kierstin
[name]Laurel[/name]
[name]Lilac[/name]
[name]Maris[/name]
[name]Rowan[/name]
[name]Tamsin[/name]

I don’t hate it, but I’d only use a unique surname for a girl’s first name if it was a family name or had some particular significance.

I don’t know… I think it’s a good idea, but [name]Edison[/name] on a girl doesn’t really work for me. I picture an elderly bald man.

[name]How[/name] about…
[name]Ezra[/name]-[name]Rose[/name]
[name]Tatum[/name]-[name]Rose[/name] (I love this!)
[name]Adrian[/name]-[name]Rose[/name]
[name]Everett[/name]-[name]Rose[/name]

Using a Boy’s Name as Part of a Girl’s Double: Fashionable or Folly?
[name]Reading[/name] the headline, I immediately thought of Petticoat Junction: [name]Billie[/name]-[name]Jo[/name], [name]Bobby[/name]-[name]Jo[/name], [name]Betty[/name]-[name]Jo[/name] and [name]Kathy[/name]-[name]Jo[/name]. I don’t think it’s particularly cool or fashionable. [name]Edison[/name] is a little long for a double barrel name; most double barrel names are short. (Each name is one or two syllables.) Examples: [name]Anna[/name]-[name]Rose[/name] [name]Mary[/name]-[name]Jane[/name] [name]Mary[/name]-[name]Sue[/name], [name]Mary[/name]-[name]Beth[/name], [name]Mary[/name]-[name]Lou[/name], etc.
[name]Eddie[/name]-[name]Rose[/name] Or [name]Edie[/name]-[name]Rose[/name].
About [name]Edith[/name] to honor an [name]Edison[/name]? nnn [name]Edie[/name] or [name]Eden[/name] or [name]Edita[/name] or [name]Edwina[/name].
Maybe Edisona?

[name]Edison[/name]-[name]Rose[/name] is charming in theory, but in reality to me it seems like you didn’t know if you wanted a boy or a girl, so you just stuck with your top boy and girl name.
Especially with [name]Pauline[/name], it just reinforces the “confusion” theme.

I pretty much agree with everyone else. I love double barrel names but am not a fan of [name]Edison[/name]-[name]Rose[/name]. We at one point considered the name [name]Anne[/name]-[name]Thomas[/name] for a future daughter, to honor a dear family member, but we ended up with a boy instead.

I like it. I think too many people try to label names masculine or feminine and I do not think that is necessary. If you love it, go for it!

My feeling as well. However, I do think there might be some aesthetically better names for the first half of your double than [name]Edison[/name]. I guess because it starts with “[name]Ed[/name]” it seems clunky to me. If [name]Edison[/name] is a family name you could flip it around maybe? [name]Rose[/name]-[name]Edison[/name]?

I like [name]Ellis[/name], (and [name]Ellis[/name]-[name]Rose[/name]) which is similar. I’ve been thinking about it for a girl since rewatching [name]Grey[/name]'s Anatomy. In season 1 you learn that [name]Meredith[/name]'s (btw, another nice not-too-feminine name) mother is Dr. [name]Ellis[/name] [name]Grey[/name].

This SO MUCH. It’s the same thing as “I love uncommon names so I’m naming my baby [name]Jayden[/name] except spelling it Jaehdinn.” No, that’s the same thing as [name]Jayden[/name].

I really don’t care for boy names on girls, so I’m really not in favourite of [name]Edison[/name] on a girl, with [name]Rose[/name] or not. The exception being like, French & Spanish (and maybe there are other languages that do this) where you can have a double fn on a girl or boy and use a name from the opposite gender, like [name]Marie[/name]-[name]Claude[/name] or [name]Jos[/name]é [name]Mar[/name]ía. I could make an argument for [name]Edison[/name] and [name]Rose[/name] together on a girl, but following those construction rules, [name]Rose[/name]-[name]Edison[/name] works, [name]Edison[/name]-[name]Rose[/name] doesn’t, because the gender of the person needs to be reflected in the first first name, and the second name can be one of the opposite gender. I could get on-board with that, I guess…
But I’m still with [name]Blade[/name]- either you’re okay with giving your daughter a boy name, or you aren’t. Doing both sends weird messages, imo.

I really intensely dislike it.

[name]Edison[/name] is just so blatantly masculine and tacking [name]Rose[/name] on the end is not only confusing, but also not very attractive.

Because the fact is that the vast majority of names ARE either masculine or feminine. NOT acknowledging gender is not helping anyone. Names have gender associations and parts of language they come from that state whether it is used for males or females. Taking gender away from names all together is a terrible idea. There is a difference between men and women and that is nothing to be ashamed of or a reason to try to eliminate gender associations from our culture entirely. [name]Edison[/name] ends in -son, it MEANS “[name]Son[/name] of [name]Eda[/name]” or “[name]Son[/name] of [name]Adam[/name]” depending on which place you look - it detonates a patriarchal line of men in a family. So yes, this name has a gender whether you want to address it or not.

You can CHOOSE to use whatever name on whichever gender suits your fancy but names have gender labels, it’s a fact.

That being said - I still don’t get why it’s ok to be masculine but not feminine? Would you name your son [name]Victoria[/name] or [name]Elizabeth[/name]? If not then you are a hypocrite. (general you, not a specific you).

100% Folly. In my opinion. It’s not even the boys name that bothers me, its the last name as first name trend that I find tacky. I don’t like the name [name]Edison[/name] either. If you name a child [name]Edison[/name] everyone will think you are huge [name]Thomas[/name] [name]Edison[/name] fans. If you must use the name [name]Edison[/name], please put it in the middle spot. [name]Rose[/name] [name]Edison[/name].
I love [name]Blade[/name]'s suggestion of [name]Adair[/name] and [name]Esther[/name] for you as well.