AIBU to wonder about names in the past.

Then your name would be George Foreman or Tyson Fury.

It was common in Celtic culture. Christen a child one name and then call them something completely different. Or always use a middle name (as happened to me) rather than given first name. No idea why!

When parents turn up to register their baby's name on the birth certificate as, say, Arthur James Smith, there won't be any need for the registrar to even find out that they won't actually use the Arthur bit and call him James at home. Why would they even mention it? Why does the registrar need to know that there are other members of the wider family with the same name(s)? It is none of their business.

But what if you'd gone extreme and given both/all of your DSs the same name too?! I suppose you'd have to go into distinguishing by birthdays!

What I find weird is how many people who would claim to be English born and bred are in anyway surprised at this. Unless it's the faintest remains of a fault line around the English class system. (Edward VII being called Bertie and all that). I comes across as dicking around with names is somehow something other people do.

Many years ago, a friend who is Muslim had her first baby - a daughter. Congratulations all round led to name chat. She told me that they had already chosen a name that would used everyday. However the "proper" name would have to wait until their Imam had advised. Which was their custom.

Vaguely reminded me of the first time I discovered there is such a thing as a "church name".

I've worked with a few people whose everyday name is a far cry from their "real" name. Either because of pronunciation, or just to avoid confusion.

They'd write John William Roberts, son of my son Thomas or John William Roberts, child of my youngest son John.

@didntlikeanyofthesuggestions "Everyone was given fake names in the Second World War for security purposes. Most of them stuck."

I've never heard such nonsense. My parents were adults during WW2 and so were aunties, uncles and a whole host of relations and friends and I myself was born just 10 years after the end of the war. Absolutely nobody was given a fake name. Imagine the herculean feat of changing every single person's name in the UK and then issuing new identity papers, passports, driving licenses and god knows what else. And to what end? How would that would have improved security? The only exception would've been spies parachuted into enemy territory.

That's pretty much what happened to my late husband, born before the war.

He was given a family forename - I suspect against his mother's wishes - and she called him something completely different.

Army/RAF often nicknamed people.
Nothing to do with security. Often by surname, and often to do with someone famous:

Bailey = Bill
Miller = Windy
Rogers = Ginger
Partington = Parts (especially when a Private)
etc.

I don't think many kept using them when they came out of the services.

Of my Edwardian relatives, the only one who didn't use their given name or a diminutive of it was my granny who decided to go by her second name because she preferred it.

There are a lot of people with common names, 1st cousins, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews. People use middle names or “other” names to differentiate. For example a man called John might have a dad called John and a son called John. So Dad John goes by John, Man goes by his middle name George and then son goes by Johnnie.
My (very Catholic) Grandmother was Margaret Mary Elizabeth, her sisters were Margaret Mary Sarah and Margaret Elizabeth Sarah. So I have a Nan called Peggie, and two great aunties called Sissy and Maggie.

That's a very good point, actually. How do wills even work when multiple people in the family have the same name? Do you have to state "I leave X to my Grandson John William Roberts - the one who (at the time of writing this will) lives in the bungalow on the corner; and not my other Grandson, also John William Roberts, who works at the bakery, but may have changed his job or retired by the time this will comes into effect" ?!

DH has his father's Christian name name (which he hates) but was always called by his middle name. He has to use his first name for official things, hospital etc. There was absolutely no family history of this name, but MIL's brother was called it too, so unfortunately DH was lumbered. When I was pregnant with my first child my MIL was desperate for it to be a boy so we could use the same name. Fat chance. What was even funnier was she'd also decided on a middle name which had the same middle initial as DH, so there would have been two people the same. Luckily I had girls!
Re Margaret being Peggy, I think it was first Meg, then Meggy, then Peggy.

This is also often quite astonishing!

https://x.com/ActualNames1

I'm aware that this would be controversial, but in the same way as registrars are allowed to refuse nutty parents who want to call their babies Wheeliebinmoonscreamer&3"96=d@ and tell them to come back with something more sensible, I would give the same powers to refuse any parents wanting to use a name that's already in the family - as far out as cousins - unless it belonged to somebody at least two generations older who has since died.

I would have them gently but firmly explain to the parents what the purpose of a name is, and why its primary function is to be able to distinguish individual members of a family from each other. If they like the idea of the family sharing a single name - well, that's exactly what surnames are commonly used for.

So her birth certificate says Gladys but her marriage certificate etc says Ava. That sort of thing makes tracing family histories really hard.

It's also a bit of a nuisance for probate purposes when someone has a random selection of one, two or three of their possible forenames on their birth certificate, marriage certificate, will and house deeds, believe me.

Yes, similar.

My grandma was expected to name her first daughter after her SiL ( who she didn’t like).

She did as was expected ( in fact she didn’t even do that as my grandad registered the birth and used his sister’s name anyway).

My grandma used my mum’s middle name, rather than her first name.

My ancestors on my mother's side all changed their uncommon German surname to an Anglicised version during WW1 to avoid persecution. Different branches of the family used two slightly different spellings of it, and some changed back again afterwards but some didn't. There are currently four different spellings, and everyone in the UK with that surname is related to me in some way or other. Makes for fairly easy research.

Bit better than some of my others, where many of them had not only a very common first name but a common surname as well, which has proved to be a slight nightmare, especially in London.🙄

That’s not true.

I think it's so cute. My Great Grandad was John but he was always called Jim. I had a Great Aunt called Teenie. I knew someone who's DF is called Puss. Whilst at a push my name could kind of be a shortened form of my legal name it's not really.

We've also got form on one side of my family for using middle names as first names. The other side without fail always uses the right name even if it's long and can be shortened.

Ah, those were the days when nicknames really were nicknames and not just abbreviations....

Absolutely not true full stop.

My mother and aunt were always called by their middle names. During the 30s I believe it was fashionable to give a first name but not use it except officially.
Growing up we knew a family of four born in the 10s and 20s; none of them were known by their given name.

My great granny (born approx 1880) was called Gertrude, but known as Bob from being a very small child. Her sisters all had normal nicknames (Dot for Dorothy etc) but her daughter, my granny was called Winifred but known as Molly all her life.

My Dad was known by a shorter version of his middle name
My Grandad was Dick short for Richard, we had an Elizabeth known as Nellie too