Surnames as first names…what’s the big deal?

My bad, I didn't mean to include Elliot.

I didn’t know this about Scottish names but that explains why I have always found some surnames to be ok as given names (Murray, Sinclair, for example) because they are Scottish and others, of Anglo-Saxon origin (Taylor, Carter) definitely not. I don’t like surnames as given names for girls AT ALL.

@Strokethefurrywall I’m not stripping the surname O’Sullivan of its cultural meaning, nor am I diminishing it or profiting off it by naming my son Sullivan

This is where we disagree. And you have absolutely no right to determine what is and isn’t insensitive for a culture that isn’t your own.

No I prefer the spelling of Coen over Cohen, nothing to do with heritage. I’m also not Dutch but wouldn’t hesitate to use a name if I liked it.

I’m not stripping the surname O’Sullivan of its cultural meaning, nor am I diminishing it or profiting off it by naming my son Sullivan.

Sullivan and Kennedy as first names just seems very (horribly) fashionable. I’m not a fan. They are surnames, not first names.

Your post has proved my point - you would reject Cohen on the basis that it doesn’t match your heritage, presumably because you would feel it’s culturally insensitive? Or do you just coincidentally not like the sound of it? But you’d have “no hesitation” using names from your own culture.

I would make no distinction whatsoever between any of the Irish surnames you’ve given as examples. Patrick is obviously in a different category.

Simon? Only been a first name for about 3000 years!

My grandfather’s middle name was Robinson- his mother’s maiden name.

Chavvy? Elliot?

Id have no hesitation using Singh or Chang (not least because of my Indian/Chinese heritage so thanks for the ideas) if I like the sound of them as names. I wouldn’t use Cohen as a first name but I’d use Coen which is Dutch.

Why would Sullivan be any more culturally insensitive than Patrick? Or Kennedy? Or Kelly? Or Ryan? All Irish surnames by the way.

It’s always the way that names evolve, some gain popularity as first names (Taylor, Piper, Harper, Miller) and sometimes people just like the name!

It’s not the same, because surnames and first names are different.

If you wouldn’t call your child Singh or Chang or Cohen then why is it ok to call them Riley or Sullivan.

Id love to know what it says about me!! So what would it say if my husband is half Scottish half Irish but the name hasn’t been “handed down” and we chose a completely different surname to saddle our child with?

Honestly, it’s about as culturally insensitive as me naming my son Luca despite us not being Italian.

But Stuart IS a surname used as first name. It's a frenchified form of Stewart, the Scots form of the occupation steward, or Stye-ward, and was the name of the Royal House of Scotland from King Robert II in 1371, and later of of the UK until Queen Anne.

It's just been around as a forename longer and you're more used to it. These other names will bed in, in time.

@DuchessOfNarcissex

* , Scots have done this for ages*
Could you give examples, please?

From the Old Parish Records:

Paterson - first used for boys in 1743, for girls in 1745
Orr - 1643, 1770
Pettigrew - 1767, no girls

Plus some random choices...

Jamieson - 1621, 1747
Brandon - 1629, 1836
Anderson - 1630, 1741
Jones - 1648 (sex not recorded)
Jackson - 1662, 1752
Kerr - 1719, 1760
Johnston - 1720, 1746
MacKenzie - 1723, 1741
Robertson - 1730, 1756
Smith - 1730, 1751
Ogilvie - 1736, 1745
Broun/Brown - 1730, 1743
Snodgrass - 1733, 1831
Menzies, 1741, 1759
Baxter - 1767, 1764

*Before you ask, yes, I am a Scottish names nerd...

The fact you can’t recognise it says a lot about you.

For me it’s because a surname denotes a group of people not an individual e.g.

’I saw John yesterday.’
’John Matthew’s son?’
’No, John the Baker.’

The meanings also sound bizarre when used as first names e.g.

Taylor Smith = Clothes maker the metal worker.

But then, I’m autistic and these things bother me more than a regular person.

😂😂😂😂 Culturally insensitive - peak Mumsnet!

Surnames are different from first names in that they are (usually) passed down through generations, and say something and mean something about someone’s heritage and background.

It is precisely for this reason that eg in Scotland the mother’s maiden name is given as a first name, for continuity and as part of a shared tradition.

But when people choose surnames for their kids that they have no connection to, I think it is tacky and can also be culturally insensitive. Obviously you can’t tell whether a child is called Sullivan because that is a family name or because their parent just likes the sound of it, but there is a difference imo.

No, when I followed the family trees of three of my grandparents, it was quite common in Victorian times for the mother’s maiden name to be passed to one of the children as a middle name. My three times great grandmother’s maiden name was passed on as a middle name to a boy in every generation down to my brother!

But how do you know if someone has status @FullOfMomsense - not being facetious or having a dig, I genuinely wouldn't know how to tell.
As it goes, my 14 year old is called Carter but nobody on this forum knows if I'm a chain smoking slob that treks to Lidl in my stained pyjamas and ratty hoodie, or if I'm a card carrying elite that has a trust funds for my kids and summers in the Hamptons with the Vanderbilts.
My other son is called Sullivan which would probably melt the faces of some here, but again, I didn't name my children worrying what other people's opinions were, otherwise I'd have picked two names in the top 5 and be done with it.
Surnames for first names aren't everyone's cup of tea, just like top 10 names aren't for others.

It’s definitely traditional in Scotland and the NE of England. Robson Green is an example!

I like when it's old money style and the Americans can do that well sometimes. But it only works if you have status. Jaxon, Paxton, Daxton, Jamison and Hudson makes the whole trend chavvy. Even worse is when it's double barrelled like Jaxon-James, Hudson Grey- it turns it into the equivalent of the classic chavvy Emily-Mae, Lilly-Rose, Ava-Grace, Demi-Leigh.

I do agree with you in that I don't see any issue with surnames as first names, I agree it has been happening for ever and a day, and yes, when does it become an established name.
I don't agree that most of those in your list are firmly established as first names though - I still think of Elliot, Taylor, Harrison, Jackson, Donovan, Riley, and Spencer as surnames. Doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be used as first names, but to me they are still clearly surnames-used-as-first-names, as opposed to say Stuart.

I know a Blessing. Blessing isn't a term of endearment.

Princess is quite common among black communities. A Nigerian heritage boy in DD’s class had a sister called Princess. It seemed usual for boys to have biblical names and girls names like Blessing or Princess.

Luckily the children at school didn’t go around telling Princess her name was awful.