Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Baby names

Find baby name inspiration and advice on the Mumsnet Baby Names forum.

Original poster

Plain surname crazy first name?

60 replies

SAEJ · 03/02/2009 00:27

DH and I can't decide. . . . we have a bland surname - Johnson - yawn (have to say my maiden name was better but I was feeling traditional!).

So, if we have a plain surname then do you think that means you can get away with a more unusual first name (particularly for a boy who is less likely to change surname) or should it be plain plus plain??

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Set a reminder
seeker · 03/02/2009 05:45

"Still not sure if I dare!"

It's not you that has to dare - it's your child!

AliceTheCamelHasGotTheHump · 03/02/2009 05:34

I know a Mark Johnson too.

I think there is definitely something to be said for giving him a less usual first name with a very usual surname. It will obviously still be a name you love, a name that suits him, and a name that goes with the surname.

I used to work as an administrator in a Children's Hospital. Try asking the consultants something about a child called Mark Johnson and they wouldn't have a clue who you were talking about without having a sit down and a proper read through the notes. The Ptolomys and Buiks though, they knew about. People with memorable names keep a higher profile in peoples minds and that can definitely be an advantage in my opinion.

The woman who sold us our house 4 years ago was called Dhalia. If she phoned me out of the blue I would know exactly who she was and how I know her. I, on the other hand, have a really really common name and I even have to specify which dull firstname I am when I phone my inlaws. Everyone knows at least 3 of me.

nooka · 03/02/2009 05:13

I think Caravaggio is appallingly pretentious. Poor kid, that's going to be really fun to learn how to write at school! I don't think that plain surnames need fancy first names, or that people with fancy surnames can't have interesting first names too. But I do think that first and second name need to balance well in the way that they sound. Choose a name you like that sounds good with the surname. Personally I think there is a balance between traditional and outlandish, with plenty of interesting and unusual names in between. I like Digby best of your less traditional names (although they were traditional in their time). I wouldn't choose Lyndon because of LBJ. Wilbur makes me think of Charlotte's Web, although that's not a bad thing

MadamDeathstare · 03/02/2009 02:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lowrib · 03/02/2009 02:01

I like particularly like Digby, Wilbur and Lyndon.

Original poster
SAEJ · 03/02/2009 01:41

Ok, must admit we were not considering Mark. We were thinking of less traditional names - Digby/Montgomery/Barnabus/Wilbur/Lyndon. DH even likes Heathcliff.

Still not sure if I dare!

Wilbur seems to be our top 'unusual' name at the moment.

Of the plainer names we are thinking of George/Thomas/Charles/William etc

OP posts:
Karamazov · 03/02/2009 01:31

yes I would - and I would also avoid the first name Mark, for some reason I have met lots of mark johnsons - even taught two in the same class - now that was confusing!

thumbwitch · 03/02/2009 01:21

I wouldn't think about names in that light - I would just choose names I like that go with the surname and that (in the end) suit the baby when it arrives.

lowrib · 03/02/2009 00:43

I'd vote for unusual, plain + plain = boring!!

naturalbornmum · 03/02/2009 00:40

What names are you thinking of?