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

[StinkyPooper]

I’ve noticed a lot of pushback on this forum against using surnames as first names. But when you look closer, many of the familiar, traditional, and even classic names we use today actually started as surnames.

For example, Lucas, Elliot, Simon, Taylor, Paige, Macy, Harrison, Jackson, Donovan, Riley, and Spencer are all surnames that have become established first names over time.

So why the rigidity around it? At what point does a surname become “acceptable” as a given name?

Because people look down on Americans, who do surnames as first name (or middle) the most. It stems from practice of women marrying into family, then tucking their maiden name as their middle, or giving it to firstborn child. Then these names became popular as first names because they're already somebody middles.

I was told in UK, most surname as first name occur when you try to coax your rich great aunt into leaving her money to you and your child. So, not 'naice'.

Hmm, Mountbatten Windsor Smith.

Has a ring to it...

Er, Simon has been a first name since the Old Testament!

Lots of traditional Scottish boys names are also surnames - Duncan, Grant, Stewart, Mitchell etc.

"Lucas, Elliot, Simon, Taylor, Paige, Macy, Harrison, Jackson, Donovan, Riley, and Spencer"

Because apart from Lucas which is an old first name and Simon which is biblical, your other examples are considered a bit - how can I put this - chavvy.

@StinkyPooper , Lucas and Simon are first names from the Bible.
Donovan is from a first name.
Elliot is from a surname.
Macy & Riley are surnames.
Harrison & Jackson are from 'son of [first name]'
Taylor, Paige and Spencer are all occupation surnames.

@Vaguelyclassical , Simon is from the New Testament.

Well, yes, you're right in the sense that we're getting the Greek version of the Hebrew Simeon (which we do get in the OT) --I'm guessing that the fisherman who became the disciple "Simon Peter" was not given a Greek name at birth..... . . .But I do take your point.

I quite like some surnames as first names - I think the push back is from some people not finding them very “classy” - as someone upthread said - probably because some people have a negative association with American naming trends.

It's because (for whatever reason) surnames tend to be more popular with a certain type of parent, so people think they aren't helpful names to give your child because teachers/employers are more likely to think Riley or Ryan is going to be a lout than Robin or Ronan.

I am not suggesting such social profiling is right BTW.

Also a little bit of anti-American bias.

Obviously it's long been quite popular in Scotland and the Victorians also liked it so it's not a universal rule.

people look down on Americans, who do surnames as first name (or middle) the most. It stems from practice of women marrying into family, then tucking their maiden name as their middle, or giving it to firstborn child.

This practice is very common in England too, going by my family tree.

I think the difference in 'acceptability' might be, as you say, when it's a surname from within your own family or when it's one picked at random.

I think of using surnames as first names for girls as a very American thing, e.g. Harper Lee, Drew Barrymore, Taylor Swift. I don’t think people do it in the UK until they become familiar with US celebrities using the name and start thinking of e.g. Taylor as a normal first name for a girl. But names don’t make the jump over here, for example with a couple in Solihull deciding to name their little daughter Robinson, McEwan or Jones.

In the Scottish borders it used to be common for boys to get their mum's maiden name as a surname, so lots of use of Graham, Murray, Campbell, Kerr, Pringle, Milne, Scott etc as first names. I like it.

Some surnames work and some dont. I came across a reddit post yesterday where people had named their daughter murphy . Murphy is a surname or a dog name ... not a name for a little girl

Because people (especially on the MN baby names board) are snobs. They think it’s American (though Scots have done this for ages) and they think they’re better than Americans.

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

Calling us snobs is too generic.

There's a difference between using an occupation surname and using a family surname as a first name.
I have no objection to using something like Murray, Duncan or Gordon as a first name, but Taylor, McKenzie, Anderson or Lennon seem a bit American.

And why is that a problem?

Not sure why on the rigidity, but it seems to make the change when the type who want to be rigid on it see enough people they like using a particular surname as a given name enough.

I grew up in the States hearing it was a Scottish thing, and after moving to England I get told it's an American thing, with a lot of bile.

Out of my four kids, three of them have names that are also commonly surnames (and we all have a surname that I see more often as a first name). None are occupation names. Only one of them gets bile remark when it's discussed on here or in similar spaces, largely because it's viewed by some as an American surname when it's really a English name that's been used for both and has been used as a given name in my maternal family it appears since before the US was a thing. Perceptions are weird like that.

Both my sons have surnames for first names as did my brother when he was born in 1983, as does my husband who’s Scottish.

It really isn’t a class thing anywhere other than England. We live (and the kids were born) in a country where there is such a melting pot of nationalities that names have zero connotation.

@Ddakji , I didn't say it was a problem, I asked for examples.

Calling us all snobs is a bit off, because we might not be, and I wondered if people named their children things like Paterson, Orr and Pettigrew.

Paterson, Orr and Pettigrew are good examples of why it doesn't work, but also not many people are using Smith or Jones as first names for their DC, probably with good reason.

Most traditional boys’ forenames are also surnames: Michael, Philip, Oliver, Martin, John, James, Thomas, Alexander, Peter, David, Jason, Frederick, Christopher, Duncan, Francis, William, George, Henry, Charles ….

Not just the Borders, it is a traditional practice in Scotland for the second born son, in olden times when the eldest son would have the fathers name.

It is pure snobbery on MN that they are hated.

I know many Kerrs in Scotland, as well as a Gibb and Ogilvie. It is just accepted here. Although they may not come across as an obvious first name to some. Also to add Sir Menzies Campbell.

I quite like surnames as first names, I even kind of like the bizarre surnames for girls that other posters have mentioned! Not that I would ever call a daughter Murphy or Robinson, but I like the ballsy-ness of it!

My son's name is a fairly well known persons first name and another fairly well known persons surname, several of his friends have surnames as first names too, which I hadn't clocked until recently.

It's a current trend I suppose and people like to criticise it, as they like to think they are better than/superior to a trend, also the awful anti-Americanism that is bloody everywhere at the moment has a lot to do with it.

Also, we all have different tastes - variety is the spice of life!

Still fairly common is Scotland particularly for boys to have their Mother’s maiden name as a first name.

I know quite a few men (and boys) who have unusual first names as a result