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?

I didn't realise it was so common in Scotland until reading this thread. I really like the idea of giving a boy the mothers maiden name as a first name 😊

It’s kind of old fashioned now I suppose but common enough that I know old men, middle aged men and teenagers with first names like Wallace, Wilson, Ramsay, Kerr, Blair, Innes etc.

“Seem a bit American”.

Is that a problem?

@LadyDanburysHat Walter Menzies Campbell.

It is pure snobbery on MN that they are hated.
Not on my part. Some seem OK, others not.
Names like Taylor, Jenson, Harper and Darcey seem faddy (and celebrity-inspired).

@Ddakji , not really, but this isn't America.
Calling your daughter something like Cameron or Maddison isn't a problem, but it does look a bit 'Mother's maiden name used as a first name', when it isn't something that occurs much in the UK.
It might be quite usual in Scotland, but I haven't knowingly come across it.

What is a problem is being called a snob because I said Carter was not ok as a first name.

Didn't know there was a pushback. It's probably fashion.
Personally I'm not keen surnames as first names unless they are older /established ones like Duncan etc

Why is Carter not ok as a first name? What is the problem with naming along more American lines (which has increased in the uk over the last 30 years)?
Do you feel the same if someone chooses a French or Spanish or Italian name it is it just “American” names you have a problem with?

(Several generations of the Scottish side of my family have used surnames as names, usually middle names.)

@Ddakji , Why are you obsessed with me having problems?
I just don't like Carter as a first name. I don't have a problem with it.

(Walter )Menzies Campbell sounds a cool name, Carter (Rose )Smith doesn't

I’m not obsessed. This is a chat forum. You don’t want to be called a snob but I’ve yet to see a reply from you that suggests, so far as names go at any rate, you’re anything but a snob.

Why is Carter “not ok as a first name”? (Your words.) Most people just say “I don’t like it” but you’re making a value judgement.

You come across as obsessed. Please leave me alone, @Ddakji .
People can dislike names because they don't like the sound, how it looks or the meaning. It doesn't automatically mean they're a snob or have problems.

When I did my family tree I found that a family surname being used as a first name occurred quite often eg Harrison and Robinson. It was less common with girls but I did see it a few times.

You know you don’t have to keep replying to me, yes?

Not so much obsessed as just a bit bored today 🤣. And I like challenging the dying breed of name snobs, given that kids today accept pretty much any name whether it’s Humphrey or Princess.

Cheerio then! Have a super weekend.

@Ddakji , I like Humphrey, although I can see that some might not. Princess is awful, and because I am expecting to be cross-examined by you regarding why I think so, it's because it's a term of endearment. Humphrey has Yes Minister vibes, but I hear Princess in Dirty Den's voice.
Speaking of terms of endearment and surnames, Love and Darling are both. My reasons for not liking them as first names is not snobbery.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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!

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.

😂😂😂😂 Culturally insensitive - peak Mumsnet!

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.

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

@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...