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?

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.

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.

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 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!

Chavvy? Elliot?

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

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

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.

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

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.

@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.

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.

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