View Message

I dislike most, especially the obviously meant to be surnames ones, like 'Mac-'/Mc-','-son', 'van-', 'de-', '-ton' or many occupational names, like Baker or Shepherd.
Still, I'm good with Wallace, Ashley, Ainsley, Harlow, Wyatt, because to me despite being from surnames, they don't sound distinctly like a last name because they don't have the traditional elements that refer to someone being the son of someone else or something, or are literally the word for their job.

This message was edited 3/11/2024, 7:57 PM

There is some sense when it's a family name, but the profusion of random surnames, to the point where one kid has 3 of them, is ridiculous. Most really don't make attractive given names.

Most are awful, but there are a few that sound good: Cameron, Parker, Taylor, and Quinn.

This message was edited 3/11/2024, 6:05 PM

Some of them I adore, but I'm not a fan of Baker, Kensington, Carrington, Miller, Johnson, or Parker as names. I tend to write off any negative opinions, if the surname has family history (In that case, I prefer them as a middle name).

---

Though, some of my favorite names for boys include Bradley, Curtis, Travis, and Lewis, which I've heard as surnames.

Last names as first names have been used for many generations. In fiction too, like Fitzwilliam Darcy. I believe in Southern USA it’s a tradition to give the mother’s maiden name as first or middle name. I like the idea of passing on a family surname. And you have of course the traditional first names that are surnames too (Thomas, Henry etc).

---

The “surnamey” names I like are Callahan, Clark, Holland, Henderson, Pine🌲, Quinn, Boone, Colton, Ford, McKay, Tucker, Yarrow

While this isn’t my favorite trend, I’m glad this thread isn’t getting the hate that surnames as given names normally get. Some of my favorite names were once surnames. Now I’m sure the average person would hear some surnames (like Madison, Clark, Chelsea, or Roman) and think it was a first name.

I like a lot of them:
Miller
Mercer
Smithson
Harris
Roosevelt

It depends on the last name. Some of last names in my family are established first names Graham, Fraser, Lindsay, Nicholas, Clark, Russell, Clifford, Cole, Lee, Morgan, Taylor, Rose and Scott.

---

Some of my friends and former classmates last name include Ross, Harris, Thomas, Hannah, Grant, Cameron, John, Curtis and Christopher.

---

I am not a fan of some of the newer and apparently trendy ones though.

It depends on the name, like I can see Parker as a first name but not Miller.

If the ln is a family surname, I'm OK with it. I'm puzzled that, with so many fns to choose from, people can overlook them all and go for something like Baker or Tyler. And not all family lns would work IRL: one of my school teachers was a Miss Featherstone!

2 of my boys have, but they are more established as fn Grant and Todd, or next was going to be Dean

I like it. I think it can be interesting, and there is much historical precedent, so I don't even see it as a modern trend. The issue I take with it is that people tend to pick boring surnames, the same ones over and over. Boo! That's no fun for me.

I say do whatever you want. I'm the end it is often forgotten that the names are really last names like Ashley.

I'm not against it either, it just depends on the name itself. Many of them very much work, while others not so much.
I love Parker.

---

Others that I personally enjoy:

---

Addison (♂️)
Adler
Carter (Not as much as I once did, but still like it)
Cole (Future son's name. Keep forgetting it's more common as a surname. Lol!)
Dean
Delaney (♂️ Also was the maiden name of one of my great-Grandmother's, but spelled Dulany)
Donovan (Loove, especially with the nn Donnie)
Emerson
Everett
Jackson
Jameson
Lawrence
Leland
Linwood (G.P)
Marlowe (♂️)
Porter (G.P)
Sidney "Sid" (♂️)
Stanley
Wilbur/Wilber
Anniston (♀️G.P.)

This message was edited 3/10/2024, 7:13 PM

I don't have strong feelings. I think you have to be mindful that the name sounds workable as a first name in the culture the child will likely grow up in. In practice in an English speaking country, I think that mostly ends up meaning that only English last names get used as first names.

---

I'd have used a family surname (Woods) as a first name if my husband was on board. Instead it is my child's middle name. Other family surnames can even be a pain to deal with as a surname and would simply not work.

A lot of names you might not even think of as anything special today came from surnames. Give them time, the people being given these names will grow into them eventually and they won't sound weird at all. Also I just generally think "This name sounds like a surname!!" will always be a lame criticism. People don't think twice about names like Tyler, despite it coming from a surname. It might be the same for names like Parker and Fletcher in the future.

How can I say this diplomatically ...let's just say that "surnames as first names" is NOT my favourite trend.

---

However, there are always exceptions to the rule. For example, if a woman wants to use her maiden name to honor her side of the family.

---

Another exception would be if the parents wish to use the last name of an distant ancestor.

---

There are a few surnames I do like: Avery, Morgan, Hadley and Rowan. My preference is to give them to a boy even if they're more popular for females.

Which last names specifically sound like first names is a cultural thing. For instance I view Parker as a normal first name but Miller as just a surname. I'm not against the concept of surnames as first names, I just have biases based on where I grew up and what sounds I'm used to that determine which last names I think make sense as first names.