Double barrelling

[jack]

I thought of another solution for a fixed system of surname-transferring. (Obviously not having a system at all is another option.)

If Andy Philos marries Betty Andrews and Colin Riddle marries Dara Keyser-Soze, and they all want to retain their names, their children become hyphenated. But when their children marry, of the same mind to keep their history, what happens?

Traditionally they became Edward and Flora Philos. Next most traditionally, they took a name from each parent, but only the patronymics Philos and Riddle. (Particularly when eta: the woman is the heiress of an old male-descended name.) A symmetric but heterogeneous solution would be to have a patronymic and matronymic, keeping Philos and Keyser-Soze. Betty and Colin lose out, but Betty's daughters and Colin's sons retain their names. This does mean your name can only be passed on through same-sex-line descendants. If you didn't like that, you could take father's matronymic and vice-versa, becoming Andrews-Riddle, and it still matters what children you have, but you don't have male surnames and female surnames.

If you try and retain everything you become Edward and Flora Philos-Andrews-Riddle-Keyser-Soze, which is just about workable, but the next generation definitely need to choose. But once you've got to E and F P-A-R-K-S, maybe you should just become E&F Parks and start the whole thing again. Of course, that's still patriarchal because three generations further down only Andy's first letter would survive. Maybe choosing one of the first two letters would help make a name? :)

Of course, I'm starting to know a few non-famous people who abandon the whole thing, and have made another name their own, notably Naath and Ferret.

Comments

[naath.livejournal.com]

I have failed to come up with a surname though.

I quite like the idea of using your parent's first name - so for instance Sam Fredsson and Jane Sallysdaughter which do away with the idea of perpetuating a name through endless generations all together. Or maybe picking a new name based on your profession (Sid Sysadmin) or distinguishing characteristic (Richard Bignose) or some such concept with children keeping the parents' surname only until they picked a better (more descriptive) one for themselves.

[miss-next.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I should take my nickname for a surname. It's Mongoose.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Aw *cuddle* that suits you :)

[miss-next.livejournal.com]

Eeee! :-) *return cuddle*

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

:)

Where *did* mongoose originate from? Did you tell me before?

[miss-next.livejournal.com]

It dates back about twenty years. Someone called me a little fluffy creature, and I smiled and said that indeed I was, but I was a little fluffy creature with teeth. Someone else exclaimed, "Mongoose!" and it stuck. :-)

[simont]

It's happened a couple of times now that a friend of mine will refer to a mutual acquaintance by their full legal name, and I'll look blank; my friend will elaborate by saying things like "He went out with <person>, lived with <otherperson>, hangs around with <somemorepeople>" and at some point during that process the penny will drop and I'll say "Oh, you mean ljusername, why didn't you say so?"

Surnames are obsolete for all purposes but the law. People have a first name and a set of online handles :-)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

LOL. Yes.

Though they're a choice for handle. Matthew D. has to be Matthew D., because there are too many mathews and they all hang around with people not on the same online networks as them. Bill Walsh, Bill Gates, etc aren't anyone but that. I sometimes go by Jackv.

It seems like some people just cry out to use their surnames and some don't. (Some people are known by their surnames only.)

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Oi!

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Wait, you have a special big nose icon? Or is that a hat? :)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I don't think you need a surname. When there are thousands of naaths running around, they will, but you're completely disambiguated all by yourself :)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... That makes sense. It's both traditional and non-hidebound. And children don't need to *change* their names, so the parents can double-barrel if they want (or not) without worrying about passing it on to their children.

Jack Pedantic
Jack Mathmo
Jaques Descartes
Jack Ruthsen
Jack Ruthsdotter
Jack C. D.

But if I were naming a child I'd pick something more traditional so they don't get teased -- Jackson ought to do.