The Baby Name Wizard

I took my husband's last name in large part because hyphenating would have sounded terrible. Together my maiden name and his last name would have been seven syllables and 20 letters. Both names also end in -er. This is bad enough, not to mention that his surname is already two words (it's Dutch... Vanden ___), and people seem to have a difficult grasping that concept outside of his very Dutch hometown. People always think my middle name is Vanden. So anyway, to all of you that have nice, easily-hyphenated surnames, you are lucky.

QUOTE: "Though I consider myself a feminist, I couldn't really understand why my keeping my father's last name is any more forward-thinking than taking my husband's."

Good point!!

The choice to hyphenate my daughter's name was not an easy one. My partner and I were not married at the time of her birth and I never planned on taking anyone else's last name. We talked about using one of our mom's maiden names, both of which have died out. Both our mom's maiden names are pretty common WASPy names and our current last names are both pretty "ethnic"- hard to spell and pronounce but a sure sign of where we come from. Ultimately it felt too "Ellis Island" to change our difficult ethnic names to a more palatable name, even if it was a family name. So our kids last name is something like Tchaikovsky-Bual. Yes, it's long and cumbersome, but it's who they are and where they come from. And yes, my kids are going to have to figure out what to do with the last name question when they're older. I'll support whatever they want to do but the choice is going to be up to them, just like mine was up to me and my partner.

On another note, my coworker and his wife came up with a new last name for their family using an online anagram maker and their two original last names. He talks about still sometimes getting mail under his "bachelor name."

Off topic, but...
I've been working at a summer camp, and I wrote down the list of some of the kids, all age 6-18 months.

Boys:
Max and Leo (twins)
Garratt (brother to Jenna)
Gage
Reese
Tyson (brother to Mallory)
Dylan
Cohen
Griffin
Luke
Blake

Girls:
Harper (sister to Ella)
Lily
Brooke
Zoey
McKenna
Genevieve
Sophia
Reagan
Morgan
Caroline

Also, new baby alert:
Mich@el Anthony and R@chel Marie, twins. Older siblings Daniel and Mariah.

Reposting from previous thread, as we've all moved on...

I was looking at the Telegraph birth announcements and found some interesting choices:

REED, to Sarah (née Rogerson) and Rupert, a son, Willoughby Peter Wreford, a brother for Natalia.

This one's for whoever wanted Hero!
COLVIN, to Henrietta and David, a daughter, Hero Charlotte Moranna.

Eo- thought of you when I saw this one:
MAYNARD, to Garnia (née Wills) and Matthew, a fabulous son, Otto Benjamin, a brother to Barnaby and Orlando.

Lots of you will like this one, I think:
SIMPKIN, to Emelye (née Frewer) and Paul, a son, Edward John Blenkarne, a brother for Clementine, Theodora and Henrietta.

Nature names:
SMITHER, to Katherine (née Bolshaw) and Tim, a daughter, Willow Agatha Rose, a sister for Daisy and Iris.

Unusual:
BENGUÉ, to Lucy Russell and John Bengué, two daughters, Thalia Françoise Jock and Céleste Margaret Alice, sisters for Ava Kiloran Raymonde.

Jock???

Several Caspars, Clementines and Henriettas. I think they must be NEs....

Thank you Kim B and Circe. I appreciate the thoughtful responses you gave. I had forgotten about the "sign" name Circe. I have taken sign language classes in college but just never thought about the naming aspect from an NE position before.

jenmn-did you get my list on the previous thread? I know its a lot to think about but I was just checking so it didn't get lost.

I have no idea why Miles Jacobus appeals to me. It must be the geek in me rooting for the unconventional. That, and I like the idea of honoring two people with totally different names at once. That's kind of what I did by choose August as our son's name: August in all it's forms is a family name, and gdp and ggdp are named Gus. And I liked how Genevieve Esther flowed, probably because of the V-vowel connection instead of a V-consonant sound.

As for surnames, I took on my husband's surname without a second thought (my family is so traditional that I wasn't given a mn so my maiden name would become my mn), and I don't regret it. It would be breaking family tradition to try to keep my surname, and I don't feel belittled/bullied/whatever because I decided to take on the name of the love of my life. For me, trying to do anything else would feel false.

However, let me emphasize that every family/family-to-be has to make the choice that feels good for them. For me, changing my surname to my husband's was not only no big deal, it was another demonstration of the love I have for him. Obviously for others on this board, it was a big deal, and some have regretted the decision that was made. I do think that the choices people can make with their family identity should be more widely known, so all families can be accomodated.

To Guest above, who was commenting on creating new surnames complicating genealogy - doesn't that exact issue already exist for women? I'm not a serious family history buff, but I have made a effort to look up some of my ancestors, and it's quite difficult to trace the maternal lines since you have to figure out when the name changed, and what the original was. I do like the idea of having a link to the past and I agree that something is lost when names are changed, but I sympathize with couples who decide that since at least one of them has to lose that connection, they might as well both do it.

In terms of genealogy, my hope is that if good record are kept (and we are much better about that now than we were a century ago), our descendants will be able to do just as good a job of tracing their histories past the name changes as we do right now. Maybe even better.

So glad to have sidestepped this issue by publishing under my birth name, such that assuming another name would have had a negative impact on my career (i.e., looking like it had no first half).

I know lesbians making all kinds of different choices, too. The default seems to be to keep one's birth name, but I know people who have each taken the other's last name (So Sarah Jones and Kate Smith become Sarah Jones Smith and Kate Smith Jones, either freestanding or with hyphens). I also know people who've done a smoosh name or a made-up name for the whole family.

And I think the question of whether hyphenating is sustainable as a cultural practice is specious. My daughter can choose one last name or the other whether she marries or not, and if she marries someone with a hyphenated last name, kids can take on half of each parent's hyphen for a newly hyphenated last name, or do whatever hert family feels is best aesthetically. She could even be named Anne Smith-Jones Doe-Simmons, with the hyphenated birth name (I so prefer that to "maiden" name) turning into the middle name, then hyphenating with her partner. My point is, there is really no major obstacle to changing the rules.

I vote for Genevieve Kate or James. Evie Kate or Evie James rolls off the tongue better than Evie Esther.

Miles Jacobus wins hands down. Great name!

I disagree with this post and the last one. I think if a couple wants to allocate naming rights based on the gender of the child, the surname of the child, who carries the baby or just who has dreamed of naming a baby since age 5, I think that is perfectly fine. I know families where the mom named the girls and the dad named the boys. I know families where one parent picked the first name and the other parent picked the middle name and then they switched for the second child. I know tons of couples where just the Mom picked the name. My husband's *dad* picked all of his kids names. I even know several Asian families where the grandparents pick the names. I think as long as the parents agree, there is no "best" way to allocate baby naming power. Sharing the naming duties as Laura proposes doesn't produce better names (or increased co-parenting) than any of the methods described above.

k8sky: I'm sorry to say, but I'm having a hard time seeing any first name that is also a noun with your last name S@v@ge. Miles S@v@ge in particular reminds me of an especially burdensome trip! This is the case with the names reversed as they would be on a class role, but even in everyday usage I would find it strange. Milo as a first name would be great, though, and I do like Genevieve very much!

Ellie Matheson: I'm curious about how you chose the surname.

Anne with an E: I don't think it would be strange to give your kids your maiden name. Don't people do this all the time? I mean it seems more "traditional" than women keeping their maiden names; that's the impression I get.

PPP: I kept my name when I got married and my own mother decided to ignore this fact when addressing mail to my husband and I! Like you, I've sort of resigned myself... I guess she thinks it's too much trouble to put both our full names (although that would be only 18 letters...)

k8sky: love all your choices!! only slight edge i would give is to jacobus as it has ties to both sides of the family and is so unique! i think my second choice for the boy would be dixon, again just b/c it's more unusual than patrick.

Circe: i didn't know about the difference btwn the states. i'm from hawai'i and was surprised when i got married that there were slots on the form for groom's old name and new name and bride's old and new. i had decided not to change my name but idk if we had thought about my husband having a choice

Tirzah: I like your point. I think what others have said, that as long as both parents are happy with the decision, it works. All of us on here, for example, probably will talk about our children's names for hours, but a couple of my friends, I think they don't want to talk/think about it too long. So that's another case where it depends on the couple. Maybe Laura's advice is targeted for NEs, who are likely to be tempted to hijack the decision...

You know, these debates really irritate me, especially when people make comments about how by taking their husband's name a woman is "subsuming her identity and heritage (and sense of self)," dissolving ties between herself and her family, and relinquishing the ability to help shape her children's family identity. To me, these arguments are both ridiculous and profoundly insulting. It is possible that a woman might feel she was doing this by changing her name, but that is based in her perception of the act, and not the act itself.

(In case you can't tell) I took my husband's last name when we got married. My children and I somehow manage to maintain a connection with my family. (Okay, okay, I'll try to cut the sarcasm now.) I may have changed my surname, but I still carry two other names that my parents gave to me and only me (unlike my maiden name, which belonged to all of my siblings as well), which they chose with love and great care. I have the option to bestow any name I like on my children, but when I give a family name it's out of love and not out of some need to feel "more connected" to them.

The greatest heritage I have from my family is not a word. (Which, incidentally, was only three letters and one syllable to begin with.) It is in the things they taught me, the skills they passed on, and the history we have together. It's in my father's chin and my mother's nose (these days being worn by two cute little boys) and the love that we share. Maybe some people are taught that the love and pride and belonging that means family is tied up in a word, but I was taught that family is who you love, and that the names we call each other are secondary.

Tirzah -- I agree with what other posters have said which is that the most important thing is how the couple feels about the decision making process rather than how the process was made. I've known a few couples that have had strong arguments over names and it was interesting to me how the decision problem offered a window for better than worse into the couples marriage. I think that the sad thing is if your child's name becomes a reminder of a resentment you carry against your spouse. If you can be okay with your compromise, than everything else doesn't really matter.

Really interesting discussion and so many different points of view! In my circles (mostly highly educated people who got married mid 20's to early thirties), only 1 couple has different surnames. In that case the woman has kept hers and they plan to name any kids with her name even though it's harder spell and less appealing in many ways. I believe it's because her name will 'die out' otherwise. In this case the husband is happy with this and has refuted friends who claim that 'people may not think any kids are his' but claiming that 'he will know!'.

As previously mentioned I go by both my maiden and married names. Many friends and family don't even realise this though and many still refer to me by my maiden name only (including addressing mail/invitations etc to me and my husband using my maiden surname). Many others assume I only use my married name (including my father until just the other week). I really don't care what surname name people use for me.

I agree that for many people the choice to change can be based on sound/look/appeal of the name. My maiden name is so much easier to spell and pronounce than my married name. I also don't particularly like many of the relatives on my dad's side of the family (where my maiden name comes from) *not my immediate family though*. However, my maiden name felt like 'my name' and I had achieved many things with it and didn't want to give it up completely. I did discuss with my DH whether he wanted my name or hyphenating (I wasn't interested in a new name). He wasn't keen on these options but was generally OK with whatever I wanted to do. For the record my MIL was very surprised I decided to change my name at all, as she thought I wouldn't and somewhat regrets changing hers, I believe.

I never actually sent in any paperwork to officially change my name, though I go by my first name, then my maiden name, then my husband's last name. When I'm with people who mostly knew me before I was married, I go by my first name and then my maiden name. When I'm with people who know me post-marriage (or traditional family members) I go by my first name and my husband's last name. (Somewhat similar to Chimu above, it sounds). I think this works relatively easily for me because both my maiden name and my married name are easy to spell, easy to pronounce, common anglo-saxon names in the top 200 American last names. Think Jones and Potter. They just have such a similar feel, if not sound, that they are *almost* interchangeable anyway.

Two interesting things have emerged from this situation: 1)I find myself transitioning more and more to using my husband's last name and feeling comfortable with that. 2) When the three names are written out in full, which I always do for all correspondence, it is ambiguous whether my maiden name is my middle name or the first of two last names. And I kind of like that ambiguity. It is whichever I want.

Finally, I do feel strongly that our children should all share a name with us. I grew up in a complicated family situation, with a series of stepparents and multiple step-siblings and half-siblings. And it was difficult at times. And so, to me, multiple last names in a family says, rightly or wrongly, "divorce" and therefore, it doesn't sit well with me.

k8sky: I love Miles Patrick for a boy. For a girl, I like Genevieve Kate. The crispness of Kate balances nicely with the prettiness of Genevieve. In theory, I like James for a girl, but I *don't* like that Genevieve and James start with the same sound but different letters. For some reason, that always bothers me.

Regarding naming babies with different ethnic backgrounds. I have friends that are father: Anglo-Australian and mother: Burmese. They both have the fathers common 'Anglo' surname. When they had their child most of us in our circle of friends assumed the child would have a commonish first name and Burmese middle name. In fact this didn't happen, both first and middle where just fairly well known and 'non-Burmese' names. Apparently, the parents didn't want any teasing by giving Burmese name even as a middle name. A Burmese name was to be bestowed informally at a later date. I thought this was interesting and somewhat surprising as I wouldn't have though teasing to be a problem.

K8sky - love Genevieve!! With your surname I like Genevieve Kate or Genevieve James. I am quite a fan of using a boys name as a middle if it's to honor someone. I have considered doing this myself in the future. For the boys name, Miles Patrick or Miles Dixon (I don't like this spelling that much except in this case it's a good way to honor a relative). Miles Dixon is slightly funkier if that is an angle you like!

Tirzah, I have nothing against couples compromising in whatever way feels right to them. But I do think you have to be very cautious about any "tradeoff" that leaves either parent feeling genuinely powerless about half of the naming decision. Actively disliking your child's name is a serious burden on a new parent. And believe me, it happens a LOT in "tradeoff" situations. I've talked to all too many stricken parents after the fact.

Canavi, if the idea of automatically granting a future partner rights to the kids' surname burns you up, then my suggestion is *just don't do that*. Negotiate a better way toward surnames, rather than planning to extract equal disenfranchisement in return.

Jane, Mother of Five - I also feel myself transitioning more and more to using my married surname. I am also getting more used to that and feel more like 'me' using that name. I realised the other day that I was using my maiden name less and less and this made me a little sad, so I still like having the 2 names and want to keep it this way unless a time comes that it doesn't phase me only using the married name. I also *personally* prefer the 1 surname for a family option, so will continue to use my married name for all personal matters and any kids would have this name.

Beth the original, I'm also in a career in which I'm starting to build a publication record which would make it difficult for me to change my name, professionally at least. Except I had the opposite reaction when I realized this was the case. I'm actually a bit sad about that part of it, because I feel like it's taken away a choice I would have liked to have been able to make myself. There's a pretty good chance I would have chosen to keep my name anyway, but maybe I wouldn't have, and now if that decision ever comes up (I'm still single) there will be this whole professional issue above and beyond my personal choice.

Which is to say that while I've been arguing here for the validity of non-traditional last name choices, I'll happily also argue for the right of couples to make more traditional choices if those are right for them. What concerns me is the blanket assumption that women and children should automatically take the man's last name. If families don't start with that assumption, but have a discussion in which all the issues are weighed and still end up there, then more power to them.

i confess that i am inclined to agree with melissam. i realize there are many viewpoints on this and none are any more valid than the rest. however, i think it is easy for those who choose to take their husband's name to feel criticized--as though others think they are "subsuming their identity, heritage, and sense of self" and all the rest of it. i tend to agree that in the end, family is much more than a name, and i have never felt less close to my maternal grandparents because i didn't share thier last name. for example, anne with an e, i don't think it would be at all odd if you told your child that he was being "so smith." after all, he has smith heritage and may have smith characteristics; part of him IS smith. on the same note, kim in philly, i was totally surprised that your family said you were no longer a noble. from my point of view, of course you are! just because you use a different last name doesn't erase the things you share with them and the things that make you a family.

however, i know that those who do choose to keep their name or hyphenate also face more than their fair share of criticism, so of course it works both ways. i think it's just such a personal topic and decision that it is easy to feel defenive.
and of course, it is important to acknowledge that the family-is-more-than-a-name argument can also easily go in the other direction: "what does it matter if my husband and myself and my children all have different names? we're still a family." this is very true too.
i think it's a tricky topic since so many personal feeling come into play, but it is really intersting hearing everyone's thoughts.

As an unmarried (and indeed, single) male who is fairly obsessed with baby names, I'm a little perplexed as to what to do with the babies' surnames. I certainly don't feel like I "get" the surname, but that may be because I'm fairly unenthusiastic about mine (Hamilton). It's a respectable, solid name, but between being three syllables long and ending with an N, it doesn't combine well with any of the first names I like (Vernon, Gavin, Alistair, Lexander to name a few for boys; Ellie, Monique, Lynne, Jenet to name a few for girls).

I don't like the idea of hyphenating surnames (my surname is already quite long), and I don't like the idea of amalgamating the parents' surnames to create a new one - it just doesn't feel natural to me. I feel that children should all carry the entire surname of at least one parent.

On that note, I am not sure I could bring myself to take over the surnames of any future wife and children I may have - as someone who fights for gender equality, it feels a little dishonest. At the same time, I can't see myself changing my own surname. Every time I think about it, it just feels like a dishonour to my own family.

I thought about the idea of giving any sons my surname and any daughters my wife's surname. However, going back to the gender equality issue, splitting up the surnames like that would feel to me like saying "Okay, these ones are mine, those ones are yours". Even if it wouldn't foster gender segregation in practice, I know it would bother me.

So, what's left? I do kind of like the idea of one parent giving their surname as the child's middle name and one parent giving their surname as the child's surname. I'd say that's a pretty good solution. I have been rather dead-set on giving my first-born (if applicable) son the middle name Thomas after my grandfather, and the surname-as-middle-name approach would force me to either abandon that or give a child two middle names (which I would really hate to do). Even so, it seems the best solution that I can think of.

Any other ideas?

k8sky, do you really not see the strong sexism in your statement, "I couldn't really understand why my keeping my father's last name is any more forward-thinking than taking my husband's."

It assumes that your husband has a last name but you don't. Otherwise, why not phrase it as a choice between your father's name and your father-in-law's name?

k8sky - love Genevieve Esther. I'm confused though about why you'd call him Miles if you want to call him Milo - why not just call him Milo? I know loads of boys called Milo, and I think it's much nicer than Miles. I'm aware though that this nickname thing is an American/British difference which Laura has discussed before!

Before we got married, my husband and I discussed the fact that I have a short, easy to spell, uncommon last name and he had a name that's difficult to pronounce or spell. We realized that if anyone were asked which name was better to bestow on a child (without being told which parent it came from), they'd choose mine. So we decided that our future children would all have my last name, because children deserve the best their parents can give them. After thinking about that for a few weeks, he decided he'd hyphenate, so he could keep his name but still have a name in common with the kids. We didn't get married in one of the listed states, but he had no trouble changing everything over once we got a copy of the marriage license.

It's worked out very well. People treat a man with a hyphenated surname much better than they treat hyphenated women, so he's happy. I have my birth name, which I love. We have a family name for cohesiveness (not that I think that's necessary, but it's cute on the xmas cards). Picking out the children's names was a breeze because it goes well with almost anything. Some of his relatives were unpleasant to me about it, but he handled them early on, which is key.

I think all couples should choose which name they like better for their children, without regard to which parent it came from. Isn't that how it would be in a society where men and women were truly equal?

I have an 11yr old son from my first marriage. My (now) ex husband is Nigerian, so my son (and me, up until recently) had a very Nigerian last name as well my son has a traditional Nigerian first name, but we call him a shortened version of that name. ALWAYS. I never call him the full version of his name unless I am filling in an official form.

I recently got married (2wks ago!) and am now, after 13yrs of having an unpronounceable (to most) Nigerian last name and am trying to get used to my new, very English last name -- weirdly people are still having problems spelling of it!

My new husband really wanted me to change my last name to his, and truthfully, it made no sense for me to keep my ex-husbands name, or to revert back to my maiden name.

The reasoning for me to change my last name is that his last name is some what 'rare' and there is a chance that his name could die out, as none of the other males in his direct family have married.

My maiden name is reasonable common, and it's one of the many last names that would make a good boy's name (Gregory) I would consider using it as a middle name. Unfortunately, my new last name makes some of my favourite names off the list, but we are still working on finding the perfect name for a little one.

Hart, I think that was a harsh comment directed at k8sky! I totally got k8sky's point as being that a woman traditionally gets her father's surname at birth, and then traditionally takes her husband's surame if/when she gets married. (And her husband's surname is not necessarily, as you suggest, the same thing as her father-in-law's surname - my husband has a different name than his father!) Either way, Anglo tradition dictates that it is the men who give "their women" their surnames (as I'm sure you know, it originates from women being the legal property of their father and then the legal property of their husband), so to keep your maiden name (if it is your father's surname) is just as embracing of a sexist tradition as it is to take your husband's surname. Personally I think k8sky's point was a good one.
As for your comment, "I think all couples should choose which name they like better for their children, without regard to which parent it came from." I agree with you, but think that it's not always as easy and simple to come to an agreement as it was in your case!! Not everyone is going to end up with a partner whose surname is so obviously shorter/easier to spell/less common - and even if it were, their partner might think that in actual fact, the longer/more exotic-looking/more common of the two names is the more appealing choice! I'm glad it worked in your case though.

On the issue of hyphenated last names, I read some interesting statistics about Quebec, where women are not allowed to change their name upon marriage. In the 90s about a quarter of new babies there were given hyphenated surnames, but in recent years it's dropped to 12%. It seems like parents are perhaps embracing the convenience of one name.

N. Voice - One family I'm acquainted with gave their first child dad's last name with mom's as a second middle name (that order was decided regardless of the baby's gender). For their new baby, they switched the placement of the two last names. I think it works quite nicely since each child still carries both names. Of course this only works with an even number of kids.

k8sky - Genevieve Kate is lovely!

I'm surprised to be the only poster who kept her maiden name, and whose kids got the combination of First Name-My Maiden Name (as middle name)-Husband's Last Name. Where we live, it seems to be the most common way to integrate both family names.

We thought 4 names was too cumbersome, and wanted to stick with the most common western tradition of 3 names.

Middle names are not used as often, and when they are, it's usually to add a formal air (graduations, legal documents), or to add emphasis (FN-MN-get down from there right this minute or no TV for a week!).
I think the two "last name" sounds at the end of my sons' names gives a nice weight and heft to their full names when spoken aloud. Also, with the kids' teachers, administrators, and coaches, who see their full name on paperwork before meeting my munchkins, it quietly makes a statement even before anyone meets us personally, and establishes the family relationship (oh, wife kept maiden name, parents still married. gotcha.)

My husband and I also really like that our kids share that middle name connection to each other. We've got our first daughter coming in October, and I like that throughout their lives, our 3 kids will always share that one link-my maiden name-even if our daughter opts to take her husband's name when she marries. (or my sons change last names, too, though that's much less common.)

Laura, if this baby naming job starts to bore you (never, I gasp in horror at the thought!!!), you have a great start on a new career as a marriage counselor. I bet you never imagined when you wrote your book that you would be called upon in so many different ways! Great advice, and I'm sorry that you have seen so many regret-filled parents. That is a horrible way to start life as a parent, which is so difficult to begin with!

k8sky, Miles Dixon to me is too similar to Mason Dixon. Your other options are good--I'd go with one of them.

I always assumed I would change my name to my husband's and did, and was shocked to find out that I regretted my choice after the fact. I got my PhD six days before my wedding and was the only "Dr." in my immediate family. In my husband's immediate family I was one of three. And that's just the shallow part of why I regretted it! I felt an upwelling of panic every time I wrote my name. Who was I? Would acquaintances know who I was? After a year or so this feeling totally went away, and now I attribute it to my "somaticization" of having to realign my own concept of my identity. Emotionally, I didn't want to accept that any adjustment to marriage was a normal, positive thing (after all, it does involve compromise on many levels!), and as such, put off all my stress onto the new name choice. Now, years later, I'm happy that I have my husband's surname and feel comfortable with it. I like the fact that I am part of his family as well as mine--the surname instantly identifies me as part of that family. And I've never felt any less-connected to my own family.

As to Jenny L3igh's question about a double surname without hyphens, I think this is tough in the US. Many Spanish speakers get their first surname arbitrarily cut off, which poses a huge problem in hospitals and airports. (The first surname comes from the father's family, the second from the mother's.) Many patients in hospitals have three or four identity cards, because the receptionist who logged them in didn't understand the naming system and didn't realize that they had been patients previously. Obviously this poses a problem if drugs have been prescribed under multiple names as there can be bad reactions. Of course, as more and more Spanish speakers come here, maybe American society will become more accustomed to this practice and it will become more accepted.

Fascinating discussion, all!

My best friend's maiden name is an unusual American name, but typical Hungarian one- P!ck. She got married to a typical English name (think Thompson). They divorced and she reverted back to her maiden name. She is now remarried and has chosen to keep her maiden name, but her kids have his last name. Unfortunately for the family, they can't give P!ck as the middle names for the kids- hubby's last name is R!ce. I joke around and send them cards to the P!ck R!ce family. Even funnier, her father had some issues growing up in America. His name is N!ck. His brother was P3t3r. Both their names worked in Hungarian, not so much when translated into American names.

k8sky, for girls, I like any of your choices except for Genevieve James (I don't dig male names for girls, even in the middle spot--I did like the Jane suggestion, though). Genevieve Sky hasn't gotten any love here yet, but I like it! Long, traditional, frilly first name with a short, somewhat offbeat and crisp middle = nice! But I think Esther and Kate are really nice too, so any of those work for me.

For the boy, I second the comment about using Milo as the official name--I like both Miles and Milo, but to me, Milo works better with the LN, because the S at the end of Miles runs into the S in S@v@ge, which makes it sound like Mile S@v@ge to me (we have the same problem with my DH's last name, and it has cut out several of my favorite names). For middles, I prefer Jacobus or Patrick. Dixon is nice, but M___ Dixon immediately made me think of Mason Dixon, which isn't a bad association--it just makes me like the other choices better.

Elizabeth T's comment made me think back about being a newlywed. My family has always been strong about their characteristics and I heard "you're being such an X" or "well that's the Y in you" my whole life - good and bad - interchangeably for each "side". I have very strong ties to both parts of my heritage. I think that by taking my dh's ln it gave me another family tie instantly, one that I could grow into. Maybe, too, it's that I'm an only child and now I have siblings. I know it's silly, I would have the same siblings I "married into" regardless of whichever ln I had, but now I somehow feel a part of my new family even more - while not feeling like I lost any of the X and Y parts that have shaped my life. (Of course, you could ask me what I think of changing my name on a different day and I might have a different opinion, too. So take this all with a grain of sand.)

Regarding the point about taking your husband's name not being any less "feminist" than keeping your fathers name--while I see the point you're making, I don't quite agree. I guess my feeling is that the buck has to stop somewhere, and that can be with me. What I mean is, sure, "my" last name is really my father's (father's father's father's) name, and taking my mom's surname isn't much better, because that's really her father's (father's father's father's) name, and so on ad infinitum. It's unfortunate that I have no matrilineal names to claim. But right here, right now, I can claim ownership of MY name--the name I was given at birth, the name I was raised with, the name that I feel is closely tied to my personal identity. I agree with Hart's point--that is, *I* have a name as much as my husband does--I am my own person, not just my father's child or husband's wife. If I pass my name on to my kids, and they pass it on to their kids, and so on, then I will have begun a matrilineal line, and a few generations down, they may be able to say that they have their mother's (mother's mother's mother's) name--and that would be pretty cool.

To MelissaM's point--for me, keeping my birth name (I, too, dislike the term "maiden name") is not really about connecting me to my birth family, but maintaining my personal identity--to me, my name is who I AM. Here's a similar story--I like my middle name much better than my first, and my DH recently said, "if you like your middle name so much, why don't you go by it?" I looked at him with shock and horror (well, not really so dramatic, but you get the idea)--I guess that would be an option if I really *hated* my first name, but it's a perfectly fine name, just not my absolute favorite, so the thought of changing it seems so... untrue to myself? Fickle? Or something like that. I feel like a person's name becomes a part of them, a reflex--if I hear my name whispered in a crowded room, it jumps out at me, while if someone shouted out my middle name in that same crowded room, I wouldn't even turn my head to look. So even when we're talking about my OWN middle name (and therefore separating the issue from gender and history), I could not imagine so fundamentally changing my identity.

So for me, if I were to take my husband's name, I would feel very much like I was "subsuming [my] identity and heritage (and sense of self)." Obviously, not everyone feels the same strong connection to their names, and I deeply understand the desire to have a common family name--I do feel a bit sad that we don't share that sometimes. But hey, nobody was stopping my husband from changing his name to mine, if he wanted to. He never would, though, because he feels a deep sense of pride and identity with HIS name and heritage. I *certainly* understand and respect that, so we have different names. It doesn't look as cute on the Christmas cards, but we're no less a family for it.

i agree, k8sky's point was a good one. if your problem with last names is a feminist one, the problem isn't really solved by keeping the last name your father gave you.

also, i think my favorite is genevieve kate, though i like genevieve esther and genevieve sky as well. though someone had the good point that using sky next to savage perhaps isn't ideal, though it isn't awful. like hyz, i don't much like boys' names used for girls either, so i don't prefer james.
for a boy, i think i prefer miles patrick? however, i just noticed what has already been said about miles s@v@age...it does run together; you have to really enunciate to make it work. i think milo is a very good name on its own and perhaps it might be worth considering that option. if that were the case, i think i would come around to mn jacobus, as i think milo jacobus flows better than miles jacobus. i would still quite like patrick, and i don't dislike dixon, it just isn't my favorite.

What a fascinating discussion! I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on the surname topic, and diverse ways of dealing with the challenge. It led to an interesting conversation with my husband last night, which I thought I'd share.....

Now, as I mentioned in a previous post, I changed my name when I got married, for reasons that seem a bit frivolous when I think about it... my maiden name was awkward and had been an easy teasing target, while his name was nice and familiar and easy to spell - and I was just at a place in my life where I was happy to reinvent myself. (I never felt pressured to change it - in fact some of my friends tried to pressure me not to, saying it was un-feminist - but it was completely my personal choice.)

So, last night I asked my husband how he would have felt if I'd kept my maiden name, and he told me he'd be completely fine with it... and that he'd often considered changing his own surname! It belonged to his father, a man who abandoned his wife and boys in the 80's to shack up with a 20-year-old. Furthermore, it wasn't even a true link to the past, since his father's Russian grandparents had chosen it when they immigrated to sound more mainstream.

I asked if he would have taken my maiden name, and he said no (he can be brutally honest that way!)... he would want to take his mother's family's original name. Not her Hungarian maiden name, but the very Jewish surname her family changed in 1930's Hungary to try to hide their Jewish-ness. That's what he considers to be his "true" family name.

So I suggested that he should do that, and I would then adopt what I've really always considered my "true" family name: my Mom's maiden name. That's the family I grew up closest to, whose family reunions I attend, and whom I very much take after. (My Dad has always had differences with his own family, and since his parents passed away, has had little to do with any of them.)

It sounded like such a great idea, we'd half decided to go through with it... until we put it to our 11-year-old, and she was horrified! (Too bad... the two "true" names would go very well hyphenated!) Oh well - for better or for worse, we're a family unit, and for our daughter, her "true" name is the one she's got.

As a last thought (sorry for the long post) - I'm grateful to live in a society where women (and men too) are free to choose the family names that are right for them, and (hopefully) not be judged for it. I think we can all agree on that...

toothfairy - I considered that (giving the child my last name as a middle name), but both of our names end in the same "an" sound and it just sounded bad.

MelissaM: I understand that people tend to justify their own reasons without considering the feelings of those who have chosen differently, and that can be profoundly narrow-minded or rude. I would never question a woman's choice to take her husband's name. But I'm going to plea for a little understanding for those who go over-the-top in justifying their choice of keeping their own names. I've heard people say that not taking your husband's name implies you don't love him, you aren't really committed to the marriage, or you're headed for divorce Fortunately, I've heard this mostly in internet discussions, not in person. But I have had people ask me how I will feel when my children don't have my name - won't that be awful? (I'm okay with it.) And I've noticed that not one person in my personal life, save for my lovely mother-in-law, has actually used my name (my "maiden" name, my legal name, the name I use) since I married. Every Christmas card, thank you note and so forth has been addressed to Mr. and Mrs. HisLastName. So, much as I deplore the rhetoric, I do understand why people get huffy about their choice. Those who choose to go the more common route of taking their husband's name may be annoyed by certain statements on the internet, but they have certain advantages.

well said hyz. i tend to feel a bit differently, but i really like what you've said and the points you're making. point well taken.

Thanks to everyone for your help! We're probably not any closer to a decision, but your input has been wonderful!

As to the question between Miles/Milo, my husband came up with Miles and really likes it. Though I have the double "s" reservations, too, I love that he is excited about the name. I also like that the child will have a more formal name to use as he prefers.

Never thought about the Mason Dixon association-- glad you brought that up!

Leafy- On double ln's said, "Having the hyphen makes it SO much easier, although I don't like it aesthetically as much." That's exactly how I feel about it! That point combined with Elizabeth T's about medical issues etc, may make the difference for me. I have at LEAST 3 years til I get married though so maybe things will have changed by then... maybe:).

Ayaka- What an interesting story! My bf has started adding in his mom's maiden name to his name, partially to distinguish himself as his whole name is shared by cousins as well as other people, but also I think because he likes the connection to that part of the family. He looks like his maternal grandfather (won't go bald because of him too which he's excited about!) and looks up to him in general, so it does make sense as sort of a true family connection for him. I'd totally use it for a first name if I could, but it doesn't quite work... too bad.

Another thought... my mom took my dad's name and moved her ln to another mn so she didn't keep that connection very obviously. However she has a family nn from Frances- Fancy that is only used by her side of the family (usually as Aunt Fancy, which I love). I think that makes a nice specialy connection to her family.

Leafy, I don't think my comment was harsh at all. I was trying to make k8sky aware of the subconscious sexism in her statement.

If a bride and groom were both given their fathers' last name at birth, then it is sexist to view only the groom as having his own last name. The bride has lived her whole life with her full name, the same as the groom has. The groom has done nothing special to "earn" his own name; you would award it to him merely for being born male. So I think it's perfectly appropriate that if k8sky views the bride's name as being her father's, then, by that logic, the groom's name is his father's name.*

Of course, I disagree with k8sky's system. I believe that a name belongs to a person, male or female, when the birth certificate is issued. After all, if a woman's father goes to court to change his name, her name does not automatically change to match it. She's a separate human being. She wouldn't be able to take her birth certificate and a name change decree that mentions only her father to the Social Security office or the DMV and have all her documents changed.

Btw, the origins of patrilineal naming are not what you think. It actually dates back to a decree by Henry VIII that children be registered with the father's surname if they are to inherit from him. Simple administrative convenience. Women didn't start routinely changing their names at marriage until a long time after that. Also, women were never the property of anyone. Children (and their financial assets), were under their father's care until 21, but a woman would then become a "femme sole". An unmarried adult woman had the right to organize her own life and handle her own business affairs. If she married, she would become a "femme covert", under her husband's care, much like a child. At his death, she would again be a "femme sole".

*For every exception like your husband, who has a different last name than his father, there's a bride who has a different last name than her father. Neither is relevant to this issue.

Just a quick comment-- changing my last name when I married really changed the way I felt about my first name-- I felt that I was more possessive of it. Sure, my surname changed and I was happy my dh and I made that decision, but 'I' was 'Kristin' and my identity did not change.

All the more reason to be careful in picking good fn/mn, imho!

Giving a shout out to Miriam and Easternbetty! I would love to know how surnames are handled in other cultures, and you two always write so eloquently about names that I thought your perspectives would add to the discussion.

I wonder how much education and where you live influence the practice of creating a combined name or hyphenated name. For me, I changed my ln to his with no real thought or consideration otherwise. Even though my fn and ln sound sing-songy together (our ln ends in -ey) I didn't really consider that I didn't want to share the name. Plus I have no business/work reasons to keep it or hyphenate it. I can't think of any of my friends who didn't change their ln to his.

My sister is getting married this year after being a professional for more than 5 years and we joked about her and him blending their last names. I had no idea that people were really doing that!

It's interesting how the practice is evolving as we try and figure out how to represent our heritage and how we want to be known. To me, the fact that people even contemplate how they will be known with their ln is something! I guess we've moved a long way beyond patronymics...

I just wanted to clarify that I'm perfectly happy with having changed my name to my husband's! Although I work in a bookstore, so my co-workers have teased me about having a "romance author" name, I like how they sound together, my kind of frilly first name with our solid English last name.

And my maiden name would sound weird as a middle name (it's a common color)...so I think I wouldn't use it for kids. But the more I think about it, the more I think that my family will still make comments about my kids being "so Smith" or whatever, because sometimes my mom will refer to us as being "so hermaidenname" when one of us does something that reminds her of her mom or sisters, so I'm sure that if my kids are acting ridiculous I'll still say "you're being such a Smith!" :)

P.S. But I have two co-workers who combined their two names into a awesome last name! If my maiden name had worked at all in combo with some part of my husband's name, we might've done it, but there was no good way to combine them, and he didn't want to just arbitrarily make up a new last name.

And at family gatherings with my father's side of the family (which is HUGE), people still refer to him as being "a Smith", even though I'm the one who switched names, the recognition is still clear that he joined my family.

Joni-- I had the opposite situation. I had considered keeping my maiden name (at minimum professionally), but since I did not yet publish, I went ahead and changed it. Anyway, I thought about it and made the decision. I wonder what my decision would be now that I've lived in a different (more liberal) area of the country and am almost done with graduate school.
My future sil (same age, marrying this fall, and in the conservative, traditional area I grew up in) didn't even think about keeping her name!! Never crossed her mind!

also, in my family, we still point out family traits from my maternal grandmother's maiden name-- You have a Zeger bum, that's a Zeger quality, etc. 4 generations later through the maternal line! I have to think hard to remember the rest of my grandparent's last names!

Looks like I’ve stirred up some rancor with my statement that “it is generally assumed the married woman will subsume her identity and heritage (and sense of self, in some cases) under her husband's by taking his last name.” I should have personalized it more and specified that taking my husband’s name made *me feel* that way. I stated it that way because I regard names as powerful symbols, and to me, patriliny reveals a lot about our views and expectations of men and women. That’s where I was coming from, but I acknowledge that other people may not regard names in the same way, feel like their “selfness” is represented by their name as I do, or have the problems with the naming tradition that I do. I apologize for the implicit judgment in the way I stated it.

To go back to the original point I was making to Jake, I do think that there is privilege and power for men built into the expectation that women will give up their names while men will keep theirs. But, as I said in my last post, it is such a complicated issue—whatever couples decide to do with this tradition/expectation is, of course, valid. I’m sorry if it sounded like I was judging those who have changed their ln to their husband’s--my argument is with the patrilineal tradition itself.

The way I see the power/privilege debate in relation to me is that it means my bf would never change his name. I doubt he'd even hyphenate it. I don't entirely blame him for that, he'll be a professional by the time we'd marry, he's not someone who feels the need to be super close to my family. But ultimately, I think he'd just feel that it isn't done and that he'd be judged for it, or it would be complicated. The more I think about, the more this bothers me (I'll have to find a time to feel him out about this, so I don't make too many assumptions about how he actually feels). But it does seem like if I take his name and he makes no change to his then he's not creating something new (a new union) in the way I would be. That said I certainly don't judge people who take their husbands' names and I may easily do that. But it does feel strange.

To go along with that, this isn't for me so much about the patrilineal issue as it is about MY name as someone else above mentioned. My last name may be Smith because I got it from my dad but it's MY name and always has been. I may use my mom's maiden name as a middle for some of my kids, but I wouldn't take it myself because that'd be weird too-- it's not my name.