Of course the current trend doesn't involve people actually using surnames from their own family trees, but rather a small set of British last names and particularly profession names. This plan would diversify the field significantly.

Interesting in theory... but not all surnames work as first names, and not all surnames work well in combination. Case in point, my family name, F!sh, is not at all suitable for use as a first name. Furthermore, F!sh-K!ng may be one of the most ridiculous combinations out there :) Nope, my kids will get my husband's last name and that's fine with me!

This is an interesting idea, but as with hyphenating, one quickly discovers that some name combinations just do not work well at all! If we all had family names like Lee, Vine, Smith and Yuan that are short and sweet and easy to spell, that would be one thing (though even then it's not fool-proof, as Karyn's experience highlights). It's also worth pointing out that while history and family ties carry a lot of positive connections for many of us (I am fortunate enough to be among them), there are also many people for whom their connections to their families of origin are a source of pain or at least ambivalence. It would be even harder to rise above memories of trauma and abuse if every part of one's daily identity were tied to that past. And even for a person who is proud of her heritage, there's an understandable desire to be recognized as an individual, not just a representative of her families.

The proposal that seems most interesting to me for a society-wide system that recognizes both maternal and paternal line of descent is this one: everyone has two surnames, one from each parent, and when the person marries s/he exchanges the surname of the opposite-gender parent for the surname of the spouse's same-gender parent. That way spouses and their kids share a family name, and both matrilineal and patrilineal lines are acknowledged. In the case of same-gender couples, one just chooses the surname combination one likes the best. As an example: Rebecca Meyer-Goldblum and Craig Scott-McGill marry, become the Scott-Goldblums, and have a daughter Rachel Scott-Goldblum; Lisa Davis-Forrest and Michelle Turner-Flournoy marry, become the Davis-Flournoys, and have a son Tyler Davis-Flournoy; Rachel and Tyler marry and become the Davis-Goldblums. Of course, in this system as in any other, some family names get lost along the way - and they can just as easily be those of the branches of family one is closest to as with today's systems. Ultimately all the conventions start to feel a bit arbitrary this way.

Anyway, as much as I like the hyphenating idea in principle, I'm just as glad (with the names I have to work with) that no one expected or required this of me and I was free to stick with just one name.

And I'm sure most name enthusiasts here would lament the loss of personal names. I know I'd be sad to trade in all the beautiful, interesting given names at my disposal for a collection of surnames, including some pretty clunky ones, that neither I nor anyone in my family had chosen to inherit. :-)

I certainly agree that using surnames from one's own family tree is preferable to choosing a random surname.  And I do know a little boy named Anderson (his mother's maiden name).  I actually hadn't really thought of using a surname as a first name because it's NMS, but there are some relatively useable ones back a generation in my own family tree: Boe and Baumler both sound perfectly reasonable...