Perri 6 (http://www.hsmc.bham.ac.uk/staff/staffdetails/6p.htm). Or possibly not. Given that changing your name is very easy, I suspect most people are content with the name they currently have.
Damn right. Ease of spelling would be my prime criterion. Anything which is hard to spell because of more than one common spelling would be out, and so would anything (like my actual surname) which is hard to spell because it's so obscure people aren't already aware of the correct spelling.
On the other hand, going straight for Smith or Jones would probably be excessive. Something with some individuality, out of whatever was left after I'd winnowed my list for ease of spelling. And then I suppose I'd let aesthetics do the rest.
I used my middle name amongst friends for a few months when I was a pre-teen...
Otherwise I have a nom-de-plume that I'd probably used if pressed and didn't want to give up my "real" name. I've never really fancied having a different name though...
Changing your name may be legally easy, but it's always seemed to me like a hideous hassle in practical terms - all the stuff still using your old name needing to be updated. My surname is hard to spell and pronounce for most organisations I deal with, and so I wouldn't have chosen it if I'd had free choice at the age of (say) 18, but now I've got it the inconvenience is easily outweighed by inertia.
What I always find surprising is that so many women still say they'll change their names on marriage. I can't imagine wanting to change my name for a reason like that, and therefore I had vaguely assumed that now women had the option to keep their original surname, most of them would jump at it like a shot. I still keep being surprised at how wrong I was.
Both my parents were named in a Scottish tradition, so their middle names are their mother's maiden names. They're both unusual names, too, so it's just as well they don't have to use them that often.
What I always find surprising is that so many women still say they'll change their names on marriage.
Surprises me too, though it does save on hassle when it comes to deciding on the childrens' surnames. I've got friends whose lads have a double-barrelled surname, and it strikes me as putting the decision off (if they have children with women who are similarly double-barrelled, are their children going to have four surnames?). Some people go for a "boys take the father's surname, girls the mother's" solution, which seems unsatisfactory.
I've always wished my middle name was something more exotic than John, but I wouldn't change it.
I've absolutely no desire to change my name - I like having an obscure surname - McAtamney and I like being a Karen:-)
And I've no intention of changing it if I ever marry - I don't know what I'd name my children given that McAtamney probably wouldn't double-barrel well, but I'll deal with that when the time comes....
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:40 am (UTC)I used to think 'Michael' would be a good name for me, but now I'm not sure.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:40 am (UTC)On the other hand, going straight for Smith or Jones would probably be excessive. Something with some individuality, out of whatever was left after I'd winnowed my list for ease of spelling. And then I suppose I'd let aesthetics do the rest.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:42 am (UTC)Otherwise I have a nom-de-plume that I'd probably used if pressed and didn't want to give up my "real" name. I've never really fancied having a different name though...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:43 am (UTC)Of course, if it was the first name you'd have to change your surname to Lyle.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:45 am (UTC)What I always find surprising is that so many women still say they'll change their names on marriage. I can't imagine wanting to change my name for a reason like that, and therefore I had vaguely assumed that now women had the option to keep their original surname, most of them would jump at it like a shot. I still keep being surprised at how wrong I was.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:46 am (UTC)Part of me would like an easier last name than 'Fraser', but I like it, so wouldn't change it.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:46 am (UTC)(I'm not being silly: for most legal purposes it's not my name.)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:58 am (UTC)Surprises me too, though it does save on hassle when it comes to deciding on the childrens' surnames. I've got friends whose lads have a double-barrelled surname, and it strikes me as putting the decision off (if they have children with women who are similarly double-barrelled, are their children going to have four surnames?). Some people go for a "boys take the father's surname, girls the mother's" solution, which seems unsatisfactory.
I've always wished my middle name was something more exotic than John, but I wouldn't change it.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:59 am (UTC)And I've no intention of changing it if I ever marry - I don't know what I'd name my children given that McAtamney probably wouldn't double-barrel well, but I'll deal with that when the time comes....
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:59 am (UTC)(What I didn't like was sharing an initial with my annoying little sister who was forever opening my post. These days we just confuse dentists.)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 08:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 08:01 am (UTC)