Joseph Smith-Johnson-Williams-Jones

December 21, 2005 11:00 PM

What happens when two people with hyphenated last-names marry?

So, a coworker of mine with a hyphenated last name is engaged to a woman with a hyphenated last name. I asked him what they were going to do about last names, and he wasn't sure. So, out of curiosity, what DOES happen? Do you pick one hyphenated name? Somehow combine two halves of the hyphenated names (at which point you have to either prefer your mom or your dad)? Make a whole new name from the characteristics of the 2 seed names? (I like this one, but I hear it might be more of a pain to get done legally)

posted by JZig to human relations (30 comments total)

In Spanish-speaking (and also Portuguese-speaking) cultures, where nearly everyone has (or at least had) both parents' last names (but instead of hyphen, joined with "y" or nothing at all), the custom is usually for the children to take the name from each parent that was inherited from the kid's grandfather. The deal with the couple (with "de" worked in, showing... possession, essentially) isn't really applicable to the way English speakers deal with names, so you could just do the way the Spanish do with kids.

Or, if Mr. Williams-Jones considers "Williams-Jones" to be his last name, and his bride is cool with it, she could just be "Mrs. Williams-Jones".
posted by SuperNova at 11:21 PM on December 21, 2005

The double-barreled last name thing is a classic 'what if everyone did that' problem. This is why.

Although looking at the bright side they have 4 names to chose from so allowing for either a single last name or another two-fer combo, they can (I think) have 12 possible hyphenated permutations plus 4 possible singles for a total of 16 possible last names.

Not bad, although picking a new one out of the phone book might be less political. I'm guessing families with hypenated names have their reasons?
posted by scheptech at 11:36 PM on December 21, 2005

This happened to a couple I once knew. They each decided to continue using their pre-married names. Seemed like an unexcitingly sensible solution. Although I don't know what happened if they ever had kids. Having two (or more) last names always seemed to me to be a bit greedy, frankly.
posted by normy at 11:56 PM on December 21, 2005

Hopefully they realize how foolish the two-name thing is.
posted by fleacircus at 12:08 AM on December 22, 2005

In most cases, people don't choose to have a double-barrelled name - they're given it by their parents. So chances are the wife wouldn't be any more attached to her name than any other bride, and may be quite happy to adopt the husband's name.

Personally, I think the best answer would be to form a new name from the building blocks provided: Joseph Smijowijo has a ceratin ring to it, don't you think?
posted by nomis at 12:13 AM on December 22, 2005

Is ir still a trend in the US for PC couples to adopt each other's names? I remember in the 1990s wondering where all these aristrocratic Americans had come from (the UK derivation of such a double barrelled name) and then realising that when Smith married Jones they called themselves Smith-Jones.

I even knew a few couples who adopted the other name, but before their own, so the pair were Smith-Jones and Jones-Smith.

Wonderfully loopy
posted by A189Nut at 1:15 AM on December 22, 2005

"Is it still a trend in the US for PC couples to adopt each other's names?"

My ex-wife and I took each other's names and hyphenated them in 1990. At the time, we were the only people we knew who were doing that—that is to say, we were the only people we knew where the man actually took upon and used a hyphenated name. Anyway, I thought this matter through long and hard and my solution is both elegant and completely practical.

I had three design requirements which absolutely had to be met: 1) parity/equality between the sexes in all ways; 2) familial identity (all member of a nuclear family have the same surname); 3) and of course that names wouldn't combine in a way that was a neverending increase in length.

In the end I decided that as a practical matter in the West, the ordering of the two names didn't imply the primacy of one over the other because for some purposes the one has primacy (such as the first when in the context of alphabetization) while in others the second may be percieved to have priority (because of middle-names and such, the second name, I think, has an implicit primacy in our culture). So I figured that you adopt a protocol concerning the order—I chose matronymic-patronymic—and not worry that it implies an ultimate primacy of one over the other.

My plan was to assume the system already in place and thus a hyphenated name that resulted from marriage could be understood as being a matronymic-patronymic formation. Resulting children take that form. But when they marry, male children abandon their mother's matronym and replace it with their spouse's matronym, and similarly for the female and their patronym from their father replaced by the patronym from their husband.

The result of this is that all three requirements are met but especially the most important and satisfying implication of the first requirement was met in a truly satisfying way: as we now have patronymic lineages with which we form a part of our core identity around, in my scheme we'd still have patronymic lineages but we'd also have matronymic lineages. All male descendents from "Smith-Brown" would have names in the form of Mr. something-Brown while all female descendents of "Smith-Brown" would have names in the form of "Smith-something". And while everyone would give up part of the name that formed their childhood familial identity (the opposite sex portion), so also would everyone keep a part of their name that formed their childhood familial identity.

In the fifteen years hence, I've heard of only one other person also coming up with this exact scheme, and it mefi's own "dame". But I think it's very elegant and in a way obvious and I'm surprised more people didn't adopt it or plan to adopt it. (You'd have to have a subsequent generation marrying for it to actually be realized.) I always like to pipe up when the subject arises because I do feel it's by far the best solution to this sexist problem in our culture.

By the way, as the quote above implies, although I did subsequently hear of a lot of married couples taking each others' names as my ex-wife and I did, I remain skeptical about the number of men that well and truly used their new names. I certainly did, though, and in a very public way as my alma mater has the tradition of always addressing everyone as Mr. so-and-so, Ms. so-and-so in all classroom situations. So although the marriage only lasted five years, and my name was reverted in the divorce decree, "McIntyre-Ellis" to this day remains a big part of my identity for that reason. To my classmates, that's who I'll always be.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:06 AM on December 22, 2005 [6 favorites]

When two people get married, they should select a new last name for their union. In doing so, the woman will not have to abandon her given last name merely in order to adopt the man's last name, and there will be none of that hyphenated stuff, such as "Jane Smith-Jones."

Here's my example: A man (Joe Smith) and woman (Ann Jones) decide to hyphenate their name (Smith-Jones), and then have a baby boy...the baby boy will then be "John Smith-Jones." Now, suppose 25 years later grown-up John Smith-Jones meets another product of a hyphenated marriage, a young lady named Jane Doe-Brown. They marry...and what the heck are they supposed to do about having FOUR last names between them??? John & Jane Smith-Doe-Jones-Brown? I don't think so. What they should do is simply select a new last name that they both like and begin using it. The place where you get marriage licenses could have a searchable index of last names for those who want to research, or simply explore possible names. For example, they could choose "Williams," "Buttafuoco," or "Xanadu." Or any other last name that they both agree upon. It can be something that appeals to them for literary reasons, for heritage reasons, or simply because it sounds cool. Then they can begin their marriage with ONE last name to share forever.
posted by davidmsc at 4:16 AM on December 22, 2005

I like what they do in Ethiopia, which is when you're born you get your father's first name as your last name, i.e. John Smith has a boy Max, who is called Max John, who's son Bob is Bob Max. Of course, the ethiopians I know say that it's basically impossible to trace their ancestry past a couple generations. Imagine if you had to figure out who your great-grandfather was and just knew that his name was John.
posted by muddylemon at 4:26 AM on December 22, 2005

Ethereal Bligh- my wife and I did essentially the same thing. She was a Feigal-Stickles (Father-Mother) and I was a Kreger (Father), we are now the Kreger-Stickles.
Personally, I like having a hyphenated name, it really isn't as complicated as many people seem to think it is.
posted by lucasks at 6:01 AM on December 22, 2005

Jon, they've got a clever solution to that: they don't get married in the first place. The kids are named after mother/father/favourite cartoon character. Seems to work.
posted by bonehead at 6:02 AM on December 22, 2005

muddylemon, this is called a patronymic/matronymic system, and is also the tradition in Iceland.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:07 AM on December 22, 2005

While a clever solution to the problem of marriage, I find not getting married doesn't help: the people I've met with umarried parents have been stuck with both names. It's the married parents that rarely pass them both down.

So, no. That doesn't work.
posted by jon_kill at 6:27 AM on December 22, 2005

My high school class boasted one Ms. Zaremba-Dobrashynski and one Mr. Jarvis-Wloscek. We always hoped they'd marry and produce a John Zaremba-Dobrashynski-Jarvis-Wloscek. Or a Jane Jarvis-Zaremba-Dorbrashynski-Wloscek. The possibilities were endless.

My last name is "Epstein," and my ex-boyfriend's last name is "Asselin." I once suggested that we combine our last names (if we ever married) and become "Epsilon." Lovely, no? He whined that he wanted his last name to come first. Really, honey? "Asstein?"

On a more serious note, I applaud all those who have given so much thought to fighting our culture's patriarchal patrilineal traditions. I haven't found any easy answer yet myself, and I'm impressed by anyone willing to go the less-standard route.
posted by equipoise at 6:47 AM on December 22, 2005

My wife and I are about to have our first child, and have decided upon the following system:

We are going to choose a new last name for the child. In addition, each of us will combine that new last name with our own current last name.

So, we go from:
Andrew Jones & Naomi Smith
to
Baby Bokchoy, Andrew Bockchoy-Jones, Naomi Bockchoy-Smith

We believe this is the most satisfactory appproach because it has the following qualities:

1) My wife and I each get to preserve continuity of our own personal identity.
2) We will share a last name with our child.
3) Our child will not be burdened with a hyphenated last name.
4) The system works across generations, and does not require a child to drop part of their name when/if they get married.
5) It does not favor patrilineal or matrilineal continuity.

We don't know anyone else who uses this system, but we're very excited about it, and people who we tell about it thinks it's cool as well.
posted by alms at 7:06 AM on December 22, 2005 [2 favorites]

It's easy. They just have to sign everything with [more inside] at the end.
posted by jepler at 7:21 AM on December 22, 2005

alms--that's so cool! My husband and I kept our own name when we married, so this actually helps address an issue for us down the road. What a neat idea!
posted by handful of rain at 7:52 AM on December 22, 2005

So why not just adopt the Spanish and Portuguese way of doing it? It's been around forever and you don't have to waste time explaining your brand new system to everyone that you come across.

Personally I think inventing new names or arranging existing names so as to imply absolute equality amongst the husband and wife is just silly. There is no such thing as absolute equality in any relationship. Why pretend?
posted by oddman at 7:53 AM on December 22, 2005

I like the EB/dame solution. alms' idea has the same problem that the iceland/ethiopia one does, that you only have continuity for the one generation.
posted by mdn at 7:53 AM on December 22, 2005

I plan to change my child's last name to whatever geographical feature I can see at the time. Cliff, Mesa, Butte, Drumlin, Fjord, Narrow, Strait... I might add an O' at the beginning of it, too.

This system has the following advantages...
posted by jon_kill at 8:05 AM on December 22, 2005

Don't forget that choosing a new last name means you can go with something that is still available as a domain name. Most traditional surnames have long been registered. No better gift for a child than [e-mail] lifetime email address.
posted by camworld at 9:10 AM on December 22, 2005

It sounds like the EB/Dame method is just the Spanish/Portuguese method but with one twist: Instead of a child taking the fathers patronym + mothers patronym, they take fathers patronym + mothers matronym.

All the other stuff about adopting your spouses name is cute but is irrelevant to lineage.
posted by vacapinta at 9:24 AM on December 22, 2005

My siblings and I all have hyphenated last names, thanks to my dad.

My sister would love to have a four-name last name, but she's also pretty eccentric. I never liked having fifteen letters and a hyphen in the first place, so I'd never tack another name on there.
posted by sellout at 9:26 AM on December 22, 2005

I appreciate the sentiment behind hyphenated names, but in practice they can be confusing and can sound like treaties between obscure countries if the names don't go together.

When John Lennon and Yoko Ono got married, they changed their names to John Ono Lennon and Yoko Ono Lennon, which I thought was an elegant solution.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:44 AM on December 22, 2005

I think that there should be a rule where you have to "collapse" the last name at four. Perhaps by making an acronym and strategically adding vowels to make it pronounceable. Bonus points for interleaving the names.

So, "Kroeze-Johnson" + "Smith-Barney" would reduce like so:
step 1: kjsb (straight append) or ksjb (interleaved)
step 2: Kojasby or Kasejby

Brilliant, I say!
posted by Invoke at 9:50 AM on December 22, 2005

I love having a hyphenated last name and all the haters, who don't know what they're missing, can suck it.

Thanks for remembering me, EB.
posted by dame at 10:09 AM on December 22, 2005

FWIW, in the spanish system, you don't use both surnames on a day-to-day basis, but usually go by your father's surname most of the time, sometimes adding your mother's surname as an initial.
People whose first surname is not as classy as the second tend to use both, and the more ridiculous ones use a hyphen, like García-Huidobro, which then becomes a single surname passed on to their ridiculous children.
And women retain their birth name when they're married.
posted by signal at 11:24 AM on December 22, 2005

There are plenty of punctuation marks around to solve this problem. I always thought that when two hyphenated couples marry, they should escalate to the "en" dash (–). It's slightly longer than a hyphen, and it will join two hyphenated names nicely: Gretzky-Krellbourne–Cohen-O'Connor.

Then when two en-dashed couples marry, they can bring out the big and intimidating "em" dash (—). By the time anyone's finished saying the child's name, they'll be far too tired to criticise the parents' laudable decision to preserve their family heritage.

BTW, I assume no one here needs refreshing on the rules for the proper use of em and en dashes in English.
posted by purple_frogs at 8:59 PM on December 22, 2005

"All the other stuff about adopting your spouses name is cute but is irrelevant to lineage."

No it isn't. I'm at a loss as to why this has to be explained to you.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:27 PM on December 22, 2005

Okay purple_frogs, but what happens when you have something like:
Lee-Smith–Lie-Chan—Smith-Chan–Lee-Lee

I like the E-B–d thing actually...
posted by Chuckles at 3:34 AM on December 24, 2005