While scanning the weddings page of the local paper on Sunday, I once again contemplated the problem posed by hyphenated surnames. This first generation of hyphenates has enough of a problem, but if they carry on the practice, their poor grandchildren won't be able to fit their names on a page. One solution would be to combine the surnames of couples into a third name to be used by the whole family.

This suggested a game to me. Our paper, for example, announced the engagement of Susan Carman and Benjamin Davenport. Clearly, they and their children should henceforth be the Carports. Here are the other combinations from the paper. What other good combinations are there?

Dickeson-Kohuth
Brouwer-Grohman
Sebrell-Smith
Emery-Carpenter
O'Dell-Johnson
Dickinson-Christie
Monsma-Coens
Abramson-Marl
Uchida-Sharkey
Cornell-Saragoza
Boucher-Jehnsen
Hetherington-Schulte
Endres-Graves
Smith-Robel
Raymond-Chesher
Bishop-Wise
Galvin-Shoemaker
Klingbeil-O'Bryant
Chesnut-Weiss
Kraklau-Curtis
Pena-Cole
Meyer-Engstrom

Dear Sparteye: I can see merit in hypenated names when both are relatively common, so that the offspring will not be just "Jones" but will have a name different enough to avoid confusion. I can also understand that a girl with a famous name might like to keep it alive. Hyphenation is better than having married women continue to use only their maiden names, which I have encountered.

better than having married women continue to use only their maiden names

Or married men continuing to use only *their maiden names, which *I have encountered.

When I bought my present house, the people from whom I bought it went to stay with her mother until they found new accommodations of their own. I needed to find them for some reason I misremember and could not have done so if the woman half of the couple who had owned the house had changed her last name on marriage.

Dear Faldage:the woman I knew was an old time Yankee married to CIA lawyer with a mildly grotesque
ethnic name. I thought it an affront her husband must have found painful.

I've suggested to my husband that he should have taken my name, not the other way around, because it's shorter and you don't need to resort to "T - O - L - L - E - F-as-in-Frank - S-as-in-Sierra - E - N" to spell it to people. (For some reason people don't hear the "f" preceding the "s".)

I was doing some data analysis the other day on a large database. Among other things, I needed to work out whether we had a major problem with hyphenated surnames (or multiple surnames without hyphens) before we populate a data warehouse. I found 34 entries where there are more than two names in a surname. I can't tell you what any of them are because of confidentiality, but I was gobsmacked by one of them, because it looks like someone's idea of a joke which was visited on some poor mite who'd just put in an appearance at a maternity ward.

A couple with whom I am acquainted, and who are both very liberal in their views, having married when they were both middle aged, decided to hyphenate both their names, so that the former Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson both now use the name Smith-Johnson. The interesting part is what name their children would use (they don't have any, in fact). If they used the same name as their parents, what would you have if young Ms. Smith-Johnson were to marry Mr. Robinson-Brown? Only a theoretical problem, however, as I don't believe this kind of name coupling is very common. I do know several women who have hyphenated their maiden name with their husband's name, but the children all use the husband's name only.

My daughter recently had a baby with a man, who did not share her last name. They had decided to hyphenate their last names for the baby's last name. Considering my daughter's last name is 10 letters and the father's last name another 5, throw in a hyphen, and you have a 16 letter last name! Much too long for a wee one. They settled upon dad's shorter last name. [relieved-e]

I have been told that in Scotland if there is a female who is the last of her line she can petition the Standing Council of Chiefs to have her fiance assume her last name upon marriage in order to preserve her family name. Permission is usually granted if the man involved has siblings to carry on his family name and if he is amenable to the idea.
Anyone ?

Many of the males on my father's side of the family (That'd be the Scots side) have middle names that were last names of female branches in the family tree. My father, grandfather and I had no middle names in a tradition dating back time back way back. Family lore had it that the middle name convention was an old Scots convention that was banned after the '45 to muddle evidence of clan alliances. I'd always WAGged that the habit of having family names as given names (e.g., Craig, Scott, Murray) came about as a result of the mixing of this middle name convention with the continental practice of having a saint's name as a middle name.

I'm the last of my line, and for that reason I plan to retain my surname when I marry ~ and the current boyf's last name is Jackson. There are plenty of those... so his feelings couldn't *possibly* be hurt. Besides, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a name other than "Haug" that works well with "Dagny".

In Spanish, a man, Juan Gomez, marries a woman, Amelia Sanchez. Juan Gomez remains Juan Gomez. Amelia Sanchez becomes Amelia Sanchez de Gomez. They have a son, Jesus. He is Jesus Gomez Sanchez. He may choose to leave his mother's name off in informal setting or use the initial S. They have a daughter, Gloria. She becomes Gloria Gomez Sanchez. When she marries Jorge Ramirez N., she becomes Gloria Gomez de Ramirez. Their childrens' last name will be Ramirez Gomez. This goes on and on and on and on............

A married couple we are good friends with went with her maiden name for the children. His surname is Seamen. True.

checkingtheoilandtyres stales

In Québec, by law since 1981 or 82, women do not take their husband's name after marriage. There are no hurt feelings (from husband or wife) since majority of the people now getting married know only of that system. I believe this is only in Québec and that in the rest of Canada the women automatically are switched to the husband's name.

As to children's last names, the great majority get the father's last name, the balance hyphenate both names.

I'm hard-pressed to come up with a name other than "Haug" that works well with "Dagny".

Abbott?

Yeah, thanks a heap, Doc. I'll look for prospects in the phone book...

Clever, I must admit.

And then there is the possibility of Fye, Fie, Feigh, or if you want to go a little crazy, Frye.

You don't have to dagnyfry this post with an answer, babe

Sorry to resurrect a dying thread, but I want to clarify what belM says about Canadian name/marriage laws. In Manitoba there was no obligation at all about names. You had the choice of keeping your name, taking your spouse's name, adding it to your name, adding it and hyphenating it, keeping one name as a new middle name and one as a last name. Also, it is symmetric with respect to gender, so my husband could have taken my name.

I gather, though, that other provinces are different. My professor (who got married in B. C.) says the rules were different for them, and his wife was "forced" into taking his name at the last minute (ok, they didn't know the rules in advance and she had to make a hurried decision). And as belM has told us, the rules are different still in Québec.

However, I have heard (and it would be great if you could clarify this, belM), that in Québec you must marry in a church, that there is no such thing as a "civil ceremony". And that this somehow accounts for a much higher percentage of common-law relationships in that province - if people don't want to get married in a church, there is no other option. True or false?

Weeell, there are no rules at all in Zild. I guess that most wives still take their husbands' name nationally, but in Wellington it's usual for the wife - who often has a career as important to her as her new husband's is to him - to keep her own name. Saves on business card reprints.

However, I have heard ...that in Québec you must marry in a church, that there is no such thing as a "civil ceremony". And that this somehow accounts for a much higher percentage of common-law relationships in that province

Good gosh no. You don't have to marry in a church. You can get married at the Palais de justice (courthouse I suppose is the accurate translation). Most first-time marriages do occur in church though because of the grandeur of walking down the aisle in that white wedding dress.

Common-law unions...wellll, I think the French have a very open mind when it comes to relationships and having sex. Waiting to get married before having sex went out of style in my parent's generation (and even then). Starting in the 70's it became common-place to live together instead of getting married. There was very little stigma attached to it so it just became an other option.

It is now extremely rare that someone will not be living with his/her future spouse when they get married.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am talking about *French* Québecers only. Anglophones have somewhat the same mores and allophones not at all.

You can get married at the Palais ...

Is that pronounced pal-lay? Is that an aptronym? [innocent -e]