Common surnames. There can be over-common surnames like "Smith" or "Jones" or "Davis" or "Wilson", and there can be surnames which aren't common like "Sarafian" or "Trentham" or "Hasselbeck" or "Weir".

So are common surnames good or bad? Can they sometimes lead to confusion?

The Curse of the Common Surname

http://gatheringstories.com/the-curse-of-the-common-surname/

This is an interesting article you might be interested in reading.

Common surnames. There can be over-common surnames like "Smith" or "Jones" or "Davis" or "Wilson", and there can be surnames which aren't common like "Sarafian" or "Trentham" or "Hasselbeck" or "Weir".

So are common surnames good or bad? Can they sometimes lead to confusion?

A little OT but everytime I hear the name Wilson, there is ALWAYS usually a commun first name near by or the person with the name Wilson will often times have this first name.

I will demonstrate...

Someone name me off 10 commun male first names, and I almost garantee it will appear.

Common surnames. There can be over-common surnames like "Smith" or "Jones" or "Davis" or "Wilson", and there can be surnames which aren't common like "Sarafian" or "Trentham" or "Hasselbeck" or "Weir".

So are common surnames good or bad? Can they sometimes lead to confusion?

Yes, surnames can sometimes lead to confusion. I won't give out my last name as I am not comfortable doing that.

In 8th grade I had a science teacher who called everyone by their last name instead of by their first name. Because there were four students with the same last name (but not related to each other) she used first names for them. Then there were still two with the same first and last name. I went by my first and middle name so there was no confusion. :)

My married surname is Brown.My husband's name is David Brown. That's about as common as you can get!:D

I have just thought of a term for a person with a common surname: That term is... a "commoner". Usually, a "commoner" refers to "a member of the 'common people' who holds no title or rank" or "non-royalty". I saw another definition in the Wiktionary entry for "commoner": "One sharing with another in anything".

Honestly, it's worth admitting that the woman taking the man's surname by default or automatically is just a cliche at this point, and can be seen as a conservative ideal. For centuries it has always been tradition for a woman to take the man's surname upon marriage, and all children born to that married couple will get only that man's surname, period. I could see the potential for identity theft if this happens with a man with an ultra-common and plain-looking surname like "Smith" or "Jones". This just proves how overrated the man is when it comes to marriage and family.

If there had been a feminist movement that had been ongoing for decades, then why isn't anyone advocating for the man taking the woman's surname instead of the woman taking the man's surname, and all children born to that couple will have the woman's surname (meaning the mother has the family name instead of the father)? And when it comes to continuing a particular family line, why can't married couples just go with the less-common surname rather than the more-common one?

If there had been a feminist movement that had been ongoing for decades, then why isn't anyone advocating for the man taking the woman's surname instead of the woman taking the man's surname, and all children born to that couple will have the woman's surname (meaning the mother has the family name instead of the father)?


Those ultra feminists have, it's just no one wants to marry them. :lol:

Conmon Surname:

Jones