What’s In A Name?

My Great Grandfather moved from rural Hampshire to London sometime in the late 1870’s, during the course of which he changed his surname first from Prater to Cannon, and then to Canning. We don’t know the reason why, but I suspect a family rift of some sort. Whatever the reason, from that point onwards our family were Cannings, rather than Praters.

Great Grandad pictured in 1904 in East Ham, London.

So really, my name should be Mick Prater.

But it isn’t.

Does it matter? In any way at all?

Of course it doesn’t.

And this, I think, illustrates the absurdity of those – primarily men – who think it is of paramount importance that the family name is continued. I know this supposedly gives a kind of spurious immortality to family members but, really, it’s a nonsense.

37 thoughts on “What’s In A Name?

  1. Short and to the point expression of insight, Mick. Plus with the support of personal ‘source’ material – yourself.
    I can’t help but think of how this reminds me of ‘coming to America’ to start a new life (and in many cases surname – our family’s one of those) only in ‘reverse’. Your family was already in America – but the need to start anew was deeply rooted.
    What’s in a name, indeed!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is in England, Laura, but what you said still applies. So many people moved from the country to the cities and towns during the Industrial revolution and just after it, indeed to start a new life. And yes, changing his name might just have been part of that,

      Liked by 1 person

  2. When my Norse ancestors migrated to this country their names were changed: Nilson became Nelson and Vaaxland became Foxland. So … an awfully lot of people in this country are not carrying on their true family names!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Ellie Carpenter's avatar Ellie Thompson

    I have mixed feelings about family names, Mick. During my family’s history, surnames were often changed because my ancestors were fleeing their home countries. My father’s parents were initially called Freudman. However, they had to flee their home in Poland in WW2, and that name was a Jewish name, which put them more at risk. It was then changed to Freeman. When they settled in the UK, the name was changed again (not sure why) to Thompson, which I grew up with. When I married, I became Ellie Lane, which I never liked, but then, I wasn’t too keen on my now ex-husband either! As soon as we divorced, I returned to my maiden name, Ellie Thompson, and I have every intention of staying with that, as I have absolutely zero desire to marry again! But that’s another story for another day. X

    Liked by 1 person

    1. A totally different kettle of fish when names carry loaded messages, and certainly a good reason why some might change them. I think women are likely to view the subject a little differently to men, too, since traditionally they would change their names on marriage and take their husband’s.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I think the family name only serves one purpose. To trace your lineage and a connection with the past. For some, it doesn’t matter. In many countries, it can also symbolize social standing but it is again an old practice and completely out of reality; we live in a different world.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I had a few friends who asked why I changed my name when I got married, because they thought I should keep my original last name. But honestly, I’m fine with the name Coleman…it’s just a name, as you say. If I had felt strongly about it, I wouldn’t have made the change.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. As for marriage, I took my husband’s name when we married, but when divorce happened, I actually kept my married name; it was the name I’d become known by professionally, and besides — who wouldn’t like “LLL” as a monogram? However: even that name went through some changes. When his family came to this country, they were “Leinenkugels,” the same as a famous brewery here. It was shortened to Leinen, as a way of Americanizing, I suppose.

    The one thing I’ll say is that for purposes of genealogical research, name changes can be problematic. A lot of ‘dead ends’ can result if descendants don’t have a record of the change.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, it was genealogical research that threw up this name change. No one in the family had any idea it had happened, and it’s only recently we’ve tied all the records together sufficiently to be able to say with absolute certainty that Great Grandad changed his name.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Pretty certain he wasn’t dodging either the law or local heavies, since although he changed his name completely his wife kept her Christian name and they only moved a few streets away from their old place. It’s possible they defaulted on their rent payments, I suppose. We’ll probably never know.

      Like

  7. Back when my wife and I got hitched I gave her the option of keeping her maiden name – so she did. No big deal, we weren’t going to have kids, being already a bit long in the tooth, so no confusion there. But even now, it seems like some folk wonder if we’re really married when we’re newly introduced, or if we’re just partners.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. In India, people drop or change their second names if they do not wish to disclose their caste (sadly, caste is still a thing). Those of the upper caste retain it because the second name commands respect and a certain status in society. So, in India, a name says quite a lot. As for me, I kept my maiden name after marriage because I liked it and didn’t feel the need to change it.

    Liked by 1 person

          1. For example, a Mascarenhas or a Pinto would be from Mangalore or Goa, Anthony, Mathew, Varghese from Kerala or in Tamil Nadu, the first name would be Christian and the second name a Hindu name or just their father’s name.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.