tinyjo and I aren't married because we see very little reason to be, but it
would make certain things (taxes, inheritance, etc.) slightly simpler if we were. However, if our only motivation is such a boring one, we're unlikely to ever get round to it, hence we have been talking of changing both our surnames at the same time. It would make the whole thing more entertaining
and more significant, and will demonstrate our commitment without bowing to the patriarchy.
For the next week
tinyjo and I are going to be in Las Vegas, famed for (amongst other things)
quick weddings, so this seems a good time to decide on which name to adopt, in case to mood should strike us. (I'm not being coy, by the way. We really haven't decided either way.)
Our main criteria are that this name should be:
- Plausible (we must be able to order takeaway or sign a petition without people assuming we're taking the piss)
- Simple (we don't want to have to spell it every time)
- Cool (it must be fun enough to justify the hassle of changing our names in the first place)
We've got a few ideas that we like, so this sounds like an ideal excuse for a poll:
[
Poll #1192231]
no subject
Date: 2008-05-22 09:22 pm (UTC)What the matter with 'Jones'? It's post-modern, applied in the circumstances you describe.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 11:40 am (UTC)Have you seen my suggestion for something completely off-the-wall?!!
no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 12:00 pm (UTC)I missed the suggestion - doesn't seem to appear in my view of 'comments'. My sense of postmodernism is perhaps a bit primitive, but TM I Am Not A Writer and you are, so i would reckon plain 'Jones' would do for my taste. But it's not me whose name it would be anyway. I'd go back into family names until I found one we both liked were I headed that way, because otherwise names are like tattoos; just baggage.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 12:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 12:18 pm (UTC)