I think it's cos I knew him when he was plain Phil Hallard and his missus-to-be was Bea Purser. I can't seem to help finding double-barrelling mildly odd in this day and age too, which might have something to do with it.
It seems to be getting commoner, though. I've got friends who are married and while the parents have kept their own surnames, the kids use both surnames (though in this case with the man's surname first). Teacher friends tell me it's not unusual nowadays.
I definitely voted "no". Given the two people in the marriage (both of whom I respect, even though I was never more than cordial with either of them) and that they want a double-barrelled surname, it's one of the two logical picks.
However, Hallard-Purser trips off at least my tongue more easily than Purser-Hallard does. (Could this be because I've known a guy named Hanbury Hampden-Turner for years?) Perhaps there's convention in these things that the ladies' surname goes first and you don't get a choice in the matter.
As the owner (?) of a double-barrelled surname myself, I feel entitled to say I think they're a little problematic. Today, for instance, the post office had to search in a variety of places to find my non-delivered parcel. (Oh, and they still didn't find it, but that's another matter.)
Then there's what to do with the kids (if any). My sister, who retained her (double-barrelled) surname when she got married is now about to give birth, and there is much debate as to the moniker by which the future child will be known.
It does seem to me that the Spanish get this right: Firstname Motherssurname Fatherssurname.
I must say I didn't realise before hand how cumbersome a double barrelled surname is. Its got to the point where if I'm ordering a pizza or taxi, or booking a restaurant or hair appointment, I just use one half or the other because its Just Too Complicated to spell the whole lot. I've also lost count of the times when people have assumed that my first name is Purser and my surname Hallard - I mean what kind of a forename is Purser for Pete's sake?
At the time, it was the least silly of a variety of pretty silly options. Phil wanted us to go for either an Anagram (Pullars-Harder was his favouite, or failing that something including Pulsar) or to pioneer the use of unusual punctuation within the name, such as Purser:Hallard or Purser!Hallard.
If I was in communication with my former self, I would advise some shorter combination of the two names, such as Purlard - it would probably feel strange for a bit, but would be more easily livable-with. On the other hand if I was in communication with my self of 5 years ago there are a hell of a lot of more important bits of advice I would give myself, so this tiny detail might get forgotten.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 10:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 10:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 10:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 11:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 11:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 12:46 pm (UTC)Ditto.
Actually I don't think I've seen him since he was an undergraduate (how long ago was that!). Certainly haven't met the Mrs.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 12:52 pm (UTC)However, Hallard-Purser trips off at least my tongue more easily than Purser-Hallard does. (Could this be because I've known a guy named Hanbury Hampden-Turner for years?) Perhaps there's convention in these things that the ladies' surname goes first and you don't get a choice in the matter.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 01:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 02:08 pm (UTC)Really? My tongue gets tripped up by the "dp" consonant cluster.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 02:56 pm (UTC)yebbut
Date: 2004-06-15 03:46 pm (UTC)Then there's what to do with the kids (if any). My sister, who retained her (double-barrelled) surname when she got married is now about to give birth, and there is much debate as to the moniker by which the future child will be known.
It does seem to me that the Spanish get this right: Firstname Motherssurname Fatherssurname.
Jon (Beasley-Murray)
no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 04:44 pm (UTC)Thanks for the book plug, incidentally. Buy my novel, random people who used to know me once!
PPH
no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 07:59 pm (UTC)you may be right
Date: 2004-06-22 09:09 am (UTC)At the time, it was the least silly of a variety of pretty silly options. Phil wanted us to go for either an Anagram (Pullars-Harder was his favouite, or failing that something including Pulsar) or to pioneer the use of unusual punctuation within the name, such as Purser:Hallard or Purser!Hallard.
If I was in communication with my former self, I would advise some shorter combination of the two names, such as Purlard - it would probably feel strange for a bit, but would be more easily livable-with. On the other hand if I was in communication with my self of 5 years ago there are a hell of a lot of more important bits of advice I would give myself, so this tiny detail might get forgotten.