What are CONS of not having a Surname?

Miley

What are CONS of not having a Surname?
What are cons of not having surname just the first and the middle name?

Answer
The reason that surnames were invented in the first place was to be able to tell people apart when they were living in the same area and had the same first name. "Peter the baker" and "Peter the cooper" eventually, over time, became Peter Baker and Peter Cooper. This is why so many surnames come from names of jobs that existed centuries ago (and often still exist now), or from some physical characteristic - for instance Russell comes from old French for "red-haired". Eventually surnames became what they are today - a family name passed from father to children, once everybody was expected to have one (excepting royalty, who have never needed surnames because everybody knows who they are).

So one problem of not having a surname is it makes people less easily identifiable. You'd end up having to qualify it by explaining who you are referring to of that name - which is how surnames started! It would also be less easy to tell who is related to whom.

It's possible to do it, though. Iceland still doesn't use surnames and never has. If you ever hear of an Icelander with what appears to be a surname, it isn't, it's a patronymic - their father's name with a suffix -son for a man and -dottir for a woman. So children don't have the same last name as their parents the vast majority of the time. The first name is the only real name and Icelanders are listed by first name in their telephone directory. To reduce confusion, their profession or occupation is also shown (just the way surnames started in the English-speaking world!!!!) It still works because Iceland has such a small population and that reduces the chances of confusion. Russia only gets away with using the same system because they use surnames as well, so a full Russian name is first name-patronymic-surname, and the patronymic will be their father's first name with -ovich added for a man and -ovna added for a woman.

THE middle name? It's possible to have more than one - a good friend of mine has two, (very common in the English upper classes) and Queen Elizabeth II's children all have three. And my mother doesn't have one at all.

Why do people tease others for having ginger hair?

xxsarah333

I have naturally ginger hair and I have been teased for it for as long as I can remember.
I don't understand why though! Nobody ever says WHY, they just shout 'ginger'.

Personally, I think discriminating against somebody for the colour of their hair is EXACTLY the same as discriminating against someone because they are black, asian etc.
Ginger hair is a RACE therefore to bully someone for it is being racist surely?

I hate it SO much when people fight against racism but still have the nerve to tease me for being a redhead!

Also, Winston Churchill (one of the most important people in history) won the war for us and he was a redhead.
Queen Elizabeth I had red hair and she was one of the greatest queens we've had.

It just makes no sense to me why red haired people are bullied so much for it.

Answer
I blame south park!
Im spitting image of Annie *(The musical)
And after watching south park episodes
it says in it that gingers are usually
Pale, and freckly.
And call them names like day walkers.
And say they have no souls.

End of the day It's really hurtfull to some people but its just like racism n sexism,
No matter how many people hate it. It'll Never change

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

A question about Shakespeare - red hair and villains?

red haired queen elizabeth image

Bigmouth S

I can't remember where I heard this, and I don't know if it has any substance - an internet search turns up little information:
Is it true that, in early performances, the bad guys of the piece would wear red-haired wigs?
Thank you :)

Answer
Possibly but I doubt it since Queen Elizabeth the First was a redhead.

What are CONS of not having a Surname?

Miley

What are CONS of not having a Surname?
What are cons of not having surname just the first and the middle name?

Answer
The reason that surnames were invented in the first place was to be able to tell people apart when they were living in the same area and had the same first name. "Peter the baker" and "Peter the cooper" eventually, over time, became Peter Baker and Peter Cooper. This is why so many surnames come from names of jobs that existed centuries ago (and often still exist now), or from some physical characteristic - for instance Russell comes from old French for "red-haired". Eventually surnames became what they are today - a family name passed from father to children, once everybody was expected to have one (excepting royalty, who have never needed surnames because everybody knows who they are).

So one problem of not having a surname is it makes people less easily identifiable. You'd end up having to qualify it by explaining who you are referring to of that name - which is how surnames started! It would also be less easy to tell who is related to whom.

It's possible to do it, though. Iceland still doesn't use surnames and never has. If you ever hear of an Icelander with what appears to be a surname, it isn't, it's a patronymic - their father's name with a suffix -son for a man and -dottir for a woman. So children don't have the same last name as their parents the vast majority of the time. The first name is the only real name and Icelanders are listed by first name in their telephone directory. To reduce confusion, their profession or occupation is also shown (just the way surnames started in the English-speaking world!!!!) It still works because Iceland has such a small population and that reduces the chances of confusion. Russia only gets away with using the same system because they use surnames as well, so a full Russian name is first name-patronymic-surname, and the patronymic will be their father's first name with -ovich added for a man and -ovna added for a woman.

THE middle name? It's possible to have more than one - a good friend of mine has two, (very common in the English upper classes) and Queen Elizabeth II's children all have three. And my mother doesn't have one at all.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Why do people tease others for having ginger hair?

red haired queen elizabeth image

xxsarah333

I have naturally ginger hair and I have been teased for it for as long as I can remember.
I don't understand why though! Nobody ever says WHY, they just shout 'ginger'.

Personally, I think discriminating against somebody for the colour of their hair is EXACTLY the same as discriminating against someone because they are black, asian etc.
Ginger hair is a RACE therefore to bully someone for it is being racist surely?

I hate it SO much when people fight against racism but still have the nerve to tease me for being a redhead!

Also, Winston Churchill (one of the most important people in history) won the war for us and he was a redhead.
Queen Elizabeth I had red hair and she was one of the greatest queens we've had.

It just makes no sense to me why red haired people are bullied so much for it.

Answer
I blame south park!
Im spitting image of Annie *(The musical)
And after watching south park episodes
it says in it that gingers are usually
Pale, and freckly.
And call them names like day walkers.
And say they have no souls.

End of the day It's really hurtfull to some people but its just like racism n sexism,
No matter how many people hate it. It'll Never change

If catherine of aragon had given birth to a son who lived how would it change history?

irock

let ur imagination sore!!!!

Answer
Interesting! History (and life) is full of "what if...?".

Katherine did give birth to some male children, but they all died early or were stillborn.

If she had given birth to a living son:

Henry would have had no need to marry Anne Boleyn in pursuit of a son and heir, neither would he have married another four times and begotten his only male heir, Edward VI, nor would Mary have become Queen and burned nearly 300 heretics in order to bring England back to Catholicism. And there would have been no Elizabeth I to give her name to an age and era!

There were stirrings of reformation, but it would probably have come in a slower and more natural progression.

Katherine was already quite worn out and had cancer when she died quite early, so probably Henry would have stayed married to her until her death. He might have married again, but there would have been no need to execute a couple of wives. He would not have remained in our memories as the Henry of the six wives, nor would there have been the personalities associated with him.

We can't know how Katherine and Henry's son would have been, but he probably would have been Catholic and England may still be a basically Catholic country, like Spain and France. He might have been a powerful, magnetic personality and done for England what Elizabeth did; he might have been a weak ruler, dominated by his councillors. If he hadn't had a son, then again there would have been strife while the succession was ensured, usurped or passed across the hereditary lines.

It's interesting to speculate on a tall, red-gold haired Henry IX, with much of his father's personality and also his mother's regal nobility and faith. His father would not have been so disappointed in all his wives, so perhaps he would have been a milder, more benign king in his later years rather than the bloated and cruel megalomaniac, bewailing that he had been "beset by ill-conditioned wives". He would have had a son to light up his years and spoil; perhaps he would have given more and more power to his son as he became more ill, and lived a peaceful and retiring life with either Katherine, or his "second" wife. Though I can't imagine Henry being able to withstand the temptation of interfering from the sidelines! ("No, my boy, you can't let him live! Have him executed!")

Perhaps we'd still have a ruling Tudor dynasty today, if Henry IX had had a large family of magnificent, talented and intelligent children with the famous red-gold hair and a dose of Plantagenet blood.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Why do people tease others for having ginger hair?

red haired queen elizabeth image

xxsarah333

I have naturally ginger hair and I have been teased for it for as long as I can remember.
I don't understand why though! Nobody ever says WHY, they just shout 'ginger'.

Personally, I think discriminating against somebody for the colour of their hair is EXACTLY the same as discriminating against someone because they are black, asian etc.
Ginger hair is a RACE therefore to bully someone for it is being racist surely?

I hate it SO much when people fight against racism but still have the nerve to tease me for being a redhead!

Also, Winston Churchill (one of the most important people in history) won the war for us and he was a redhead.
Queen Elizabeth I had red hair and she was one of the greatest queens we've had.

It just makes no sense to me why red haired people are bullied so much for it.

Answer
I blame south park!
Im spitting image of Annie *(The musical)
And after watching south park episodes
it says in it that gingers are usually
Pale, and freckly.
And call them names like day walkers.
And say they have no souls.

End of the day It's really hurtfull to some people but its just like racism n sexism,
No matter how many people hate it. It'll Never change

If catherine of aragon had given birth to a son who lived how would it change history?

irock

let ur imagination sore!!!!

Answer
Interesting! History (and life) is full of "what if...?".

Katherine did give birth to some male children, but they all died early or were stillborn.

If she had given birth to a living son:

Henry would have had no need to marry Anne Boleyn in pursuit of a son and heir, neither would he have married another four times and begotten his only male heir, Edward VI, nor would Mary have become Queen and burned nearly 300 heretics in order to bring England back to Catholicism. And there would have been no Elizabeth I to give her name to an age and era!

There were stirrings of reformation, but it would probably have come in a slower and more natural progression.

Katherine was already quite worn out and had cancer when she died quite early, so probably Henry would have stayed married to her until her death. He might have married again, but there would have been no need to execute a couple of wives. He would not have remained in our memories as the Henry of the six wives, nor would there have been the personalities associated with him.

We can't know how Katherine and Henry's son would have been, but he probably would have been Catholic and England may still be a basically Catholic country, like Spain and France. He might have been a powerful, magnetic personality and done for England what Elizabeth did; he might have been a weak ruler, dominated by his councillors. If he hadn't had a son, then again there would have been strife while the succession was ensured, usurped or passed across the hereditary lines.

It's interesting to speculate on a tall, red-gold haired Henry IX, with much of his father's personality and also his mother's regal nobility and faith. His father would not have been so disappointed in all his wives, so perhaps he would have been a milder, more benign king in his later years rather than the bloated and cruel megalomaniac, bewailing that he had been "beset by ill-conditioned wives". He would have had a son to light up his years and spoil; perhaps he would have given more and more power to his son as he became more ill, and lived a peaceful and retiring life with either Katherine, or his "second" wife. Though I can't imagine Henry being able to withstand the temptation of interfering from the sidelines! ("No, my boy, you can't let him live! Have him executed!")

Perhaps we'd still have a ruling Tudor dynasty today, if Henry IX had had a large family of magnificent, talented and intelligent children with the famous red-gold hair and a dose of Plantagenet blood.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers