Mumsnet user Ashton Backs asked other mums on the forum if it would be unreasonable to give her unborn baby the surname ‘Georgeson-Johns’.
The mum said it was an amalgamation of her and her husband’s surname... but didn’t know if it was too much of a mouthful.
Mumsnet users were divided over whether or not they liked the surname.
On one hand, many said it was unnecessary and thought the original poster should reconsider using the double-barrelled surname.
“That’s a pretty big mouthful,” one person wrote. “I personally wouldn’t do it, it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue...”
Another wrote: “I think it sounds so pretentious. And posh-o sounding. Why can’t you just decide on one surname?”
Other posters on the forum were less critical.
“I’ve heard a lot worse and I don’t think I’d give it any thought,” one woman wrote.
“It might be an idea to keep any first names short and sweet and just have one syllable. It might also be an idea not to bother with a middle name.”
People even started to come up with solution, such as changing all their surnames to Johnson, which is a mix between the two.
“Would he change his surname to yours?” one wrote. “What if the three of you had a brand new surname?”
Or another suggestion: “Can’t you both just pick one of the two and then all have the same on marriage? Or better yet come up with a mutual one? Doesn’t even have to be related.”
Who knew surnames could cause so much hassle?