With a POD after 1800 but before 1915. Mexico is defeated by the French in 1860 or conquered by Britain or another non-Hispanic European country sometime after 1800. Should people with Spanish surnames modify it to be French/English/etc.? A hypothetical example, that Miguel Alemán will be called Michel Allamand, or that President Venustiano Carranza will be renamed René Lambert? Or in an English-speaking Mexico can he keep names and surnames in Spanish?
If Mexico is conquered by another country, will people have to change their names and surnames?
- Thread starter AltHispano
- Start date
Under French rule, they might change their given names but their family names would most likely stay the same. Alsatians, Basques, Corsicans, Flemish etc. did not have to adopt French family names.
I would suspect the same under British rule, although Irish names did get changed sometimes, so I'm not quite as sure.
I would suspect the same under British rule, although Irish names did get changed sometimes, so I'm not quite as sure.
Nobody would have to change their names. More than likely, the subsequent generations will likely have more and more English or French given names. Naturally, there would eventually be a rise of English or French surnames depending on how long they remain in Mexico.
Ironically, English and French names ended up becoming moderately popular throughout Latin America in OTL, though I believe that's primarily through American influence.
Ironically, English and French names ended up becoming moderately popular throughout Latin America in OTL, though I believe that's primarily through American influence.
It's probably because of pop culture. Mexicans like the name of a popular actor, musician or character, who happens to be American, and so they name their children that.
There might be a thin ethnic group or social class evolving with French surnames and names.
Just anecdotal information here, from Quito, Ecuador.
Henry, John, Kevin, Mishell, Kelly, Stephanie, Brian, Eric are all common names that you can see eveywhere, and everybody considers them normal.
I've met Mexicans (as in, citizens of Mexico) visiting here with Anglo given names as well, although no "Kevin's" yet.
It's a common occurrence in Cuba with Russian names as well, due to Soviet influence. I think it generally has to do with hegemonic pop influence as a trend in general. And to answer the OP, I agree with @Ivan Lupo in that given names would Gallicize/Anglicize first, with surnames being more stable by comparison (although intermarriage would see French/English names popping up over time if nothing else).
Last edited:
Kevin is a curious case because it's seen as a name poor people would choose for their kid. The stereotypical lower class criminal boy is named either Kevin or Brian.
You might see “dual names” pop up, similarly to what happened to some Hispanic celebrities in America IOTL due to discrimination, where they have a Hispanic name and an Anglicized version that they use in certain social situations.
After the legendary Reddit story I’d never name my kid Kevin
After the legendary Reddit story I’d never name my kid Kevin
My family is from El Salvador and anecdotally, I have met tons of Salvadorans from my mother's country with English names. William, Douglas, and Edwin have especially been pretty popular. English surnames as given names is not terribly uncommon either, and in my lifetime, I've known guys named Nelson, Wilson, and Darwin.
I doubt there Will be a Change on The surnames and if anything there Will be a strong resistance movement yo Maintain The Spanish Custom of two names+two surnames(father and mother first surnames).and there Will be a preference for names that work in both Languages that only Change their pronunciation, as examples
Men:
David
Abraham
Tomás
Nicolás
Daniel
Women
Elizabeth
Maria
Emilia(emily)
Patricia
Linda
Etc
Men:
David
Abraham
Tomás
Nicolás
Daniel
Women
Elizabeth
Maria
Emilia(emily)
Patricia
Linda
Etc
Most of Mexico WAS conquered by an English-speaking country in 19th century.
Were the Mexicans in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California forced to change their names?
Were the Mexicans in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California forced to change their names?
"Most" is an exaggeration, not to mention that the vast bulk of Mexico's population lies (and has almost always lied) within their current borders, including during the war with America.
If France/Britain/et al were to conquer and hold the Mexican heartland, it'd be a very different dynamic from that of the old Mexican North/current U.S. Southwest due to the numbers and density of inhabitants from both cultures co-habitating; a better example would be a look at urban area trends in the modern period.
Although I do agree that complete cultural transposition (e.g. name adoption) isn't very likely under either circumstance, the latter instance isn't comparable with the former.
This is already the case with the bolded and so for before TV. Several of these are hebrew/biblical so it kinda doesn't count?
I wonder if you'd get indigenous Mexicans with the French/English surnames as they are...."convinced" (Read forced) to westernize. I do ask myself how surnames were distributed to them by the Spanish....
Why not? The fact that áre bíblical, thus With a long tradition, Will mean those names áre prefered, Nicolás is a Greek names not bíblical BTW.
why? I mean The Indigenous people in México áre already Westernized, literally they áre Spanish creole cultural descent, they áre by definition part of the Westerner cultural Continuum, unless you think The Spanish aren't part of the west Culture.
In respect on how The Indigenous mexican get their surnames, they get it in The same way The Spanish farmers get theirs, from their work, place of Origin or some agricultural produce
Last edited:
Exaggeration, but an official one.
Of the Mexican territory recognized by USA under Adams-Onis treaty, 1819, and Treaty of Limits, 1828, 55 % was conquered.
Of the population - yes. The estimate was something like 8000 Mexicans in Texas by 1834, 60 000 people under Mexican government in New Mexico by 1845, and 8000 Mexicans in Alta California. Total under 80 000 of the Mexican population of nearly 7 millions - a bit over 1 % on 55 % of territory.
This excludes Indians not taxed in Texas and California - far more numerous than the 8000 Mexicans. But the very fact that Mexicans could neither tax nor enumerate Indians not taxed in California makes the recognized territory something of an exaggeration.