RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: The name Littlejohn is dying out. When you don’t have a shared history and culture you don’t have a country any more
Richard Littlejohn argues that rapid immigration has changed Britain’s population and that shared history, culture and integration matter to national identity. He uses the declining number of babies given his surname, Littlejohn, as a starting point, while acknowledging that many people with migrant backgrounds are established members of their communities and that he supports legal, controlled migration.
He says only four babies born in Britain in 2025 had the surname Littlejohn, a 71 per cent fall from 1996. The article also claims that Smith, Jones and Williams are among just three traditional British surnames left in the top ten for children born last year, with Khan, Ahmed, Singh and Hussein among the names that have replaced others. Littlejohn attributes these shifts to immigration and argues that some migrants do not assimilate; he cites remarks by retired Major General Julian Thompson and former equalities chief Trevor Phillips.
- Four babies in Britain were named Littlejohn in 2025.
- Littlejohn links surname trends to immigration and integration.
- He argues shared culture matters to national identity.
New here? Start with this
Immigration has shaped Britain for generations, and people who move here and their children contribute to communities across the country. Debates about immigration often include questions about how newcomers settle, how national identity changes and what people mean by a shared culture.
Richard Littlejohn is a British newspaper columnist who argues that immigration has changed the country and that integration matters. Surnames are one visible part of Britain’s changing population, but they do not by themselves show how people identify or whether they feel part of the country.
These arguments matter because they touch on citizenship, belonging and how Britain defines itself. People disagree about how much national identity depends on common traditions and how much it can accommodate different backgrounds.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A shared national story, common civic customs and a sense of belonging can help people trust one another and sustain democratic institutions. Supporters of this view argue that rapid demographic change can make those bonds harder to maintain if integration is weak, and that a country may reasonably expect newcomers to learn its language and take part in its civic life while migration remains controlled.
The case against
A nation can retain a shared civic identity without requiring people to share ancestry, surnames or a single inherited culture. Those who favour a more plural understanding argue that migration has long shaped Britain, that people can belong while keeping family traditions, and that surname rankings are a poor measure of social cohesion or integration.