Should Kim Kardashian change her name to Kim Humphries?

The rumour mill is in overdrive today about Kim Kardashian’s engagement to Kris Humphries. And it’s mostly about whether or not the bodacious Miss Kardashian is pregnant and looking for Mr Humphries to make an honest woman of her.

Now. I don’t know much about Kim Kardashian, but I figure she’s a level-headed, modern-thinking kind of woman. She’s already said to be shooting down the pregnancy rumours as I type this. Here’s what she said on her official blog:

This is crazy! I am NOT pregnant! Magazines can be so tricky with their wording! The inside states that one day I want a baby! But I’m not pregnant!

Seriously? Can you imagine a heavily-pregnant Kim standing at the altar while Bruce Jenner marches Kris down the aisle in some kind of ridiculous shotgun wedding? No. But obviously due to a little creative titling on the part of OK Magazine, a lot of people think Kim’s sudden engagement has something to do with having a bun in her curvacious oven.

The Name Game

Which brings me to the real point of this post – the horrifying news, terrifying revelation that Kim plans to ditch the Kardashian name and become Kim Humphries.

Sit down for a minute if you’re feeling dizzy.

For a start, Humphries doesn’t quite have the same ring to it. But more importantly, the Kardashian name is Kim’s brand. It’s her moneymaker, above and beyond that fabulous booty.

And what’s with the “taking her husband’s name” thing? For an internationally recognized professional woman, isn’t that an outdated concept? And just a few paragraphs ago we were thinking Kim had a modern outlook on life. It would seem like Kim’s mum, Kris Jenner, agrees. She recently told Popeater:

I don’t think she should take his name and be Kim Humphries … She needs to be Kim Kardashian because she’s worked so hard to get where she is.

What’s your take on this, Shouters? Should Kim keep the Kardashian, or is it right that she takes her husband’s name?

Tagged under:

Log In or Sign Up

Skip to toolbar