Comments on: What, no Bertha?

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:41:38 +0000

LOL

By: Dave Bath

Dave Bath — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:57:40 +0000

John Flood said : Perhaps the Chinese have it right. Son #1, #2, etc
The Romans started at #5 (Quintus, Sextus, ….)

Of course, you also knew that anyone named “Postumus” was the last child by that father!

By: Lad Litter

Lad Litter — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:55:58 +0000

Our three sons have names that are neither too common nor too rare and rendered with standard spelling. Non-standard spelling of common names just means your kids will always have some explaining to do. They also fit our ethnic-cultural profile in a way that something like say, Spiros Kelly would not. The boys have nothing to blame us for later on!

By: John Flood

John Flood — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:51:30 +0000

The boys’ names are very biblical and the girls’ seem to have resurrected the 19th century.

I sometimes think names are like tattoos: you can tell when someone acquired it from its type. Think Chinese characters, Celtic knots, snakes and crucifixes. Then think of Kylie, Wayne et al.

Perhaps the Chinese have it right. Son #1, #2, etc. Simple, effective, and easy to remember.

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:02:23 +0000

Yeah, the terrible names are the non-aspirational ones - the parents don’t aspire to anything, except to invent an interesting name, I suspect. You should read the Freakonomics chapter. It provides explanations for names like Tawnee and Tai.

It also features a case study where a father called his last two sons “Winner” and “Loser” (seriously). Winner was a crack cocaine addict who was in and out of jail all the time. Loser (known to his friends as Lou) was a policeman with awards for bravery. Just proves that a name isn’t everything. Or maybe it proves people are contrasuggestible?

George Foreman apparently called his five sons “George”. Wouldn’t that be confusing? I can just hear the mother shouting in the supermarket: “George #4, don’t touch that glass over there, come here now! George #2, don’t you smirk at me!” Presuming that they all had the same mother…which is not necessarily the case…

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:51:57 +0000

I’d say in western countries calling your kid “Jesus” borders on blasphemy in many people’s eyes - sort like, “there was only one Jesus” (if you’re Christian, which I’m not). Maybe a reflection of Anglicanism/Protestantism versus the more prevalent Catholicism in non-English speaking countries?

Do you think people realise that “Jack” is traditionally a nickname for someone whose name is John?

On the ‘aspirational naming’ thing, how do you explain the myriad bogan names which seem to flow forth? (I haven’t read Freakonomics although I really should get around to it). The lists about are impressively bogan-free, but there are a lot of Kaylas and Shauwnes and Tais and Lafawndahs out there, presumably those names are not an attempt to aspire to anything. To me they sound like attempts to uniquely ‘brand’ the child like a new softdrink.

By: armagnac esq

armagnac esq — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:37:18 +0000

I’m happy to observe that “Bear” isn’t in the top ten- I’d hate to think we’d gone populist on her!

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:36:37 +0000

I’ve always wondered why Jesus wasn’t more popular as a given name in English speaking countries…after all, Mary or Marie used to be very popular…I know a few Catholic girls (daughter No. 1) who have that name. And the angels get a bit of a showing too: Michael and Gabriel…but why not Uriel? I like biblical names…mostly…let’s ignore ones like Hepzibah.

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:30:34 +0000

My given name is also a moderately popular one, and has remained so.

I have a lot of friends called Jennifer (born in the 1970s), and it was somewhat problematic for mobile phone programming, as I discovered I had 3 “Jen mobiles”.

I also read that biography of John Cooke, and was fascinated to see that his daughter was called Freelove. You’re right - it’s the 17th C equivalent of a revolutionary name. It’s a very good read.

I guess the modern equivalent of revolutionary names are hippy names like “Leaf” and “Rainbow”. Think of River Phoenix. Actually, lots of celebrities choose unusual names for their children, like Moonunit Zappa, Zowie Bowie, Apple Paltrow or Lourdes Ciccone.

By: guera

guera — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:22:59 +0000

What does it say about us that our 2 daughters have names from that top 10 list?? We always tried to chose something not TOO popular but also not too radical as to cause the kids problems when they’re older. Looks like we erred on the side of popular without realising it. My name is one of those that can be used for males and females and its always annoyed me when people assume I am a man by my name, so I was always going to choose something obviously female (or male if we’d had boys).
In Mexico the tradition with boys is to name the first son after the father, which I always thought would be very confusing, but its so normal for them, its no problem. I guess its another way of carrying on the family name - we know a family where there are generations of males with the same name. One lady I know “broke the rule”, though because she didn’t want to name her son the same as her husband, since his name is Fidel. Bad connotations I guess (depending on your p.o.v.)! Another v. common boys name here is Jesus - a little boy born at 12.05am on Christmas Day here was given that name.