Royalty and television top the pops for family names

Press, 21 April 1984, Page 19

Royalty and television top the pops for family names

Various influences react on our choice of names, as CAROLYN DEVERSON reveals in the final article in this series.

Although my survey did not show it, a predominant fashioner of names is the mass media, with television leading the way. Television has what is needed to popularise new names — many people subject to the same force at the same time. Names such as Jason, Samantha, Darren, Nicholas, Natasha, and Gemma have no doubt been helped on their way by television series.

Even so, many series on television do not help to make names popular, and numerous names that do not have these connections. There seems to be no logical reason why Lisa, Tanya, Melanie, Shane, Nigel, and Julian should become fashionable at a certain time.

At most births, parents consider a number of names before making a decision. Sometimes it is just a' matter of preferring one over the others, or of having a more important reason for choosing a particular name. Quite often, though, a name is move actively rejected — it is the choice of the parent or parents, but for some reason it does not fit in with their requirements. The most common reason is that the other spouse, or sometimes another relative, objects to the name. One man wrote succinctly: "Wife wanted Julian; I would not agree. I wanted Eric; she would not agree. We saw the name Anthony at the pictures and both liked it."

This need to compromise was mentioned frequently and was sometimes impossible to achieve so that other solutions had to be taken. One mentioned stabbing the name book; another said the mother named one sex, the father the other.

Children, too, have quite an influence on their siblings’ names. One little girl managed to have Moses omitted from a younger brother’s name; others used their

experiences — of having too short a name, or no second name — to ensure the next child did better, some actually named a later child.

Many people wanted to avoid duplication of some kind, usually of a name used by relatives or friends, though one man said his wife did not want to use her doctor’s name, and a couple of women rejected names that had belonged to their husbands’ past girlfriends. One or two people did not want to use a name they liked from one side of the family to avoid offending the other. Some parents specified that they made sure their children bore different initials, or had turned or changed names to avoid odd initials. (One woman was determined her children would not suffer the teasing she had with her initials of 1.P.). In the country, it is quite important for the purposes of mail that the initials of relatives are not the same, so this was taken into consideration by some correspondents. Occasionally parents resorted to using a name previously rejected. A friend of mine wrote: "Susan had always been popular with Jack and me, but he had a niece named Susan and so we had avoided it before. However, we were getting desperate with daughter number six.”

In other cases something in the name itself was objected to, rather than its associations. Long surnames required short names and vice versa; the meaning of one, Melanie, led to its rejection; difficult pronunciations meant some names were vetoed (Megan and Moireach were two mentioned, as was Lucia).

Worries about short versions and nicknames were strongly felt by quite a number of people, and some names were rejected because of this. They included Margaret, Patricia, Charlotte, and Francesca. Others said they had chosen a name because it could not be shortened. The shortest letter I received said: "I read your letter in the ‘Dominion’ and the reason I named my children was so that they would not have nicknames. Their names are Keith, lan and Kay.” I find it incredible that people can just use one name for a child. I have called my eldest son over 60 nicknames in his 6% years, including Buttons, Joe-pants, Twerps, Tiddies the Brat, Small and Beautiful and Best Boy, as well as several variations of his real name. For all that, the wide world knows him as Roderick or Rod. Some people, too, “see” a name on their child and discover that the child does not fit it once it is born. For some reason Richard is a name that lends itself to this reasoning. Three people said that their baby either did or did not look like a Richard. My own sister’s 11-pounder did not fit her idea of a Matthew, so he became an Angus. Sometimes the associations of a name can be off-putting. A friend of mine was considering Dwayne for a name until her husband said: “Oh yes, pith down the dwayne!!” One woman wrote: “The other kids turned Barnaby into Bumblebee.” The mother of Rosa said that she dreads the thought of a toilet manufacturer bringing out a new product with the trade name Rosa. My own youngest son, Louis, had been named before it occured to

me that he might be called Pooey Louis. (I have noticed that my school-age son tends to pronounce the “s” when he is with his friends). One woman who was regretting a choice said: “We chose Gay to go with Jeanette and... have since had a change of mind and have seriously considered changing it due to the nasty associations the word has today.” I later heard that the daughter herself had changed it to Grace, her grandmother’s name, with the whole-hearted approval of her family. This was a very rare example of someone changing his or her name. Even people given a wrong name by mistake do not generally change it. The illiterate nineteenth century couple who wanted to call their daughter Bonnette Suzanne (i.e. Good Little Suzanne) found her registered as Bonnetta, and Bonnetta is what she and her descendents became. And the girl called Kathleen after a great-grand-mother, who subsequently turned out to be Katherine, called her own daughter Kathleen. One father had called his son Royland in a mistaken attempt at Roland, and the child became known as Roy. One lady, Ethel, was delighted to change to her birth registration name of Christina E. late in life — a surprise discovery. I shall finish with excerpts from two letters I received which summed up some general reasons for choosing or rejecting a name. One said:

“If I didn’t have to consult my husband, name choosing would be much easier. I tend to want to

follow naines from the family so the child has some feeling for the name. However, a lot of the names I like are already taken by the rest of my husband’s family. “Also, reasons for not calling a child a particular name one likes, is that neighbours or others have taken that name — important in the country — or that it doesn’t go with the surname — Richard Pickering is 0.k., but Dick Pick, or Vicky Pickering or Pamela Pickering. I feel that first names are often ones the parents like; second names are family names, as a child is not called by the second name usually.” The other gave the more positive views. 1. Name had to sound “right”/ pleasant to the ear. 2. Had to be acceptable to both parents. 3. Meaning of name considered — needed favourable connotations. 4. Wanted an individual name, not a current popular choice always needing surname identification. (So many of my daughter’s contemporaries were Micheles, Lee-Annes, Donnas or Tanias or Traceys. My son’s were James or Jason.) 5. Wanted (while individual and distinctive) a name the community recognised as a name, and of the appropriate sex — didn’t want the kid to be teased because of parental choice.”

Of course, these concerns are not necessarily those of everyone, but there would be few people looking for names for their new babies who would not have considered at least some of these thoughts. And while children often tend to be critical of their names, by adulthood most of them admit to approving of them. So, presumably, all the care and worry that goes into them must be worthwhile — and certainly gives lots of pleasure to those of us who enjoy observing the process.