NAMING THE BABY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3769, 8 June 1926, Page 71

NAMING THE BABY.

A christening of unusual note has lately taken place in Britain—that of the infant daughter of the Duke and Duchess of York, whose birth, as that of a possible heiress of the British crown, has aroused special interest. Children of royal descent are always given a long string of names, of which usually only one, and that not always the first, is used, the rest being unknown to the public. Thus not many people know that the full name of our present gracious Queen is Victoria Mary Augusta Louise Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes. It would be an interesting little research into the royal histories of Europe to find why all these names were given. Victoria has been a standing daughter’s name in our royal circle since the accession of the great Queen who bore it, and Princess Mary, who is not burdened with so many names as most princesses, was christened Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary. But naming the baby is a matter of equal personal interest for parents in all ranks of life, snd before the advent of the little stranger, alternative names have commonly been selected to fit son or daughter respectively. Very likely these will be revised before registration or christening : often parents—mothers especially—cannot make up their minds which of many names, or combinations of names, that please them is the best, and sometimes they wish afterwards they had made * different selection. Tho name by which a child is to be known through life is rightly felt to be an important matter for decision. There may bo very much in a name, despite the oft quoted line “What’s in a name,” which of course is not to be taken as signifying either the opinion of Shakespeare himself, or his heroine, Juliet, as to the value of names. An author is is not responsible for the opinions his characters express, and as for Juliet—she felt only too keenly what her lover’s family name meant against their prospects of happiness; she was merely arguing to keep up her spirits, resolving that names and hereditary feuds should not prevail against love. In choosing names, their sound, their significance, and their associations, have all to be considered, and it is most important that the parents should not consider their own preferences merely, but look forward and see what effect the name is likely to have on the child’s future life. It is cruel to inflict upon a child a name ugly or grotesque in sound, or which has onv ludicrous or unpleasant associations attached to it. Often this form of unconscious cruelty is due to the desire to please some relative bearing the undesirable name, or to perpetuate one which has family associations attached to it, blit regard to the child’s feelings and prospects in after life should be the first consideration. In any case the name chosen may not be what the recipient would have preferred; but at least parents may forbear giving a name certain to be disliked. Old Testament names, so favoured in Puritan days, are now unsuitable. A few as Adam, Joseph, Joshua, may pass muster when the bearer is grown up, but a schoolboy would certainly wish he had not been so named, while it would blacken his days to be saddled with the name of Jeremiah or Habukkuk. Fashion changes in names as in other things, and names favoured at one period may be antiquated and unjdeasant sounding a couple of generations later. A girl now, would probably feel that she grudge against her parents for having been christened Matilda, Eliza, or Amelia, popular as all these names were a hundred years ago or less, and her resentment would be deeper if she were given a?, old-fashioned combination like Matilda-Jane, or Susan-Eliza. While fashions change, there are a few names perennial in favour,'notably Mary for girls, and John for boys. Mary has been given new prestige and favour by its being the name of our gracious Queen and the popular Princess Royal. In a little book on Christian names published during the reign of King Edward, Mary heads a list of the most popular, according to an investigation made in England and Wales. The calculation showed that in 100,000 children the name of Mary occurred 0819 times. William and John came next, both occurring more than GOOO times, while Elizabeth followed at a considerable interval, accounting, for 4617 choices. It is rathef surprising to find Edward at the bottom of the list of 25 names given, appearing only 117 times in the total of 100.000. A calculation made to-day would doubtless show some difference in names favoured, but one may feel assured that Mary will still be to the front. And in Scotland and Ireland respectively there would be considerable difference. Popularity of names varies with social class, and a name established in family history tends to be repeated in that particular circle, though it may be little used out of it. Penelope and Cynthia are aristocratic names. But of late in upper class society there lias been a preference for plain, old-fashioned names, while in the poorest classes highsounding and fanciful names are favoured, slum children answering to such names as Daphne, Irene, Ethelherta. There is a hint of pathos in this incongruity, betokening a feeling after beauty, a sense of something remote from the sordid surroundings in which the child’s lot cast. It is not easy to see why well-sounding names with no unpleasant associations grow unpopular, and perhaps become obsolete. Girls’ names, I think, show the greatest fluctuations in popularity, just as fashions affect feminine dress more than masculine. With names as with clothes and ways of doing the hair it is the same. Something starts a fashion, it is followed for a longer or shorter

time; then a craving for something new is felt, and what was lately favoured is out of date, old fashioned, dowdy, and to be despised. While many old English girls’ names as Joan, Jocelyn, Nancy, and Betty are enjoying a new lease of favour, others are left out in the cold. There are Cicely, Blanche, and Sylvia* names once for lon w high in favour, but now very seldom met with. English history and the alliances of sovereigns have had a good deal to do with the vogue of soqie feminine names. Blanche was a favourite French name, and in its form “Bianca” equally favoured in Italy and Spain, and thus inter-mar-riages of English princes and nobles with foreign brides introduced the name into England. Charlotte and Caroline again won their long vogue in England through their frequent use in the German royal houses, where our Hanoverian sovereigns sought brides. A vogue was given to Danish names by the marriage of the English heir apparent to a Danish princess—the late beloved Alexandra.

Children are frequently named after some notable event occurring about the time of their birth—an unwise practice, as it dates their ages. Many women named Alma after the famous battle in the Crimean War must have wislic their parents had not chosen to show their patriotism in that particular way. However, Alma is a name well deserving popularity if no battle of that name had been fought; agreeable in sound and satisfying in meaning, for it signifies fair, good, beloved. “Jubilee,” on the other hand, is obtrusively odd, but many * ildren have been so named in the two jubilee years of Queen Victoria, and perhaps at the lime of other jumlee .commemorations. In the Boer War period many children were saddled with strange names in commemoration of some success, while some boy babies got off easily in being given the names of Roberts. French, and Kitchener, perhaps as secondary names

Many proud parents name their sons after some admired great man, but this practice has its drawbacks. A name may be an inspiration, but on the other hand the contrast between the namesake and the illustrious person he is named after may invite ridicule. When a famous name is also a common one, as Nelson, this objection has little weight. One thing to guard against in choosing Christian names is an undesirable combination of initials. This is particularly important in the case of boys, as they are more liable to be made the butt of their schoolfellows’ wit than girls are. The late Sir Arthur Sullivan was christened Arthur Seymour 'liiivan. Naturally, when grown up, lie dropped tb- middle name, after having ei.dured considerable vexation from this objectionable combination of initials in his school days, no doubt. Anything tending to invite ridicule should be guarded against; high-flown, pedantic, or dandified names are a handicap to a boy. And for girls, too, it is unwise to choose very fanciful, poetical, or high-sounding names. Mothers are inclined, i think, to give their fancy freer range in choosing names for tlieir daughters tnan for their sons, in naming whom family connections and practical suitability are kept more in view. Naturally mothers may desire a name for tlieir little daughter that is both pretty and uncommon. But if it have very exacting associations in the way of beauty or other distinction, it is preferable to keep it for a second name that the girl may bring into use later if she likes, and to give as first name something that will be appropriate whatever the girl be like, and moreover, suitable through life. Many feminine names are suitable for a pretty young girl, but not for a mature and perhaps unattractive woman. This is the case with many flower names, but the range of flower names is smaller than one might expect. Rose, one of the most obvious, one would think, is not much used nowadays. Its Greek equivalent, Rhoda, should be a favourite; and also lanthe, the Greek equivalent of Violet. Not very many precious stones have lent their names to girls, and indeed not many of them bear names that would sound well. Ruby is* or was, a very favourite girl’s name; there are plenty of middle-aged Rubies, and also Pearls. Diamond is certainly most undesirable as a girl’s name, but it was given to a good many girls born in Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee year, while some poor infants were saddled with the double atrocity, “Diamond •Jubilee.” Then the significance of the name should be studied. Some well-sounding names have unattractive meanings Thus, Ursula means a female bear. But the name owes its long popularity to the fact that it was borne by a famous saint of early days, and so its unpleasing significance has been lost sight of. Cecil, and its feminine variations, Cecilia and Cicely, signify blind or dimsighted. When a name has gathered good associations it may not be of much consequence that the original meaning is trivial or unpleasant. But as a general principle it is well that the meaning of a name be good, and in accord with what parents would desire their little one to be in future life. Finally, Christian names should be chosen so as to accord fairly with the surname.