“NAME THIS CHILD.”

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 272, 24 January 1929, Page 2

“NAME THIS CHILD.”

A LIFETIME’S LABEL. Changing Fashions. “ What’s in a name ? ” “ Lots,” emphatically says the small boy at school whose doubtless well-meaning but obviously - thoughtless parents have christened him Napoleon Sebastian. It would not be so bad if his surname was in keeping with these grandiloquent appellations, but as it happens to be Smith, well—there is nothing more to be said. A boy at school cannot possibly hide his Christian names, and; parents should take this into consideration when deciding the momentous question as to what the latest arrival shall be called. Care, too, should be exercised when it comes to having a girl. If, for instance, she is called Lorraine or Peronne, as some unfortunates have been, the date of her birth is immediately set down beyond any question as somewhere between 1914 and 11918. Hence in 1950 it will be quite useless for Miss Lorraine Jones or for Miss Peronne Brown to confess to only 25 summers, for her name will reveal to anyone capable of doing a simple sum of mental arithmetic that she has seen some °5 of them. "■

Before the proverbial stork sets out on his expected visit there is usually much family speculation and confabulation as to what the little stranger shall be called, with due allowance for the delightful uncertainty as to the sex of the one to be named. Matters are sometimes complicated by the fact that there is a rich uncle or aunt who, with a view to the future, must be placated, and in that case the unfortunate infant subsequently wakes up to the fact that he or she has to go through life bearing such combination names as Clarence Hector Adolphus or Hester Georgina. But often when it comes to naming the baby there is no express need for remembering rich relatives and departed ancestors ; then it is that fancy runs riot, the helpless infant being labelled for life according to the whims of his or her parents. And once done the damage is irrevocable.

There is a fashion in names, especially in girls’ names. When Dickens wrote “ David Copperfield ” he did not know he would make Dora the most popular girl’s name in England. Then came Tennyson’s “ Maud,” and Marie Corelli’s novel “ Thelma ” was responsible for the naming (and subsequent dating) of numbers of the fair sex. The South African War and the Great War were responsible for the names of many boys who had the fortune or misfortune to be born at. that time. French, Roberts, Kitchener, Haig, Beatty and a score or more heronames are now carried by boys and young men who, if they expressed their thoughts aloud, would say that

mother and dad should have had more sense. If an inspection is made of school rolls of the present day much information can be gleaned as to the trend of fashion in names. Cinema ! stars and heroines of well-known novels are leaving their mark on the nomenclature of the rising generation. There are Pearleens and Glorias, not to mention Lora, Susa, Mena and Norleen. Gone apparently are the old-fashioned names like Lucy, Ellen, Martha, Fanny and Tillie, although the Duchess of York has put Elizabeth and Betty into I favour. There are very few Mauds to come into the garden, and one may well echo “ Alice ! where art I thou ? ” At the present time it ' would seem as if Joan is one of the | most popular of girls’ names. ■ As far as boys are concerned the high-sounding aristocratic names of twenty or more years ago have almost disappeared. Percival, Reginald, Adolphus, Horace, Clarence and Lionel will hardly figure at all on any school list, good of 3 Saxon names taking their place. One boy in ten in these days seems to be called John or Jack, William, Robert, James all following close on John’s heels, with Harold, Arthur, Fred, George, Thomas and Alfred following up in the re»r. Albert, Richard, Edward and Charles seem to have gone out of favour of late.

Many parsons can tell of weird and fanciful names which they have been called upon to bestow upon the little bundles of humanity presented to them, names which through a little tactful suggestions on the parsons’ part have ■ in the end not been adopted. One local instance will suffice. “ What are you naming the little girl ? ” asked the officiating minister of the parents just before the ceremony. “ Javelina Olympia,” was the reply, which somewhat staggered the minister. He mildly pro- td tested and asked why such names, A the explanation being elicited that the family had a representative who won a javelin event at the Olympic Games. Tact, however, prevented the life of the infant girl being made miserable by her thoughtless parents, for she was eventually christened Jocelyn Olive, which seemed to satisfy everyone. Biblical names are now quite out of favour. Luke, Matthew and Mark are names seldom bestowed, and even Peters and Pauls are not as common as they used to be. To find an Eve, a Sarah, a Rachel or a Miriam on a school list is uncommon, Ruth, perhaps, being the chief surviving Biblical name for girls, with the exception of Mary.—Evening Post.