Urgh. Hasn't it just. Everyone calls my dad Jack, but his real name is John, so it's more a nickname for him. I don't know, I just loathe this trend of giving babies nicknames as actual first names.
The worst offenders are the likes of Charlie and Archie. They sound like names you give your cat.
God, I hope not. I couldn't call my children Beverly, Susan, Anthony or Abigail:o
It's not compulsory to call your children whatever is in fashion you know. In fact, you'd probably do them a huge favour by not doing so. However, it sounds like you are the type to be easily influenced by current trends, given your rather over the top reaction.
The worst offenders are the likes of Charlie and Archie. They sound like names you give your cat.
! Mr Lakie's name is Charlie. As were his father's and grandfather's before him.
Mr Lakie didn't follow the tradition and called his son something else. His sister thought this was not on, and called her son Charlie to make up for it.
! Mr Lakie's name is Charlie. As were his father's and grandfather's before him.
Mr Lakie didn't follow the tradition and called his son something else. His sister thought this was not on, and called her son Charlie to make up for it.
Yes, but are the older ones actually really Charles on their birth certificates but just got called Charlie? I have a name that can be shortened to 3 or 4 different options but I'm glad I wasn't given any of them, allowing me to choose whether I had the proper name, or not!
Urgh. Hasn't it just. Everyone calls my dad Jack, but his real name is John, so it's more a nickname for him. I don't know, I just loathe this trend of giving babies nicknames as actual first names.
The worst offenders are the likes of Charlie and Archie. They sound like names you give your cat.
That bugs me too, but for a different reason. Charles and Archibald are perfectly good names, if a little old-fashioned. Call your child Archie by all means, but his birth certificate should have the full name.
It's not compulsory to call your children whatever is in fashion you know. In fact, you'd probably do them a huge favour by not doing so. However, it sounds like you are the type to be easily influenced by current trends, given your rather over the top reaction.
It's always been like that, though. English parents tended to name their children after an older relative, a member of the Royal family (usually the king, his wife or their latest child), fictional character or current trend, or as an act of patriotism.
Susan wasn't a common name until approx. the early Victorian era. There was a spike of babies named Susan during the 1830s, probably because of Douglas Jerrold's popular play, Black-Eyed Susan (Susan is the protagonist's wife). In spite of this, Susan was still an unusual name until approx the 1940s.
Abigail was largely seen as a term for a house servant until Abigail Masham (Baroness Masham), Queen Anne's lady-in-waiting, was publicised in the media during the 18th century. It was an uncommon name then and still an uncommon name now.
Beverly was historically and traditionally a masculine name until it was fashionable to name a female newborn Beverly during maybe the 1950s.
Growing up with an unusual name like Moonlandings, i would recommend any parent to give their child an ordinary name. I've had nothing but teasing all my life.
I have always been very interested in names of children. I put them into three categories:
1) too boring
2)just interesting enough to be individual, but not ludicrous.
3) ludicrous.
I would always go for 2.
If anyone is interested, some examples, In my opinion:
There is a recent new arrival in my extended family................a baby girl who has been named Pixie. It will never be anything other than a stupid name in my opinion. Will be interesting if she or her parents change it to something a little less twee?
That bugs me too, but for a different reason. Charles and Archibald are perfectly good names, if a little old-fashioned. Call your child Archie by all means, but his birth certificate should have the full name.
But hey, that's just me.
Yes, I'm a bit of a stickler for that too.
Then again, Liam is now a perfectly good name in its own right, and it started as a short version of William. Similarly Jack is a name now.
I have always been very interested in names of children. I put them into three categories:
1) too boring
2)just interesting enough to be individual, but not ludicrous.
3) ludicrous.
I would always go for 2.
If anyone is interested, some examples, In my opinion:
That bugs me too, but for a different reason. Charles and Archibald are perfectly good names, if a little old-fashioned. Call your child Archie by all means, but his birth certificate should have the full name.
But hey, that's just me.
This is exactly what I tell people. I HATE nicknames for proper names.
Yes, but are the older ones actually really Charles on their birth certificates but just got called Charlie? I have a name that can be shortened to 3 or 4 different options but I'm glad I wasn't given any of them, allowing me to choose whether I had the proper name, or not!
Yes, the older ones were all "officially" Charles, but no-one ever called them that.
I have a name which has several different short versions. Thankfully, no-one has ever seen fit to call me Fanny.
I saw a woman shouting "Octavius" after her toddler doing a runner yesterday.
Lol.
There was a very badly behaved little boy called Crispian in the pub garden a couple of weeks ago. His pompous father was wearing red trousers, too. They had another one, about 18 months old, asleep in a buggy and the mother appeared to be pregnant.
We spent an amusing few minutes coming up with poncified names for Crispian's siblings, finally settling on Tarquin and Ariadne.
Abigail was largely seen as a term for a house servant until Abigail Masham (Baroness Masham), Queen Anne's lady-in-waiting, was publicised in the media during the 18th century. It was an uncommon name then and still an uncommon name now.
Actually Abigail is an Old Testament name. She became a wife of King David.
That bugs me too, but for a different reason. Charles and Archibald are perfectly good names, if a little old-fashioned. Call your child Archie by all means, but his birth certificate should have the full name.
But hey, that's just me.
Not just you, that's really what I was trying to say too.
Comments
Urgh. Hasn't it just. Everyone calls my dad Jack, but his real name is John, so it's more a nickname for him. I don't know, I just loathe this trend of giving babies nicknames as actual first names.
The worst offenders are the likes of Charlie and Archie. They sound like names you give your cat.
Isn't Galia a variety of melon? Weird choice of name.
It's not compulsory to call your children whatever is in fashion you know. In fact, you'd probably do them a huge favour by not doing so. However, it sounds like you are the type to be easily influenced by current trends, given your rather over the top reaction.
Mr Lakie didn't follow the tradition and called his son something else. His sister thought this was not on, and called her son Charlie to make up for it.
Yes, but are the older ones actually really Charles on their birth certificates but just got called Charlie? I have a name that can be shortened to 3 or 4 different options but I'm glad I wasn't given any of them, allowing me to choose whether I had the proper name, or not!
Not at all. It's a lovely name.
But hey, that's just me.
It's always been like that, though. English parents tended to name their children after an older relative, a member of the Royal family (usually the king, his wife or their latest child), fictional character or current trend, or as an act of patriotism.
Susan wasn't a common name until approx. the early Victorian era. There was a spike of babies named Susan during the 1830s, probably because of Douglas Jerrold's popular play, Black-Eyed Susan (Susan is the protagonist's wife). In spite of this, Susan was still an unusual name until approx the 1940s.
Abigail was largely seen as a term for a house servant until Abigail Masham (Baroness Masham), Queen Anne's lady-in-waiting, was publicised in the media during the 18th century. It was an uncommon name then and still an uncommon name now.
Beverly was historically and traditionally a masculine name until it was fashionable to name a female newborn Beverly during maybe the 1950s.
1) too boring
2)just interesting enough to be individual, but not ludicrous.
3) ludicrous.
I would always go for 2.
If anyone is interested, some examples, In my opinion:
1: Mark, John, James, Richard, Ian, Paul, Brian, David.
2. Oliver, Sam, Ben, Jack, Max.
3. Lucien, Zowie, Rupert, Jovi Bon Jovi.
Whenever I meet a David, I always think 'didn't his parents love him enough to give him his own name?'
Obviously I daren't venture into the girls name category. I went to a girls school.
Yes, I'm a bit of a stickler for that too.
Then again, Liam is now a perfectly good name in its own right, and it started as a short version of William. Similarly Jack is a name now.
I guess we're just old fashioned.
Ivy, Violet, Elsie, Edie..
Zowie Bowie changed his name to Duncan.:D
This is exactly what I tell people. I HATE nicknames for proper names.
Yes, the older ones were all "officially" Charles, but no-one ever called them that.
I have a name which has several different short versions. Thankfully, no-one has ever seen fit to call me Fanny.
I love Ivy. Lovely name.
Lol.
There was a very badly behaved little boy called Crispian in the pub garden a couple of weeks ago. His pompous father was wearing red trousers, too. They had another one, about 18 months old, asleep in a buggy and the mother appeared to be pregnant.
We spent an amusing few minutes coming up with poncified names for Crispian's siblings, finally settling on Tarquin and Ariadne.
Actually Abigail is an Old Testament name. She became a wife of King David.
http://www.behindthename.com/name/abigail
Not just you, that's really what I was trying to say too.