I’ve always been slightly jealous of people with unusual names. It’s the sort of envy that happens when you miss out. Which I did, in 1989 when my parents decided to call me Charlotte.
Little did they know it would become the most common name for girls that year. Even in 2016, Charlotte is the third most popular choice, no thanks to the arrival of the latest royal.
You wouldn’t think this would be a problem, but this title has caused ample confusion in my life, particularly as I must compete with two other writers called Charlotte Gill. One sometimes gets my emails and, in such moments, I resent that I was not called Apple, or Princess, or had Frank Zappa for a dad.
They often get mocked these celebrities, for choosing wacky titles for their offspring. Pop singer Kelly Clarkson has been ridiculed this week for naming her son Remington. And yes, Remington is a terrible name, but I think Clarkson’s thought process might not be so terrible: she decided that her child was special and therefore deserved a unique title.
Over the years, I’ve found people’s lack of imagination quite startling when it comes to naming their child. We even censor those who dare to think outside the box with their little ones – take, for example, the judge who ruled this week that a woman could not name her baby girl Cyanide (which I think sounds rather edgy – like a feminist superhero.) She thought it was a ‘lovely, pretty name’ with positive connotations because it was the poison that ended the lives of Hitler and Goebbels.
Often, during pregnancy, couples will play around with different titles for their bump, contemplating exciting options – only to settle on a dull Christian title after the baby is born. ‘We decided to go for a traditional name,’ they’ll tell you, introducing Edward – who, unbeknown to him, will spend the rest of his life being confused with Edward L, Edward N and Edward D.
I understand why people verge on the safe side when it comes to naming their baby. They worry about them being bullied if they turn out to be uncharismatic, weak, or in anyway less dramatic than the name they must live up to. But having gone to school with a Peaches, Hannibal, Storm and Tiger, I can tell you the opposite often happens. The name becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that demands feistiness and grandeur from its owner. Mess with Tiger at school, and she’d bite back.
People can mock celebrities all they want, but their children are having the last laugh. They’ll never have to worry about identifying themselves with an initial, nor if someone else is getting their emails. They will have a sense of individuality that others can only dream of. No one hearing their name will ever offer the default: ‘oh, that’s nice and traditional’ – often code for, ‘yawn’.
Look, I certainly don’t think you should always follow celebrity trends. Goodness knows we’d all die out if we emulated Gwyneth Paltrow’s diet advice. But in this instance, they’ve got it right. We should take inspiration from the A-listers and think more colourfully about our children and what we name them. Having a traditional name is not only dull, but vastly impractical – setting your offspring up for confusion throughout their life. With an original title, you are special from the start.
Comments