week 14: n
Names, like so many things, have suffered a sea change in the last decade. In the early years of this century the tradition of calling a child after a member of the father's or mother's family was extremely common. This system saved mental effort but was a potential source of much inter-family rivalry.
Things might not have been too bad when people produced enough children to pacify most families, but what would happen in these days of the ''one child, if any'' fashion? Open war. Fortunately, the naming game had become less traditional by the time this trend caught on. The 1960s, renowned for kicking over the traces of conventionality, witnessed a taste for innovation in names that has gone on developing.
Such innovation has gone hand in hand with a change in the nature of our icons. It has been a custom throughout history to name children after the heroic or the famous. Such characters were often of a religious nature. Some were biblical, whether Old Testament, such as Adam, David, Rebecca and Ruth, or New Testament, such as Matthew, Mark, Mary and Martha. Many of them were saints, such as Gregory, Francis, Agnes and Theresa. The secular great tended to be kings, queens or nobles and they, too, influenced the naming of infants. The name Elizabeth gained such popularity in England not directly from the Bible, but from the much admired Tudor queen of the name.
Saints and the royals are old hat now, supplanted by football players, film stars and pop singers. The modern embryo, however, has even greater cause for concern than this. Apparently, it is becoming common to ignore all traditions and simply invent names. Poor children!
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article