Skip to main content

The death of Nigel

Stop all the clocks and what have you, for there are no more Nigels. Nigels are extinct.

Yes, it's that time of year again, when The Office for National Statistics releases the list of baby names from the previous year, and there was apparently not a single* Nigel born. 64 boys called Cai, 189 Kylos, not a Nigel to be seen anywhere. There were no fewer than 747 iterations of the name Kaden / Kaiden / Caydon / Cadan, etc, but of Nigels there was nary a hint. 

Now, the name Nigel is, I grant you, one of the less-storied monickers, having been dragged through the muck recently by the odious Farage. And it's an interesting question as to how the old frog-mouthed racist might have put off a few havering over their baby names. But to men of my generation, A Nigel could at least point to the charm of Havers, the sporting prowess of Mansell, and while chess grandmaster Short perhaps played up to the Nigel stereotype a little too closely, Nigels of an indie-rock bent could at least point out that XTC were making plans for them. It's disappearance is indicative of a wider trend in baby-naming, which seems to get more and more individualised with each passing year (though parents of a new-minted Jaxson-James may have been disturbed to hear that their bundle of joy had another nine of his ilk dotted about the country).

Now this sort of thing leads to a wailing and a gnashing of teeth in certain quarters, what's wrong with the old name? bewail traditionalists. What's wrong with Trevor? (8) or Gordon? (7), why are there 326 Roccos? Personally, I don't give a monkeys. Having been married to a primary school teacher for fifteen years I long ago became inured to the surprise potential of baby names, once you've heard of a kid called FoxAxl**, nothing surprises you any more.

The trend continues over with the girls, where Carol has gone the way of all flesh, hanging perilously are Sally (17) and Susan (a precarious 13 for perhaps the most eminently sensible name of all). I'd hazard a guess that with it's current unpleasant connotations, Karen might be headed for the exit too, which is a shame, as all the Karens I've known (with the exception of one, perhaps) have been splendid people. The distaff equivalent of the ubiquitous Kaydens is variations on "Something-Rose". Ivy-Rose leads the charge, hoovering up the bulk of something-roses at 202, but there are multiple Peyton-Roses and Raven-Roses knocking around the place. And why not?

There's often a slight sniffiness around the baby names list, which, lets face it, is an ugly, classist, look. Calling your little one Gracie-Mae is absolutely as valid as going with Imogen, and people need to stop getting het up about it. I tend towards the view that plurality is a grand thing, though I do fear for a generation of Caydens who find people automatically spell their name with a K. And at the very very top, it's still business as usual, as we continue to be a nation of Olivers and Olivias, Williams and Thomases, Chloes and Sophies. Though who is to say what will happen to them over the next few years? I suspect there will always be Daves, though.

As to why this should be, well, things change, don't they? That's the nature of things, the Richards quietly disappear, the Beaus (419? Really?) gain ascendancy. Circle of life. Probably in about thirty odd years time a generation of young parents will spawn a load of Janices and Keiths, explaining that they "really like the old names". And I am in no position to criticise, I've got a son called Albert. To my mild surprise (and chagrin, in the case of my middle one) all three of my boys names are firmly top 100, which just goes to show that if you're truly wedded to the idea of an original baby name, you'd better be prepared to start throwing x's k's and hyphens around. The way I figured it, with my surname they already had a head-start.

*NB there may have been one or two, ONS refuses to release data for children where there are fewer than three instances of the name, for data protection purposes.

** Parents were GnR and X-files fans, apparently. Best part is his brother's called Phil.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The last day of the county season

 Look, I never claimed to be cool. As a a cliched middle aged male, I have a number of interests which, if not exactly niche, are perhaps not freighted with glamour. Not exactly ones to set the heart racing. I yearn not for wakeboarding, my cocaine with minor celebrities days are well and truly behind me, you are unlikely to catch me writing graffiti under a motorway bridge. I do cycle, but only as a way of getting from point A to point B, you are unlikely, you will be relieved to hear, to see me purchasing lycra and or/doing triathlons. I like going for a nice walk. I'm fond of a good book. I have a deep attachment to county cricket. Yes, that's right, county, not even the international stuff which briefly captures the nation's fleeting attention once in a blue moon. County cricket. Somerset CCC to be precise, though I'll watch / listen to any of it. The unpopular part of an unpopular sport. Well, that's the public perception, the much maligned two men and a dog. N...

D-Day Dos and Don'ts for Dunces

Oh Rishi. Lad.  You have, by now, almost certainly become aware of the Prime Minister(for the time being)'s latest gaffe, as he returned home early from D-Day commemoration events in France, in order to "concentrate on an interview" which, as it turns out was already pre-recorded. There's been a fair bit of outrage, the word "disrespectful" is being bandied about a lot.  The word I'd use is "stupid". It is often said of the Brits that we have no religion but that the NHS is the closest thing we have to one. This, I think, is incorrect, because the fetishisation of WWII is to my mind, far closer to being our object of national veneration.  I understand why, last time we were relevant, fairly straightforwardly evil oppo, quite nice to be the good guys for a change, I absolutely get why the British public worship at the altar of a conflict which, I note, was a very long time ago. I think it's a bit daft, personally, but I understand it. So you...

The three most tedious food debates on the internet.

 I very much only have myself to blame. One of the less heralded aspects of running a business is that one is, regrettably, obliged to maintain a social media presence, it's just expected. And, if I have to do it, I'm going to do it very much in my own voice, as I don't tend to have time to stop and think when I'm bunging something on Insta. It seems to have worked okay so far. But, as a man better versed on the online world than he would prefer, I should have known better than to stick up a picture of our bread rolls, fresh out of the oven. In my defence, I did preface said picture by saying "one of the most tedious debates on the internet is what these are called...". Doubtless you've seen the argument somewhere, it's one of the workaday tropes that shithouse FB pages use to drive engagement. Need a few thousand clicks to raise the profile of your godawful local radio station/page about how everything was better in the past/shelter for confused cats?...