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

A whole new world.

I appear to have moved into the pub. Now, I don't wish to give the impression that this has come as a complete surprise to me, we'be been planning to do so since shortly after I bought it, but still, it's sort of snuck up on me and now I'm waking up and thinking what happened? How come I'm here? The reason for this discombobulation is that this move was initially a temporary measure. Mrs Coastalblog had some relatives coming to stay, and it made sense to put them up in our house while we decamped to the flat. It's still a work in progress, but a mad week of cleaning and carting stuff around made it habitable. I had a suspicion that once we were in we'd be back and forth for a few weeks. As with many of my hunches, I was completely and utterly wrong. As it turned out, once we were here, we were here. Things moved at pace and, now our kitchen appliances have been installed, there's no going back, the old house is unusable. It's left me with slightly mi

Mad Dogs and Immigration Ministers

It is with no small degree of distress that I'm afraid to say I've been thinking about Robert Jenrick. I know, I know, in this beautiful world with its myriad of wonders, thetre are many other things about which I could think, the play of sunlight upon dappled water, the laughter of my children, the song thrush calling from the sycamore tree a few yards away from where I type this. Yet the shiny, faintly porcine features of the Minister for Immigration keep bubbling up into my consciousness. It's a pain in the arse, I tell you. A few years ago on here I wrote a piece entitled The cruelty is the point in which I argued that some policies are cruelty simply for the sake of it, pour decourager les autres . I was reminded of that recently when I listened to Jenrick defending his unpleasant, petty decision to order murals at a migrant children's centre to be painted over. You've probably heard the story already; deeming pictures of cartoon characters "too welcoming&

20

Huh. It turns out that this blog is, as of, well, roughly about now-ish, 20 years old. 20. I've been doing this (very intermittently) for twenty bloody years. And, I cannot help but note, still am, for some reason. I've done posts in the past, when this whole thing was comparatively blemish free and dewy-skinned looking back on its history and how it's changed down the years, there's not really a lot of point in doing that again. It's reflected what concerns me at the time, is, I think, the most charitable way of phrasing it (a  polite way of saying that it's been self-absorbed and solipsistic, but then, it's a blog, this should not come as a shock), it's interesting for me to look back over the lists of posts, but not so much for you, I imagine. Likewise, pondering how I've changed in the intervening years is also fairly pointless. It's painfully obvious that I was a very different person at 25 to 45, my experience of jobs and kids and marriage