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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Inedible

"He says it's inedible" said my front of house manager, as she laid the half-eaten fish and chips in front of me, and instantly I relaxed.  Clearly, I observed, it was edible to some degree. I comped it, because I can't be arsed arguing the toss, and I want to make my front of house's lives as simple as possible. The haddock had been delivered that morning. The fryers had been cleaned that morning. The batter had been made that morning (and it's very good batter, ask me nicely and I'll give you the recipe some time). The fish and chips was identical to the other 27 portions I'd sent out on that lunch service, all of which had come back more or less hoovered up, we have have a (justified, if I do say so myself) very good reputation for our chips. But it was, apparently, "inedible". When it comes to complaints, less is more. If you use a hyperbolic word like that, I'll switch off, you've marked yourself as a rube, a chump, I'm not g...
Post a Comment
Read more

Chop chop

I was completely ignorant of the fuss over the edited Trump speech in an edition of Panorama until, one moment later, I wasn't. And the reasons for my ignorance are instructive. I had no idea that the story was even brewing until the surprise Sunday night news of the resignations of Tom Davie and Deborah Turness. As I'm sure you are by now aware, this was occasioned by a clumsy edit in an old edition of Panorama, which has already been on the iplayer for a year. It's a non-story. Except people decided to make it a story. The reason I'd heard nothing of it until the resignations was that I'm not on X, where, apparently, it was all the media classes had been talking about for a week. It was an obsession of the unholy right-wing trifecta of the Mail, Telegraph and Times (who, given that they sent a bloke just last week to interview the wrong Bill di Blasio, you'd think would wind their necks in over factual inacccuracy). It was big news on GB news, all self-contain...
Post a Comment
Read more

Creepy old men

I note, somewhat wearily, that creepy old men are back in the news, being creepy. Creepy old men, and their apologists and enablers, who argue that their creepiness is somehow the natural order of things. Old men would have you believe that it is difficult to not be a creepy old man. That it is a task of epic proportions. It is not that difficult. It is a matter of intention. As yet more of the grimness of Epstein unfolds, creepy old men are, sadly, a flaccid topic once again. Whether it be pursuing students thirty years their junior, or simply not asking too many questions about the background of the probably legal young woman who you've just been introduced to by your good pal Jeff. To be clear, I am not referring to criminal creepy old men, the ones who actually committed statutory rape, the ones who fucked trafficked hirls. That is not something which is allowed to get away merely with the contempt of the observer.  That deserves prison.  No , I'm referring to the hinterla...
Post a Comment
Read more