Sunday, January 27, 2008


This is just going to be a short post. Because of the subject matter, and because I have been feeling very uninspired with this blog recently, I have a couple of topics on the go (analysis of middle names in Scotland, Iceland and Norway, and something 'Mel' names) but they seem very long, and I have no idea if they would interest anyone.


When choosing a name one should strive for true beauty. I understand that that will be different for everyone. And that is what makes names such a fascinating subject that even if I wouldn't choose say Annabel Mary as my favourite, another may, and for them it is stunning.

However, where should the line be drawn?

Does Jane May have more elegance than Elisabetta Rosemary Evangeline Gracia Lovisa, or is the inclusion of someone's five favourite names more important than two? Is the lustre lost by cramming all five together? (and yes, that is quite an extreme example). Should something that flows be more beautiful than something that stumbles but contains every name one likes? And is Evangeline Rose more simple than Alice Clara Jane though they both contain the same number of syllables?

My feeling is nothing can replace the elegance of simplicity. Not even the most gorgeous name created. Names should be succinct or with a succinct nickname, and should complement one another. So Georgina Hannah is out. The repetition isn't complementing, it's a tongue-twister. Three syllables per name should be a maximum except in certain cases (I barely notice 4 in Cordelia, in Evangeline it's glaring). Two three name names is likely to be too much
(think Isabel Marianne vs Isabel Mary). Think less is more, but do have the bare bones - do include a middle name, and do include options. An Elle may not want to be an Elle forever, but as a Gabrielle, she could shine.