I know a lot of parents who use their favourite authors, musicians, places as their children’s namesakes.
I have seen people making comments of how that is a very self-centered reason of naming a child, since the child themselves may not care at all for their namesake, not to mention that sometimes the name itself is not everyone’s cup of tea.
Thoughts?
I have always disagreed with people who has said this. I mean, as long as the namesake is actually usable or isn’t in the fn position. I have Galilei (after [name]Galileo[/name], which I think is a beautiful name for a boy) as a mn favourite for a girl, which would be ridiculous as a fn, but in the middle sounds pretty, and even then I wouldn’t call the parent self-centred I would call them stupid. The only way a name could be considered egotistical is if they named the kid something for personal gain, like if someone offered them $50 to name their kid [name]Larry[/name] or what have you.
If say…a baby was conceived in Aruba, so the parents name the child Aruba, then yeah that’s not putting the baby’s potential feelings of his or her name very high on the priority list. I wouldn’t call it egotistical though, I would just call it dumb. No one wants a crazy name like that, but if it’s a reasonable name that was given because of personal interest then it’s fine. My mother likes [name]Emily[/name] [name]Dickinson[/name], so I was named [name]Emily[/name], nothing wrong with that. [name]Emily[/name] always just felt like a blah name to me, just a name, never really liking it or hating it one way or the other. After I was told how my mom came up with the idea for [name]Emily[/name], I started to like my name better because I felt like it had a background, some substance, a meaning. So it’s not always a bad thing.
We really all have egotistical reasons for naming our child whatever we choose. We think about what we like right here and now, not what will be considered cool and awesome in 20 years. Well I know some do, but not most of us.
I think it just depends how far you take it. I think calling a baby [name]William[/name] (for example) after [name]William[/name] [name]Shakespeare[/name] is totally fine. But calling him [name]William[/name] [name]Shakespeare[/name] (fn and mn) might be a little unfair.
I think it’s fine. It shows that there was thought and consideration and feeling behind the choice of the child’s name. I agree with eskay that you can take it too far. I used to live next door to an older gentleman whose name was [name]Napoleon[/name] Bonaparte Lastname, who of course only ever introduced himself as [name]Nap[/name] because he was embarrassed by his namesake. Or I wouldn’t want to be named [name]Adolf[/name] Hitler like that family in the midwest who had their kids taken away. But I don’t think being named [name]Taylor[/name] because your parents loved [name]James[/name] [name]Taylor[/name], or having the middle name of [name]Monet[/name] because of your dad’s favorite painter, is a bad thing.
What some people see as egotistical others see as giving the name meaning and significance. I was named [name]Chelsea[/name] after the area in [name]London[/name] where my parents lived because just after I was born they were set to leave the UK and weren’t sure they would ever return. To them the name bestowed on me something about my roots and heritage and also gave them an anchor to a lot of fond memories. I’ve had a lot of negative as well as positive feelings towards my name, but the importance and significance that it had to my mother in particular and so the reasons why she chose it have always made me realize that my name is something more to her than just a name out of a book that she liked the sound of at least and I think that is a positive thing.
An egoistic reason to me would just have to involve money. Like having someone pay you to name your kid that. I mean isn’t the fact that we are choosing the child’s name kind of “egoistic” because the child really doesn’t have a say…
My mom wanted to name me [name]Diamond[/name] [name]Rose[/name] because she loves Diamonds and she loves Roses. Thankfully my dad saved me from name calling and teasing by offering [name]Diana[/name] [name]Rose[/name] instead. So yes, maybe it is a little “egoistic” because she loved those things and wanted me to be named after them, but at least now I have a fun story I can tell whenever someone asks how did you parents pick your name.
My sister on the other hand lacks a story because her name was just picked because they liked it. It seems less “special.”
I dont see how there ISNT an egoist element when naming a child. The name is partially a reflection of the parents so most people are going to put a lot of thought and time into naming their child something that means something special to them. Yes some people want to impress which I think is silly but to each their own.
The only time I think its a bad thing (because ego isnt all bad). is when parents come up with a name that for whatever reason 99 out of 100 people could tell them there is a good reason to avoid using the name but they do it anyways. If that many people can raise a red flag there’s probably a chance your child will be embarrassed by their name at some point.
I think it depends on the name and why it was chosen.
I HATE when parents name their child to make some kind of intense political statement and the parents clearly don’t respect the child. The case of a young [name]Adolf[/name] Hitler recently where a bakery refused to make him a birthday cake. I think this was selfish of the parents to use their kid as a form of rebellion in society, but not necessarily egotistical.
Egotistical, I think is more along the lines of [name]George[/name] Foreman’s children who are all named after him.
I’m not sure the average honouring name for a parent’s interest would be egotistical… if it is, then I’m totally falling in to that category. I definitely want to use [name]Amparo[/name] as a middle name for a girl because I used to live in the Valencian Community in Spain and it’s an important place to me, and I’d like to share that with my child(ren). I’d also really like to use a Basque name because that’s where I live now and it’s been a special, life-changing time for me here.
My legal name has absolutely no meaning to my parents, other than “We liked something else but already knew someone with that name, so we took a letter off… and we thought the middle name sounded fine”. If they’d named me [name]Gladys[/name] after a relative, or my mom’s maiden name as a first name, or even something like the name of a mountain they walked up when they were expecting me or after a [name]Bob[/name] [name]Dylan[/name] song they live, I’d probably have felt a lot more connected to my legal name. Since that isn’t the case, I’ve always felt completely unattached to my legal name and have gone by a different name since I was 10 years old.
I would have to agree that egotistical is naming all of your kids [name]George[/name], even the girl. [name]One[/name] of my old employers had two sons, by two different mothers, and they were both “juniors”. That’s egotistical.
Wanting to have your child have a connection to their name, through family or stories or places, I don’t know how that could be considered egotistical. I think most parents want to anchor their children in some way. Naming is one way to do just that.
My children have family names and are named after my grandparents and great-grandparents, all of whom I knew and admired, and so wanted to pass down that feeling of joy and love to them. There have been times when my daughter didn’t like the name [name]Louisa[/name], or my son would have rather been an [name]Alexander[/name] than a [name]Thomas[/name], but as they are now adults they both appreciate the fact that they are carrying on names of people who were special in our family.
The only egoistical thing in naming a child is chosing a name that has a big possibility of making the kids life harder. For instance I once read a post about a mum who wanted to name her boy Habakuk. Everyone told her that it really isn’t a pretty name, that the kid will probably be teased (in some areas in our country “Habakuk” is used as a word vor “nonsense”). She got kind of defensive though everyone told their criticism in a “nice” way and said that she might name a future son that anyway cause it is the parents decision. I think that would be egoistical because in that way you’re not thinking about the kid but about you wanting a unique name.
THIS When you choose your child’s name you are revealing your hopes for them, your idea of yourself, ect
Is it egotistical to gift a child with a name that has special meaning to the parent instead of just slapping on a random name that sounds good at the moment? Absolutely not. I can’t imagine why anyone would think so.
100%.
I think a lot of parents don’t really consider how a child in this day and age might feel carrying a name that they love. I mean, I may love the name…[name]Antigone[/name] to death, but in reality, I know a child in my city, in this day and age, would likely hate having a name like that. I always try looking at it from a child’s point of view.
It’s not yourself you’re naming, it’s another human being, and it’s their name their carrying for life. [name]Just[/name] because the parents love the name [name]Pilot[/name] Inspektor, doesn’t mean the child will be thanking them for it.
I mean look at [name]Michael[/name] [name]Jackson[/name]'s son, Blanket. [name]Every[/name] photo I see of the kid, he looks miserable. I’m not saying it’s a fact, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s miserable over being called Blanket all the time. [name]Imagine[/name] the teasing.
Namesakes are usually alright though. Rarely would I say it’s self-centered.
Blanket is his nickname not his real name.
I disagree that it is egotistical. I mean, how is that different than naming a child after their grandfather, a heroic friend, etc? I mean the reality is, you need to/should name your child something you like. Looking to favorite characters and inspirations that you already like is a good start and makes for a positive name story for the child. Or another way to say it: Choosing to name a child after someone isn’t the same as pressuring your child to be that person.
Depending on the name the answer to this is easily yes. [name]Case[/name] in point: the parents who named their kid [name]Adolph[/name] hitler, I really don’t know why it’s so hard for you to imagine.
The way I see it, it’s up to YOU to name your child. [name]Even[/name] if you don’t use a name sake, the child still may not like his/her name. We’ve always named our children, since forever… So, it’s up to what you want to name them, not what they want to be named. There’s really no way to go about naming a child that isn’t egotistical (even if you’re not using a namesake) unless you wait until the child is old enough to name him/herself. Naming a child after an artist/musician etc. is really no worse than naming your child a name you just like. YOU like the artist/musician and it’s YOUR child. I don’t see why anyone would be against it.
That’s a stupid thing to do, but it’s not egotistical. Egotistical means that one has an inflated sense of their own importance. George Foreman naming all of his children after himself (Georgetta, Freeda George, George III, George IV, etc.) is egotistical. So not the same thing at all.
No, I don’t think its egotistical at all.