Names, names, names, darling! That’s all I’ve been hearing about lately what with New Zealand disallowing new parents to shackle their kids with the likes of Majesty, Justice and Mafia No Fear and Beyoncé naming her new baby girl Blue Ivy (BTW, what’s your bootylicious baby name according to MyDaily? I’m Violet Nancy, just in case you were wondering).
And it’s not just the headlines either. Conversations on the home front have taken a similar twist. No, no, no, there’s no brioche baking in this oven. Our friends, however, have been popping them out like nobody’s business and the naming of progeny has become a popular subject of conversation – from slightly offensive pre-natal soubriquets to trying to deciding that christening your son Tiddlywinks would probably hamstring him later in life (particularly when in the school playground).
Personally, I like the idea of weird and wonderful monikers – perhaps because Kate is so pedestrian (especially now there’s a Royal involved). I do, however, draw the line at fruit (Sorry Gwyneth’s Apple), soft furnishings (Blanket is out) and musical instruments (no offence, Banjo). Place names, however, are a good place start – especially if February’s fashion covers are anything to go by.
In my book, Dakota’s Elle UK cover above trumps Arizona’s Vogue effort below. Is is just me or does Miss Muse look more like a 90s soccer mum than the model-of-the-moment she’s proclaimed to be? Miss Fanning, on the other hand, is not of this world. No one should look that perfect (and I love the Louis Vuitton collar she’s wearing for the subscriber edition).
Covers aside, on the name front it’s a tie. Though I do wonder what would have happened if Arizona or Dakota had be born in Australia. While these US states work a treat, my homeland doesn’t have a lot to offer. Victoria is so last century, but there’s always Tasmania or Northern Territory or Queensland. No? Didn’t think so.
All images © Kate McAuley