When our youngest granddaughter was born last year, I wouldn’t have guessed her first name was the most popular among newborn girls in the U.S. Olivia is the current front-runner (and Liam for boys), as it has been for the last six years. Emma sits firmly in second place (and Noah) – also on a six-year streak – while Amelia (and Oliver) takes third. It’s nice to see the use of “normal” names in this day and age because you’ve got to admit; some really odd ones float around out there. But there’s another list of baby names you probably don’t know about: the ones you’re not allowed to use.
Two or three generations ago, the topic of baby naming wouldn’t have made for interesting reading. Back then parents defaulted to monikers from their family tree or from the Bible. In the decade of my birth for example (the 1960s), the most popular names for boys were Michael, David, John, and James. Compare those to today’s “trendy” choices: Truce, Colsen, Bryer, and Halo. (Colsen aside, I’d be hard-pressed to guess the gender of any of the others.)
At least Halo is legal. The U.S. Constitution protects a parent’s right to name their child, yet the courts still came up with a not-an-option list. Including the following:
- King
- Queen
- Jesus Christ
- III
- Santa Claus
- Majesty
- Adolph Hitler
- Messiah
- @
- 1069
Right off the bat you can understand why most of these would cause problems. If your baby’s name is “King” I’m looking for his bejeweled crown. If your baby’s name is “Jesus Christ” I’m looking for a crown of a different sort. As for Santa Claus, the courts in Miracle on 34th Street may have determined he and Kris Kringle were one and the same but let’s be honest: Nobody south of the North Pole should be named Santa Claus.
“III” and “1069” require a little more explanation. Both are examples from real court cases where persons decided a numeral or number were preferable to their given name (seriously?) But the courts denied both petitions, deciding numerals and numbers fall more appropriately into the category of “symbol” than “name”. The same can be said of the @ sign, which better belongs in your email address than in your signature block.
U.S. federal guidelines seem sensible enough but the individual states add more rules. Consider New York, where your first name can be no longer than 30 characters, while in Arizona it can be up to 45. Rhode Island won”t allow you to put an accent above any character. In New Mexico you can’t name your baby boy “Baby Boy” (nor your baby girl “Baby Girl”). And in Arkansas you can’t name your child “Test” or “Void” because they wreak havoc with the state computer systems.
The game of the name is not unique to the United States. Indeed, the lists of illegal names in other countries include some really creative ones. Here are my favorites:
- “Thor” – Portugal banned this one but only because they don’t consider Thor to be a word in the Portuguese language.
- “IKEA” or “Ikea” – Banned in Sweden (of course!)
- “Judas”, “Cain”, etc. – Switzerland doesn’t wish to promote the Bible’s bad guys.
- “Fish” and “Chips” – New Zealand decided no child deserves either of these names alongside his or her twin.
- “Spinach” – Australia said no to the green veggie, probably also warning the parents that just because spinach is good for you doesn’t mean your child will also be.
Considering what my granddaughter could’ve been named I’m glad her parents went with Olivia, even if she is one Olivia among many. At least her name need not be contested in court… like the French couple who wanted their child to be named “Nutella” and were promptly denied. They did settle on “Ella” – which is nice enough (and maybe her cutesy nickname will be “Nut”) – but if I were that crazy about Nutella I would’ve just gone with “Hazel”.
Some content sourced from the Parents.com website article, “32 Illegal Baby Names You Might Want To Keep Off Your List”, and Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia”.
Life In A Word 