It seems that as we become more advanced that we want to keep our links with the past. It's only when we reflect on events that have happened in the past that we can begin to understand our own identity. There are so many documentaries and programmes on television these days show people how to discover the links with their past by delving through archives, registers and websites like Genes Reunited to enable us to understand how our family tree has affected the person that we are today.
If you bear in mind that surnames are a direct link to our heritage. Surnames are place names, as in "London", occupations like "Carpenter" and "Cooper", nicknames like "White" probably meaning that he didn't have a suntan or "Brown" which probably meant that he did, or the name of a parent, as in "Williamson", meaning that a descendant was son of a man called William. So from my name you can tell that my family once lived in a small district in Lancashire which no longer exists.
Anyway, all of this is interesting because one of my mates from work has changed his surname after possibly years of constant abuse. Can you guess what his ancestors were renowned for if I told you that his surname was Allcock?
I always think it's amusing (partly because I don't have this problem myself) when people have names that are the complete opposite of what they would suggest. If you heard that someone's surname was small you would probably expect them to be slender and petite. If they then turn up and you're faced with a huge monstrosity of a bloke, I'm guessing it's going to be a bit of a shock. It's ironic that Peter Crouch, Liverpool and England striker, is 6 foot 7ish. Can you imagine a man that tall crouching for more than two seconds? He's knees would surely give way!
It's interesting that we attach so much importance to names when in actual fact they pretty much mean nothing at all. Just as Peter Crouch's name might mislead you about his crouching abilities, my Christian name won't convey anything about me as a person. It doesn't tell you about my physical appearance, personality, morals or achievements. So to think that a name change will alter the manner in which we are treated socially could be said to be naive.
It was Juliet who said in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet". Being the argumentative type, I beg to differ. If a rose was called a dog shit then you wouldn't want to smell its aroma. Let alone have a bunch of them perched in a vase in your living room with an over-the-top bow wrapped round them. I certainly wouldn't want to brag to everyone that someone had bought me a dozen dog shits for Valentine's Day. I think I'd settle for a box of chocolates and make sure that I go to the gym afterwards to burn off the extra calories.
It's ridiculous when women refuse to take the name of their new husband. Statistics show that between 16 and 20 thousand pounds is spent on a wedding, a ceremony at which a couple gather together friends and family in order to declare their undying love for one another in life and death but not necessarily to the extent that they would change their surname as the ultimate demonstration of it.
It's as if newly-wedded brides are frightened that a name change, while not only being a potential administrative nightmare, will somehow corrode the very essence of their being and will make them unrecognisable to their family and friend.
Though another reason for not being known by their married name might be because when they divorce their pig-head chauvinistic husband ten months down the line they don't have to pay another £80 to get their passport changed back to their maiden name. Or am I being cynical and unromantic again?
No comments:
Post a Comment