Would you judge someone by their name?

Original post by ryan9900

I honestly find this a bit bizarre. It's just a name and in no way does it reflect that individuals background or anything about them. I met a guy last week names Thor. I had to ask twice as it's an usual name but did I think of him any differently? No.

When I see a name, that's it. All I see is a name. I find it impossible to make judgements about someone because of it as I've never met them.

THOR? Lol! Sorry he was probably a nice bloke but what the hell were the parents thinking?

Reply 62

Original post by DErasmus

I judge the parents. Giving a child a certain type of name leads them open to far more prejudice from elitists, if they want top jobs (and I certainly want my children to) having a solid traditional aristocratic name like George, Henry or Charles is certainly a bonus.

These things come in fashions. 30 years ago (before you know who), anyone called Harry was an elderly working class bloke. Georges were younger working class blokes (Best, Harrison, Fame) and Charlies were comics (Chaplin, Drake, Chester).

Reply 63

Original post by OohBurn

Well I think your name deserves an automatic 'aww' with the reason behind your name. It's sweet! But I can understand if others are not so accepting; some people are mean.

India Hicks (the model and Princess Diana's bridesmaid) was named after the country but her grandfather was the Viceroy.

Reply 64

Le Nombre

16

Original post by nulli tertius

These things come in fashions. 30 years ago (before you know who), anyone called Harry was an elderly working class bloke. Georges were younger working class blokes (Best, Harrison, Fame) and Charlies were comics (Chaplin, Drake, Chester).

On the topic of names, nothing beats this guy...

http://www.legalcheek.com/2014/09/9-reasons-why-lord-harley-of-counsel-has-the-best-linkedin-cv-of-any-lawyer-ever/

Reply 65

Original post by DErasmus

THOR? Lol! Sorry he was probably a nice bloke but what the hell were the parents thinking?

Maybe an admirer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl

Reply 66

Original post by nulli tertius

These things come in fashions. 30 years ago (before you know who), anyone called Harry was an elderly working class bloke. Georges were younger working class blokes (Best, Harrison, Fame) and Charlies were comics (Chaplin, Drake, Chester).

True! But these names are the names of many of the Royal Family.

Reply 67

Original post by nulli tertius

Maybe an admirer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl

Maybe. Still a stupid decision given the obscurity and the fact he's from Norway (maybe this is acceptable in Norway).

Reply 68

Original post by DErasmus

Maybe. Still a stupid decision given the obscurity and the fact he's from Norway (maybe this is acceptable in Norway).

Thor Heyerdahl obscure? Do you live under a rock?

Reply 69

Original post by DErasmus

True! But these names are the names of many of the Royal Family.

Can you name me a British royal Henry born between 1594 and 1984

Can you name me a British royal George born between 1902 and 2013?

Can you name me a British non-Jacobite royal Charles born between 1630 and today other than the current Prince of Wales

Reply 70

Original post by nulli tertius

Can you name me a British royal Henry born between 1594 and 1984

Can you name me a British royal George born between 1902 and 2013?

Can you name me a British non-Jacobite royal Charles born between 1630 and today other than the current Prince of Wales

I have a better game, let's not exclude relevant information and lets look at the Parliamentary data in the hansard for people called Crystal and not Henry, Charles, George.

oh would u look at this

http://www.parliament.uk/worksofart/collection-highlights/portraits/19th-century-parliamentarians

aristocrats were usually called Charles, William, George, John etc in England that's 100% fact and none of your sophistry can change that.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 71

Original post by nulli tertius

Thor Heyerdahl obscure? Do you live under a rock?

I have a good idea. Ask 100 people in the street if they have heard of him. He's obscure, he's no household name like Horace or Plato that's for sure.

Reply 72

Entertainment Forum Helper

Original post by DErasmus

err Charles I and Charles II...

Charles II was the one born in 1630. Anyone apart from own dear heir to the throne since?

George IV.

None of them. The previous Duke of Kent was born in 1902, then no-one until George Cambridge.

I couldn't tell you any monarchs named Henry after the period but there have been plenty of aristocrats with the name.

Some but not many.

All these names went deeply out of fashion and are only just coming back into fashion. No George, no Henry and no Charles went either to school with me or was at my college.

In 1964 George was the 54th most popular boy's name (this was the middle of Beetlemania and Best was just emerging). Charles was 56th. Henry didn't make the top hundred.

By 1974, Charles had fallen to 70 and neither George nor Henry were in the top hundred.

In 1996 only 59 children were given the first name George in England and Wales. A child had more chance of being called Zachariah or Jonah than George. That year there were four children called Thor.

Reply 73

Kallisto

22

Original post by eagleclawsan

Is it actually possible not to judge, even a little?

What do you think?

I have no prejudices in terms of the names of people. Befoe I don't know a person, I don't judge someone.

Reply 74