Monday, 18 April 2016
The importance of family names
When I had my children, the thought never entered my mind to name them after their grandparents or other ancestors. As young people, we tend to consider our parents' names 'old-fashioned' and aim to give our own children something contemporary or popular.
But I'm talking about family names here - surnames. When my children were born, I had no real interest in family history and knew nothing of my ancestors beyond my grandparents. I did know my maternal grandmother had the same first and middle names as her mother, and that her first name is my mother’s middle name. I also knew my paternal grandmother had the middle name Guthrie and as a kid I thought it odd, a girl having a name like that. It never occurred to me it was a family name but then again I didn’t dwell on it.
Margaret Guthrie Kidd was named for her great-grandmother, Margaret Guthrie; I know that now. She was born in New Zealand to a Scottish father and a New Zealand-born daughter of Scottish immigrants. The Scots had the right idea. Time and again I’ve seen maiden names as middle names.
I constantly drop family information into conversations I have with family; I can’t help it. My kids aren’t really interested – as I wasn’t – but I’m hoping some of it will sink in. When my brother’s partner was pregnant, I suggested they think of giving the baby a family name as a middle name, as I regretted not doing so with mine. Their child now carries a maternal family name as a middle name.
One of my grandchildren has a grandmother’s maiden name as a middle name. Another grandchild’s middle name is a blend of my first name and the first name of a great-grandfather. When she grows up she’ll wonder at that name and I hope be proud she carries something of me.
I want to tell people: honour your ancestors by remembering them. If you’re a female, don’t let your female family names disappear. Consider giving a child your maiden name as a middle or even first name; give a child a family name that belonged to a great or great-great-grandparent.
One day that child will grow up. One day that child will think about their names and wonder why they were chosen or created. One day they will be proud to carry the name of an ancestor.
But I'm talking about family names here - surnames. When my children were born, I had no real interest in family history and knew nothing of my ancestors beyond my grandparents. I did know my maternal grandmother had the same first and middle names as her mother, and that her first name is my mother’s middle name. I also knew my paternal grandmother had the middle name Guthrie and as a kid I thought it odd, a girl having a name like that. It never occurred to me it was a family name but then again I didn’t dwell on it.
Margaret Guthrie Kidd was named for her great-grandmother, Margaret Guthrie; I know that now. She was born in New Zealand to a Scottish father and a New Zealand-born daughter of Scottish immigrants. The Scots had the right idea. Time and again I’ve seen maiden names as middle names.
I constantly drop family information into conversations I have with family; I can’t help it. My kids aren’t really interested – as I wasn’t – but I’m hoping some of it will sink in. When my brother’s partner was pregnant, I suggested they think of giving the baby a family name as a middle name, as I regretted not doing so with mine. Their child now carries a maternal family name as a middle name.
One of my grandchildren has a grandmother’s maiden name as a middle name. Another grandchild’s middle name is a blend of my first name and the first name of a great-grandfather. When she grows up she’ll wonder at that name and I hope be proud she carries something of me.
I want to tell people: honour your ancestors by remembering them. If you’re a female, don’t let your female family names disappear. Consider giving a child your maiden name as a middle or even first name; give a child a family name that belonged to a great or great-great-grandparent.
One day that child will grow up. One day that child will think about their names and wonder why they were chosen or created. One day they will be proud to carry the name of an ancestor.
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Does loyalty count for nothing?
With the impending changes to British laws and the repercussions for Kiwis on their OEs, is it time to re-think our relationship with Britain? With the bias against Kiwis in Australia, is it time to re-evaluate our relationship with our nearest neighbour? Does loyalty count for nothing now? Are we just "too soft" when it comes to our relationships with our "sister" countries?
Debate rages presently about changing our country's flag. Next month we will choose to either adopt the new design or retain the current flag. The only difference really, is replacement of the Union Jack with the silver fern. We appear to like the blue representing the southern ocean and the stars representing the Southern Cross - we all seem to relate to them. The debate appears to be over having the Union Jack as part of our flag. None of the options selected for a new flag included it. Yes, we have a colonial history and many if not most of us have English, Welsh, Scots and/or Irish blood - but no, we are not British. Yes, we have genes, language, laws, structure and history in common - but no, we are not British.
What have we done to deserve this shoddy treatment by Britain? Was standing in front, behind and side by side through two world wars not loyal? It was happy then to consider us "one of them". Does Britain now consider us too much removed to be considered related? If so, why should we retain their flag as part of ours?
BUT - We may not be British but Britain is part of us, like it or not. I for one wouldn't exist but for my British ancestors, hardy immigrants all of them. Perhaps those immigrants were different, not like the average Brit. Maybe they were ready to cut ties.
Kiwis in Australia get a rough deal compared with other immigrants. Big sister Australia likes to belittle and ridicule little Aotearoa. Australians in New Zealand are treated much better. Once again, we show a loyalty to our shared history and genes, a loyalty not reciprocated.
Are we scared to stand on our own, is that why there's fear about letting go of some of our past? Loyalty appears to count for nothing, so maybe we have nothing to lose.
Debate rages presently about changing our country's flag. Next month we will choose to either adopt the new design or retain the current flag. The only difference really, is replacement of the Union Jack with the silver fern. We appear to like the blue representing the southern ocean and the stars representing the Southern Cross - we all seem to relate to them. The debate appears to be over having the Union Jack as part of our flag. None of the options selected for a new flag included it. Yes, we have a colonial history and many if not most of us have English, Welsh, Scots and/or Irish blood - but no, we are not British. Yes, we have genes, language, laws, structure and history in common - but no, we are not British.
What have we done to deserve this shoddy treatment by Britain? Was standing in front, behind and side by side through two world wars not loyal? It was happy then to consider us "one of them". Does Britain now consider us too much removed to be considered related? If so, why should we retain their flag as part of ours?
BUT - We may not be British but Britain is part of us, like it or not. I for one wouldn't exist but for my British ancestors, hardy immigrants all of them. Perhaps those immigrants were different, not like the average Brit. Maybe they were ready to cut ties.
Kiwis in Australia get a rough deal compared with other immigrants. Big sister Australia likes to belittle and ridicule little Aotearoa. Australians in New Zealand are treated much better. Once again, we show a loyalty to our shared history and genes, a loyalty not reciprocated.
Are we scared to stand on our own, is that why there's fear about letting go of some of our past? Loyalty appears to count for nothing, so maybe we have nothing to lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)