Camden and Trenton, Too!
What Posh and Becks hath wrought . . . parents naming their children “Brooklyn”:
An astounding 3,211 kiddies were named for Kings County in 2004, making it the 101st most popular name in the country.
“We thought it was pretty,” said nursing aide Lynn Wattier, who lives in O’Neill, Neb., population 3,733.
She named her daughter Brooklyn, even though she’s never visited the borough.
“My husband was afraid when she got older people would ask, ‘You got named after a bridge?’ But we didn’t care. We like it anyway,” Wattier said.
Amazingly, improbably, the name “Brooklyn” was the eighth most popular name in baby-lush Utah (and Utah has a higher birth rate than Bangladesh!):
The Social Security Administration compiles the top baby names every year. In Utah, Brooklyn hit No. 8 on the charts, beating out Elizabeth, Sarah and Ashley. In Ohio, 203 baby girls were named Brooklyn.
Although David and Victoria Beckham named their Brooklyn after the borough in which she was conceived (Where? Bay Ridge? East New York?), most who name their children after the country’s fourth largest city have never visited and indeed just like the way the name sounds:
“Some people may be naming their kids Brooklyn because they love the place,” said baby name expert Pam Satran, who wrote “Cool Names.”
“But Camden and Trenton are really popular names, and I don’t think too many people are doing that because they love the place,” she said. “People just like the way it sounds.” Denny and Pamela Barton of Des Moines were ahead of the trend when they named their daughter Brooklyn 16 years ago.
“We read in a magazine that Donna Summer had named her daughter Brook Lyn,” Pamela said. “Teachers always tried to shorten it. She always had to say, ‘Don’t call me Brook.'”
Some parents prefer a more genteel “Brooklynn” – which ranked as the 346th most popular name last year, with 910 baby Brooklynn girls.
“It’s a great name,” beamed Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. “It’s a classy name.”
Camden and Trenton, too! Teaneck can’t be far behind . . .
Posted: May 20th, 2005 | Filed under: Cultural-Anthropological