Another offering from the infamous letters of 1892 in The Standard:
|
|
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD
SIR, — Referring to the letters on this subject, I may mention an instance that occurred here some years ago.
A child (a girl) was brought for baptism to my grandfather. When asked the name, the parent, to his surprise, replied "Emdiella." "There is no such name," said my grandfather. "Oh, yes sir, there is; we saw it in a book," replied the woman. My grandfather at the time did not like to enquire further, but it turned out that she had found in an old grammar the four liquid letters, L.M.N.R., and had confused them into M.D.L.R. The child was, however, christened "Emdiella."
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
F. G. H.
Castle Acre, Norfolk, April 10.
The Standard
(London), April 12, 1892
|
.d
So, of course I checked. An "Emdieler" was registered on the Birth Index in Castle Acre in 1852. She is recorded as "Emdeeler" on her marriage and death entry, but often simply as "Emma" on census records.
As my father (a proud Norfolkman) says, that's pretty Normal for Norfolk. And just to see if he's right, here is another letter, from the same set, sent from Norfolk.
|
|
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD
SIR, — In this town there is an innkeeper who rejoices in the baptismal name of "Mahershalalhashbaz" (see Isaiah 8,i). I should think this is unique. He is commonly called "Maher," but in the parochial and other lists the full name appears.
Report says (but I will not vouch for its truth) that his father wished him to be named "Uz," but on the clergyman remonstrating he immediately said "Then we will have the other," and produced from his pocket a slip of paper with the longer name.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
W.
E. Dereham, Norfolk, April 8.
The Standard
(London), April 11, 1892
|
Incidentally, W. supposes wrong. I have come across Mahershalalhashbaz a few times while trawling though Norfolk baptism records.
'Twas Ever Thus...
Another offering from the infamous letters of 1892 in The Standard:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD
SIR, — Referring to the letters on this subject, I may mention an instance that occurred here some years ago.
A child (a girl) was brought for baptism to my grandfather. When asked the name, the parent, to his surprise, replied "Emdiella." "There is no such name," said my grandfather. "Oh, yes sir, there is; we saw it in a book," replied the woman. My grandfather at the time did not like to enquire further, but it turned out that she had found in an old grammar the four liquid letters, L.M.N.R., and had confused them into M.D.L.R. The child was, however, christened "Emdiella."
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
F. G. H.
Castle Acre, Norfolk, April 10.
The Standard
(London), April 12, 1892
.d
So, of course I checked. An "Emdieler" was registered on the Birth Index in Castle Acre in 1852. She is recorded as "Emdeeler" on her marriage and death entry, but often simply as "Emma" on census records.
As my father (a proud Norfolkman) says, that's pretty Normal for Norfolk. And just to see if he's right, here is another letter, from the same set, sent from Norfolk.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD
SIR, — In this town there is an innkeeper who rejoices in the baptismal name of "Mahershalalhashbaz" (see Isaiah 8,i). I should think this is unique. He is commonly called "Maher," but in the parochial and other lists the full name appears.
Report says (but I will not vouch for its truth) that his father wished him to be named "Uz," but on the clergyman remonstrating he immediately said "Then we will have the other," and produced from his pocket a slip of paper with the longer name.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
W.
E. Dereham, Norfolk, April 8.
The Standard
(London), April 11, 1892
Incidentally, W. supposes wrong. I have come across Mahershalalhashbaz a few times while trawling though Norfolk baptism records.
Posted at 06:59 PM in Historical Name Commentary, Uncommon and Unusual | Permalink
|
|