All in a name

My maternal grandfather was a Harry, a one-time butler - when, presumably, his employers would have dignified him with the name Harold, which didn't then have overtones of Steptoe and Son.

But Harold became a little reckless in dealings with his employers' stock of best whisky, treating it more as a supply for personal consumption after working hours, and was given the heave-ho.

He took his suit, waistcoat and shiny black shoes to a new job as a clerk for a railway company and modified his drinking habits. Expensive whisky gave way to pints of bitter at the local pub - a rough old place at the best of times - where he was a fixture every night after work and most of the weekend.

So Harry, for me, conjures up the image of a public bar boozer with a 40-Players-a-day smoking habit and a lingering penchant for Scotch when it could be afforded.

And, until quite recently, if some proud new mum had asked me to look into her pram and admire her new infant, adding it was called Harry, the name-tag would have seemed ludicrous.

A bit like calling the baby Sid.

Sid, Harry, Bert, Jack, Fred, Bill...in my book, these are grown-up men's names and cannot be applied to little wriggly pink things wearing nappies.

But, as usual, my book doesn't coincide with the attitude of the general public.

Some company - described as a "parent and baby expert" whatever that is - did one of those surveys which guarantees it the best part of a full page in most of the national papers in the quiet period after Christmas, with a free mention of its name.

It revealed not only is Jack (the lad) the top choice nationally for boys' names, but Harry is in there at number nine in the list of favourites, helped - I suppose - by Diana's youngest, even if he does have a reputation for being a bit wayward.

They say we're no longer a nation of churchgoers but we do seem to like the Biblical names - Joshua makes the number two spot, followed by Thomas, James, Daniel, Matthew, Luke (the other two Gospel writers don't feature in the Top 30), Joseph and Benjamin.

It sounds like every Sunday school story you were ever told.

On the female side, the names appear to have been lifted from one of those paperback novels you pick up in a bookshop and put down again because it's quite clear from the image on the front that it's a woman's book.

All heaving chests and flowing hair and that's just the hero.

Top spot goes to Chloe, with Ellie and Sophie, Katie and Emma all snapping at her heels.

But there are some unfortunate omissions.

Even though the fashion appears to be for straightforward, short, unfussy boys' names, Paul doesn't get a mention in the moniker chart.

My parents told me they gave me the name because it couldn't be shortened, which is quite true.

It can, however, be lengthened to Paulie, which isn't very masculine and always upsets me a bit, even if it's not meant to.

And where's Tony in all this?

When our first son was on the way and my wife and I were doing that thing with the book of names, looking for inspiration, and I mentioned I'd always thought Tony was a good name.

Perhaps I'd been influenced by West Side Story because I had the LP and always thought the song where Maria sings about her lover ("Tow-neee, Tow-neee" she warbles fondly) was very touching.

My wife fell about laughing at the idea (and I can only apologise to all Tonys, one of whom is a very good neighbour of ours, for such rudeness on her part). Mind you, she did suggest Thomas, which has remained consistently popular as a boy's name and is still there at number three, so she probably has good taste, after all.